Commuting - Commuter pedal to work on their very own superhighway (Copenhagen)

In today's NY Times (July 18, 2012), there's a piece about the new 11-mile bike path (dubbed a cycle superhighway) between Copenhagen and Albertslund, a suburb of the city. Denmark's commitment to cycling is extensive and cuts across political parties: "The plan has received widespread support in a country whose left- and right-leaning lawmakers both regularly bike to work (albeit on slightly different models of bicycle)." I'd love to know what those different bike choices are for a liberal versus a conservative.

Although I was aware that many European countries are far ahead of the U.S. in terms of percentage of cycling commuters, I did not know, until I read this article, that more than half of Copenhagen's residents bike to work or school every day. Wow. More than half!

One of the nice touches on this new bike highway--an air pump every mile. And apparently there's something called a "karma campaign":

Superhighway users can also look forward to some variation on the “karma campaign,” now under way in Copenhagen, in which city employees take to the streets with boxes of chocolate to reward cyclists who adhere to the five rules of cycling: be nice, signal, stay to the right, overtake carefully and, rather than let bicycle bells irritate you, do your best to appreciate them.


Ding, ding, I say!

Here's a link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/world/europe/in-denmark-pedaling-to-work-on-a-superhighway.html?smid=pl-share

In today's NY Times (July 18, 2012), there's a piece about the new 11-mile bike path (dubbed a cycle superhighway) between Copenhagen and Albertslund, a suburb of the city. Denmark's commitment to cycling is extensive and cuts across political parties: "The plan has received widespread support in a country whose left- and right-leaning lawmakers both regularly bike to work (albeit on slightly different models of bicycle)." I'd love to know what those different bike choices are for a liberal versus a conservative.

Although I was aware that many European countries are far ahead of the U.S. in terms of percentage of cycling commuters, I did not know, until I read this article, that more than half of Copenhagen's residents bike to work or school every day. Wow. More than half!

One of the nice touches on this new bike highway--an air pump every mile. And apparently there's something called a "karma campaign":

Superhighway users can also look forward to some variation on the “karma campaign,” now under way in Copenhagen, in which city employees take to the streets with boxes of chocolate to reward cyclists who adhere to the five rules of cycling: be nice, signal, stay to the right, overtake carefully and, rather than let bicycle bells irritate you, do your best to appreciate them.


Ding, ding, I say!

Here's a link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/world/europe/in-denmark-pedaling-to-work-on-a-superhighway.html?smid=pl-share

This is so cool! I'm really glad you shared this, I am definitely going to pass this along. If only we could get the US on board with the cycling fever...

This is so cool! I'm really glad you shared this, I am definitely going to pass this along. If only we could get the US on board with the cycling fever...

The US will only get on board when they start charging 180-200% sales tax on cars and roughly 10 USD/gallon of fuel, like Denmark.

The US will only get on board when they start charging 180-200% sales tax on cars and roughly 10 USD/gallon of fuel, like Denmark.

I'd support that.

You beat me to posting this excellent piece. I can't get enough on those Danish commuters -- and the Dutch, too.
I wonder how the same concept would work in the USA. Are we too individualistic for a bike superhighway? Would commuters have to dodge dogs on leashes, meandering rollerbladers and speed-demon roadies the way we do on MUPs?

The US will only get on board when they start charging 180-200% sales tax on cars and roughly 10 USD/gallon of fuel, like Denmark.

I'm all for it but most people here wouldn't be so willing.

I find that Germany is an interesting mix of bike-friendly and car-friendly.

You have some of the best roads in the world with a "suggested" speed limit of 130km/h (85 mph) where the traffic in the fast lane moves at roughly 200km/h (125 mph), some of the most interesting car makers (Audi, MB, VW, BMW), and reasonable fuel prices (1.60€/L). You also have no 200% tax on autos.

You also have some of the best cycle paths around. Literally, thousands of miles of well-maintained miles of car-free cycle paths and very nice bike makers.

You also also have some of the best public transport (in every city) and trains that go 300km/h (185mph) in between cities.

Denmark is much more biased toward bikes only. It's as extreme as the US is public-transport/high-speed rail unfriendly/car-friendly. I guess that Denmark has to be that way due to its small population (rough 25%+ of Danes are in Copenhagen).

You have some of the best roads in the world with a "suggested" speed limit of 130km/h (85 mph) where the traffic in the fast lane moves at roughly 200km/h (125 mph), some of the most interesting car makers (Audi, MB, VW, BMW), and reasonable fuel prices (1.60€/L). You also have no 200% tax on autos.

There's the issue right there.

In the US, they'll tell you how you're going to act. Disobey if you dare.

There's the issue right there.

In the US, they'll tell you how you're going to act. Disobey if you dare.

There are many sections with a "speed limit" of 120/100/80/60 km/h (tunnels or "quiet" areas, for example).

However, a lot of it is "unrestricted", and if I drive "only" 160km/h (100mph) in the fast lane, I get flashed because people are going by at 200-250 km/h (most cars are electronically limited to 255km/h or 155mph for "safety reasons")

Actually, I have a sticker that "recommends" that I stay below 210km/h (130mph) when the winter tires are on the car, because they'll last longer :D

You beat me to posting this excellent piece. I can't get enough on those Danish commuters -- and the Dutch, too.
I wonder how the same concept would work in the USA. Are we too individualistic for a bike superhighway? Would commuters have to dodge dogs on leashes, meandering rollerbladers and speed-demon roadies the way we do on MUPs?

Glad to see the Danes are finally catching up to us in the States where we've had cycling superhighways for years:

http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9208/images/pmplus3-2.jpg

Locally, there's the Cedar Lake Trail/Midtown Greenway that connects Minneapolis with some Western suburbs. I know there are other examples throughout the country. There aren't air pumps available at every mile but personally I think you're better off carrying one with you.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to learn from what some European cities have done but I also believe that North American cities/suburbs present some different challenges that may require different approaches to encourage more cycling.

Glad to see the Danes are finally catching up to us in the States where we've had cycling superhighways for years:

http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9208/images/pmplus3-2.jpg

Locally, there's the Cedar Lake Trail/Midtown Greenway that connects Minneapolis with some Western suburbs. I know there are other examples throughout the country. There aren't air pumps available at every mile but personally I think you're better off carrying one with you.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to learn from what some European cities have done but I also believe that North American cities/suburbs present some different challenges that may require different approaches to encourage more cycling.

Good infrastructure ... but it's looks really empty to be considered a "superhighway"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXw_t172BKY

Good infrastructure ... but it's looks really empty to be considered a "superhighway"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXw_t172BKY

It looks empty in that picture but it's considerably busier during "rush hour". It's still nothing like Copenhagen but I would argue that for "Super Highways" that's a good thing. You want the lanes big enough and uncongested enough that you're not crawling along at 8 mph. Moving at that speed is fine if you're only going a couple of miles. To travel between cities or between cities and suburbs you're going to want to go faster.

I find that Germany is an interesting mix of bike-friendly and car-friendly.

You have some of the best roads in the world with a "suggested" speed limit of 130km/h (85 mph) where the traffic in the fast lane moves at roughly 200km/h (125 mph), some of the most interesting car makers (Audi, MB, VW, BMW), and reasonable fuel prices (1.60€/L). You also have no 200% tax on autos.

You also have some of the best cycle paths around. Literally, thousands of miles of well-maintained miles of car-free cycle paths and very nice bike makers.

You also also have some of the best public transport (in every city) and trains that go 300km/h (185mph) in between cities.

Denmark is much more biased toward bikes only. It's as extreme as the US is public-transport/high-speed rail unfriendly/car-friendly. I guess that Denmark has to be that way due to its small population (rough 25%+ of Danes are in Copenhagen).

I'm happy with both cars and bikes sharing their haul of transportation duties. They both serve a purpose. But it's disappointing when the funding disparity is so big. A dollar for each wheel would be a great start.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to learn from what some European cities have done but I also believe that North American cities/suburbs present some different challenges that may require different approaches to encourage more cycling.

The only "different approaches" we need is to stop worshiping the automobile as if it is some sort of "deity." There is absolutely no reason that the US can't be as cycle friendly as say Germany... Perhaps Eisenhower didn't quite learn enough in his tour of Germany...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

Eisenhower's support of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 can be directly attributed to his experiences in 1919 as a participant in the U.S. Army's first Transcontinental Motor Convoy across the United States on the historic Lincoln Highway, which was the first road across America. The highly publicized 1919 convoy was intended, in part, to dramatize the need for better main highways and continued federal aid. The convoy left the Ellipse south of the White House in Washington D.C. on July 7, 1919, and headed for Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. From there, it followed the Lincoln Highway to San Francisco. Bridges cracked and were rebuilt, vehicles became stuck in mud, and equipment broke, but the convoy was greeted warmly by communities across the country. The convoy reached San Francisco on September 6, 1919.

The convoy was memorable enough for a young Army officer, Lt. Col. Dwight David Eisenhower, to include a chapter about the trip, titled "Through Darkest America With Truck and Tank," in his book At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends (Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1967). "The trip had been difficult, tiring, and fun," he said. That experience on the Lincoln Highway, plus his observations of the German autobahn network during World War II, convinced him to support construction of the Interstate System when he became President.

I find that Germany is an interesting mix of bike-friendly and car-friendly.

You have some of the best roads in the world with a "suggested" speed limit of 130km/h (85 mph) where the traffic in the fast lane moves at roughly 200km/h (125 mph), some of the most interesting car makers (Audi, MB, VW, BMW), and reasonable fuel prices (1.60€/L). You also have no 200% tax on autos.

You also have some of the best cycle paths around. Literally, thousands of miles of well-maintained miles of car-free cycle paths and very nice bike makers.

You also also have some of the best public transport (in every city) and trains that go 300km/h (185mph) in between cities.

Denmark is much more biased toward bikes only. It's as extreme as the US is public-transport/high-speed rail unfriendly/car-friendly. I guess that Denmark has to be that way due to its small population (rough 25%+ of Danes are in Copenhagen).

I understand that the liability laws in Germany are such that a motorist is considered at fault in a car/bike collision unless it can be proven that the cyclist was clearly wrong.

Glad to see the Danes are finally catching up to us in the States where we've had cycling superhighways for years:


Locally, there's the Cedar Lake Trail/Midtown Greenway that connects Minneapolis with some Western suburbs. I know there are other examples throughout the country.

The 'bicycle superhighways' is the US are usually...and derisively...referred to as 'bike paths' and most 'serious' cyclists will turn their noses up at them. From where I live I can ride a few miles in any direction and find a 'bicycle superhighway' that will let me ride for miles and miles without ever having to stop at a light or deal with a car. The Denver Metro area has been building these since around 1965 and we have hundreds of miles of them.

And if you want traffic to rival that seen in the NY Time picture, just try to ride on the Cherry Creek path between 6 and 10 am or between 4 and 6 pm as well as on any given Saturday or Sunday.

And Denver seems to be doing something right. According to Bike Denver (http://www.bikedenver.org/news/census-bike-commuting/), we have seen a 22% increase in bicycle over last year and are currently commuting at 4 times the national average.

If you built it they will come.

The 'bicycle superhighways' is the US are usually...and derisively...referred to as 'bike paths' and most 'serious' cyclists will turn their noses up at them.

Those sound like MUPs and what I'm talking about is something a bit different:

http://blogs.citypages.com/dressingroom/Minneapolis%20bike%20trail%20cedar.jpg

Notice the three paths or "lanes".

The Cedar Lake Trail is described locally as America's first "bicycle freeway". How accurate that is I don't know but there are a few things that distinguish it from a MUP. The first is that there are physically separate bike lanes for traffic moving in either direction (like a freeway) as well as a physically separate path for pedestrians. The second is that it was designed for transportation rather than recreation. It connects downtown Minneapolis to the Western burbs. The third is that there is no speed limit like there are on many (but not all) of the city MUPs.

It's not the busiest part of the local cycling infrastructure but our recent bike counter project recorded a little over 2,000 cyclists per day on that trail. I'm sure some of them could even be considered 'serious'. ;)

Anyway I hope you will all forgive me for thinking that what the Danes are proposing to build isn't really something new.


From where I live I can ride a few miles in any direction and find a 'bicycle superhighway' that will let me ride for miles and miles without ever having to stop at a light or deal with a car. The Denver Metro area has been building these since around 1965 and we have hundreds of miles of them.

And if you want traffic to rival that seen in the NY Time picture, just try to ride on the Cherry Creek path between 6 and 10 am or between 4 and 6 pm as well as on any given Saturday or Sunday.

And Denver seems to be doing something right. According to Bike Denver (http://www.bikedenver.org/news/census-bike-commuting/), we have seen a 22% increase in bicycle over last year and are currently commuting at 4 times the national average.

Awesome !

Those sound like MUPs and what I'm talking about is something a bit different:

http://blogs.citypages.com/dressingroom/Minneapolis%20bike%20trail%20cedar.jpg

Notice the three paths or "lanes".

The Cedar Lake Trail is described locally as America's first "bicycle freeway". How accurate that is I don't know but there are a few things that distinguish it from a MUP. The first is that there are physically separate bike lanes for traffic moving in either direction (like a freeway) as well as a physically separate path for pedestrians. The second is that it was designed for transportation rather than recreation. It connects downtown Minneapolis to the Western burbs. The third is that there is no speed limit like there are on many (but not all) of the city MUPs.

It's not the busiest part of the local cycling infrastructure but our recent bike counter project recorded a little over 2,000 cyclists per day on that trail. I'm sure some of them could even be considered 'serious'. ;)

Anyway I hope you will all forgive me for thinking that what the Danes are proposing to build isn't really something new.



This is truly impressive. Had no idea there was such a "bicycle freeway" in the U.S. Do you know how many miles long it is? And what happens in the winter--are there snow plows that keep the lanes clear?

Thanks for sharing.

This is truly impressive. Had no idea there was such a "bicycle freeway" in the U.S. Do you know how many miles long it is? And what happens in the winter--are there snow plows that keep the lanes clear?

Thanks for sharing.

The divided portion of it isn't all that long, - maybe 3 or 4 miles. There's another 4 miles or so that heads further West but it's the more typical single strip of pavement with a dotted line separating the lanes. At that point you're well into the suburbs and there may be other paths connected to it, - I don't know.

Within Minneapolis there are various "spurs" that connect the Cedar Lake Trail with other infrastructure like the Midtown Greenway which runs across the city below grade so there are only a few stops. Some of the spurs have divided lanes too.

All the separate cycling infrastructure gets plowed during the winter and they do a pretty good job.

The bike lanes that are painted on the streets are a different story. Over the course of the winter, snow banks encroach further and further onto the streets until eventually the cars end up parking in the bike lanes.

Those sound like MUPs and what I'm talking about is something a bit different:

Notice the three paths or "lanes".

The Cedar Lake Trail is described locally as America's first "bicycle freeway". How accurate that is I don't know but there are a few things that distinguish it from a MUP. The first is that there are physically separate bike lanes for traffic moving in either direction (like a freeway) as well as a physically separate path for pedestrians. The second is that it was designed for transportation rather than recreation. It connects downtown Minneapolis to the Western burbs. The third is that there is no speed limit like there are on many (but not all) of the city MUPs.

It's not the busiest part of the local cycling infrastructure but our recent bike counter project recorded a little over 2,000 cyclists per day on that trail. I'm sure some of them could even be considered 'serious'. ;)

Anyway I hope you will all forgive me for thinking that what the Danes are proposing to build isn't really something new.


The first picture you posted isn't all that different from many MUPs that I've seen and used. It's certainly different from your next picture. Denver also has MUPs where the bicycle lane and the pedestrian lane is separated by a river.

However, having separate lanes for bikes and peds not to mention having different paths for different directions is probably overkill for most MUPs. While some paths have a high traffic count, most...including those in Denmark...probably don't have enough traffic count to justify the investment in funds to build that kind of facility nor the space available to justify them. That's largely the point of bicycles in the first place. We don't need 60 feet of pavement to move hundreds of people. I look at your second picture (and the lack of people) and I see 3 or 4 miles of trail that could have been built elsewhere to better effect.

On the winter front, Denver's paths are maintained by the Denver Parks and Recreation Department. All of the major trails in the City and County of Denver are plowed the day of a storm and are often clearer than the roads around them.

I'm just jealous that any of you guys get to ride on MUPs, bike paths, bike highways, or any other type of bike infrastructure. We don't have that over here (save for your random spotting of unconnected pathway that ran out of funding/has been forgotten about).

Those sound like MUPs and what I'm talking about is something a bit different:

http://blogs.citypages.com/dressingroom/Minneapolis%20bike%20trail%20cedar.jpg

Notice the three paths or "lanes".

The Cedar Lake Trail


Thanks for posting,

I am lucky enough to commute on the Cedar Lake Trail daily year round and I have been since it was built. A big determining factor in where I purchased my home was proximity to this cycling infrastructure. Of my 7.5 mile (one way) commute 6.5 miles of it is on this path.

And to answer BlueShoes' question, I'm not sure of the total actual length as it intersects with all the other paths in the network (maybe 10 miles?). In the winter it is usually plowed before the roads. No salt is used, some sand is spread on icy sections for ped traffic. I would say that in a typical winter it averages about 60% dry pavement on most days thanks to the sun and the plowing. Some sections stay frozen and icy all winter, but studded tires do the job.

I think that part of Europe is an aberration. Europe, as a whole, seems to be changing, becoming more America-like, if you will. The evidence is in these two links: http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/obesity ;;;; http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/18/uk-inactive-population-europe?newsfeed=true


However, with respect to cycling in Denmark, I would hate it -- it'd be awful for me. Those paths ("superhighways") are just too full of riders. I love riding faster than most, so that keeps me off all MUPs/bikepaths in the interest of safety. I love the road and despite me having to ride in very congested roads I control my ride, whereas on a cycling superhighway one must ride as part of the pack. Not for me.

Good infrastructure ... but it's looks really empty to be considered a "superhighway"

Here's a little more traffic congestion in America.

http://gradpost.ucsb.edu/storage/journal-image/ucsbbiking.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1339182512222

You beat me to posting this excellent piece. I can't get enough on those Danish commuters -- and the Dutch, too.
I wonder how the same concept would work in the USA. Are we too individualistic for a bike superhighway? Would commuters have to dodge dogs on leashes, meandering rollerbladers and speed-demon roadies the way we do on MUPs?

Well, the bike is just as individualistic as a car - one of the three primary benefits over public transit - and the thing about cycle "superhighways" is that they are bicycle infrastructure, not multi-use infrastructure.

Speeding roadies are a function of traffic. Just as speed demons in cars are neutered in rush hour traffic, so too are speed demons on bikes. They'll be a problem until you get enough traffic to force them to slow down.

They could work, but would require political commitment. Without enough of the electorate cycling, political commitment will remain lacking. Chicken and egg.

The first picture you posted isn't all that different from many MUPs that I've seen and used. It's certainly different from your next picture. Denver also has MUPs where the bicycle lane and the pedestrian lane is separated by a river.

However, having separate lanes for bikes and peds not to mention having different paths for different directions is probably overkill for most MUPs. While some paths have a high traffic count, most...including those in Denmark...probably don't have enough traffic count to justify the investment in funds to build that kind of facility nor the space available to justify them. That's largely the point of bicycles in the first place. We don't need 60 feet of pavement to move hundreds of people. I look at your second picture (and the lack of people) and I see 3 or 4 miles of trail that could have been built elsewhere to better effect.

On the winter front, Denver's paths are maintained by the Denver Parks and Recreation Department. All of the major trails in the City and County of Denver are plowed the day of a storm and are often clearer than the roads around them.

Keep in mind that the picture is only that, - a picture. That trail is not part of my normal commute but I do take it from time to time. When I do, I usually encounter plenty of other riders though I would never call it congested like the Greenway (in the first picture) can sometimes get.

In your first post you mentioned that "serious" bike riders are often derisive of bike paths. Why is that? My guess is because they can't ride as fast on the paths as they can on the street. Divided and less congested lanes allow cyclists to move faster.

A few weeks ago, myself and some other "serious" riders were in a pace line on that trail going at about 27 mph. We had plenty of room to pass slower traffic and it was very nice not having to worry about bikes coming the other direction. Remember, this trail is designed to get people from downtown out to the suburbs, not to travel a couple miles within the city.

You are right, one nice thing about bikes is that they don't take up a lot of room. One bad thing is that cyclists tend to move at very different paces. It's tough to be stuck behind some slow riders if you've got a lot of ground to cover and have the ability to go faster. So if a city is designing a trail and has the room to accommodate cyclists moving at different paces, why not take advantage of it? It's also shortsighted to build for today's needs only to wish you had more capacity 10 years from now.

One area that I will strongly disagree with you on is the idea that separate paths for peds is overkill. We are spoiled in that a large percentage of our "MUPs" have separate paths for peds. Once you mix peds and cyclists, both the peds and the cyclists are better off if the cyclists stick to the streets.

This is truly impressive. Had no idea there was such a "bicycle freeway" in the U.S. Do you know how many miles long it is? And what happens in the winter--are there snow plows that keep the lanes clear?

Thanks for sharing.

As modernjess says, it's hard to say what the mileage is--here's one of many maps just for Minneapolis: http://www.minneapolis.org/sites/default/files/u7/pdfs/Mpls-Trails.pdf
The county has a map with both bike lanes as well as trails (not the easiest to read): http://hennepin.us/files/HennepinUS/Transportation/Bikeways%20and%20Trails/Maps/2009_Hennepin_County_Bike_Route_Map.pdf

I haven't even mentioned St. Paul, which is somewhat lacking but has some infrastructure, too.
FWIW, I sometimes visit my parents 15 miles away. Of the 15 miles, maybe 1 mile is on quiet side streets, 2 miles in a bike lane in St. Paul. I can cross the entire city of Minneapolis and almost the entire way to their house in the suburbs on bicycle only routes.

I think that part of Europe is an aberration. Europe, as a whole, seems to be changing, becoming more America-like, if you will. The evidence is in these two links: http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/obesity ;;;; http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/18/uk-inactive-population-europe?newsfeed=true

Sure, it's becoming more wealthy, like the US.



However, with respect to cycling in Denmark, I would hate it -- it'd be awful for me. Those paths ("superhighways") are just too full of riders. I love riding faster than most, so that keeps me off all MUPs/bikepaths in the interest of safety. I love the road and despite me having to ride in very congested roads I control my ride, whereas on a cycling superhighway one must ride as part of the pack. Not for me.

You can still ride in the street if you want to race on the commute into work. Personally, I prefer the camaraderie in the pack ... I'd rather strike up conversations with ladies than be a loaner. Now, if I'm looking for a workout that's something different ... but when I'm just on the way to work, it's casual so I can see things/talk with people (maybe the people where you are, are not so friendly? Maybe there's nothing to see?)

You can still ride in the street if you want to race on the commute into work. Personally, I prefer the camaraderie in the pack ... I'd rather strike up conversations with ladies than be a loaner. Now, if I'm looking for a workout that's something different ... but when I'm just on the way to work, it's casual so I can see things/talk with people (maybe the people where you are, are not so friendly? Maybe there's nothing to see?)My commutes have always been longer than 10 miles, one location was 25 miles (one way), so unless I wanted to leave at 3 am I had to learn to ride fast. I guess, over the years, it molded me into the cyclist I am today.

My commutes have always been longer than 10 miles, one location was 25 miles (one way), so unless I wanted to leave at 3 am I had to learn to ride fast. I guess, over the years, it molded me into the cyclist I am today.

That's exactly my point. We are molded by the type of commute we have. In Copenhagen, between 37 and 50% of total trips to work are by bike. When you see sidewalks full of people on bikes, it's becomes much more accessible to the standard non-cyclist. That's how you get so many people into it, by making it easy/fun and establishing a camaraderie. When you're at a stop light with a ton of people on bikes, it's nice to strike up a conversation. I can't wait to have kids on the back and front seats of my bike as it will make for some interesting conversations :D

Keep in mind that the picture is only that, - a picture. That trail is not part of my normal commute but I do take it from time to time. When I do, I usually encounter plenty of other riders though I would never call it congested like the Greenway (in the first picture) can sometimes get.

In your first post you mentioned that "serious" bike riders are often derisive of bike paths. Why is that? My guess is because they can't ride as fast on the paths as they can on the street. Divided and less congested lanes allow cyclists to move faster.

I'm as serious a cyclist as you'll ever run across and I, personally, don't have a problem with bike paths. I know which sections of all of our local paths that are likely to be congested and I ride accordingly. I also know which areas aren't congested and choose those if I want to ride fast or even take the roads. Thankfully, the miles of congested area are vastly outnumbered by the miles of open areas.


You are right, one nice thing about bikes is that they don't take up a lot of room. One bad thing is that cyclists tend to move at very different paces. It's tough to be stuck behind some slow riders if you've got a lot of ground to cover and have the ability to go faster. So if a city is designing a trail and has the room to accommodate cyclists moving at different paces, why not take advantage of it? It's also shortsighted to build for today's needs only to wish you had more capacity 10 years from now.

The problem with building contraflow paths is the the amount of money that is needed and available. Let's face facts, bike paths are usually very low priority items in local, state and federal funding streams. Building 3 or 4 miles of contraflow paths can very well impact other bikeway plans to the point of keeping them from being built. You may have something that addresses a need for 10 years in a specific location but if it comes at the cost of other locations, you haven't gained much. And, from a political standpoint, it gives ammunition to those who would like to not fund bike projects, if the traffic isn't there to fill the paths 24 hours a day.


One area that I will strongly disagree with you on is the idea that separate paths for peds is overkill. We are spoiled in that a large percentage of our "MUPs" have separate paths for peds. Once you mix peds and cyclists, both the peds and the cyclists are better off if the cyclists stick to the streets.

I think you misunderstood. It's not the peds/bike path separation that I consider overkill, although it would have to be location specific. It's the contraflow bikeway that I consider to be overkill. A wider bikeway would probably serve the need rather than two separate paths.

I think you misunderstood. It's not the peds/bike path separation that I consider overkill, although it would have to be location specific. It's the contraflow bikeway that I consider to be overkill. A wider bikeway would probably serve the need rather than two separate paths.

Sorry, a wider bike path is not as nice a separate lanes. When you want to go fast, it's nice to know you aren't going to get clipped by somebody trying to pass who is coming the other direction and misjudges your speed.

I do agree that costs need to be taken into consideration, but they had the land and although I don't really know, I doubt that having 3 strips of asphalt as opposed to one really wide one was that much more expensive. It might have in fact been easier in some spots to not have to clear a single wide area.

The Cedar Lake Trail was one of the first cycling infrastructure projects to take advantage of Federal money. Rather than being viewed as government waste I think it is seen by most people in the city as something that makes Minneapolis a more livable community and if anything has lead to a willingness to spend more money on bike projects. The first leg was completed in 1995, - it's not something new and I doubt the money that was spent on it has prevented work on other projects.

Personally, I'd rather spend money on good infrastructure that will get used well into the future rather than on marginal infrastructure that won't or is dangerous. I can think of a couple of recent projects where they would have been better off leaving things as they were rather than making a bunch of compromises to keep costs down and motorists happy.

Sorry, a wider bike path is not as nice a separate lanes. When you want to go fast, it's nice to know you aren't going to get clipped by somebody trying to pass who is coming the other direction and misjudges your speed.

I do agree that costs need to be taken into consideration, but they had the land and although I don't really know, I doubt that having 3 strips of asphalt as opposed to one really wide one was that much more expensive. It might have in fact been easier in some spots to not have to clear a single wide area.

The Cedar Lake Trail was one of the first cycling infrastructure projects to take advantage of Federal money. Rather than being viewed as government waste I think it is seen by most people in the city as something that makes Minneapolis a more livable community and if anything has lead to a willingness to spend more money on bike projects. The first leg was completed in 1995, - it's not something new and I doubt the money that was spent on it has prevented work on other projects.

Personally, I'd rather spend money on good infrastructure that will get used well into the future rather than on marginal infrastructure that won't or is dangerous. I can think of a couple of recent projects where they would have been better off leaving things as they were rather than making a bunch of compromises to keep costs down and motorists happy.

Three different alignments of paving are going to be more expensive than 2 because of the grading needed for each paving job. If there are bridges needed that raises the cost significantly. When I was involved at a city level with planning bikeways (in the mid 90s), a mile of 11' wide bike path cost around $100,000 (about $140K today). A single bridge was between $250,000 and $400,000. The three lanes of Cedar Lake Trail in your picture cost a pretty chunk of change and certainly had impacts on other parts of a bikeway system.

I've ridden many, many miles on bikeways that are the standard 11 feet in width and I've never had a collision with another cyclist. I suppose it can happen but I believe it is rare.

Please don't misunderstand, I don't look on this as 'government waste'. I support using Federal funds for bicycle transportation. Colorado has been diverting some of its transportation dollars to bicycle facilities since the 1960s and Denver, in particular, has be very visionary in developing them. I'm just saying that if the choice for limited funding...and funding is always limited and choices always have to be made..is between overall mileage and having two contraflow lanes, I'd prefer that the overall mileage be chosen.

The 'bicycle superhighways' is the US are usually...and derisively...referred to as 'bike paths' and most 'serious' cyclists will turn their noses up at them. From where I live I can ride a few miles in any direction and find a 'bicycle superhighway' that will let me ride for miles and miles without ever having to stop at a light or deal with a car. The Denver Metro area has been building these since around 1965 and we have hundreds of miles of them.

And if you want traffic to rival that seen in the NY Time picture, just try to ride on the Cherry Creek path between 6 and 10 am or between 4 and 6 pm as well as on any given Saturday or Sunday.

And Denver seems to be doing something right. According to Bike Denver (http://www.bikedenver.org/news/census-bike-commuting/), we have seen a 22% increase in bicycle over last year and are currently commuting at 4 times the national average.

Careful with that bike superhighway = bike path... I have seen decent bike super highways... they are wide enough for at least 2 cyclists either way, have a stripe down the center and have wide radii turns that allow use at higher speeds. Bike paths on the other hand tend to be narrow, maybe only wide enough for one cyclist, tend not to have stripes, and often have sharp turns that limit cyclist speeds... further, often have posted speed limits. There are vast differences.

Around here the only real bike highway I know of is used by "serious cyclists" for training... because they can do about 10 miles at their fastest speeds. (yup it is only about 10 miles long... that's all we have)

Here are some pics of the local bike highway... note the on and off ramps, and the width.

There is little bike traffic in these pics as these were taken late in the day a short while after this bike highway was first built.

Three different alignments of paving are going to be more expensive than 2 because of the grading needed for each paving job. If there are bridges needed that raises the cost significantly. When I was involved at a city level with planning bikeways (in the mid 90s), a mile of 11' wide bike path cost around $100,000 (about $140K today). A single bridge was between $250,000 and $400,000. The three lanes of Cedar Lake Trail in your picture cost a pretty chunk of change and certainly had impacts on other parts of a bikeway system.

I've ridden many, many miles on bikeways that are the standard 11 feet in width and I've never had a collision with another cyclist. I suppose it can happen but I believe it is rare.

Please don't misunderstand, I don't look on this as 'government waste'. I support using Federal funds for bicycle transportation. Colorado has been diverting some of its transportation dollars to bicycle facilities since the 1960s and Denver, in particular, has be very visionary in developing them. I'm just saying that if the choice for limited funding...and funding is always limited and choices always have to be made..is between overall mileage and having two contraflow lanes, I'd prefer that the overall mileage be chosen.

My original intention wasn't really to debate the merits of the trail's design. It was only to point out that bicycle "superhighways" aren't a novel concept unique to Denmark or even Europe.

However since we've gone down the path of merits I will make one final post on the matter. I could just as easily make the argument that because I've never been involved in a collision on a street which made no special allowances for bike traffic, that we don't need separate bicycle infrastructure at all.

As far as cost goes, the cost of the first two phases of the Cedar Lake Trail was 1.6 million. 500,000 of which was raised from private funding sources. This cost less than the 3 million spent on re-striping and signage for Hennepin / 1st Ave bike lanes (the total distance of which is probably less than 1 mile). It is also less than the 5 million spent on a bike/pedestrian bridge or the whopping 9.8 million spent on the final phase (and mile) of the Cedar Lake trail which is a traditional single path with striping. It goes through some thorny urban corridors which is why it cost so much.

It's a myth that there is a single bucket of funding available for bike infrastructure and that spending money on one project automatically means that there is less money available for another. And I again would argue that the success of that project likely led to more money being made available for other projects. It's also likely that the unique design of the trail is part of why they were able to secure the funding they did.

Why are there no cyclists in these pictures? It looks like a great place to ride. Is this in or near San Diego?

--Oops, I see your explanation now. It was shortly after the bike highway was completed. So I guess the cyclists had not discovered it yet.

Cedar Lake trail was also built over an almost flat railroad bed that used to have multiple thru lines-- some of it was over an old switch yard. Point is, the right-of-way was huge and they could pretty much run the lanes wherever they wanted to in that section.

The Greenway was more constrained, and gets more congested.

Heres a video that gives a good feel for it:

http://www.streetfilms.org/minneapolis-midtown-greenway-good-for-biz-good-for-bikes/