pannierpacker

Cloverleafs - the kind that occur when highways intersect: what do you think about them?

I think they are a really big nuissance. Sometimes I'll be biking along a highway that's legal to bike on, and I feel safe enough biking in the shoulder or something, but later on I have to either deal with navigating a tricky cloverleaf, or I have to make a big detour to get around the cloverleaf.

Obviously, cloverleafs aren't the most bike friendly intersections, but they are necessary in order to alleviate car congestion at some interchanges. I feel comfortable biking on them, depending where they are and how busy it is, but I know most people don't.

What are some good ways for state transportation departments to construct these types of "high car quantity" interchanges/intersections but to do so in a way that allows for bikes to continue along down the same road to get past them?

One solution is to build a pedestrian/bike bridge, to connect service roads that could run alongside the highway. This only works when there is 1) a service road nearby, and 2) there is enough room to build the bike bridge 3) enough funds within the city to build the bridge (since state DOTs usually don't pay for pedestrian bridges)

Another idea I thought of recently was this:

Construct a pathway that runs down the middle of the road (between the opposing traffic lanes) as it goes through the cloverleaf, with a barracade on each side of the pathway. The way pedestrians and bikes could access this cloverleaf is by boarding it from the crosswalk at the nearest intersection on both sides of the cloverleaf. The cost of this would probably be a lot cheaper than constructing a seperate pedestrian/bike bridge. This picture illustrates what I have in mind:




What do you think? What would it take to convince cities/states to look into this type of idea?

10 Wheels

Just ride your bike on existing roads. We don't need to spend money for bicycle special paths.
Get bright lights and high vis clothing and ride where you want.

gcottay

I'm with pannierpacker on dislike for expressway-style intersections. Wheels' pictures represent comfortable and familiar settings, but I avoid those stretches where cars and trucks are whipping on and off the road.

Roody

I assume you're referring to the difficulties of riding through a street that intersects with what they call a merge or diverge. These cross streets require merging, and are usually controlled by a "merge" or "yield" sign.

The best way I know to ride in a merge situation is to take the entire lane and ride through the merge or diverge. Ride in the right-most lane that is signed to go in the direction that you want to travel.

I agree that merges and diverges on full-access streets should be eliminated. They are difficult for some cyclists, and almost suicidal for pedestrians. The method you mentioned might work. A simpler way to eliminate merges is to rebuild the intersection to make it perpendicular (streets meeting at right angles). The intersection should then be controlled by stop signs or, better yet, a traffic signal with "walk" indicators for pedestrians.

John E

Spot-on Roody. We need to square those high-speed banked corners and calm traffic. What I particularly hate is a high-speed free right turn onto a freeway access ramp, with a traffic signal meter at the far end of what should be an acceleration lane for those of us with somewhat underpowered cars. If we choked traffic at the entrance to the ramp, we wouldn't need the meter at the end, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety would be enhanced.

I also concur that lane-taking, or occasionally lane-splitting, is about the only way to handle these things on a bike.

The Human Car

The cloverleaf interchange has outlived its usefulness, creating traffic jams instead of free-flow movement, transportation experts now say.

Innovative Diamond Interchange Designs

genec

I was recently DRIVING in unfamiliar territory on a 55MPH road in the north county... Rancho Santa Fe road to El Camino Real, and was surprised by the series of sudden right diverges. There were no signs... the right lane would suddenly disappear as it went off to some new road. In many cases, I realized this was happening in the last few hundred feet only due to the large block "dashes" that are typically used on California roads to indicate "ending lane." Had I been cycling this fast road, I could see how negotiating with traffic in such a situation might be rather difficult as traffic was generally moving even faster than 55MPH (it appeared most motorists knew the area and were in a rush to get somewhere).

I had difficulty negotiating with motorists... and I was in a car using turn signals. It seemed the preferred method for navigating this area was to stick to the left lane and then move right as you approached your desired up coming turn... but without signs telling you what the next street was (well back from the actual street sign, like an "exit" sign on a freeway) one would have no idea when to move right, and staying in the right lane was impossible, as it kept "going away."

If one were looking for a particular cross street and expecting to make a right turn, only to discover it was the wrong street, and that you had to merge back left, it would be even more difficult. Consider that a cyclist, having to leave the bike lane, would merge over into the soon ending right lane to "take a lane" and then have do so again into in the next lane. I dare say it was a horrible design.

Bekologist

What to think about cloverleafs?

despite my, or 10 wheels, or anyone else's ability to ride these roads,

cloverleafs-and the traffic conditions that built them - serve to effectively stunt bicycle transportation in america.
its a shame our nation went so far down these roads, so to speak.

bankrupt autoculture, petrowars, deathknell pollution, 'stuck in traffic' fridays!

hotbike

Get rid of all the cloverleafs. Replace them with red-yellow-green lighted intersections.

crackerdog

I think the second photo shows very well that the bicyclists blend into the background colors and are in a very dangerous situation with so many inattentive drivers. When I am going to be in traffic, I wear a lot brighter colors than that.

trekker pete

There is something that flows better than a cloverleaf for limited access highway interchanges, but, it involves very big, expensive elevated ramps. It still doesn't solve the problem of crossing busy high speed traffic lanes.

There really isn't a good way to make high speed limited access highway intersections bike friendly. I think our efforts are best directed at making other streets more friendly to us.

There is one exception. In cases where it can be demonstrated that there isn't a good alternate route and bike traffic is heavy, purpose built bike routes around intersections make sense.

I do like the mediate bike route idea where it can be practically applied.

Unfortunately all this requires government spending and there's already way to much of that goin' round.

pannierpacker

Imagine this first picture, but without a shoulder. Then imagine there only being 1 lane to merge onto the bridge with. Then imagine biking through a cloverleaf with no shoulder. Would you want to bike in either of those locations?

Many times the city/state will refuse to put a shoulder on a bridge. Their rational is that bikes shouldn't use the road because they believe there is a safety hazard. The only way to convince these cities/states to do anything is if they can provide a safe alternative.

pannierpacker

Cloverleafs are even worse than what you are describing because on cloverleafs there are no yield signs. The whole idea behind a cloverleaf is that it's supposed to be free flowing and that cars can whip through interchanges, cornering at 30mph.

While I agree that making all intersections look like crosses would be much easier for pedestrians and bikers, I know that state transportation departments will refuse these ideas if there are too many cars lined up at the intersection as a result. Any time trafic has to wait multiple cycles to get through a light, that's considered an engineering failure, and states/cities feel compelled to speed things up and get cars through no matter what the cost.


When only 2% of people bike or walk as a form of commuting, how are we supposed to convince cities to build their infrastructure to suit us?

10 Wheels

Bekologist

just STOP with the pictures, 10 wheels!

NONE of those are of cloverleafs.

which bridge did you and the cadre like better, the one with the seven foot shoulder or the other one?

I-Like-To-Bike

+1.

10wheels, you ain't Ansel Adams, so why not stop plastering this thread (and others too) with numerous billboard sized pictures of routine snapshots.

10 Wheels

Because I Can....
Have Camera, Will Shoot Pics.

I-Like-To-Bike

Your lack of restraint reminds me of graffiti "artists" with an unlimited supply of stolen spray cans and no concern for visual littering/vandalism.

10 Wheels

We like all bridges.

Road Fan

I think that without strong cycling lobbying, states and other authorities will not entertain major road marking changes and especially expensive road geometry changes. So we need to think of low-cost solutions.

How will cyclists get to the median path? If we're not to cross up to three lanes of traffic moving up to 80 mph, there must be a crossing facility designed that separates the cycle travelway from the motor-vehicle travelway. It must be installed at closely-spaced locations allow exit/entry access to at least the major accesses. If your going to cross and remain separated, there has to be a cycling overpass or underpass. Chicago (just for example) has a few steel ped/cyc bridges that cross Lake Shore Drive and allow access to Lake Michigan, but they are over 50 years old. All bridges need maintenance over time, even if the build cost is low.

Road problems need to be analyzed in terms of use cases. Is your problem mainly while cycling on the shoulder, or in using a MUP that parallels the arterial? Is it with the interface between the merge/diverge and US 169, and crossing that interface when fast cars are entering/exiting the cloverleaf? Is it in negotiating the cloverleaf to get to the cross street (Rockford Road in your example)?

Why is the best travel choice to use the high speed road? Isn't there an alternative road cyclists can use?

I guess we're in a hole in the road design policies, where bike-legal highways are built with features of a true non-bike-legal limited access highway, or when a high-speed bridge is the only way to cross a waterway or other obstacle. The Ambassador, Blue Water, Zilwaukee, and Mackinaw Bridges in Michigan are other examples. I don't know how one might go from Detroit, MI to Windsor, ON by bike.

My overall answer: show a strong and broad understanding of all aspects of the problem, and a means of implementing this solution concept that is not expensive. Even more, show that it is the best solution to support the expected volume of cyclists on such a road, and hence justifies the public cost. Highway departments have the charter to use public money to promote and improve public transport, but they need to focus on the projects that will either remove the biggest dangers, improve the biggest bottlenecks, facilitate commercial transport, or improve accessibility for a large segment of road users.

I don't see the set of cyclists that are willing to use 60 mph limited-access highways as being large. Many people, even here, argue for separated cycleways such as MUPs.

Road Fan

Bekologist

....typical lame posturing of the 'just take the lane' crowd

really? there's no difference in rider comfort between those two bridges? all bridges ride alike?

I find your bluster quite transparent.

genec

Well while they are billboard sized and annoying at that (10wheels, learn to resize) I do feel that the pics have some relevance as they show clearly the plethora of roadway designed to be auto centric.

No doubt most of these road pictures are in Texas, where even narrow rural two lane blacktop may be signed at 70MPH. And where "Share the Road" means don't kill the motorcyclists. Cyclists, in spite of the fame of Lance Armstrong, are clearly "second class" road users in the Lone Star State.

Now 10wheels is showing that indeed there are cyclists using the same roads... but again, these are the few, the strong, and the brave. (in other words, the less than 1%)

I-Like-To-Bike

Yeah but the roadway design of the thread wasCloverleafs, not look at the roads 10 wheels and his friends ride on, and then look some more at him and them.

10 Wheels

Cloverleafs are part of the highway system.
I ride the highways 5 to 6 days each week.
Daily take the lane for 15 miles.

Get a Large Monitor and enjoy my Large pics.

pannierpacker

The issue with cloverleafs is crossing over the lanes that cars use to enter/exit. Whether you are in the shoulder or on MUP, it's hard to put it on the side of the highway when you have to deal with the curved roads entering/exiting at 30-40 mph.

On my design, the way that you would get to the starting point of the "trail-in-the-median" would be to use the crosswalk at the nearest intersection. On the other side, after you've crossed the cloverleaf and arrived at the next closest intersection, there would be a walk button ride where the trail ends, so that you can trigger the light to cross through the intersection again and continue on your way.

To me these seems like a very cheap way to incorporate a bikeway through a cloverleaf.

That pic I took of the intersection at US 169 is important because it is actually in a highly populated suburb of a large metropolitan area. There is a beautiful regional park and large lake to the west of that cloverleaf, only about a mile further, but people on the east side of the cloverleaf will have a hard time biking to that park/lake area.

I know there are alternative roads, but do you really want to have to travel 2 miles out of your way to the nearest safe road to cross a freeway, and then travel 2 miles back? Automobiles aren't expected to do that, so why should we be expected to?