Living Car Free - Bicycle Super Highway?

Does anyone else think that this is an amazing idea? Oh man, I want one in Sacramento soooooo bad! What do you all think, too far fetched?

http://www.biketrans.com/info.html

This has been proposed for a really long time now. I looked at the bottom of one page and it said copyright 1997. I really like the idea. I didn't go into the whole web site but I wonder if there were ever any prototypes made for a proof of concept demonstration.

What would it be like to ride inside one of these wind blown highways in the middle of a northern winter? Brrr. They would need to make the roadway from concrete if they didn't want studded tires to destroy it.

Does anyone else think that this is an amazing idea? Oh man, I want one in Sacramento soooooo bad! What do you all think, too far fetched?

http://www.biketrans.com/info.html

Far fetched? It's not even a new idea. Pasadena had one 100 years ago. An idea whose time has come again!

Pasadena Elevated Cycleway (http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200803/bikeway.asp)

California Cycleways (http://www.californiacycleways.org/dobbins.htm)

California's Great Cycle Way (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/the_great_cycle_way_.htm)

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2008-07-cycle_way.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/California_Cycleway_1900.jpg/784px-California_Cycleway_1900.jpg

Trans Glide 2000.
No politician is going to endorse something that reminds them of their recent visit to a sex shop.

I'd love it, but it won't happen.

They won't even set the traffic lights so a bike can get thru the intersection before it turns red.

Far fetched? It's not even a new idea. Pasadena had one 100 years ago. An idea whose time has come again!

Except the Pasadena Cycleway (nice as it was) didn't have the constant tailwind to make cycling on it less effortful. In fact, it probably took more effort, since you had to get your bike up there somehow. The Transglide that zeppinger is talking about has fans that reduce air pressure--sort of like a giant version of the pneumatic tubes at the drive-thru at the bank.


Trans Glide 2000.
No politician is going to endorse something that reminds them of their recent visit to a sex shop.

:D

It loooks like they're marketing for developing countries. Maybe Bogota? But I think it's more likely to be adopted in a wealthy area, like Amsterdam or Portland.

That is not how I would want to commute by bicycle. Elevated roads and shielding (caging) from the outside environment isn't my idea of good cycling times.

It's all fine and dandy until you want to get off the damn thing.

I could see it being used to get from one major metro area to another or even just from the suburbs to the inner city. Yeah i feel you when you say that you like to be out in the environment so to speak rather than in a tube. However, I bet you dont even sweat in their with all that fresh air being blasted in! Imagine if LA had a few of these and instead of people driving 2 hours each way to get to and from work they rode a bike through the tube! Of course, they would still need to live closer, but I think this idea could help America to bridge a much needed gap between the huge massive land of suburbia that we have been creating over the last 50 years and the city where everyone works. If gas ran out tomorrow and everyone suddenly had to make due, I think its a cool idea!

That is not how I would want to commute by bicycle. Elevated roads and shielding (caging) from the outside environment isn't my idea of good cycling times.

+1. The great thing about the bicycle is that you can go anywhere, and getting places is a pleasure.

That said, if there happened to be one along a route I was planning to ride anyway, I'd use it.

It's all fine and dandy until you want to get off the damn thing.

Yeah, it's like a freeway or an express bus. You can't get off anywhere you want. But would you use it if it happened to take you where you want to go?

That is not how I would want to commute by bicycle. Elevated roads and shielding (caging) from the outside environment isn't my idea of good cycling times.

+1

(our) money could be better spent on mass transit (that you can combine with a bike, hopefully)

Yeah, it's like a freeway or an express bus. You can't get off anywhere you want. But would you use it if it happened to take you where you want to go?

It would be useless without an infrastructure that leads you to the bicycle highway. You need to get to the highway entrance safely. Otherwise, it becomes another park and ride opportunity.

Meh. I ride some of the busiest streets in Fort Worth and it's not that bad. I kinda like interacting with traffic. Oddly, I think that opinion would change if there were more cyclists like me on the road. Right now, in Fort Worth, a cyclist that takes the lane is such an oddity that most gas-powered vehicles give me a wide berth.

But we're talking about always having a 15 mph tailwind and a roof over your head. This doesn't tempt anybody else?

But we're talking about always having a 15 mph tailwind and a roof over your head. This doesn't tempt anybody else?

Meh to both. I'd rather get good train systems installed and working throughout the US than that; It's much more probable that the masses would accept that anyway, as opposed to these bicycle highways. I don't bicycle to escape from nature and having to do a physical, challenging workout. My dream commute to work, school, and shops would be by lovely dirt trails through forests and landscapes, requiring a mountain bike.

http://www.voga.org/Mountain_Biking.jpg

http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/minnesota/images/s/minnesota-mountain-biking.jpg

I don't want my bike trips to be even more like driving a car on the highway and roads than it already is.

http://blog.planetc1.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/405-traffic-los-angeles.jpg

http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/medieval/patterns/Pattern%2010-%20motorway%20l.jpg

Plus, who in the world would want to pay EXTRA money in fees just to commute by bicycle? Screw that.

... it's more likely to be adopted in a wealthy area, like Amsterdam or Portland.

Amsterdam is well on its way, thanks.

it would be pretty cool to ride. the never ending tail wind would be super nice for longer rides. you could probably double your commute distance without adding time. i wish they would build something like this or a rail line next to every major highway.

it would be pretty cool to ride. the never ending tail wind would be super nice for longer rides. you could probably double your commute distance without adding time. i wish they would build something like this or a rail line next to every major highway.

I contend they need to take a chunk of the existing interstate system and convert it to passenger rail ASAP. Only problem I see with running bike highways in conjunction with a lot of major highways is they run out of the way. In the Netherlands they make the cars take the long way around and give the bicycles the most direct route...works for me!:thumb:

But we're talking about always having a 15 mph tailwind and a roof over your head. This doesn't tempt anybody else?

Yeah, it tempts me!

As far as I'm concerned, rain and snow on the way to work are OK, but no rain and no snow on the way to work are even better! Same with wind resistance and hilly terrain - it's OK but not having it there would be even better.

But a major part of why I bike is that it costs many times less than traveling by car/train/etc. If I had to pitch in a lot of money to help pay for the bicycle-highway (taxes or user fees) it would lose its appeal.

Around here, the train lines are built along the flattest route between two points and they often use large bridges to cross an abrupt change in elevation. I say they should put bike paths next to train lines all over the place, including on the bridges. Separate them with a good railing and you're good to go.

Total pipe dream. Even places that are totally bike-friendly have, maybe, 1-2% of commutes to work by bicycle. No local government is going to spend that much money to please such a tiny minority. And, even if this system were ever adopted where I live, I wouldn't use it. One of the reasons that I'm car-free is that it allows me to burn a lot of calories just going about my business. That wouldn't happen if I were artificially provided with a tail wind. And I'm certainly not interested in spending extra money to ride my bike, just because a terrarium is available. Another concern is that, if this system is ever built (not likely), drivers will become less and less likely to accept the presence of bicycles on roadways. All told, it's a very silly, potentially damaging, idea.

Total pipe dream. Even places that are totally bike-friendly have, maybe, 1-2% of commutes to work by bicycle. No local government is going to spend that much money to please such a tiny minority. And, even if this system were ever adopted where I live, I wouldn't use it. One of the reasons that I'm car-free is that it allows me to burn a lot of calories just going about my business. That wouldn't happen if I were artificially provided with a tail wind. And I'm certainly not interested in spending extra money to ride my bike, just because a terrarium is available. Another concern is that, if this system is ever built (not likely), drivers will become less and less likely to accept the presence of bicycles on roadways. All told, it's a very silly, potentially damaging, idea.

You're probably going to hate my idea too, then, but I'll put it out there.

I would build a tower that is 120 feet high. There would be a big freight elevator to carry cyclists (with their bikes) to the top of the tower. From the top, there would be a long suspension ramp that descends gradually to ground level. The slope would be only one per cent, or 1 foot decline for every 100 horizontal feet. This would make the ramp 12,000 feet long--2.27 miles (3.66 kilometers). This would provide the cyclists with a gentle gravity assist, and also relieve ground level congestion.

What do you think? Genius grant or garbage heap for Roody?

Total pipe dream. Even places that are totally bike-friendly have, maybe, 1-2% of commutes to work by bicycle. No local government is going to spend that much money to please such a tiny minority. And, even if this system were ever adopted where I live, I wouldn't use it. One of the reasons that I'm car-free is that it allows me to burn a lot of calories just going about my business. That wouldn't happen if I were artificially provided with a tail wind. And I'm certainly not interested in spending extra money to ride my bike, just because a terrarium is available. Another concern is that, if this system is ever built (not likely), drivers will become less and less likely to accept the presence of bicycles on roadways. All told, it's a very silly, potentially damaging, idea.


Better check your numbers...:p IIRC MSP is already over 7%. In places like the Netherlands it approaches 30%. Provide infrastructure and they will come, especially if gas prices head up again.

Aaron:)

Better check your numbers...:p IIRC MSP is already over 7%. In places like the Netherlands it approaches 30%. Provide infrastructure and they will come, especially if gas prices head up again.

Aaron:)




This is from the US Census Bureau (2007, the most recent I could find in ten minutes):

10 Cities Where the Most Employees Bike or Walk to Work

Portland, Oregon, has the highest percentage of bicycle commuters among large cities, according to an analysis by the U.S. Census Bureau. About 3.5 percent of Portland's workers pedal to work, about eight times the national average of 0.4 percent.

The large cities with the highest percentage of bicycle commuters are:

1. Portland (3.5 percent)
2. Minneapolis (2.4 percent)
3. Seattle (2.3 percent)
4. Tucson, AZ (2.2 percent)
5. San Francisco (1.8 percent)
6. Sacramento, CA (1.8 percent)
7. Washington, D.C. (1.7 percent)
8. Oakland, CA (1.5 percent)
9. Honolulu (1.4 percent)
9. Denver (1.4 percent)

Among the 50 large cities in the analysis Kansas City, Memphis, Indianapolis, Wichita, Omaha, and San Antonio have the lowest percentage of bicycle commuters. The percentage of bicycle commuters in all of those cities is 0.1 percent or less.

Among large cities, Boston had the highest percentage of employees who walk to work (12.5 percent). Nationally, 2.5 percent of workers walked to work, the fourth most popular mode of transportation.

The large cities with the highest percentage of employees who walk to work are:

1. Boston (12.5 percent)
2. Washington, D.C. (10 percent)
3. San Francisco (9.6 percent)
4. New York (9.4 percent)
5. Philadelphia (8.1 percent)
6. Honolulu (6.9 percent)
6. Seattle (6.9 percent)
8. Minneapolis (5.8 percent)
9. Chicago (5.5 percent)
10. Baltimore (5.4 percent)

The large cities with the lowest percentage of workers who walk to work are Arlington, Texas (0.9 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (1.1 percent); and Oklahoma City (1.4 percent).

As a fully committed car-free person, I clearly have no problem with more bicycle infrastructure. I'm a big fan of bicycle lanes. I just don't want infrastructure investments that isolate bikes from the rest of humanity (otherwise just drive a car), and I also don't want it to be ridiculous. And, once again, I must point out that, despite the big increase in bicycle riding in the US, we're still a very, very tiny minority. Even in Seattle, which is #3 on the bicycle commuter list above, I see more cars in a minute than I see bikes all day long.

I agree that if you build it they will come, but only if it looks like light rail with free wireless.

bragi = buzzkill :(

But I suppose he's right about the impracticality and even undesirability of such infrastructure shenanigans.

Besides, I'm starting to have serious doubts about whether the "Transglide 2000" would even work. It's based on the same concept as those pneumatic message tubes at the drive-thru bank. But those tubes are airtight, and the message carrying units fit very snugly into the tubes. Neither of these conditions is there for the Transglide. Also, the fans to make the tailwind would probably use more energy than if all those cyclists were driving SUVs.

I'm no engineer, but it does seem like a project that would require tons of energy and money. Thus I think the train would be a better idea, plus more appealing to people. At least that way you can read or write while commuting or traveling. Riding through a wind tube, completely elevated and separated from nature or any buildings to look at would be soooooooo boring. Like I said, not how I'd want my cycling to be.

I like the idea of a raised bike path avoiding all intersections and it would be nice to think the dog walkers would not use it. I would not move the air in the same direction of travel as it would benefit the faster riders more than the slower riders meaning the divide would be greater. Instead of 20 mph riders sharing the lane with 10 mph riders, you would have 30 mph riders sharing the lane with 12 mph riders. I think bicycle collisions would increase in number and severity. If it were just me or riders that ride at my speed, then it would work great!! I think that is a bit much to ask.

When the air moves in the same direction of travel, there is less fresh air. I notice this on while climbing with a very mild tailwind. I am travelling in the same pocket of air. I suppose that air circulation can be engineered to avoid this.

I think it is a waste of energy.

bragi = buzzkill :(



I'm not sure why, but this one made me laugh. :lol:

Bicycle Transit System will generate a substantial profit while charging the equivalent fare paid by current transit customers

That's the biggest turn off for me. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather pedal outside at 18mph than pay $2 (or more) to ride in a tube so I can go 22mph, on a route that's most likely not as direct.

We certainly shouldn't waste money on these foolish projects when it is obvious that if you spend that money on normal bike friendly cities, people ride bikes. The Netherlands didn't always have a safe biking infrastructure. They decided to do it and people ride and they are safe and don't even use helmets.

Does anyone else think that this is an amazing idea? Oh man, I want one in Sacramento soooooo bad! What do you all think, too far fetched?


I think street side dispensers of free beer and pizza, accessible only to bicyclists would be cheaper, do far more to encourage bicycling among the public, and be more likely to be implemented in the Real World.

I think street side dispensers of free beer and pizza, accessible only to bicyclists would be cheaper, do far more to encourage bicycling among the public, and be more likely to be implemented in the Real World.

I like the idea of the air tubes, but... I like this idea a lot better. :p

I think street side dispensers of free beer and pizza, accessible only to bicyclists would be cheaper, do far more to encourage bicycling among the public, and be more likely to be implemented in the Real World.

Sonafabitach....I actually agree with ILTB on something:thumb:

Aaron:)

I think street side dispensers of free beer and pizza, accessible only to bicyclists would be cheaper, do far more to encourage bicycling among the public, and be more likely to be implemented in the Real World.

Yeah, and I want to be the guy renting bicycles for a dollar a minute next to the dispenser. :roflmao2:

silly idea, not enough people commute by bike to make it viable. focus on mass trans and making that bicycle friendly. Add some share the road signs and bicycle lanes. (Lanes in downtown Denver are not bicycle only but at least drivers know we belong)

I think street side dispensers of free beer and pizza, accessible only to bicyclists would be cheaper, do far more to encourage bicycling among the public, and be more likely to be implemented in the Real World.

I just wrote my congressman about this outstanding idea. Sounds like it could be "shovel-ready" pretty quickly too.