About a month or two ago, I was stuck in a traffic jam around 10th and Classen, where the well-traveled and slightly compacted thoroughfare narrows from six to four lanes due to a random six-block segment of bike lanes.
As I sat there, running late to an appointment, listening to the Sports Animal, and watching some doofus try to merge from the right into the center lane while a car in front attempted to simultaneously turn across three lanes of traffic, I remember thinking, “What bonehead city planner thought this was a good idea?”
To be clear, that thought wasn’t due to an irrational hatred of bike lanes, which some people have.
I’m all for them when and where they make sense, and our city needs more of them. But Classen is a swervy, weird, three-lane commuter byway frequently impacted by flash traffic jams thanks to its excessive traffic lights, left- and right-turning traffic, and random homeless folks pushing shopping carts down the road.
The only thing removing a lane of traffic for bicycles really did was throw another cluster of fucks into a street that was already full of them. In fact, the bike lane’s inclusion has likely made the road even less safe for cyclists, scooterers, and shopping-cart pushers — which is probably why you never see anyone use them.
Apparently, I’m not the only one who’s had a bad experience with the new-and-not-improved Classen.
The bike lanes have been so poorly received by motorists, businesses, and politicians alike that the city has paused the project indefinitely while officials rethink whether the hassle is worth it.
Steve Lackmeyer has a lengthy, 12-speed article about the ordeal at The Oklahoman, but the general gist is this:
• Way back in the olden days of 2015, the city approved converting the right lanes of Classen into bike lanes. They started implementing it last year, and now everyone hates it.
• Some city council members complained to the city manager, and he paused the entire project.
• Instead of being practical, logical, and realistic about whether Classen is a good spot for a bike lane, cyclists, progressives, and other local complainers are mad and protesting the decision. Even though hindsight — or foresight — tells us Classen is an awful place for a bike lane, they want the city to follow the sunk cost fallacy and push forward anyway.
At least that’s the argument made in a recent Oklahoman editorial written by a guy named Phillip Moll:
Classen Boulevard from Sheridan to NW 10th Street should soon receive a protected bike lane on both sides of the street, but a faction of city councilors in tandem with the city manager’s office are planning to scrap any future bike lanes on Classen to preserve its status for cars only.
Yep, that’s right. We now have a faction of city councilors opposing a faction of cyclists who want to screw up a major commuter artery so a handful of men in tights can feel cool, urban, and zoom down a congested road in their own little lane. Thank God for these brave politicians, huh?
Here’s more:
The effort likely will aim to scrap 11 years of planning efforts, two resident-approved bond votes funding mandates, and the MAPS 4 vote by introducing a moratorium on bike lanes on Classen. In the process, the council risks setting the dangerous precedent of ignoring infrastructure planning and funding mandates with murky and so far unstated reasons.
You know what else sets a dangerous precedent? Sticking with a moronic plan that sounds good in theory but proves disastrous in practice. This isn’t anti-bike lane. It’s pro-common sense. There are hundreds of better streets that flow in and out of downtown where bike lanes would actually work. Classen just isn’t one of them.
That logic, however, runs directly counter to Phillip Moll’s argument. In his editorial, he suggests that because Classen once carried a streetcar, it should be retrofitted into a multi-purpose boutique boulevard — not treated like the commerce-heavy commuter artery it’s become over the last 75 years.
He ends his article with this question:
Why break the promises made for Classen, OKC’s original multi-modal boulevard?
I don’t want to regurgitate everything I’ve already written, so I’m tempted to just link to the sunk cost fallacy and call it a day. But to answer Moll’s question — why break the promise? — here you go:
- I doubt 99% of city residents even knew the promise existed.
- The bike lane has made Classen even worse.
- There are plenty of better places for one.
But then again, what do I know? I’m just a selfish, biased motorist who wants to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible and doesn’t want their drive home slowed by a random lane for bicyclists that’s almost never used by bicyclists. Bah, humbug!
Stay with The Lost Ogle. We’ll keep you advised.
