Advocacy & Safety - Do you favor bike freeways?

In my area road improvement and development projects almost always have to include some sort of bike/pedestrian facilities. Not that all developers fulfill their promises. We've been waiting for a pedestrain overpass for ages. But it's not pie in the sky if the people have the will for it. That's what bike advocacy is for. To be a constituency that tells the government what they want done with tax money.

Honestly, bike advocacy isn't just teaching people safety skills. It's also about making sure money is spent at the very least not to make nightmare streets for us, and when there's a will, for overpasses and bike freeways.

How many minutes of nationwide PSAs advocating vehicular cycling could we buy for the price of one bike freeway? I'm just asking.

The price of one mile of simple bike path on existing land where ROW is already established is over one million dollars in San Diego. If you add wide separated lanes, grade separation bridges, tunnels, land/ROW costs, ramps, etc., the price sky rockets from there.

You could probably convince people to buy dehydrated water with an ad campaign funded by the price of one 20 mile bike freeway. Imagine how effective it could be to spread the concepts of vehicular cycling, the learning of which people could use nationwide to bicycle at no additional cost along existing infrastructure with safety and enjoyment.

Is that it?... I was looking forward to your reply to this thread.

I suppose it's cheaper to run a propaganda campaign that sells the benefits of a compromise rather than addressing the reall issue. Politicians do it all the time.

Compromise?

Do you mean a compromise of the "ideal"... a bicycling infrastructure completely separated from motor traffic that allows cyclists to get to and from any reasonable destination without having to interact with motor traffic?

If not, then what?

Our bike freeway leads to the University. The University draws an incredible amount of bike traffic. Not just students, but some employees also ride their bikes to work at the University. All this bike traffic is not on the street, and not being on the street, no matter how badly they ride (drunk? tired? too much studying? too much caffiene? crappy bike that barely runs?), they are not being killed by cars. Nor are they clogging up the streets all riding VC/Serge style. Not only that, but without having to stop at all the lights on Hollister, or having to deal with all the hills on Catheral Oaks, they can get to class that much faster.

Even though this path aims straight to the University, I use it often when I want to go to the hardware store out in Goleta, taking another bike path across/under the freeway. Or when I want to do a nice 30 mile loop bike ride. I've used this bike freeway ever since I was a little girl. I first used it to get to the beach. Later I worked near to it and would go for bike rides during lunch on it. For a while I used it to go to Community College. Far from being a waster of money it has become a community asset.

Why do you think people are willing to pay a million dollars for a crappy, rundown tract home in Santa Barbara? LA has the same weather. San Diego has beaches just as nice. There are many reasons, but part of them are that you can really live here. You don't have to put your bike in your car and take it to a designated riding place to go for a bike ride. You can just leave the house. No steely alpha-dogging required. Part of that is thanks to our network of bike paths and bike routes.

All you people who can't see the value in that, who hate these facilities out of some kind of false pride in your alpha-dogging skills, just haven't lived somewhere where they work. I refuse to reduce my expectations to your level.

Yes, I favor bike highways because I use them all the time and have been using them since I was a little girl. They can be a tremendous asset. Why even traffic-choked Atlanta sells itself on its bike trails. Unfortunately, their trails aren't very integrated with your daily life. You've got to alpha-dog it on narrow, high-speed roads if you want to ride your bike to a bike trail. Maybe you boys like that sort of thing, but this gal does not. It's not that I can't do it. It's that I don't like doing it.

How many minutes of nationwide PSAs advocating vehicular cycling could we buy for the price of one bike freeway? I'm just asking.

The price of one mile of simple bike path on existing land where ROW is already established is over one million dollars in San Diego. If you add wide separated lanes, grade separation bridges, tunnels, land/ROW costs, ramps, etc., the price sky rockets from there.

You could probably convince people to buy dehydrated water with an ad campaign funded by the price of one 20 mile bike freeway. Imagine how effective it could be to spread the concepts of vehicular cycling, the learning of which people could use nationwide to bicycle at no additional cost along existing infrastructure with safety and enjoyment.

How many minutes of PSA's will amount to one more cyclist riding vehicularly? Yes, we can spend a million on blanketing the airways with PSA's, but what good would it do? I think you put too much faith in advertising.

Now, if we put the million into a well designed (why do I feel I have to preface everything with this statement?) bike highway which went from somewhere useful to somewhere useful, how many cyclists would that draw? We can put a million dollars to buy air time, but it's still just another advertisement.

Do you mean a compromise of the "ideal"... a bicycling infrastructure completely separated from motor traffic that allows cyclists to get to and from any reasonable destination without having to interact with motor traffic?

That's exactly what I mean.

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.I'd definitely be into that.

I'd gladly pony up my tax dollars for this.

Of course, if gas prices get high enough, we can just take over the existing freeway system, can't we? ;)

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.

A majority of cities are full of cars, that would be the space. The incentive would be totally American, it would be faster, easier and with little percieved danger or physical discomfort. The roads satisfy me and you, tell me about your family and friends attitudes about bicycles and traffic.
The missing link in this discussion is the general public. Cars terrify most people who ride a bike. Bike highways would take an existing, familiar, system of roads and destinations- downscaled and without the need for explanation, and give the general public a real option.
The condescending take on uneducated bike riders is societies problem which includes both of us. Take some time and remember when you use to ride on the sidewalk and empathize with people going someplace on a bike.

Imagine how effective it could be to spread the concepts of vehicular cycling, the learning of which people could use nationwide to bicycle at no additional cost along existing infrastructure with safety and enjoyment.
It wouldn't be, or conversely it already is, depending on the nationwide success of of freely available information. We (you,me) read and studied info on our hobby/transportation and after critical examination made an informed choice. If everybody did that, we would have no prisons, armies, drunk drivers or traffic injuries.
Imagine a young child running into the street, thats what most people think of riding a bicycle in traffic. The cream of literate, computer savvy bike riders in the world visit this site and half the posts involve conflict with cars. VC is brillant, scientific, rewarding, and totally illogical to most people. To say "do what I do" is easy, except no one is doing it, the public doesn't believe it, but your absolutely right.

[VC education] wouldn't be [successful], or conversely it already is, depending on the nationwide success of of freely available information. We (you,me) read and studied info on our hobby/transportation and after critical examination made an informed choice. If everybody did that, we would have no prisons, armies, drunk drivers or traffic injuries.
Imagine a young child running into the street, thats what most people think of riding a bicycle in traffic. The cream of literate, computer savvy bike riders in the world visit this site and half the posts involve conflict with cars. VC is brillant, scientific, rewarding, and totally illogical to most people. To say "do what I do" is easy, except no one is doing it, the public doesn't believe it, but your absolutely right.

You explained the problem very well. Perhaps you underestimate the power of forums like this to create change, but basically I think you're right.

Before I discovered this forum I practiced Vehicular Cycling a little here and there, in situations where I had learned it was in my best interests -- learning mostly through trial and error, occasionally by following the rare good example. But I didn't understand half the general principles or specific applications and I didn't know what it was called.

[Aside -- When I first came here and kept seeing "VC," I kept wondering What does Ho Chi Minh have to do with riding in traffic?!?:D]

But since coming here, I've become an active student of VC and am now practicing it in traffic about 95% of the time (I just gave up running traffic lights :)). I find vehicular cycling ensures my safety and comfort better than anything else. If VC has a weakness, it's that to pull it off, you have to be a pretty good rider. And brave enough to try it. But anyway, the freely available information that members of this forum have shown me has won at least one VC convert.

But it's the whole "leading a horse to water" thing, isn't it? As you say, you can say "do as I do" and it seems almost no one follows when it's contrary to their "common sense" notions. But some people do follow. Maybe if enough of us lead with a good example, we can create a tipping point.

I'm wondering what's led the debate is this odd direction.

The reason that I would prefer off-trail paths is not that I am scared of motorists, or have a covert poilitical agenda, but because the DELAYS caused to me by cars and their related infrastructure ANNOY ME.

If bikes are full-on vehicles in the eyes of the law and/or select members of this forum, then why aren't we entitled to the same usable road space? Why should cars have a freeway to zip accross town, when I have to roll ahead from red light to red light in the curb lane on secondary roads?

Isn't the whole point of a freeway to decrease travel times?

Shouldn't that be where this discussion is headed?

I'm wondering what's led the debate is this odd direction.

The reason that I would prefer off-trail paths is not that I am scared of motorists, or have a covert poilitical agenda, but because the DELAYS caused to me by cars and their related infrastructure ANNOY ME.

If bikes are full-on vehicles in the eyes of the law and/or select members of this forum, then why aren't we entitled to the same usable road space? Why should cars have a freeway to zip accross town, when I have to roll ahead from red light to red light in the curb lane on secondary roads?

Isn't the whole point of a freeway to decrease travel times?

Shouldn't that be where this discussion is headed?

You're right.

I think cars annoy all of us, and if we could just wish a bike freeway system into existence -- a complete, separate bike infrastucture that allowed all of us to get from all of our point As to all of our point Bs faster, without having to deal with cars -- I can't imagine anyone here not using such a system and, when we weren't taking it for granted, being grateful for it.

Obviously, we can't just wish it into existence. Is it a realistic goal?

I think it could be realistic only if there were enough cyclists to justify it. That's why cars have dedicated infrastructure -- because there are enough motorists to justify the cost. It's not a question of rights, it's a question of demand; ultimately, it's a question of numbers.

That brings us back to the "critical mass" concept again -- not the CM rides -- but the tipping point at which there are enough transportational cyclists to create a real societal desire for such a system. I would guess that would be about the same number of cyclists necessary to make riding in traffic safe and comfortable for cyclists of all skill levels. By the way, I'm not suggesting that being able to ride in traffic safely would eliminate the need for dedicated cycling infrastructure. Far from it, as you'll see if my blah blah blah doesn't put you to sleep. :D

I'm pretty idealistic, but I find it hard to believe that tipping point is going to happen -- except in the event of a MAJOR, prolonged energy crisis, and/or the event of a catastrophic economic collapse. If either of those events occurs, the roads -- including the existing freeways -- will almost certainly be ours.

That's what I think it would take for a widespread bike freeway network. But any local area with that "critical mass" of cyclists should be able to create a local system.

Maybe some local areas are there, but at least in most places across the US, the question is still whether cycling is legitimate transportation -- and most people in the US would say "no." The only solution to that situation? More cyclists on the road.

You can say: "If you build it, they will come", and that argument will work for inexpensive projects. I'm seeing it happen here with my city's new MUP. Which is costing very little. But when serious money is involved, only an obvious, existing demand will work. Which in this case means -- more cyclists on the road.

How to get more cyclists on the road?

Dedicated infrastructure is one way. How do you get dedicated infrastructure? Demonstrate a need that justifies the cost. How do you demonstrate such a need? Enough cyclists on the road. Catch 22.

Another way to get there could be greater adoption of vehicular cycling, leading to a higher awareness of cycling as legitimate transportation, without necessarily any increase in the actual numbers of cyclists. This requires no additional infrastructure. I freely concede that VC ain't for everybody, but every one of us who cycles vehicularly increases the public perception of cycling.

Increasing the public perception of cycling increases support for spending on cycling infrastructure. Such as bike freeways.

So, while VC seems tangential to bike freeways, it could be an important part of how to get there from here. Unlike most proposals, it's free, and many of us can do it right now.

In fact, I'm off to do just that.

Ta. :)

YES !! To me, separate but equal is the best way to go. Being relatively new to commuting and this forum, some things seem obvious but the debates seem to rage on... In my mind the issues seem to hinge around legality and practicality:

Bicycles are vehicles under the law, but are not motor vehicles, and it is not legal or practical for bicyclists to act as if they are. Making it legal for a cyclist to take a lane is not a solution. It is a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. The top of my head would come off too if I had to follow a cyclist for more than 10 seconds going 20 in a 30 MPH zone, never mind 15.

My uneducated guess is that we are a fraction of a percentage of total riders of the roads. Even if we killed ourselves daily to convert the unwashed maybe we could achieve 1 percent but I doubt it. To me the safest place to be relative to an automobile is as far away as possible. If my guesstimates are wrong, I beg forgiveness in advance.

It may not be as simple as a change in vehicle law, but separate, (not sharing) lanes seems a whole lot safer. Unless gas goes to 10 dollars a gallon and people trade in their cars for bikes, though, it is probably impractical. Just my .02

Not to be a wet blanket, but what will these bike freeways be constructed with and of? What land will they utilize? Do we really want more steel, concrete and gravel replacing grass, trees and foilage? Just food for thought.

Edit: Isn't one of the advantages to cycling that it is environmentally friendly? If we truly cared about the environment wouldn't we use existing man-made infrastructure rather than constructiing more?

... if we could just wish a bike freeway system into existence -- a complete, separate bike infrastucture that allowed all of us to get from all of our point As to all of our point Bs faster, without having to deal with cars ... Is it a realistic goal?

A complete, separate infrastructure that allows all of us to get from all of our point As to all of our point Bs without having to deal with cars is not necessary. Why do people jump all the way to the extreme?

All you need are a few bike freeways to get form major point A to major point B, with possibly a few connectors here and there between them. Just that is a huge asset to the whole community.

Being able to skip some arduous surface streets is a good thing. And you can't get hit by a car on a bike path, so fewer accidents is better for everyone.

A complete, separate infrastructure that allows all of us to get from all of our point As to all of our point Bs without having to deal with cars is not necessary. Why do people jump all the way to the extreme?

All you need are a few bike freeways to get form major point A to major point B, with possibly a few connectors here and there between them. Just that is a huge asset to the whole community.

Being able to skip some arduous surface streets is a good thing. And you can't get hit by a car on a bike path, so fewer accidents is better for everyone.
I hear what you're saying, and I'm strongly in favor of it. You're right -- even one major bike artery which allowed cyclists to zoom along without having to worry about cars would be great.

I'd love to be able to hop on such a thing to get around this town, but because almost all the cyclists on the road here are "invisible" or recreational, there is virtually no public support for building any dedicated cycling infrastructure (unless you count our one, unpaved MUP).

I hope people who live where sufficient political leverage can be applied will apply it. When success stories become common knowledge, then it will be easier for others to follow. By the way, do you have a link to a Web site for the Santa Barbara bike freeway? Do you know how it came into being?

I also find this very interesting:


Have a look at 'Cycleway & walking path'

http://www.wso.net.au/

... Embrace the future. :D

That's a cool future!

Cyclaholic, is the 'cycleway' being built because your area already has a lot of cyclists, or is it being built in hopes of creating a demand for cycling? Do you know how much it's costing to build? Is it being financed with taxes, or by tolls on the motor highway? I would definitely vote for that!

Bike freeways are worthy long-term goals. For most of us in the short and medium term, though, I don't think they're going to happen until there are a lot more transportational cyclists clamoring at the gates demanding them, so I don't think they're the best place for most of us to focus our efforts.

I want to cycle now, to go all the places I want and need to go -- by bike -- now. If I wait until we succeed in getting dedicated cycling infrastructure here, I might well be too old to bike at all before it happens.

More power to you if you can get your bike freeway built now. Maybe I can ride it when I visit?

[...]separate but equal is the best way to go.
Let's not forget that separation on the basis of class or group (instead of a person's own merit or performance) is segregation. Segregation has no place in the field of public travel, even under the doctrine of 'separate but equal'. Segregated facilities are inherently unequal. Persons who have been so segregated are, by reason of the segregation, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/29.html#2)


Making it legal for a cyclist to take a lane is not a solution. That "solution" has been the reality in some states (such as N.C.) for much longer than the mere half-century that I've been road cycling. Quite a few cyclists still travel many miles every year that way, and relatively safely too: most collisions aren't rear-enders; they usually occur at points where the paths of traffic cross (intersections, junctions, merges, etc.).


[...] separate, (not sharing) lanes seems a whole lot safer. Unless the crossing points are either grade or time separated, a segregated lane is just a painted line on a sucking chest wound.

Bike Freeways Exist

Reading through this two month old thread I kept scrolling down waiting for the Minnesotan's to have already chimed in. I didn't see any. We have two bike freeways already. One's called the Cedar Lake Trail and the other is called the Midtown Greenway. They both feature dedicated cycling lanes with seperate dedicated pedestrian lanes. They are both seperate from roads with limited access points and a minimum of cross streets.

For those who asked where would you build them. Both are on abandoned (mostly abandoned really) urban railroad beds.

For those who asked how would you pay for them. A great deal of the money came from Federal TEA-21 grants. City money and citizen fund raising was also involved.

For those who asked if you built them would there be a call for bike lic. or users fees. Cedar Lake Trail is 10 years old and so far has not stirred that kind of action. Neither trail requires a trail pass or fee.

For those who asked if you built it would we be required to use it and get off the streets. No, in fact these are both East/West routes. Many of the North/South feeder roads that bring you to the trails have attracted on street bike lanes and bike route signage. Frankly, if you're riding in the directions these trails go you would ride on them before using the adjacent streets. They give you a far superior cycling experience.

I'm going to try to load up some photos.
The first is the Midtown Greenway. You'll see that it has two dedicated cycling lanes. The area on the left is the pedetrian walking/running lane. The Greenway is a former sunken railroad bed that runs the width of the city of Minneapolis. All the street traffic is one level up. There a few crossings at trail grade, but mostly it's very similiar to a limited access freeway.

The 2nd is the Cedar Lake Trail. The riders are in the dedicated East bound Lane, the dedicated bike West bound lane is over their shoulder on the right and the dedicated Ped lane can be seen on the left.

So for those who wondered is it possible, can it be done, and what would be the effect. Ask friends and family in the Twin Cities, we've been at for years and just got approved for more Federal TEA money to do more of the same.

Scot
Minneapolis

I also find this very interesting:


That's a cool future!

Cyclaholic, is the 'cycleway' being built because your area already has a lot of cyclists, or is it being built in hopes of creating a demand for cycling? Do you know how much it's costing to build? Is it being financed with taxes, or by tolls on the motor highway? I would definitely vote for that!

Bike freeways are worthy long-term goals. For most of us in the short and medium term, though, I don't think they're going to happen until there are a lot more transportational cyclists clamoring at the gates demanding them, so I don't think they're the best place for most of us to focus our efforts.

I want to cycle now, to go all the places I want and need to go -- by bike -- now. If I wait until we succeed in getting dedicated cycling infrastructure here, I might well be too old to bike at all before it happens.

More power to you if you can get your bike freeway built now. Maybe I can ride it when I visit?

Sorry to have taken so long to reply to you, I haven't checked out this thread for way too long :o

those a re good questions and I'll be getting some answers for you in the next week or so.

They just announced yesterday that the project will be completed and open to the public on the 16th of this month, 8 months ahead of schedule and under budget. I'll snap a few pics and post them for all to enjoy.... :D

I find the amount of space taken by motor freeways a real pain. I hate having to make a 2km detour to get to a place 200m away, because of the space taken by expressway clover leafs. In the construction of these motor expressways they should include quick crossing routes for bikes and peds.

Or they could just let bikes on all roads. Man would that make life easier for me. Hop onto I87 and go wherever I need to w/out all the runaround going street to street. Probably not that safe but I bet I would feel safer on a bike then I do in my car.

Bike Freeways Exist

Reading through this two month old thread I kept scrolling down waiting for the Minnesotan's to have already chimed in. I didn't see any. We have two bike freeways already. One's called the Cedar Lake Trail and the other is called the Midtown Greenway. They both feature dedicated cycling lanes with seperate dedicated pedestrian lanes. They are both seperate from roads with limited access points and a minimum of cross streets.

For those who asked where would you build them. Both are on abandoned (mostly abandoned really) urban railroad beds.

For those who asked how would you pay for them. A great deal of the money came from Federal TEA-21 grants. City money and citizen fund raising was also involved.

For those who asked if you built them would there be a call for bike lic. or users fees. Cedar Lake Trail is 10 years old and so far has not stirred that kind of action. Neither trail requires a trail pass or fee.

For those who asked if you built it would we be required to use it and get off the streets. No, in fact these are both East/West routes. Many of the North/South feeder roads that bring you to the trails have attracted on street bike lanes and bike route signage. Frankly, if you're riding in the directions these trails go you would ride on them before using the adjacent streets. They give you a far superior cycling experience.

I'm going to try to load up some photos.
The first is the Midtown Greenway. You'll see that it has two dedicated cycling lanes. The area on the left is the pedetrian walking/running lane. The Greenway is a former sunken railroad bed that runs the width of the city of Minneapolis. All the street traffic is one level up. There a few crossings at trail grade, but mostly it's very similiar to a limited access freeway.

The 2nd is the Cedar Lake Trail. The riders are in the dedicated East bound Lane, the dedicated bike West bound lane is over their shoulder on the right and the dedicated Ped lane can be seen on the left.

So for those who wondered is it possible, can it be done, and what would be the effect. Ask friends and family in the Twin Cities, we've been at for years and just got approved for more Federal TEA money to do more of the same.

Scot
MinneapolisJust a cheap ploy to confuse the theorists with facts, I say.

Mass Central Rail Trail (http://www.masscentralrailtrail.org/)

Here in Massachusetts work is currently being done that would effectively create a "bike freeway" of sorts across the state.

I have a little house out in the woods of far western Massachusetts and commute back and forth from Boston quite frequently by bike. The ride by car is 126 miles on the Mass Pike (no bikes allowed) when I ride the bike on the shortest possible route it is exactly the same distance. However, the ride absolutely sucks. It is on dangerous roads (a combination of Route 9 and Route 20) and is not nearly as scenic as I would prefer. I have pieced together an alternative route that meanders somewhat and makes for a really long day. It's a much hillier ride but quite beautiful route (140 miles). The roads are still not ideal, frost heaves make for rough surfaces, some of them are narrow and are the only roads joining several small towns so everything from tractors to tractor trailer trucks end up on them often at pretty high speeds. There is a section of the Norwottuck bike trail into Northampton that I do as part of the ride and it comes as a much needed respite to the secondary roads and the unpredictable drivers.

If the Mass Central Rail Trail were there for 104 miles of it you can beat your a** I'd ride every mile of it with a smile on my face. And, if any of you care to join me on this ride PM me and I'll tell you when I'm doing it next and you can join me and decide for yourself whether bike facilities of this type are worth your tax dollars.

What about joggers, roller bladers, segways, etc.? I don't think they should be part of this, but they will ALWAYS find their way onto the bike paths and ruin it all. Given that fact, I'd rather just stick with streets.

Koffe

The concept of a velobahn is virtually there on many rails to trails projects.


i'm totally down with bike freeways, as long as these velobahns supplemented multimodal accomodations and integrated bike lanes on the roadways instead of serving as the sole transportation cooridor for bicycles.

And I hope this is what everyone has in mind as well, velobahn in addition to integrated multimodal accomodation.

A bike freeway would be designed for longer distances of uninterrupted travel, otherwise it would be called a 'bike boulevard' or 'bike avenue'.

On my main route out of Puget Sound on tours, I ride for the first 50 miles or so, mostly on MUP that are virtually abandonded, and serve admirably well as a velobahn out of town. They work stellar, in fact. I've even worn headphones on the velobahn.

And I hope this is what everyone has in mind as well, velobahn in addition to integrated multimodal accomodation.Yes.

What about joggers, roller bladers, segways, etc.? I don't think they should be part of this, but they will ALWAYS find their way onto the bike paths and ruin it all. Given that fact, I'd rather just stick with streets.

Koffe


Bike Freeways Exist

Reading through this two month old thread I kept scrolling down waiting for the Minnesotan's to have already chimed in. I didn't see any. We have two bike freeways already. One's called the Cedar Lake Trail and the other is called the Midtown Greenway. They both feature dedicated cycling lanes with seperate dedicated pedestrian lanes. They are both seperate from roads with limited access points and a minimum of cross streets.

Separate, dedicated lanes.

I know. But who will be there to enforce separate lanes? I've seen my fair share of dumb joggers running and weaving across two lanes, running 2- 5 abreast, running in large groups like herds of buffalo, moms in big groups with their mommy and me stroller runs, etc. It's a pain in the ass.

Koffee

Make the pavement strips 8 inches wide!

I know. But who will be there to enforce separate lanes? I've seen my fair share of dumb joggers running and weaving across two lanes, running 2- 5 abreast, running in large groups like herds of buffalo, moms in big groups with their mommy and me stroller runs, etc. It's a pain in the ass.

KoffeeWe could always yell at 'em to get off the bikeway. :D

We could always yell at 'em to get off the bikeway. :D
Sure that will work. :rolleyes:
Assuming it will be possible to keep joggers and other pedestrians with a 10 foot pointy stick, there is still a problem of people riding at different speeds. People who drive might be familiar with this cituation. Two lane highway/freeway (two each way), you are stuck behind two cars driving below speed limit and taking up both lanes. Or just general scenario of people driving below traffic speed in left most lane. If not designed correctly same thing can happen on these imagenary bike freeways. So faster riders will get frustrated and move back in to riding on roads with cars.

Yup. I wouldn't expect anything less. I know better. I stay to the right when I know faster people will be coming up from behind. But there are situations when other slower people don't. And what about the jerks who will insist on pacelining and riding in groups? How do we deal with that?

It sounds like a good idea in theory. But in reality, we all know there will always be jerks to eff it up for those of us that would really need this and abide by the rules.

Koffee

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 :)

Uh, wait a minute ...... how ya' gonna cross the on/off ramps????

What about joggers, roller bladers, segways, etc.? I don't think they should be part of this, but they will ALWAYS find their way onto the bike paths and ruin it all. Given that fact, I'd rather just stick with streets.

Koffe

One problem with many MUP's and rail trails is that they are a success. They are popular and attractive and there just aren't enough of them so people drive vast distances in their cars with bikes, strollers, roller blades and running shoes in tow and all hop on the same 9 mile stretch of MUP. The benefit of 104 miles (as in the Mass Central Rail Trail) is that the congestion would be greatly reduced by having more miles of trail. As more trails are built they will naturally become less congested. Urban MUP's will probably always present problems but if it's too much just take the road.

And just as I do when cycling long distances on the road I choose the time of day or even the day of the week when I make those rides to avoid traffic. I simply don't ride on the MUP's on busy weekends or certain times when it's too busy. I commute all winter on the MDC bike path into Boston but as the weather warms I end up back on the roads for the ride home because it's so crammed with joggers. But I love MUP's at night when they're empty and I've got good lights. Or the Cape Cod rail trail real early in the morning can't be beat for the ride up the Cape towards Provincetown and way better than Route 6 or 6A. I use the Ashuwilltocook in western MA mid-week in the summer and it's usually pretty empty.

It's a trade off, which do I want to deal with- cars and trucks? or peds, joggers and slow bike riders? that's why some of us fight just as hard for our right to the road as we do for bike facilities so that we can have the choice.

Most freeways are supposed to be constructed with something like a 50 foot clearance area followed by a fence line. Obviously this rule gets bent, especially in congested inner cities. Still, in places where possible, why not put a bike path path just inside the fence line. Already have the ROW, and it would be far enough away from the traffic to not worry about bike/car mixups. It would be mostly a one time cost for some light grading and to put down a line of asphalt. Put a break occassionally just before intersections to allow bikes to navigate back to the surface roads without dealing with offramps. Some money, but not as much I bet as the annual maintenance for the regular freeways.

When I look at a map, I see that cars get to take the straightest, most direct route via the freeways to key destinations. Meanwhile, bikes have to meander over back streets, with an increase of total distance of sometimes nearly 100%.
Somehow doesn't seem fair that vehicles that can go fast also get to take shortcuts ;-)

On the other hand, the closest thing to a bike freeway near me is a 2 lane bike path that runs 10 miles and connects one of the area's richest neighborhoods with one of the poorest. Not much synergy there, so its mostly for recreational bikers. Or for those who don't mind a 15 mile trip to get high quality day-old bagels.

Yup. I wouldn't expect anything less. I know better. I stay to the right when I know faster people will be coming up from behind. But there are situations when other slower people don't. And what about the jerks who will insist on pacelining and riding in groups? How do we deal with that?

It sounds like a good idea in theory. But in reality, we all know there will always be jerks to eff it up for those of us that would really need this and abide by the rules.

KoffeeI totally agree with you. But I think there are ways to deal with these issues-- not 100% foolproof ways, but still ways to deal. To begin with, make the things you describe citable violations. OK, so jerks will still be out there breaking the law. Let's say that the bicycle freeway gets clogged with joggers, paceliners, mommies & strollers, etc. So a commuter complains to the local authorities (because a complaint system is in place), and soon, when the joggers, paceliners, and mommies are out in full force, so are the bicycle cops, handing out $100 citations like they grow on trees. Next day, everybody's back to obeying the law. 100% foolproof? No, but I think most people obey the law if they think they're being watched.

When I lived in San Jose, I used to commute from Downtown to South San Jose. A highway was built, with a light rail line down the center divider (Highway 87 for San Jose cyclists), and a bikeway next to, but separated from, the highway. I rode that every day, and I was the only person using it every time. I never encountered another cyclist or jogger. It was an easy commute. The downside is that the authorities didn't place a high priority on maintenance, so it was sometimes overgrown with weeds, littered with broken glass, etc. I think because of the location-- next to a highway-- it would be an unlikely destination for weekend Lance's, joggers, and mommies, which is probably why I had it all to myself.

Most freeways are supposed to be constructed with something like a 50 foot clearance area followed by a fence line. Obviously this rule gets bent, especially in congested inner cities. Still, in places where possible, why not put a bike path path just inside the fence line. Already have the ROW, and it would be far enough away from the traffic to not worry about bike/car mixups. It would be mostly a one time cost for some light grading and to put down a line of asphalt. Put a break occassionally just before intersections to allow bikes to navigate back to the surface roads without dealing with offramps. Some money, but not as much I bet as the annual maintenance for the regular freeways.This was done in San Jose along Highway 87. I commuted that in the '90s-- it was a great way to get from downtown to work and back.

Joggers and rollerbladers I could deal with, But it is those blue haired old ladies on 3 speeds riding 8 mph in the left lane of the Velobahn with thier left arm out that would make me crazy.

Yup. I wouldn't expect anything less. I know better. I stay to the right when I know faster people will be coming up from behind. But there are situations when other slower people don't. And what about the jerks who will insist on pacelining and riding in groups? How do we deal with that?

It sounds like a good idea in theory. But in reality, we all know there will always be jerks to eff it up for those of us that would really need this and abide by the rules.

Koffee

You need to come ride some of these trails in Minneapolis. I'd even be willing to show you around some of the commuter pathways that we have even though I don't really agree with some of your mod decisions. You'd have to deal with a slower pace from a brakeless fixie, but the offer is there...

Most of the Midtown Greenway is wide enough for a car in EACH LANE. I know this because I passed a cop car patroling in the other direction last week and noticed he was exactly as wide as the marks on the pavement. When it snows, the trails are plowed better and faster than the streets.

They're adding a bike station over the next year on part of it, CLICK HERE (http://www.skywaynews.net/articles/2006/02/20/news/news04.txt) to read the article from yesterday.

Since the greenway's been connected to downtown, it's totally changed my commute. It went from riding through downtown, 3.75 miles and 20-25 min to riding on the greenway 4.9 miles and 15-18min. I get on two blocks from my house, and get off two blocks from work. I cross 3 streets once I'm on the trail.

We have, I think, one of the best trail systems in any US city. There are dedicated commuter trails for transportation, and recreational MUP trails around the lakes and such that have the joggers and rollerbladers and whatnot. They typically don't go for the long straight highway type trails, because they're kind of boring. But that boringness can be good - you can just zone out and spin and spin and spin...

As far as the original post, yeah, it's not an interstate highway system. But it's a seperate system with exits and limited access, and it makes a huge difference in the lives of a lot of commuter cyclists here. And for some reason, everywhere that they expand the greenway, poor neighborhoods start getting condos with greenway access, and the local businesses seem to be upgrading more and more for foot and bike traffic. The roadways along the path have been getting upgraded too, more space and new surfaces. Strange that the bike path went in first, then the neighborhoods started getting gentrified...

It's not like we don't have great trails out here in DC/NoVa, it's just that there are so many boneheads on them that they're not always worth riding. I don't ride them during weekends or during busy times at all- and in fact, I'd prefer not to- because the road riding is so good out here, especially when you're riding in the Maryland areas. But then again, I'm sure cars are just as upset with bikes when riding on the road- but (from what I see) at least bikes stay to the right and obey the traffic laws. I stopped riding the paths nearly immediately- except to get from point A to point B (ie: Va to DC).

Koffee

i like bike paths, but 90% of the time I ride in the woods... i dont care if walkers, joggers, or roller bladers use it, its all good by me, but they must follow the bike path rules (or else). Usually people are so lazy that bike paths are effectively empty. plus it doesn't hurt to see good looking ladies while on the path.

Not to be a wet blanket, but what will these bike freeways be constructed with and of? What land will they utilize? Do we really want more steel, concrete and gravel replacing grass, trees and foilage? Just food for thought.

Edit: Isn't one of the advantages to cycling that it is environmentally friendly? If we truly cared about the environment wouldn't we use existing man-made infrastructure rather than constructiing more?

Well is it more envionmentally friendly to build one 10 foot wide (2 way) bike freeway to support folks that can commute by bike or to built 2 more 10 foot wide auto freeway lanes (one going each way) so that folks can drive instead of bike?

Are any of these in Seattle, WA? I've heard of them but never seen them.

Besides, L.A. and SoCal in general might have the highest concentration of freeways. Thank you for your tax dollars. :D
Except for the fact the California sends more to DC than we get back. :p

IMO we need to go to the same places that motorists do, so we should be using the same streets that motorists do.

I agree that it is nice when you don't have to stop every half mile or mile for a stop light, but what good does a "bicycle freeway" do me if none of the places that I need to get to are on the path?

IMO we need to go to the same places that motorists do, so we should be using the same streets that motorists do.

I agree that it is nice when you don't have to stop every half mile or mile for a stop light, but what good does a "bicycle freeway" do me if none of the places that I need to get to are on the path?

Are any places you need to drive to actually on a freeway? Or does the freeway just allow you to quickly move from one local area to another local area, where you then use the local streets to access your destination.

In other words, bikeways would simply get rid of the constant stop and go and allow you to conserve momentum when going longer distances... they would encourage longer cycling trips that are often not done simply because it takes so much time to do the stop and go thing across town.

Or does the freeway just allow you to quickly move from one local area to another local area
Moving quickly on the freeway? You must be joking! Not around here.

How many trips by bicycle do you think you are going to take where it will actually be worth going out of your way to get on the "bike freeway" instead of taking the shortest route?

How many trips by bicycle do you think you are going to take where it will actually be worth going out of your way to get on the "bike freeway" instead of taking the shortest route?

Well I don't know about you, but the routes I take to avoid Auto Freeways are not the shortest paths between two points. I have to zig zag all over the place on a bike to go the route that the Auto Freeways go to directly. Not to mention also playing a stop and go game at every light...

Seems to me a stoplight free route that goes directly across town would sure beat that stop and go zig zag game I now play.