View Full Version : Do you favor bike freeways?
Members in another thread got off topic on an interesting question:
Do cyclists and cycling advocates support the building of bicycle freeways?
My understanding is that these freeways would be totally segregated bike facilities (no cars, pedestrians, skateboarders or Canada Geese allowed). They would presumably be long enough to go across town, with some form of entrance and exit ramps.
What do you think?
Im one of those who posted in favor of them im all for it. So Ill repost part of my post from the anti vc point of view thread for reference.
A perfect system would be a 3 lane system sort of like this
=====================================
BL>
=====================================
=====================================
< PL >
=====================================
=====================================
<BL
=====================================
The double line of ====s are a built in buffer zone (maybe a unpaved area between bike lanes and pedestrain lanes. maybe a curb like construct. The postions of the lanes could be bike lanes togather with buffer zone between directional lanes and pedestrian lane. I dont know about every one else but when im walking i prefer a unpaved or crushed stone surface over a paved one its more confortable to me. So maybe to discourage cyclists riding on it make it crusshed stone with bike lanes paved.
lets say 4 foot lane widths ? and 6 inches of buffer space between lanes so total width of 13 foot. I eleive most MUPs are only 8 foot wide give or take.
This would not work along side roads as a bike lane but would make a truely awesome MUP system. Likely this is the best we could ever hope for. Thats why i show the PL as being used for both directions of travel. A PL would not realy need to be a single direction system do to pedestrian speed.
I dont think we should expect it to be free of pedestrians so we might as well include them in the idea but do so in a safe manner as shown above. Lane positions could be prety much any combo of the above one lane for pedestrains then 2 for bikes the exact reverse or ped lane in center. For safty sake the lanes need some sort of buffer or barrier to prevent crossing over in to oncoming trafic.
If somes ones artistic and has a scanner how bout useing my cheapo grafic up there to create a sketch showing a on ram and off ram system as well. My scanners down or id give it a shot my self. Our dog chewed the only cable i had for it in half heh.
Keith99
10-12-05, 03:03 PM
NO
From what I've seen of limited access bike paths that get any use it would do me little of no good. Even IF (and it is a big if) you can keep walkers, skaters and skateboarders off the route these seem to attract slow and eratic bike riders. (Though to be fair, such paths that exist in Los Angeles are in areas that would attract this kind of riding anyway).
I would also question the cost. Just how would one do this? To gat anywhere you have to cross roads. If at ground level it is then far from a freeway, since there is an intersection at each street crossing, likely one that is worse than a normal street crossing. The only alternative is a raised path and that is prohibitively expensive.
But right now L.A. has found a way to put in some. They use the side paths on both the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers. Good points is it is actually sort of a freeway most of the way. Bad point foolish riders still bomb it where it drops under street crossings and it is not safe to go fast. Other bad point is that it is a potential crime magnet.
CommuterRun
10-12-05, 03:23 PM
I would be against it.
Funding: I've yet to see any location where all roads are adequately maintained. Where will the money come from to build and maintain a whole new infrastructure?
Not to mention bridges. If cyclists use existing bridges it wouldn't be a totally separate system.
Land Use: Here in rural Florida a system like this would require bulldozing a whole new road system through the forest, on private property, a national forest, a wildlife refuge and state parks.
Ain't gonna' happen.
Cager Confusion: Many of them don't know what to do now when approaching or being approached by a bicycle. More separation will only add to this confusion.
In order for the concept to work, it has to be bikes only, enforced and limited access... just like a motor vehicle limited access freeway. It may be at ground level, but it cannot be like most "paths" that badly meet regular streets.
The whole concept is based on making cycle transportation faster and more efficient... just like an interstate hiway system.
Consider just for a moment that as cyclists we are stuck on surface streets and therefore are subject to lots of stop and go... which we really hate as it kills momentum. If a limited access freeway-like "bikeway" was built to allow for fast cross town trips, think about how this could decrease the time it would take for a cyclist to move across town, unencumbered by intersections and traffic lights... it might be quite an encouragement for folks who now believe that certain trips just take too long on a bike.
The lack of intersections with autos could also be a huge safety factor. I for one would love to dash across town at my highest speed possible, rather then moderating my speed for traffic, and killing my momentum for lights and signs.
mandovoodoo
10-12-05, 03:50 PM
Yes, if lots and lots of people ride and if they are properly maintained & policed. I sort of thought this already existed, except there's still enough gasoline to keep cars on the amazing bike path network we've built. I75, I40, etc.
A proper system would require enough use that enforcement of access would be a high-profile thing, tickets to peds, education, etc. I'd like to see 45 mph design speed with room for tandem recumbents with fairings to pass safely at a good clip. The day may be coming.
I'm not in favor of more badly designed MUPs with the usual hazards and neglect.
Cromulent
10-12-05, 03:53 PM
Of course freeways are great for traveling long distances by car... Milwaukee to Chicago. Or New York to LA for that matter.
For a commuter a bike freeway would be great. A clear, straight way from home to work and back again (and to wherever else we go). And we could travel by bike for longer distances. I can see new strip malls popping up consisting entirely of bike shops and coffee shops. Perfect. :)
I have an issue with freeways in general though. They cut through sections of a city and divide them. There's almost no business, industry, housing, shopping, etc. right around those areas. So freeways essentially take land away that could be zoned for other things.
Here in downtown Milwaukee, they just knocked down a big section of freeway a year or two ago, and people are coming back into the area. It's a real interesting transformation.
Would bike freeways do the same? Or am I not seeing them correctly?
No - it sounds like an incredible waste of my money. Where are they going to put it (I live in LA)? Build an elevated highway system across all of SoCal? Either widen the streets, or make streets one way so there is enough room for parked cars and wide lanes.
If it raises my taxes, it's going to get a big fat NO vote from me, I don't care if it is for "bicycling advocacy." That's just another "special interest" pork tax.
No - it sounds like an incredible waste of my money. Where are they going to put it (I live in LA)? Build an elevated highway system across all of SoCal? Either widen the streets, or make streets one way so there is enough room for parked cars and wide lanes.
If it raises my taxes, it's going to get a big fat NO vote from me, I don't care if it is for "bicycling advocacy." That's just another "special interest" pork tax.
How about a toll system... like the new Orange county freeway. You as a cyclist can buy a multi pass card and simply zip on and off.
Com'on use your imagination. The suggestions of putting it next to rivers and RR beds is a good one.
DieselDan
10-12-05, 04:27 PM
You'd end up with the cagers complaining that we should stay on the bike paths/lanes/freeway whenever we need to use the road.
nycm'er
10-12-05, 04:41 PM
You'd end up with the cagers complaining that we should stay on the bike paths/lanes/freeway whenever we need to use the road.
I love the idea, especially for interstate routes- but I think the above is true and funding would be a bear.
chipcom
10-12-05, 04:42 PM
Members in another thread got off topic on an interesting question:
Do cyclists and cycling advocates support the building of bicycle freeways?
My understanding is that these freeways would be totally segregated bike facilities (no cars, pedestrians, skateboarders or Canada Geese allowed). They would presumably be long enough to go across town, with some form of entrance and exit ramps.
What do you think?
A poll or a troll? LOL, just messin with you. I like the idea, but obviously the devil is in the details. For example, will creating such bikeway be used by some to justify restricting cyclists rights to the road? Who will be tasked with enforcing the no geese rule? ;)
You'd end up with the cagers complaining that we should stay on the bike paths/lanes/freeway whenever we need to use the road.
This might be true. But youd only get these in places where the bike highway was going through. If they hassle you to much you tell them flat out ive ridden it as far as i can and my stop if right up where ever. If you chose nto to use it then lie to the morons heh.
Remember this isnt just somethign for us to use to be safe from cars but a proposal for somethign to make our bike comutes truely effective. I used the example of beating my brother twice in a race from snyder av to manchester road here in my area. I won both times on way there i waited for him for nearly 15 minutes on way back i won by 10 even. He was in a car and stuck to surface roads i was on towpath.
I am planing on going to montrose to put in some job aplications its a 11 mile oen way trip on surface streets id kill for a bike high way cutting nearly strait up to there. My trip would be much much easyer.
A poll or a troll? LOL, just messin with you. I like the idea, but obviously the devil is in the details. For example, will creating such bikeway be used by some to justify restricting cyclists rights to the road? Who will be tasked with enforcing the no geese rule? ;)
Roaming coyotes.
chipcom
10-12-05, 04:57 PM
What about leveraging our existing interstate highway system? Pros, cons?
A poll or a troll? LOL, just messin with you. I like the idea, but obviously the devil is in the details. For example, will creating such bikeway be used by some to justify restricting cyclists rights to the road? Who will be tasked with enforcing the no geese rule? ;)
Ill take up the roll of goose terminator just give me a 12 gauge and ammo :)
As for enforcement of other rules why not a volunteer system?
Would most asuradly need to make sure motorists know that we have full rights to use it and or the surface roads. Get the news media involved in that part. Many more signs share the road and other cycle advocacy signs on surface streets etc. Remember the majority of motorists have respect for us its only a hand full per 100 who dont.
I think we all need to think about more of the technical details first and argue rules regs and how to over come problems after. Then modify our ideas acordingly.
You'd end up with the cagers complaining that we should stay on the bike paths/lanes/freeway whenever we need to use the road.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
What about leveraging our existing interstate highway system? Pros, cons?
As in bike lanes outside the gaurd rail sort of like this
---------------------------------------
<---------BL------------------------
---------------------------------------
=====[]=====[]=====[]
---------------------------------------
Highway lane
<-------------------------------------
Highway lane
---------------------------------------
/////////////devider\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\devider//////////////
---------------------------------------
Highway lane
------------------------------------>
Highwaylane
---------------------------------------
=====[]=====[]=====[]
---------------------------------------
---------BL------------------------>
---------------------------------------
Hows that ?
Shared on and off ramps would be constructed the same way same for bridges. It would only require construction along side existing highways and highway over passes and ramps. Ohhh just think of the cyling touring possabilities :)
What about leveraging our existing interstate highway system? Pros, cons?
As for pros easyer and cheaper build wise. Cons high speed crash that makes it through the gaurd rail in to the bike lanes. Now even if that happened (unlikly) our chance of being in the very spot at the very time it happens.
Another con is costs of course. Even useing the highways right of way and the fact its going to be easyer and cheaper to do so we are likly talking high 25 50 75 million just to do say 21 in summit county. But i may be grossly over estimating the cost. We not talkign 2 ton to 30+ tons on the road surface instead were talkign 250 300 pounds at most at any one time. Thinner roads less upkeep.
Brian Ratliff
10-12-05, 05:23 PM
You'd end up with the cagers complaining that we should stay on the bike paths/lanes/freeway whenever we need to use the road.
Why should we care? We get this anyway. If there were no paths/lanes/freeway, they would just want us off the road completely. If we never ask, we never recieve.
As for funding, the existing freeway system would not exist if not for federal funding -- lots of it. Doesn't it cost several million dollers per mile of freeway? Someone's benefit is someone elses pork. Its the way the government works.
Shared on and off ramps would be constructed the same way same for bridges. It would only require construction along side existing highways and highway over passes and ramps.
Highway space is a premium. LA widened the 405 and put in another lane on both sides. Phoenix, Vegas, etc. widened their highways from 3 to 4 lanes. When it comes to widening the freeways, the choice is glaringly obvious - add more vehicle lanes, not bicycle lanes. In fact, bicycles are not allowed on the freeways at all except in rural areas in some states and nowhere in others.
As for funding, the existing freeway system would not exist if not for federal funding -- lots of it. Doesn't it cost several million dollers per mile of freeway? Someone's benefit is someone elses pork.
No, our Constitution states that Congress shall provide post roads. In present-day that means freeways. It's not pork. How do you think people across the nation get stuff shipped to them that arrived in the Port of Long Beach? Besides, L.A. and SoCal in general might have the highest concentration of freeways. Thank you for your tax dollars. :D
mandovoodoo
10-12-05, 06:20 PM
A prerequisite (to my way of thinking) would be a need. The interstate system arose from a need (a debate in there, I'm sure). Once enough people start using bicycles or the functional equivalent, then the pressure to accommodate those folks will be real. I don't see any reason to keep 25 cc recumbent commuter thingies off a bikeway. But that's probably another can of worms.
What is it for? Vehicles that don't compete well with cars, but are more efficient. I can see selling that pretty well. The 10 to 45 mph crowd.
A prerequisite (to my way of thinking) would be a need. The interstate system arose from a need (a debate in there, I'm sure). Once enough people start using bicycles or the functional equivalent, then the pressure to accommodate those folks will be real. I don't see any reason to keep 25 cc recumbent commuter thingies off a bikeway. But that's probably another can of worms.
What is it for? Vehicles that don't compete well with cars, but are more efficient. I can see selling that pretty well. The 10 to 45 mph crowd.
Good point instead of limiting it only to bikes how about limiting it to bikes peds (dont think would be much of a call for that but you never know) and mopeds and scooters that dont meet the legal mins for highway travel. Thats accualy a speed requirement if i recall its no vehical that isnt capable of at least 45 mph as well as a few other requirements on lighting etc. I had back when i was aroudn 10 to 12 a batavous moped 3 speed automatic. It had a hgihway patrol sticker on it meanign it met the requirements for speed and lighting. It would do about 50 to 55 mph at top speed. Ting was damn fun and i still sort of miss it now and then.
I think allowing all sub 45 mph 2 wheeled vehicals on it would make city and highway planners more apt to consider it. I say we plan it all out come up with a full proposal includeing some prelim designs and send it out to a few select cities and county comisioners just for the hell of it. Maybe get some usefull feed back. Or maybe just get laughed at who knows. But i mean hey with a good design and proposal we might get them intrested in the idea.
chipcom
10-12-05, 06:35 PM
As in bike lanes outside the gaurd rail sort of like this
KISS principle. Just improve the existing shoulders (many are already simply beautiful) and let us use the darn things. Yeah, bike-cage accidents would probably be fatal for the cyclist, but I rode portions I-25 in NM and Colorado for 10 years and never even had a close call. The biggest danger isn't pissed off people trying to run you down, because you are not blocking their path or causing them to have to change lanes to pass you. Jerks who use the shoulder as a lane to bypass traffic are a danger, as is debris, both on the shoulder and flying up from truck wash, which is another danger...darn trucks can blow you clear to Kansas. Motorists who need to pull to the shoulder for emergencies are a risk, especially at night when tired drivers get to wandering. No problems with trying to merge into traffic lanes to take a left, we follow the same traffic patterns using off-ramps, which are also usually well shouldered. No parked cars to worry about, very few peds, not a lot of loose dogs, at least not live ones.
My experience in NM may not be a good indicator...traffic volume on 25 at the NM-CO border isn't that heavy, and I have not thought this totally through...but that's why I mentioned it...lotta smart, experienced cyclists around here make for a hell of a brainstorming group. ;)
KISS principle. Just improve the existing shoulders (many are already simply beautiful) and let us use the darn things. Yeah, bike-cage accidents would probably be fatal for the cyclist, but I rode portions I-25 in NM and Colorado for 10 years and never even had a close call. The biggest danger isn't pissed off people trying to run you down, because you are not blocking their path or causing them to have to change lanes to pass you. Jerks who use the shoulder as a lane to bypass traffic are a danger, as is debris, both on the shoulder and flying up from truck wash, which is another danger...darn trucks can blow you clear to Kansas. Motorists who need to pull to the shoulder for emergencies are a risk, especially at night when tired drivers get to wandering. No problems with trying to merge into traffic lanes to take a left, we follow the same traffic patterns using off-ramps, which are also usually well shouldered. No parked cars to worry about, very few peds, not a lot of loose dogs, at least not live ones.
My experience in NM may not be a good indicator...traffic volume on 25 at the NM-CO border isn't that heavy, and I have not thought this totally through...but that's why I mentioned it...lotta smart, experienced cyclists around here make for a hell of a brainstorming group. ;)
Well see te qoute un qoute shoulders on a highway are more of a emergency lane than a shoulde. But id prefer to be seperated by at least a gaurd rail on the high way. I dont know when you came to ohio or if you remember but years and years ago there was a plan for somethign called the ohio valley bike web. It was infact at least in part a bike highway that infact used highways and was going to be built beyond the gaurd rail. In fact there are some visable signs of the small amounts of work that was done. Like a bike bridge that shares a highway bridge. You can see the support structure off to the side. Some areas on some highways where theres a mysterious paved section off to the right past the gaurd rail thats about 8 feet or so wide. And other misc things like that. The project was cancled along time ago and most of its now gone. Ive not heard talk of it sence 94 or 95. A ranger told me about it when i was on the tow path and how it was scrapped etc. I think ive seen the 2 signs i mentioned though cant remember the highway with the bridge though. But the paved bit leads right to the supports. So i asume that this was part of it.
Locally they have tried to put in a "near bike freeway" when they constructed a new automotive freeway. The funding was not fully there, so some aspects fell short... into the typical bike path shortcomings, but the frontage was allocated, and there are some on/off ramps. It is not perfect, but I can see that if it were planned right, and allowed rapid transit across town, the benefits would be great.
Anything however that was half done, just wouldn't work... an MUP or typical "bike path" or anything that required any kind of cyclists as peds mode. Forget it.
Most bike paths that I see use cyclists as peds in their design... one local path requires cyclists to climb stairs... guess no one bothered to try that on a bike.
Now tacking a bike freeway onto a freeway may work... I know in Oregon and Washington, they have center lanes on the bridges for cyclists... so adding space to accomodate cyclists could be done, in some cases.
Please make a note that I am also in favor of Santa Claus.
CrimsonEclipse
10-12-05, 07:41 PM
Get back in line dirtbag!!!
How DARE you think outside of the box?! It will cost money, time and THOUGHT!!
And we can afford ANY of that! That goes against the belifs of the VC'ers and we know
that they represent ALL of us and our opinions.
Make a safe area for all riders? Even the amature ones?
Sorry pal, i live in a utopia!!! Where cars respect me, they emit no fumes for me to
breath in, use turn signals and respect the roads and law. No sir! i LIKE being naked
in a field of distracted cell phoning SUV's and making me swerve out of their lumbering
way. I'd much rather talk about the latest bike splattered on the front of a MAC truck
than make life easier on a normal biker.
IF we ALL do it the VC way, the birds will sing, we'll hold hands in one big freakin' love
fest. Wars will end, hunger will cease and coal plants will spew the scent of baby's breath.
So forget your alien ways of making life simple and safe, I'm going for a drive in my H2.
(*Bump*)
Stoopid biker scratched my bumper again...
CE
Get back in line dirtbag!!!
How DARE you think outside of the box?! It will cost money, time and THOUGHT!!
And we can afford ANY of that! That goes against the belifs of the VC'ers and we know
that they represent ALL of us and our opinions.
Make a safe area for all riders? Even the amature ones?
Sorry pal, i live in a utopia!!! Where cars respect me, they emit no fumes for me to
breath in, use turn signals and respect the roads and law. No sir! i LIKE being naked
in a field of distracted cell phoning SUV's and making me swerve out of their lumbering
way. I'd much rather talk about the latest bike splattered on the front of a MAC truck
than make life easier on a normal biker.
IF we ALL do it the VC way, the birds will sing, we'll hold hands in one big freakin' love
fest. Wars will end, hunger will cease and coal plants will spew the scent of baby's breath.
So forget your alien ways of making life simple and safe, I'm going for a drive in my H2.
(*Bump*)
Stoopid biker scratched my bumper again...
CE
http://video.mpegnation.com/a001688367873051405131232911.html
:)
DieselDan
10-13-05, 07:16 AM
This could open the door to cyclist liscensing, bike registration, and yearly property tax assesments on bicycles like we do cars, boats, and airplanes.
One thing I have noticed is when I commute the 10 or so miles to work, it takes about 45 minutes. When I ride a local fairly well designed path for 20 miles, I can do it in just slightly over an hour.
Commuting on the street, dealing with motorists and stoplights I do about 13-14MPH. Riding the path with no motorists and stoplights, I do about 18MPH...
"Freeway speed!"
One thing I have noticed is when I commute the 10 or so miles to work, it takes about 45 minutes. When I ride a local fairly well designed path for 20 miles, I can do it in just slightly over an hour.
Commuting on the street, dealing with motorists and stoplights I do about 13-14MPH. Riding the path with no motorists and stoplights, I do about 18MPH...
"Freeway speed!"
Like chip said it can also end up being the reverse to. It just depends on things such as your own riding skills time of day day of week etc. I road 14 miles on the tow path on i beleive it was memorial day. It was jam packed. I still how ever made goo time. Corse i still made a day of it for the most part. Ended up riding with 3 or 4 other people who had all started at dif times and places and ended up being about the same strenght riding wise and all took breaks about the same distance in to their ride. So we stoped a fair bit. But ill tell you even stoping about 3 or 4 times i still had loads of fun. Riding time was about the same as on a day with no one on trail maybe 10 minutes longer. Basically you just need to plan your ride times out to ride on a mup. I dont ride it much on week ends instead i ride mid week.
I did keep a ride log this season was little point in it. But my other logs best i can remember looked a bit like this (milage is just a example)
s 7 7 12 m 7 7 15 t 8 8 15 w 21 21 21 thursday to saturday was a reverse of sun to tuesday
Now my 94 season was freakish. it was 3x 21 a day with 3x+ 30 one day a week pluss a silver creek ride or 2 as well on all days.
nycm'er
10-13-05, 09:49 AM
Nova, I am sure you have great stuff to say, but when I try to read it, it comes out with the clarity and the voice of Boomhauer on "King of the Hill" or Bencio Del Toro's character in the "Usual Suspects"
Respectfully, I don't understand you and think I wish I did.
ghettocruiser
10-13-05, 10:35 AM
(to the original question) Yep. Even if Toronto had more off-street bike paths that actually went somewhere, that would be nice. Most rides in the city it seems like I spend half my time waiting at red lights and related delays.
If motorists were forced to use arterial roads for travelling within a city because there were no freeways, driving would be a lot less popular.
Like chip said it can also end up being the reverse to. It just depends on things such as your own riding skills time of day day of week etc. I road 14 miles on the tow path on i beleive it was memorial day. It was jam packed. I still how ever made goo time. Corse i still made a day of it for the most part. Ended up riding with 3 or 4 other people who had all started at dif times and places and ended up being about the same strenght riding wise and all took breaks about the same distance in to their ride. So we stoped a fair bit. But ill tell you even stoping about 3 or 4 times i still had loads of fun. Riding time was about the same as on a day with no one on trail maybe 10 minutes longer. Basically you just need to plan your ride times out to ride on a mup. I dont ride it much on week ends instead i ride mid week.
I did keep a ride log this season was little point in it. But my other logs best i can remember looked a bit like this (milage is just a example)
s 7 7 12 m 7 7 15 t 8 8 15 w 21 21 21 thursday to saturday was a reverse of sun to tuesday
Now my 94 season was freakish. it was 3x 21 a day with 3x+ 30 one day a week pluss a silver creek ride or 2 as well on all days.
But your "tow path" is an MUP right? I think if bike freeways will ever work they have to be designed for high speed bike traffic.. 30-45MPH perhaps... certainly not walking speeds or the design of most MUPs for 10-12 MPH.
Now that is not to say a bike freeway couldn't have a rush hour just like the motor freeways...
Jeeze that would be the day wouldn't it... "And the Interstate 10 Hiway is backed up for 12 miles due to the holiday traffic, and over on the Bike 12 freeway I currently see tire to tire traffic moving at about 10MPH... and man is it hot out there... meanwhile in the Mid East, turmoil is leading to yet still higher gas prices... "
As in bike lanes outside the gaurd rail sort of like this
with apologies, this:
---------------------------------------
<---------BL------------------------
---------------------------------------
---------BL------------------------>
---------------------------------------
=====[]=====[]=====[]
---------------------------------------
Highway lane
<-------------------------------------
Highway lane
---------------------------------------
/////////////devider\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\devider//////////////
---------------------------------------
Highway lane
------------------------------------>
Highwaylane
---------------------------------------
=====[]=====[]=====[]
is how the Shore Parkway BLs work, in the sections where they run next to the Belt Parkway. they work tolerably well for the most part but are ill-maintained and in some places are far too narrow for any but the most cautious 2 way bike traffic.
But your "tow path" is an MUP right? I think if bike freeways will ever work they have to be designed for high speed bike traffic.. 30-45MPH perhaps... certainly not walking speeds or the design of most MUPs for 10-12 MPH.
Now that is not to say a bike freeway couldn't have a rush hour just like the motor freeways...
Jeeze that would be the day wouldn't it... "And the Interstate 10 Hiway is backed up for 12 miles due to the holiday traffic, and over on the Bike 12 freeway I currently see tire to tire traffic moving at about 10MPH... and man is it hot out there... meanwhile in the Mid East, turmoil is leading to yet still higher gas prices... "
Thats true. A true bike freeway even if it had a ped path would take the advantages of a mup and then take them to the extream.
Faster travel less interuptions from roads peds etc. Dont know if id want to do 45 on a bike on a free way least not on in the right lane and only if it ran along side a reg free way. Small animal going through the spokes not fun at any speed.
james_swift
10-13-05, 01:28 PM
You would need 2 lanes per direction: a slow lane and a fast lane, otherwise you'll have the unattentive guys, with aero bars and disc wheels thinking that they're on the Velobahn, plowing into the slower riders at full speed. That would be quite messy. You'd also need a sag-wagon, to sweep-up the riders stuck on the Velobahn due to mechanical or physical problems.
jamesdenver
10-13-05, 02:04 PM
No - it sounds like an incredible waste of my money. Where are they going to put it (I live in LA)? Build an elevated highway system across all of SoCal? Either widen the streets, or make streets one way so there is enough room for parked cars and wide lanes.
If it raises my taxes, it's going to get a big fat NO vote from me, I don't care if it is for "bicycling advocacy." That's just another "special interest" pork tax.
agreed. why pave more when there's perfectly good pavement to be used.
You would need 2 lanes per direction: a slow lane and a fast lane, otherwise you'll have the unattentive guys, with aero bars and disc wheels thinking that they're on the Velobahn, plowing into the slower riders at full speed. That would be quite messy. You'd also need a sag-wagon, to sweep-up the riders stuck on the Velobahn due to mechanical or physical problems.
Of corse no diff than a highway system. Thats essentially what were talking about here after all. I thought i showed that in my graphic in a earlier post ill check and see and repost if not.
with apologies, this:
---------------------------------------
<---------BL------------------------
---------------------------------------
---------BL------------------------>
---------------------------------------
=====[]=====[]=====[]
---------------------------------------
Highway lane
<-------------------------------------
Highway lane
---------------------------------------
/////////////devider\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\devider//////////////
---------------------------------------
Highway lane
------------------------------------>
Highwaylane
---------------------------------------
=====[]=====[]=====[]
is how the Shore Parkway BLs work, in the sections where they run next to the Belt Parkway. they work tolerably well for the most part but are ill-maintained and in some places are far too narrow for any but the most cautious 2 way bike traffic.
True but relize cyclists would also share the right of way for the ramps as well. I didnt show that in the grapfic to hard to show with ascii art (if you can call that art hehe)
As mentioned in a previous post the bls would need to have a fast lane and slow lane just like a highway. Sort of shown in my grapfic just not all that well.
Now in some place my idea would work better and in others yours would. It would be area dependant im sure. Some cities and highways would favor one design and others a diffrent one. Where theres a change in bike free waytype youd need to get off the free way totaly then back on to the other. Not a huge hassle realy.
I suppose they would be cost effective if priced at less than a million bucks a mile. Though I wouldn't suport them if money used was that which was meant for street maintenance, refuse pick-up, 4th of July fireworks, law enforcement, defense of the nation or paying off the national debt. I wouldn't want them to be toll-roads either. It would be a pain in the butt to stop every state or so to pay a toll.
I suppose they would be cost effective if priced at less than a million bucks a mile. Though I wouldn't suport them if money used was that which was meant for street maintenance, refuse pick-up, 4th of July fireworks, law enforcement, defense of the nation or paying off the national debt. I wouldn't want them to be toll-roads either. It would be a pain in the butt to stop every state or so to pay a toll.
Well if it take 1 mill a mile for a highway (one direction) I should take about the same for both directions of a bike version or less.After all our lanes pavement does not need to be as thick or strong. One standard highway lane is more than wide enough for a high speed and low speed lane both. If you remove the shoulder from the table so to speak and only include the highway lane width it shoudl be say 3/4 for both sets of lanes for bikes as compared to a highway lane with shoulder.
As hh said this isnt the place to talk about costs ect. So i say lets keep it limited in scope to the creation proccess of the idea.
If it goes beyond us just talkign about it and ends up becoming a proposal to stat and federal agencies then we can figure out ways to shave some costs. I have a few ideas like that as well.
Things like cyclists et helpingwith prelim prep on our own time. Things like debrie removal. Hell i say we include that in any proposal if it goes that far. We can donate time for such a project im sure. Just think a few 100 cyclists in a given city or county donating 20 hours a month over one construction season of say 8 to 9 months. Thats 18000 man hours total just at 100 over 9 month at 20 hours a month at 8 bucks a hour (bare bare min they would have to pay a normal crew) $144,000 for 1 years time.
So 1 mill a mile goes way down to less than 900k a mile. I think that would get city state and federal govs to take the idea much more seriously.
Erick L
10-13-05, 07:24 PM
Bike freeways, or at least links between streets, would be nice when there aren't any direct routes for bikes, which often happen because of freeways and exchangers. I have to make a long detour to get around a freeway and railroad tracks. The problem couold be solved with a strategically placed pedestrian/bike bridge. There used to be one but it was destroyed. Traffic was jammed on the freeway last week so I just rode on it. It was so nice passing the stopped cars.
We do have some sort of bike freeway. There's a freeway, a canal, then a bike path which was intended for recreation but is very handy to get downtown.
duckliondog
11-16-05, 12:27 AM
I've seen a couple of people from LA on here that are against this. When I drive around this city, I see elevated car freeways all over the place! If they can elevate whole roads, how hard would it be to sling a bike path underneath?
However, that's about as close to a car freeway as I'd like to be. One of the big reasons I would like there to be more bike paths is that I hate riding in exhaust fumes. If I was riding on the shoulder of an LA freeway, I'd be asking for all sorts of diseases, as well as an SUV for a grave marker.
There are a lot of abandoned railways around here. They recently turned one into a busway. It would have been nice if they installed a couple bike paths with concrete barriers while they were at it. Doing something like that wouldn't impede traffic or call for too much additional effort.
By the way, weren't the highways put in place to transport nuclear weapons?
sbhikes
11-16-05, 08:09 AM
Yes, I favor bike freeways. They are immensely useful. You can avoid all the hassle of a busy, stop-light choked cross-town boulevard using one. Here's a link to a google map. Not sure how well the link works, but on the satellite view there is what appears to be a road heading NE left to right. That is the bike freeway.
Google map (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Goleta+Beach,+California&ll=34.420682,-119.820542&spn=0.015369,0.027438&t=k&hl=en)
It is not a separated/segregated facility in the negative sense. It's an extremely useful facility and is integrated into other bike paths that are less obvious on the map, as well as the streets themselves. It takes you where you need to go. It's not a recreational trail by design at all, although people certainly recreate on it. Nobody walks on it.
San Rensho
11-16-05, 11:40 AM
This would be a great idea for Miami, where the weather allows easy commutes all year round. All it would take is one path along US1(a major commuter artery) and maybe one from US1 west. This would allow people that live in the suburbs and work in downtown Miami to have the option of a safe cycling commute. There is already a buses only corridor part of the way that could be easily converted to bicycle/bus by having bike lanes in the center and bus lanes closest to the curbs.
Chris L
11-16-05, 12:50 PM
This could open the door to cyclist liscensing, bike registration, and yearly property tax assesments on bicycles like we do cars, boats, and airplanes.
That will ultimately come down to the economic viability of implementing the tax rather than trying to pay for anything. Right now, the only reason such a tax is not already in existence is because it won't generate the revenue to cover the administrative costs (and yes, it has already been looked into in several places).
As far as the original question is concerned, it's one of those things that will just never happen. Take a look at the majority of cities in the developed world and tell me where you're going to find room to put it? In the centre of most cities (where most people work), space is already at a premium. I know that around here the council simply wouldn't have the funds to resume the land to build such a thing, even if they wanted to. In anycase, we already have all the infrastructure we need to commute by bicycle and cover all of our other transportational needs -- they're called "roads".
This really is just another of those pie-in-the-sky ideas that cycling advocates come up with from time to time in an attempt to provide a "solution", but the chances of it ever happening are nil. If people really want to increase cycling, the focus should be directed on improvements to existing road infrastructure and, God forbid, actually educating cyclists on how to use it correctly. Dreaming about fantasy infrastructure hasn't changed anything up to this point, and nor will it in the future.
Cyclaholic
11-16-05, 05:01 PM
Bike specific freeways - finally we have something truly worthy of advocacy. Those of you who can't see it have no vision, you're blind to the possibilities or maybe you're just too caught up in your petty little VC squabbles. (yeah, like we need yet another 50 page thread on lane position :rolleyes: )
Think about a bike freeway that's totally freestanding, has on/off ramps and overpasses just like regular freeways, and links all those mups that seemingly lead nowhere - now you're starting to look at a bicycle road system i.e. local 'roads' linked by a freeway.
This is why I started the anti-VC thread with my belief that VC is not the answer, but a poor compromise where we are expected to beleive that we at 200lb and 20mph can equally and safely share the road with 4,000lb and 50mph vehichles. Here's a link to what we're building here, it's the future of cycling as a for of mainstream personal transport......
Have a look at 'Cycleway & walking path'
http://www.wso.net.au/
an information brochure
http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/documents/brochures/Westlink_Cycleway_Pamphlet.pdf
Embrace the future :D
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.