Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Baloo Uriza]

I am suggesting bikes get their own road network the parallel roads and even have their own signals. Most would be synchronized with traffic signals. What I want will never happen though and I generally don't support other bike infrastructure due to the fact it is stupid to allow bicycles on roads with cars that can 100MPH. Even when the speed limit is 30MPH bikes rarely get that fast. Though I am a bit of a hypocrite because I bike a lot on roads in LA, bicycles are outdated and the way of the past. Cars are the future and bicycles should stick to dedicated trails or widened sidewalks. They just need to stay out of vehicle traffic. It isn't safe and slows down motorist which shouldn't be tolerated. I always do my best to stay far to the right as possible and ride on the sidewalk when I don't see anyone. Other than that I am more and more finding myself using my car to transport my bike to dedicated trails unless I cruise the LA river to DTLA.

Bicyclists may legally have a right to the road, but what would that law be worth to a bicyclist after he gets splattered by a compulsive phone-using motorist? Once the bicyclist is killed laws won't bring him back to life. Other people might get paid in any resulting legal action (and that's a big "IF"). The dead bicyclist is just going to be dead. If the bicyclist survives the accident but is seriously injured, permanently disabled, etc what little money he "wins" (after the attorneys take most of it) won't go far at offsetting his greatly diminished quality of life.

You make a strong argument for increasing the odds of losing a license and making it harder to get one.

We have a few streets here in Lawton marked as "shared" vehicle/bicycle roads. I think they're mostly useless.

I agree.  It wouldn't be hard to put in something proper, either.

I personally only ride my trail bike on paths and trails where there are no cars present. I very strongly dislike taking any chances at all riding my bike on any of the streets here. That's because I know how brain dead stupid and distracted way too many motorists can be. Some motorists are even openly hostile to people on bicycles. If one runs over me I'm sure the distracted driver would probably be genuinely sorry and sobbing out tearful apologies to the judge. But, again, if you're a bicyclist killed by a distracted driver their apologies won't make any difference to you after you're dead.

Would help if we stopped calling vehicular manslaughter, criminal negligence and traffic collisions "accidents" and started call them what they are.  It's so stupid that as a country, our attitude towards driving cars is so blaise that one can turn on the crocodile tears and get away with a minor traffic violation, and often not even that, for murdering someone if your murder weapon is a car.

I wish Lawton had a dedicated bike path network, but this town just doesn't have the tax base to support such a thing. I don't think we have the "culture" present to support such a thing either.

How independent and boot strappy and fiscally conservative are Lawtonians?  Hard to argue with not being beholden to nearly the level of expense for vehicle maintenance and upkeep by being able to keep your car parked more, and raising the quality of life for those for whom have the real choice of driving around where they need to go everywhere, and eating a proper meal on a consistent basis.

On average, bicycle facilities in Oklahoma run around $80k/lane-mile, versus $4 million/lane-mile for a general purpose lane.  Heck, even taking existing infrastructure and re-arranging it.  4th in Tulsa is being converted from four lanes to generally five lanes, preserving the existing distance between curbs, putting in buffered bike lanes, moving the inside lanes out a little and adding center turn lanes.  31st Street between Riverside and Peoria just got converted from four lanes to four lanes, with the outside lanes becoming buffered bike lanes, except near intersections where it becomes 3 lanes, one general access lane each way and left turn pockets.

Regarding making bike path networks that are separate, but parallel to existing roads (even with their own signals, etc) I don't see how such a thing would be possible without building these bike paths on a bunch of grade separated bridges and under passes. That would be crazy expensive (especially if we're building such a thing here in the price gouging United States).

Step them back from the road far enough you can stop a car between the path and the road.  Add traffic control so the crossing road yields to the bike path, and enforce it like any other intersection.

[Scott5114]

I dunno, I think the extra ten feet or whatever of ROW that bike lanes take up is money well spent. Hoping we get some expansion of the current network here in Norman (the city seems interested in expanding its bike facilities, so it's a good possibility).

That is a lot of ROW taken up. That could be a car lane and instead goes to bike lanes that are almost always empty. If they want to to just slap some paint on each side of a road that doesn't have any lane reduction, then I'll support that. You sure won't see me using them much though.

"Road diets" have not yet made their way to Oklahoma, so any bike lanes that are installed are as part of a widening or elimination of on-street parking. Most existing bike lanes in Norman are on streets that don't warrant any more than two lanes to begin with. It would be hard to see what, say, Oakhurst Avenue needs a third lane for. The new West Lindsey Street bike lanes, the first installation of bike lanes in Norman, were installed as part of a project to widen the street from three to four lanes with median.

In many cases, obtaining extra ROW would not be terribly hard since most properties in Norman are built with a useless strip of grass between the sidewalk and the curb. This strip could be turned into a bike lane, putting the sidewalk flush with the curb. The more major of the two streets bounding my property already has bike lanes, so I don't foresee it happening, but I would jump at the chance to sell these strips to the city if they offered. They are a pain to mow, and are narrow enough and so close to the street that I can't really do anything useful with them.

[Baloo Uriza]

I dunno, I think the extra ten feet or whatever of ROW that bike lanes take up is money well spent. Hoping we get some expansion of the current network here in Norman (the city seems interested in expanding its bike facilities, so it's a good possibility).

12 feet minimum, but still space well spent.  Bike lanes adjacent to motor vehicles or oncoming traffic is typically 6' usable minimum (so from the edge of the gutter pan, not the curb face), but I haven't seen a new lane go in for a long time that wasn't 6' plus a 2-3' buffer in Tulsa.

[Baloo Uriza]

I dunno, I think the extra ten feet or whatever of ROW that bike lanes take up is money well spent. Hoping we get some expansion of the current network here in Norman (the city seems interested in expanding its bike facilities, so it's a good possibility).

That is a lot of ROW taken up. That could be a car lane and instead goes to bike lanes that are almost always empty. If they want to to just slap some paint on each side of a road that doesn't have any lane reduction, then I'll support that. You sure won't see me using them much though.

Bicycle facilities are like any other transportation facility.  You need a network effect before they start getting useful and see some uptake.  Bike lanes that don't go anywhere people are traveling don't get much use until they connect to other facilities that do.

[US 89]

I dunno, I think the extra ten feet or whatever of ROW that bike lanes take up is money well spent. Hoping we get some expansion of the current network here in Norman (the city seems interested in expanding its bike facilities, so it's a good possibility).

That is a lot of ROW taken up. That could be a car lane and instead goes to bike lanes that are almost always empty. If they want to to just slap some paint on each side of a road that doesn't have any lane reduction, then I'll support that. You sure won't see me using them much though.

I have no problem with bike lanes when they’re just an extra few feet of ROW that can be added to the side of the road, especially when it was just going to be a 2-lane road anyway. My problem is when they decide to put in a bike lane but don’t change the initial ROW of what would have been a multi-lane road, since that requires the removal of a car lane and decreases capacity.

Also, I think bicycles should stay off the main arterials as much as possible, and ride on the side streets instead (unless there is no other alternative). When there are bicycles on the major arterials, drivers constantly worry about avoiding the bicyclist, and bicyclists worry about getting hit by a car. Riding on the side streets (and putting in bike lanes on these streets) would create a safer environment overall for both driver and bicyclist.

[Scott5114]

Also, I think bicycles should stay off the main arterials as much as possible, and ride on the side streets instead (unless there is no other alternative). When there are bicycles on the major arterials, drivers constantly worry about avoiding the bicyclist, and bicyclists worry about getting hit by a car. Riding on the side streets (and putting in bike lanes on these streets) would create a safer environment overall for both driver and bicyclist.

This is a good concept to follow when the city follows something reasonably close to a grid. An excellent example is Springfield, Missouri, which has a lot of minor arterials that parallel the more major ones on either side. Running a bike lane down Glenstone would be silly, because running one down Fremont would serve the same function while keeping the bikes away from traffic.

Unfortunately, some cities, like Norman, have all their arterials on a mile grid, with the assumption you will follow the arterial until you reach the square mile in question, and then turn off and find your destination somewhere in the interior of the square. As a result, there is often no real way to traverse between square miles without following the arterials on their edges. There are very few minor arterials that penetrate the centers of the squares, only minor collectors that rarely line up from square to square.

[Baloo Uriza]

I dunno, I think the extra ten feet or whatever of ROW that bike lanes take up is money well spent. Hoping we get some expansion of the current network here in Norman (the city seems interested in expanding its bike facilities, so it's a good possibility).

That is a lot of ROW taken up. That could be a car lane and instead goes to bike lanes that are almost always empty. If they want to to just slap some paint on each side of a road that doesn't have any lane reduction, then I'll support that. You sure won't see me using them much though.

I have no problem with bike lanes when they’re just an extra few feet of ROW that can be added to the side of the road, especially when it was just going to be a 2-lane road anyway. My problem is when they decide to put in a bike lane but don’t change the initial ROW of what would have been a multi-lane road, since that requires the removal of a car lane and decreases capacity.

Often a center turn lane does more to increase safety and capacity than a through lane does, and you can go from a four lane configuration to a five lane by changing one of the through lanes each way to a bike lane, shift the left lanes outwards, and narrow the lanes to 11-12' max.

Also, I think bicycles should stay off the main arterials as much as possible, and ride on the side streets instead (unless there is no other alternative).

There is no other alternative, or it wouldn't be a major arterial for any other traffic.  That's what's giving your places of employment, shopping, and entertainment frontage for the most part, along with the majority of your flattest, most efficient routes.  Try driving a few miles through your city without getting on the arterials and see if you can do it any less painfully than it is to catch a bus in your town...

[Baloo Uriza]

Unfortunately, some cities, like Norman, have all their arterials on a mile grid, with the assumption you will follow the arterial until you reach the square mile in question, and then turn off and find your destination somewhere in the interior of the square. As a result, there is often no real way to traverse between square miles without following the arterials on their edges. There are very few minor arterials that penetrate the centers of the squares, only minor collectors that rarely line up from square to square.

Thanks to federal planning guidelines after world war II, that's not just Norman, that's pretty much every city in America.  McMansion Hell did a pretty good writeup on how we ended up going awry from an urban and transportation planning perspective that gave us both bland architecture and terrible transportation networks.

[US 89]

Often a center turn lane does more to increase safety and capacity than a through lane does, and you can go from a four lane configuration to a five lane by changing one of the through lanes each way to a bike lane, shift the left lanes outwards, and narrow the lanes to 11-12' max.

The phrase “5-lane” is misleading IMO, because two of those 5 lanes are bike lanes. Also, I’m curious how removing a lane can increase capacity.

[Scott5114]

I’m curious how removing a lane can increase capacity.

Depending on how you measure capacity, replacing a seldom-used two-way left turn lane with a bus or bike lane could theoretically increase capacity, although you run the risk of realizing a false "gain" by dirty accounting tricks if you're not careful.

[Plutonic Panda]

I dunno, I think the extra ten feet or whatever of ROW that bike lanes take up is money well spent. Hoping we get some expansion of the current network here in Norman (the city seems interested in expanding its bike facilities, so it's a good possibility).

That is a lot of ROW taken up. That could be a car lane and instead goes to bike lanes that are almost always empty. If they want to to just slap some paint on each side of a road that doesn't have any lane reduction, then I'll support that. You sure won't see me using them much though.

I have no problem with bike lanes when they’re just an extra few feet of ROW that can be added to the side of the road, especially when it was just going to be a 2-lane road anyway. My problem is when they decide to put in a bike lane but don’t change the initial ROW of what would have been a multi-lane road, since that requires the removal of a car lane and decreases capacity.

Also, I think bicycles should stay off the main arterials as much as possible, and ride on the side streets instead (unless there is no other alternative). When there are bicycles on the major arterials, drivers constantly worry about avoiding the bicyclist, and bicyclists worry about getting hit by a car. Riding on the side streets (and putting in bike lanes on these streets) would create a safer environment overall for both driver and bicyclist.

Yeah this pretty much sums up how I feel as well.

[Baloo Uriza]

Often a center turn lane does more to increase safety and capacity than a through lane does, and you can go from a four lane configuration to a five lane by changing one of the through lanes each way to a bike lane, shift the left lanes outwards, and narrow the lanes to 11-12' max.

The phrase “5-lane” is misleading IMO, because two of those 5 lanes are bike lanes.

Just because the lane is mode- or turn-specific doesn't mean it's not a lane or doing it's part to improve capacity, and capacity isn't the only factor that needs to be accounted for.  Safety needs to be the first and foremost concern for city streets.  If it can't be safely used by nearly everyone 8-98 regardless of means, the design is fundamentally flawed.  The irony that your average, modern interstate-standard freeway with it's hard, clean shoulders allowing for adequate separation between modes and good sightlines like this tends to be safer than your average american boulevard today is not lost on me (and I've driven and bicycled on both roads pictured in the links).

Also, I’m curious how removing a lane can increase capacity.

We'll use Lewis Avenue in Tulsa, for example.  Currently, the left lane in both directions from the Joe Creek overpass north is four lanes, two north, two south.  The left lanes are typically blocked by queues turning left, and people caught in the queue trying to continue on Lewis.  A road diet layout would add a lane by consolidating the two left lanes as a single bidirectional left turn lane, which would also free space up to add bike lanes along the curb.  Through traffic would not be subject to getting caught behind bicycles or left turning traffic, ergo, improved throughput.  Having a dedicated lane for cycling reduces traffic conflicts, and having a dedicated turn lane increases visibility for drivers turning across oncoming traffic, as does having a buffer between the bike lane and general access lane.

"Road diets" have not yet made their way to Oklahoma, so any bike lanes that are installed are as part of a widening or elimination of on-street parking.

This is not accurate, there have been at least three street diets in Tulsa.  4th Street did not eliminate on-street parking, nor did 31st Street, nor Detroit Avenue.  Nor were any of these streets widened.  4th Street and 31st Street did not have on-street parking in the first place.  Detroit Avenue reduced lane width slightly and moved parking away from the curb to create a rudimentary Dutch cycletrack.  Out of these, only 31st Street is currently an incomplete street, but they're also still working on it, so we'll see if it gets sidewalks as well, since they're not going to be done until a year from now come June.

City of Tulsa and TyPROS experimented with a new arrangement on 11th Street, temporarily changing the curb lane from Peoria to Harvard to a cycletrack for a weekend to demonstrate what could be done there (last I heard the most seriously considered course of action would permanently change the curb lane to a 24-hour combined bus/bike lane in anticipation of the 11th Street AERO, not that different from, say, Hastings Street/BC 7A, save that no parking would be lost since you can't currently park on 11th Street anyway).

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah we don’t need to be counting bike lanes as actual lanes. That is absurd. If a street has two car lanes and two bike lanes, it is a two lane street. Most people drive, so calling it a four lane street is misleading.

[Baloo Uriza]

Yeah we don’t need to be counting bike lanes as actual lanes. That is absurd. If a street has two car lanes and two bike lanes, it is a two lane street. Most people drive, so calling it a four lane street is misleading.

TIL: 36th Street has zero lanes.

[Plutonic Panda]

So far in the press release things are looking good for OkDOTs statewide 8yr plan with new projects being added.

One of those is I-35 expanded through the Kilpatrick Turnpike with a NB and SB lane added which will be very welcome. It is a bottleneck and these new lanes will help immensely. Don’t know when it will start, but it’s not too big of a project so maybe it could be sooner than later.

PS, I still wish that whole interchange would be reconfigured to remove those ridiculous curves and awful left exits and ramp entries. Unfortunately it would be hard to justify that as the interchange still has quite a bit of life left.

https://ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=44777

[Plutonic Panda]

Are messed up bridges on Kilpatrick in West OKC being rebuilt and widened? A poster from another forum site noticed a sign that said construction is beginning soon and dug up this link: https://pikepass.com/pdf/jkt-2344_final%20bid%20plans_2018-08-28%20with%20disclaimer_281_20180829083037.pdf

It will be a bridge rehabilitation and widening for $55M. Just curious if anyone knows as this is a pretty exciting prospect. A widening would be great but just getting these damn bridges fixed would be a godsend!

[Bobby5280]

I wonder if the project has anything to do with the South extension of the Kilpatrick over to Airport Road. The current South end of the turnpike, just past I-40 has to be re-done to curve around the housing complex that was built directly in the path.

[Plutonic Panda]

I wonder if the project has anything to do with the South extension of the Kilpatrick over to Airport Road. The current South end of the turnpike, just past I-40 has to be re-done to curve around the housing complex that was built directly in the path.

Whelp, I can't message them anymore, on Facebook at least, to ask because I was blocked after asking them about the project.

[rte66man]

I wonder if the project has anything to do with the South extension of the Kilpatrick over to Airport Road. The current South end of the turnpike, just past I-40 has to be re-done to curve around the housing complex that was built directly in the path.

No, this is the area where the bridges are hump-backed north of OK66

[Scott5114]

I wonder if the project has anything to do with the South extension of the Kilpatrick over to Airport Road. The current South end of the turnpike, just past I-40 has to be re-done to curve around the housing complex that was built directly in the path.

Whelp, I can't message them anymore, on Facebook at least, to ask because I was blocked after asking them about the project.

What did you say...?

[Plutonic Panda]

I wonder if the project has anything to do with the South extension of the Kilpatrick over to Airport Road. The current South end of the turnpike, just past I-40 has to be re-done to curve around the housing complex that was built directly in the path.

Whelp, I can't message them anymore, on Facebook at least, to ask because I was blocked after asking them about the project.

What did you say...?

I just asked if the work listed was in fact a project to replace the bridges and add lanes. They didn’t respond so I tried sending a question mark to get their attention because I saw the little picture icon that showed ‘read.’ It said this person wasn’t available right now and sure enough I went to check their page to see if they blocked me and they did. I used no profanity nor was I rude.

Every time I have tried to get info about projects I’ve had to message them a couple or more times to actually get a response. From my experience, they are a bad organization and not very transparent. I guess I just got annoying? Whatever.

[Scott5114]

I wonder if the project has anything to do with the South extension of the Kilpatrick over to Airport Road. The current South end of the turnpike, just past I-40 has to be re-done to curve around the housing complex that was built directly in the path.

Whelp, I can't message them anymore, on Facebook at least, to ask because I was blocked after asking them about the project.

What did you say...?

I just asked if the work listed was in fact a project to replace the bridges and add lanes. They didn’t respond so I tried sending a question mark to get their attention because I saw the little picture icon that showed ‘read.’ It said this person wasn’t available right now and sure enough I went to check their page to see if they blocked me and they did. I used no profanity nor was I rude.

Every time I have tried to get info about projects I’ve had to message them a couple or more times to actually get a response. From my experience, they are a bad organization and not very transparent. I guess I just got annoying? Whatever.

I sent them an email when a truck took out the first reassurance shield on SB SH-74 (S) in 2006.

Guess which highway still doesn't start with a reassurance shield?

[Plutonic Panda]

I wonder if the project has anything to do with the South extension of the Kilpatrick over to Airport Road. The current South end of the turnpike, just past I-40 has to be re-done to curve around the housing complex that was built directly in the path.

Whelp, I can't message them anymore, on Facebook at least, to ask because I was blocked after asking them about the project.

What did you say...?

I just asked if the work listed was in fact a project to replace the bridges and add lanes. They didn’t respond so I tried sending a question mark to get their attention because I saw the little picture icon that showed ‘read.’ It said this person wasn’t available right now and sure enough I went to check their page to see if they blocked me and they did. I used no profanity nor was I rude.

Every time I have tried to get info about projects I’ve had to message them a couple or more times to actually get a response. From my experience, they are a bad organization and not very transparent. I guess I just got annoying? Whatever.

I sent them an email when a truck took out the first reassurance shield on SB SH-74 (S) in 2006.

Guess which highway still doesn't start with a reassurance shield?

This would imply that it's me and not the agency, but OkDOT has blocked me as well. No profanity(I mean I've included some profanity once or twice but it wasn't directed at them) or rudeness, just questions and ideas from public comment periods or the occasional inquiry, then one day I'm blocked from all platforms and no response from my emails.

Again, one could gather that perhaps it's me and not them, but consider the fact I also regularly communicate with NDOT, UDOT, CalTrans, TxDOT, NMDOT, The Toll Roads, Metro, DART, Embark, City of Edmond, City of OKC, and many other agencies; I have no issue. A couple of them take some time in their response(particularly Metro whenever I inquire about the High Desert Corridor which is interesting), but over the years having communicated with them in the same manner as I would with OkDOT, and I have no problem. It's almost like the State of Oklahoma just doesn't like criticism, which I am not short of.

Oh well, I'm out of points with OkDOT and OTA, and I won't pursue it for now. It's really bizarre with OkDOT because I used to have a good relationship with them getting quick responses. What can you do?

Compared to the OTA, I've always received quick and engaging responses from NTTA and The Toll Roads. Usually I receive a wealth of information even though most is usually provided on their websites, I don't get a snarky/downright rude response like I am annoying for asking questions or proposing improvements. OTA seems to have a transparency issue and it'd be nice to see some reforms in the agency.

[Plutonic Panda]

Waterloo and SH-74 will receive various improvements including a traffic signal.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation and Oklahoma and Logan counties are working together to make SH-74 and Waterloo Road safer for motorists by moving up a traffic signal several years sooner than previously expected.

However, it will take an estimated 18 months before the new signal is completed, making it more important than ever that motorists obey existing traffic signs and use caution in the area. This includes being vigilant about the existing traffic patterns, which includes:

Northbound and southbound SH-74 traffic does not stop at the intersection; and
Eastbound and westbound Waterloo Rd. traffic must stop and yield to oncoming highway traffic.
ODOT is expediting this estimated up to $500,000 project in its Eight-Year Construction Work Plan thanks to some recent projects coming in under the engineering estimate. Additionally, Oklahoma County District 3 Commissioner Ray Vaughn and Logan County District 1 Commissioner Marven Goodman have renewed their commitment to share operation and maintenance of the proposed four-way traffic signal at the intersection, which will result in a four-way stop for motorists by 2020.

- https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=46557

[Sonic99]

Pardon the question since I'm not from the area, but from Google Maps, there's already the poles all in place. Why is it going to take until 2020 to swap them over to actual signals? Seems like it would be pretty straight forward to get them converted?

Waterloo and SH-74 will receive various improvements including a traffic signal.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation and Oklahoma and Logan counties are working together to make SH-74 and Waterloo Road safer for motorists by moving up a traffic signal several years sooner than previously expected.

However, it will take an estimated 18 months before the new signal is completed, making it more important than ever that motorists obey existing traffic signs and use caution in the area. This includes being vigilant about the existing traffic patterns, which includes:

Northbound and southbound SH-74 traffic does not stop at the intersection; and
Eastbound and westbound Waterloo Rd. traffic must stop and yield to oncoming highway traffic.
ODOT is expediting this estimated up to $500,000 project in its Eight-Year Construction Work Plan thanks to some recent projects coming in under the engineering estimate. Additionally, Oklahoma County District 3 Commissioner Ray Vaughn and Logan County District 1 Commissioner Marven Goodman have renewed their commitment to share operation and maintenance of the proposed four-way traffic signal at the intersection, which will result in a four-way stop for motorists by 2020.

- https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=46557