That simple question kicked off a months-long process culminating in a traffic study that is being conducted this week! I am super excited that my post kicked off this chain of events, and I hope the result is actual changes to a dangerous intersection with the intention of improving safety for all road users, especially vulnerable road users.

I’ll start by thanking the parties involved, without calling out specific people at this juncture:

• ODOT - Active Transportation and Traffic Engineering Divisions - and in the future, Division 3

• Miovision

• City of Ada

I hope we can all work together to make tangible improvements for the safety of the citizens of Ada and others who pass through this intersection.

Disclaimer: I’m writing and posting this without prior review by ODOT, Miovision, or the City of Ada.

The logistics

On Monday, June 24th, ODOT’s Traffic Engineering Division set up five Miovision Scout Plus cameras to observe five sections of this intersection: all four sides plus a common mid-block crossing point across from Pruett’s. For five days, the cameras will record footage of the intersection for use in a Near Miss analysis by Miovision. The field of view prioritizes the potential pedestrian crossing points but will capture vehicle use as well.

Once the footage is captured, Miovision will analyze a series of conflict types and give the intersection a score. The analysis takes into account vehicle counts and “interaction kinematics such as speeds, angles, and accelerations to assess the likelihood and potential severity of a collision.” For the purposes of this study, each possible conflict path will be evaluated for vehicle vs. pedestrian, vehicle vs. bicycle, and vehicle vs. vehicle.

Disclaimer: My information is based mostly on sitting in on initial meetings with Miovision, but I was not able to attend the actual planning meeting - so my understanding and accuracy of information on collection processes may be limited or incorrect in some aspects.

Once the footage is collected, it will be sent to Miovision for processing. The first step is an evaluation by a machine learning (ML) algorithm trained on a large dataset of intersection footage. The cameras actually have the capability to do this onboard, in real time, though for this study I’m unsure whether onboard processing will be used or raw footage collection with processing done after the fact.

The second step is for trained personnel at Miovision to construct a report using the ML-generated data. The report will include the total safety score, a table with a breakdown of scores for the different categories of interaction, and a selection of case studies from the footage gathered. It may also include recommendations for changes that could be made to improve the safety at the intersection. Miovision will have a couple of weeks to produce this report and deliver it to ODOT.

Last I heard, it was possible that a before and after study could be done. The part in progress now is the before. If ODOT decides they want to make improvements to the intersection, they can make changes and have Miovision run another analysis to demonstrate the improvement in safety score.

A recommendation for making changes

If they decide to take action, I believe there are a couple of routes that could be taken: temporary/incremental change or all-at-once/permanent change. I would advocate for temporary, incremental change.

Using temporary improvements (like changes to paint, installing flex posts, etc) to try out a new intersection design would require minimal cost and disruption to road users. Once the planned changes are implemented in a real-world trial, the feel of the intersection can be evaluated. If the changes feel bad, the trial implementation can be removed or modified easily in favor of a different approach.

If the changes feel good, the after phase of the study can be done to evaluate how much of a safety improvement was made - before spending a far larger sum on a permanent implementation (concrete work, traffic control positioning, curb modifications, pedestrian protective devices such as bollards, etc).

To be clear, the purpose of temporary changes is to prove a design as cheaply as possible in order to avoid setting an unexpectedly bad design in concrete. But also, using temporary changes to test a theory makes it more likely that something, any improvement, will at least be tried. As with this blog post, perfection is the enemy of done, and I’d hate to see a needed safety improvement take years to implement because we’re trying to jump straight to a permanent “best” design.

The purpose of temporary changes is not to allow a more easy reversion of changes after public pushback. Someone will always be upset. I would encourage the decision-makers to evaluate comments in a triaged manner, considering safety concerns first, followed by ease of use for vulnerable road users, followed by ease of use for vehicles. Ease of use for vehicles (or the more technical Level of Service) as a design goal is not working for this intersection, and should be the lowest priority going forward.

The why

I said in my previous article that “[T]he intersection cannot be designed solely to move vehicles in the most efficient manner. It must also be designed to protect its most vulnerable users.” I still believe VRUs are the most underserved users of this intersection, but I want to modify my statement above:

“The intersection cannot be designed solely to move vehicles in the most efficient manner. It must primarily be designed to move all users as safely as possible, and specifically protect its most vulnerable users.”

The difference is subtle but important. At the time of writing that article, I had only two recent datapoints for incidents at this intersection: a multi-vehicle fatality incident last year and the near-miss with a pedestrian the article was addressing. Since then, two more incidents have happened that I am aware of, both vehicle on vehicle.

I will dive into these incidents in a blog post next week. Suffice it to say that I am increasingly convinced that this intersection is dangerous, I fully expect this Near-Miss study and analysis to reflect that, and hope I can help identify some of the problem points and potential solutions from a unique point of view.

The beauty of Miovision’s Near-Miss analysis is that collisions don’t have to happen on camera to prove the intersection is unsafe. Their processing algorithm takes all the real factors that lead to a collision - speed, angle, acceleration, vehicle positions - and delivers a risk factor independent of the component of a collision that cannot be predicted: chance. The reason the study lasts for 5 days is so a sufficient amount of data can be collected showing how the intersection is used in an average week, which can be generalized as how the intersection is used in any week (therein lies a flaw in the execution of this particular study, but I’ll go over that in a future post as well).

In conclusion

I’ve probably forgotten a few things I wanted to say. Oh well - if I think of them I’ll include them in a future post. The gist: I’m excited this study is being done!

On a personal note, the reason this post is ramble-y and published after the study began is because I am writing it at 1am in a hospital room, because my wife gave birth to our fourth child on Monday! And I feel empowered to share this because the blog is still very small and I’m just one actual person who wants to see a better version of our city.

Here’s a picture, thank you, goodnight.

Leave a comment

For a few months now, whenever I get the opportunity, I’ve been taking pictures of people walking, biking, and utilizing wheelchairs or mobility scooters. Tonight I noticed a man approaching the intersection of Broadway and Richardson Loop on foot, so I prepared to take a few pictures. I ended up capturing an unexpected, but unsurprising, encounter.

A pedestrian was nearly struck by a van

Let me set the stage for you. The light was green for left-turn traffic turning from southbound Broadway onto eastbound Richardson Loop. In layman’s terms, that’s green for those turning left from the Pruett’s side to head into town. Here’s a map in case you understand pictures better, like I do:

The man walked around the right side of the traffic light pole and watched to see if he was safe to cross. Seeing no vehicles going through the intersection, he started to cross. When he was about halfway through the intersection, a service van reached the intersection and began to turn left.

When the van was almost halfway through the intersection, the light turned green for northbound traffic on Broadway. This tells me the van either ran a red light, or entered the intersection at the very end of a yellow.

A couple seconds after the light changed, the van reached a point where the driver saw the man crossing. At this point he starting slowing down.

At this point, my vision failed me. It was nearly dark at the time and based on the man’s pace, I thought he made it fully across. As such, I was surprised that the van came to a full stop for a couple seconds after reaching the crosswalk.

My camera captured the reality. The van reached the man just before he made it all the way across. Fortunately the driver saw him and was able to stop, avoiding a collision. Hopefully this incident sticks in the van driver’s mind for a while, and prompts some safer driving.

I’m sure the man walking won’t soon forget.

Let’s think about this intersection from the point of view of a pedestrian

Aspects of this intersection that protect pedestrians:

• Pedestrian island in median, halfway across the roadway

Aspects of this intersection that make it dangerous for pedestrians:

• No sidewalks

• No pedestrian signals

• No painted crosswalks

• Approach speed limit of 35mph or 45mph, depending on direction

• Limited lighting

• Pedestrian cutout is a car length behind the stop line, forcing pedestrians to cross between stopped vehicles

There is plenty of discussion that could be had about various aspects of this, and I’d love to get into those in the comments. Please leave a comment and let’s have a civil discussion!

Leave a comment

The reason I became concerned with this intersection a few months ago is because I noticed a number of people crossing this intersection to reach Pruett’s grocery store, and some of them in wheelchairs/mobility scooters.

Here’s an example. What if this woman had been in the place of the man in this situation? Would the van driver have seen her and stopped in time?

The design is the problem - let’s change it

Slow-moving, less-protected road users are called Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) for a reason. This intersection is traversed by VRUs - people - of all ages who need to reach Pruett’s to buy groceries. In places like this, the intersection cannot be designed solely to move vehicles in the most efficient manner. It must also be designed to protect its most vulnerable users. If not, it’s only a matter of time before someone is met with tangible harm.

I am working on a proposal to bring to the city on how this intersection, and the stretches of roadway that meet there, can be improved from a safety standpoint. My hope is that the city - and ODOT, who controls this intersection - are receptive and enthusiastic about making critical safety improvements.

I’ve been told that a key piece of the argument for making a change like this is proving it is necessary. To do that, I’m going to call on the help of you readers.

If you see people walking at this intersection or the roads leading up to it, please safely take a photo or video and email it to me.

Collecting these bits of evidence of necessity will go a long way toward convincing the controlling entities that it is worth pursuing these changes.

I hope to do a full post soon describing the proposal I’m developing - but these things take lots of thought, and therefore take time.

Thank you for reading. I hope you are as concerned and hungry for change as I am.

If you haven’t already, please consider subscribing. Each new reader is an encouragement and that simple action supports my efforts to make active/alternative transportation safe in Ada.

Subscribe now

You can also help spread awareness of this issue by sharing this post.

Share

And finally, I want to see some engagement on these posts! Leave something in the comments - even just your reaction to this post is a good start.

Leave a comment

This morning, my wife and I dressed our kids for the day and grabbed the Secret Santa presents we were bringing to the family Christmas gathering. We loaded up in the bikes and rode downtown to the train station.

After locking the bikes in the covered bike racks, we entered the station. We purchased four tickets (kids under 2 ride free) to Tishomingo at $5 per ticket from an app on my phone and boarded the train. Since the train provides service to most of the nearby towns every 30 minutes, it wasn’t long before we were on our way.

On the train we sat facing each other at a table and benches, similar to an RV dinette. I brought along our favorite card game and we spent the 45 minute trip relaxing, playing the game, and talking. Halfway there my son, still potty training, needed to go to the bathroom, so I took him to the one at the end of the carriage and helped him do his business. Once we got back to the table, my wife got up and went to the snack car for water and pretzels.

Just before the train pulled into the station in Tishomingo, an attendant walked through the carriage and scanned each passenger’s boarding pass. Most used the boarding pass on their phones, but a few had used the self-service kiosk at the station and had a paper pass for the attendant to scan. Once the train came to a stop, we exited the carriage and headed for the last-mile area.

The most popular option for getting from the train station to where you want to go in Tish, for most passengers, are the bikeshare bicycles. These are free to use on days you’ve ridden the train and unlock by scanning your boarding pass. However, my grandparents live just outside of town and we have three kids in tow, so we opted instead for van service.

The minivan driver unloaded us at my grandparents’ house and then headed back to be available for other arrivals. We paid the fare and scheduled a pickup for a few hours later through the same app we used to take the train, and then enjoyed Christmas with my family.

Returning to Ada was just a bit different. We were picked up by the van service, which had plenty of room in the back for the goodies the kids had received from aunts, uncles, and grandparents. After the five minute ride back to the Tish train station, we rented a plastic storage tote for the gifts and brought it to the freight car where it was loaded into a stack of totes containing all kinds of different items being transported home by other passengers. I paid the $5 tote fare and received a claim code in the app to be scanned upon our arrival.

We bought return tickets with two taps in the app and boarded the train. This time I napped and my wife and kids played games as we chugged through the countryside. Before I knew it, we were pulling into the Ada train station and our boarding passes were scanned by another attendant.

We picked up our cargo from the claim area and loaded it into the nooks and crannies of our cargo bike. Then we biked a mile back to our house and began to recover from a day of socializing and excessive food.

This story is, of course, a fantasy. There is no such passenger train anywhere in Oklahoma. If you want to visit family in another town, you have no choice but to drive there. This is the world as we know it and has been for 70 years.

It’s a beautiful thought, though, and a good exercise in thinking about how things could be better. Driving a personal automobile is often thought of as a great freedom, but think about it a little harder.

What happens if you don’t pay enough attention at some point on that 45 minute drive - maybe you look back at your screaming child, or doze off because you didn’t sleep enough the night before? What about things out of your control, like an animal crossing in front of you or another driver making a mistake? These events don’t converge often but when they do the result can be tragic. Everyone knows someone who has died in a car crash. Is it freedom to have the threat of death hanging over every trip?

Most of the time you’ll make it to your destination physically unscathed. But if you’re like me, it’s going to take a bit afterward to recover from the stress of paying constant attention to the road.

Think for a moment about finances. All told, taking the train in my fantastic vision cost $55 round-trip, plus the snacks we bought. This is a very up-front, in-your-face cost, and probably sounds expensive compared to just driving. But let’s think about it more deeply.

Our personal vehicle gets around 20mpg. It’s about 80 miles round-trip to Tishomingo. This means it takes about 4 gallons of gas for this trip. Gas is around $2.50/gallon, so the trip cost $10, right? Not exactly. The IRS standard mileage rate for this year is $0.65/mile, which takes into account fuel, depreciation, and maintenance costs. Using this more wholistic measure, the trip actually costs me $52 - it’s just sneakier.

I’d argue there is another financial aspect that is often overlooked. Because there is no alternative to driving available for inter-city travel, there is an up-front barrier in the form of needing to own a car and have earned a driver’s license. For the privilege of being able to visit family, I need to pay at least a couple thousand dollars (and more likely, tens of thousands plus interest on a loan) for a car, insure the car for a monthly fee, and be legally allowed to drive it. Is that freedom?

Despite the way it sounds, I am not anti-car. I own a car and enjoy the ability to use it when I feel like it. What I don’t like is car dependence, the mandatory use of a personal vehicle to make a particular trip. A great way to provide more freedom to travelers is by giving them choice in mode of transportation. Frequent passenger rail would be an excellent choice to offer for trips between towns, and I hope to see that become available in the near future.

Cover photo by Levi Meir Clancy on Unsplash

I happened to pull up next to her at the next intersection, and gave her a friendly wave when she noticed me. When the light turned green, we both set off through the intersection.

Now, my machine of choice for short errands is my RadRunner Plus. It’s a mid-tier e-bike capable of going 20mph. On this route, I tend to rely heavily on the electric assist and maintain my travel lane, staying smack in the middle to prevent the “close pass” drivers tend to use if you give them the room. Staying right in the middle of the lane forces drivers to move completely over to the left lane to pass legally.

However, I only feel safe enough doing this when I’m cruising along at full speed. The woman I encountered was pedaling along on a cruiser-style standard bicycle, with no e-assist. So I understand her staying as far to the right side of the lane as possible; you’d have to be crazy to commandeer the full lane going only 10mph.

So when we got through the intersection, I paced her. Turned off the electric assist and went on my own power. Not wanting to be creepy, I asked loud enough to be heard, “Mind if I ride with you for a bit?” She answered in the affirmative and seemed not to mind at all. “Safety in numbers,” I called back, and she nodded.

Two options had occurred to me as we both waited for the light to change a moment ago. One, I could continue using the electric assist, ignore my fellow traveler, and make it home just a little bit earlier. Or two, I could provide some safer passage to this person just trying to get to where they’re going.

You see, one person on a bike, riding up against the curb or in the shoulder, is an afterthought to most drivers. Something to get around as soon as possible so they aren’t stuck going slow. As a result, drivers often take risks around the more vulnerable road users, seeking the reward of that ten-second improvement to their commute.

But add another bicycle, and suddenly the risky pass isn’t even feasible. Two bicycles, riding safely side-by-side in a lane, take up the same amount of space as a car. For that time, the lane has been claimed for the bicycle, and the speed of traffic behind them slows to a sane figure.

One impossibility when driving a car is conversing with other road users. Sure, you can roll down your window and shout at a cyclist or pedestrian, but that’s not a conversation, and you’ll probably be incoherent anyway.

On bicycles, two people can chat while still remaining safely in control. And that’s what we did. The conversation went something like this:

Her: “Where are you headed?”

Me: “Oh, I’m headed home from Aldi. You?”

Her: “Going home, just got off work.”

Me: “Do you ride your bike most everywhere?”

Her: “Yeah. How far do you usually ride in a day?”

Me: “Oh, about as far as Aldi and back most days.”

Her: *nods*

Me: “I have it pretty easy with this electric assist though. I can’t imagine riding this road without it.”

Her: *nods*

We make it to the section of road that has an actual shoulder. She moves over into the shoulder and I ride along the white line. Cars begin passing us now that they have room. A pickup with what must surely be an illegal muffler mod roars by too close and the vibrations from the noise just about give me an arrhythmia. I give him a wave and say loudly “Thank you!”, as I’ve begun doing in lieu of something more antagonistic.

Me: “One thing I’m trying to do is raise more awareness that people are out here biking, and hopefully get some infrastructure added for bicycling so it’s safer and we’re not forced to use the shoulder or ride against the curb.”

Her: “I know! I can’t tell you how many flat tires I’ve gotten from running over things in the shoulder.”

I nod back. We’ve made it to the next intersection and it’s clear we’re going opposite directions from here.

Me: “Well, I’m headed this direction. It was nice meeting you!”

Her: “Nice to meet you too!”

Immediately after this I realized we didn’t exchange names, and I forgot to ask where she works. I was just so excited to actually overlap with another person on a bicycle that I forgot these normal social snippets. It doesn’t help that I’m not extroverted.

I’d really like to know more about the people who bike for transportation in Ada, so I need to get better at being intentional with these opportunities. But I hope someday there will be so many people biking for transportation that it will be physically impossible to converse with everyone I come across. Part of that becoming a reality will be adding infrastructure, but a larger part is being seen.

The more that people ride bicycles for their everyday trips, the more others will realize they are here. Maybe drivers will start to anticipate bicycles along their route and be cautious and even drive a little slower. Maybe the drivers behind them will add their voices in and ask for infrastructure on their behalf (even if the intention is to get bicycles out of their way).

I was glad to have this conversation with my impromptu riding companion, and will continue to pursue every opportunity to get out of my comfort zone and talk with fellow pedestrians and people on bikes in my city.

However you get around your town, I hope you start to notice and have respectful conversations with those traveling alongside you. Ultimately, transportation is all about the people.

Thumbnail photo by Adrian Williams on Unsplash

To create the ATP, ODOT collaborated with various established groups in Oklahoma, and gathered public input through an online survey and several virtual townhall-style meetings. The online survey appears to have been used as a key component of the federally mandated Vulnerable Road User (VRU) assessment, and the data from this survey forms the foundation of the problem areas ODOT is looking to address in the ATP.

Positive Aspects of the Plan

Recognition of the Need for a Plan

An investigation into active transportation in Oklahoma is long overdue. As noted in the ATP, pedestrian/bicyclist fatalities and serious injuries are on the rise. ODOT has recognized this and is making an effort to correct this tragic reality, beginning with this Active Transportation Plan. The recognition that a plan is needed (and the effort expended in creating one) might be taken for granted when evaluating the plan itself; however, the issues surrounding active transportation have never been given the proper attention in our state, and doing something for the first time is difficult. I absolutely consider this to be worth praising.

Useful Statistics on the Benefits of Active Transportation

I appreciate seeing statistics that stress the importance of active transportation, both from a personal and a social perspective. Here are a few of my favorites from the ATP, in no particular order:

• “Bicyclists and walkers, on average, spend similar amounts or more, and make more trips than those using automobiles at local retailers” (ATP, p. 6). Check this one out, Main Street advocates!

• “Projects that support walking, biking, and moving actively using assistive devices cost over 75 percent less [emphasis theirs] to build per mile compared to typical, car-focused transportation projects…” (ATP, p. 6). This one is great to remember when worried that prioritizing active transportation projects will mean that roadways will never get their potholes fixed. Additionally, maintenance will cost less and be required less often due to the much smaller impact of VRUs on the facility compared to heavy vehicles on a roadway.

• “More people walking and bicycling for transportation means fewer vehicles on the road, reducing congestion and parking demand” (ATP, p. 7). I’ll also point out that providing parking facilities for bikes at destinations takes up less space (about 12 bikes per car equivalent) and should be a suggestion for active transportation implementation.

• “Active friendly projects can increase property and sales tax revenue by up to 10 times” (ATP, p. 6). Awesome. Take note, local governments of all sizes.

• Figure 3: Impact of Speed on Pedestrian Safety shows how dangerous for pedestrians a vehicle going faster than 20 miles per hour can be. A pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling 40 miles per hour has a 73% chance of being killed or seriously injured (ATP, p. 13). This is a very important statistic to consider in parts of our towns that have speeds reaching or exceeding this velocity.

• “Across Oklahoma, VRU fatalities and serious injuries have been on the rise, with a 23% increase in pedestrian fatalities across the state from 2017 through 2021” (ATP, p. 14). Even one Vulnerable Road User death is too many. I’m glad to see language in the ATP that reflects the need to improve safety.

“Bold, but Realistic”

One of the goals of the Active Transportation Plan is to be “bold, but realistic” (ATP, p. 4). It’s great to hear that ODOT wants to be bold when working toward active transportation! And it is difficult to balance what is bold with what is realistic in a certain timeframe. Just make sure you don’t use “realistic” as an excuse to abandon efforts in active transportation when growing pains arise.

The focus on reduction of road injuries and deaths is one of the best aspects of the ATP. I love that in Chapter 2 we read “The next steps in Oklahoma should include adopting a goal of zero VRU deaths or serious injuries by a target year in Oklahoma…” (ATP, p. 14). This is possibly the most bold statement in the ATP. I would encourage specifying a target year, and if you want to stay as realistic as possible and still actually make progress toward this, you could choose 2045, to align it with the end of the most recent Long-Range Transportation Plan.

Making actual design and policy changes today and implementing them both preemptively and as the road surfaces come up for renewal will significantly reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries per year as we approach 2045. While I’d love to be more bold than that, the reality of the built environment we currently have is that it is unsafe for VRUs, and reducing this number to zero will likely take decades. I would implore ODOT to truly make this a priority and do the hard work of undoing years of unsafe roadway design, especially in towns and cities. You have to start somewhere, and the ATP is a great place to start, but don’t neglect to execute on the plan.

Safety at the Forefront

The Active Transportation Plan lists takeaways from their online workshops in Chapter 2. The Safety and Connectivity concerns listed are all important and I’ll list them all here (ATP, p. 21):

• High speeds

• Lack of sidewalks, shoulders, bike facilities

• Important destinations on busy streets with no sidewalk

• Long crossings or lack of crossings

• Conflicts with vehicles, trucks

• Lack of lighting, signage

• Low-income users disproportionately affected due to lack of vehicle access and other factors

These are addressed in Chapter 3, Recommendations and Strategies. SC10 in particular identifies the way ODOT-controlled roadways can be made more safe for active transportation: “Continue to provide pedestrian signals, warning beacons, signage, striping, and lighting at intersections of state routes with high-volume pedestrian crossings” (ATP, p. 29).

In Ada, Mississippi Avenue (State Highway 99) has a 2,000 foot stretch between 10th Street and Arlington Avenue with no controlled crossing points. In fact, there are no official crossing points at the Mississippi/Arlington intersection, either. Along this stretch are a number of fast food restaurants and other businesses, and people often cross this stretch on foot or by bicycle. It’s dangerous behavior, but the reward of not having to walk an extra quarter to half mile to make a legal crossing outweighs the risk of personal safety for these individuals. For two individuals between 2016 and 2017, this gamble resulted in being struck by a vehicle (OHSO Interactive Crash Maps).

At the very least, beacons, striping, and lighting could alleviate the safety issues along this corridor. At best, a full street redesign would transform this section of Ada to be safe, slow, and more of a destination than a highway. This, however, is a topic for a different post.

There are stretches like this in every mid-sized or larger town in Oklahoma, where state highways “serve as main streets or otherwise part of a community’s street network” (ATP, p.10). It is great that ODOT recognizes the safety improvements needed inside our cities’ limits.

Areas of Potential Improvement

There are several ways I have found the Active Transportation Plan to be lacking. These do not negate the positive aspects outlined above; however, constructive criticism is the most important kind of feedback to both give and receive - otherwise, the status quo will win the day. The status quo has been maintained for far too long. It’s time for this change, and I hope my feedback here can push the state even further in this positive direction.

Undue Conclusions from the VRU Survey

The Vulnerable Road User survey and resulting safety assessment serves as the foundation for many of the conclusions on what is needed or desired by the public in the way of active transportation. However, there are some concerns I have with the reliability of the data and conclusions reached, based on how the survey was conducted and the questions included.

Lowest Income Demographic Underrepresented

“Incomes lower than $34,000 [per household] are underrepresented in the survey, with over 6 percent of the population reporting having less than $10,000 household income, 2 percent of the survey respondents reported being at that level of income” (VRU, p. 13). In fact, the figure is 1.3% based on Figure 19. 10.6% of respondents reported less than $35,000 in household income account. According to Census.gov, 15.8% of households in Oklahoma are under the poverty level (Poverty in the United States: 2022, p. 47). Based on these supplemental statistics, I agree with the VRU survey that the lowest income demographic is underrepresented.

This underrepresentation is concerning because it has the potential to alter the conclusions outlined in the ATP. For example, Parks/Trails was the most important location respondents wanted to reach using active transportation, and Health Benefits was the top reason for using active transportation. I suspect the results would be a little more utilitarian (not wanting/being able to spend money on a car) for the lowest income group, increasing the share of responses attributed to those values.

Assumptions Around Walking/Bicycling Distance

The survey asks respondents what locations are within 1/4 mile and 2 miles of where they live in an effort to determine the feasibility of reaching desired destinations through walking and bicycling, respectively. One issue with these arbitrary distances is that utilitarian active transportation users (those who have no alternative mode of transportation) are already traveling further than this, regardless of the active transportation facilities available.

There is a group of low-income duplexes near where I live. Every day, disabled residents from this neighborhood ride their mobility scooters to the grocery store. There are three options close by, and the largest option is Pruett’s. All three stores are around 0.4 miles from the duplexes, nearly twice the distance an “able-bodied individual” (VRU, p. 5) is expected to be able to walk.

These folks maneuver their way along the shoulder of Broadway Avenue, cross JA Richardson Loop, do their shopping at Pruett’s, and return the way they came. There is not a single ADA compliant sidewalk along the route, and the intersection of Broadway and Richardson Loop is very dangerous for pedestrians, even more so for the half-speed mobility aids used by these citizens. Every person deserves the ability to grocery shop without risking their life. Determining what is within active transportation distance by an arbitrary measure does not shed adequate light on the need that already exists for utilitarian active transportation users.

Demographics Could Be Matched to Response

One great reason to collect demographic information is so conclusions can be drawn from the responses given by demographic. The VRU report does not match demographics to responses, so we miss out on interesting data points like: “Which incomes want to use active transportation for which purposes?” and “Which incomes currently use active transportation for which benefits?” along with more particular insights.

Additionally, the “most important locations to be able to access with active transportation” (VRU, p. 6) question having a limit of three choices from fourteen options makes this question useless for drawing good conclusions unless broken down by a demographic like Number of Vehicles Owned or Income Level; however, the result of this question was used to identify “parks and trails” as the most important destination to reach by active transportation. On the bright side, the runners-up (shopping, employment, and schools) were also noted in the ATP.

Demographic-specific results for these survey questions could have given a more well-rounded profile for the entire VRU assessment and provided a better understanding of “the needs of those at the lowest end of the income scale as this population is the most transportation cost burdened” (VRU, p. 13).

Why Not Encourage People to Get to Work Using Active Transportation?

Chapter 2 discusses “Means of Transportation to Work” in Oklahoma compared to the United States. In Oklahoma, a total of 2% of the population gets to work by active transportation, and 0.2% get to work by public transit. However, the ATP follows these figures by concluding “it is important to keep in mind that traveling to work is typically one of the longest trips that most people make on a regular basis and for many it may be simply too far to walk or bike to work” (ATP, p. 17).

Seems like a reasonable conclusion, right? After all, 85.9% of Oklahomans use vehicles to get to work (ATP, p. 17). Also, the ATP encourages people to use active transportation for other trips which often are closer and so more feasible.

However, after looking at the results of the VRU survey, we see that 24% live within 2 miles (bikeable distance) of work, and 6.6% live within a quarter-mile (walkable distance) of work. Additionally, 36% could bike to transit stops (VRU, pp. 6-7). Why not outright encourage those within walking, biking, or public transit + active transportation distance to get to work through these non vehicle dependent methods? This could be a simple copy change and addition to the recommendations in Chapter 3.

Extending Shoulders is Not a Good Strategy for Improving Active Transportation

Let me be clear. Extending shoulders is a good thing to do on state highways. I do not doubt that adding wide shoulders to the rural highways which currently have no shoulder improves safety and comfort on those corridors - for motor vehicles.

My problem with extending shoulders as a suggestion for active transportation lies in the data produced by the VRU survey.

In Table 1, 68% of respondents said they felt Uncomfortable or Very Uncomfortable bicycling on “rural roads”, with an image depicting a paved two-lane road with no shoulder or curb cuts and a cyclist hugging the white line but still decidedly in the roadway (VRU, p. 7). The roadways matching this image are almost exclusively state highways or county roads and have posted speed limits between 45 and 65 miles per hour. As the statistics around vehicle speed show, being struck by a vehicle driving these speeds will almost certainly result in serious injury or death (ATP, p. 13). Only 13% of respondents said they felt Comfortable or Very Comfortable riding in these roadways (VRU, p. 7).

Also in Table 1, 51% of respondents said they felt Uncomfortable or Very Uncomfortable riding on “Bikeable road shoulders”, with an image depicting a person on a bicycle riding in the center of an approximately six-foot shoulder adjacent to a two-lane roadway. 25% responded they felt Comfortable or Very Comfortable riding in this facility (VRU, p. 6).

This figure surprised me. I expected a much larger increase in comfort level in this upgrade of bicycling conditions, especially given the emphasis on extended shoulders as a strategy in the ATP. Why might there still be so many holdouts from riding on extended shoulders?

I’d prefer to use data to back up my conjecture; however, an opportunity in the VRU assessment survey was missed. A question on “what bicycle facilities do you frequently use” could have given us insight into where people actually go. 25% of respondents said they’d feel comfortable riding on the shoulder - but how many actually ride on the shoulder of a highway frequently?

Since the data wasn’t collected, anecdotal evidence is the best tool I have to attempt to explain the still-low comfort levels riding on a widened shoulder. I have a relative who has bicycled cross-country twice, once from coast-to-coast and once from Oklahoma to Canada. What they explained to me was that they often felt more comfortable in the roadway (riding on the white line or just inside) even when there were widened shoulders, because drivers would be more respectful. Since the possibility of striking a cyclist was more likely and the drivers wanted to avoid that happening, they would slow down and move over, sometimes completely to the other lane. However, if they rode on the shoulder, drivers felt more comfortable and would rarely slow down or move over.

An important thing to emphasize about this anecdote is that this bicyclist was cycling for recreation, not for function or necessity. The most important users of active transportation, and therefore the demographic that should be given most consideration during evaluation and planning, are those who do not have a good alternative. I have only seen people walking along highways, with shoulders or without, when they have no other way to get to their destination.

Another issue for those bicycling in the shoulder is that debris from the road often ends up on the shoulder. This could be pieces of tire, metal, glass, dead animals, or even construction materials, all of which could cause a person on a bicycle to crash or suffer a tire puncture. The roadways are often mostly debris-free because motor traffic knocks it to the shoulder; but the shoulders rarely get swept and it collects there with no motor traffic. The shoulder is meant for unexpected circumstances for car owners. Recreational cyclists use them at their own peril.

Rural highways and high-speed roadways are built to move lots of cars between towns quickly. Active transportation for functional trips should only mix with this type of roadway when there is no alternative; therefore extending shoulders, while a perfectly good and acceptable project for ODOT to focus on, should not be emphasized as a strategy for improving active transportation.

Transit as a Strategy to Improve Active Transportation

There is a way to facilitate active transportation in and between towns safely and equitably which (un?)surprisingly did not make a grand appearance in the ATP, and that is public transit.

You may be thinking, “well of course public transit wasn’t highlighted as a strategy, it’s not active!” This is true at face value, but the two are interconnected. Public transit widens the area of potential destinations for active transportation users. Wider adoption of public transit over driving also reduces vehicles on the road, making active transportation conditions safer and more comfortable. Furthermore, if executed correctly, public transit can bring equity to disabled users, the lowest income demographic, and other often underrepresented groups, while also encouraging ridership among users who have the option to drive.

Active transportation improvements in other areas can also improve public transit adoption. The biggest problems faced by public transit are speed/frequency of routes and the last-mile problem. The last-mile problem is essentially the question of “once I’ve completed my bus/train trip, how do I get where I want to go?” Making the locations served by public transit more walkable and bike-friendly improves the comfort level and convenience that transit users experience once they de-board the transit service. In addition, fewer vehicles on the road thanks to increased transit and active transportation use will help prevent buses getting stuck in traffic.

Part of the reason I was surprised at the lack of mention of public transit in the ATP is that it seemed to be considered when creating the VRU survey. Bus stops were included when asking respondents “Do you live within [walking/biking distance] of any of the following” and “what places are most important to be able to reach using active transportation.” 34.6% responded they lived close enough to bike to a bus stop (VRU, p. 6), 23% responded they lived close enough to walk to a bus stop (VRU, p. 5), and 11.6% responded it was an important destination (VRU, p. 6). So why wasn’t public transit mentioned in any of the recommendations in the ATP?

I don’t expect ODOT to outline a detailed way public transit should be used to improve active transportation. Even for (non-car) travel between towns these public services are largely handled by partners, as noted in the ATP. But most of the groups in charge of implementing active transportation and/or public transit in Oklahoma will be looking at state guidelines and the ATP for how to get started. A simple way for ODOT to highlight public transit as a tool for active transportation adoption would be to include public transit consideration as a listed recommendation in Chapter 3.

I don’t mean to rag on ODOT for the ways the ATP is lacking. It honestly is a good starting document for active transportation adoption. Due to time, I could not fully outline other excellent aspects of the plan, especially the takeaways condensed from the large amount of online workshop suggestions. And the recommendation to update the existing design guides and policies to embrace and protect active transportation. Also, local governments should take special note of the resources for fundraising outlined in Chapter 4. Okay, seriously, I could write several more articles outlining the positives in the plan.

My parting thought for the future is this: ODOT, for the sake of all the Vulnerable Road Users in Oklahoma, please be bold in the next iteration of the ATP. Look to countries who have been approaching Total Zero Deaths for decades for inspiration. Consider that “realistic” depends on the timeframe. Major changes to the way we approach transportation today, adopted over decades as facilities need updating, will create massive improvements in quality of life for active transportation users of the next two generations.

Works Cited:

Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment (VRU), Combined Document

OHSO Interactive Crash Maps

Poverty in the United States: 2022

While in the moment they couldn’t think of anything concrete that could be done to improve Ada for people on bikes, Rosa did indicate that she prefers to use the sidewalk instead of the road, because it doesn’t feel safe to ride with traffic.

I agree. With bicycles that are fully powered by the rider (non-eBikes), the typical speed of travel would be around 10mph, if that, on flat roads. This is substantially slower than surrounding traffic.

Most drivers that I’ve encountered while biking have been respectful and given plenty of space for me and other people on bikes, but there are a few who seem to regard the slower pedalists as annoyances; like a dog in the road, chasing cars.

This behavior, and the feeling that it’s not safe to ride, can be addressed in a number of ways, including:

• Creating bike infrastructure

• Slowing speed limits

• Enforcing laws that protect cyclists

I’ve ordered these from most to least effective at helping people on bikes feel safe in their mode of transportation.

People on bikes are not second-class people or citizens. People walking, or riding mobility or power scooters, are not second-class people or citizens. They are all just trying to get from point A to point B.

Let’s give them names, and the consideration they deserve in funding and planning the road network of our city.

Leave a comment