Originally Posted by
pannierpacker
Cloverleafs - the kind that occur when highways intersect: what do you think about them?
I think they are a really big nuissance. Sometimes I'll be biking along a highway that's legal to bike on, and I feel safe enough biking in the shoulder or something, but later on I have to either deal with navigating a tricky cloverleaf, or I have to make a big detour to get around the cloverleaf.
Obviously, cloverleafs aren't the most bike friendly intersections, but they are necessary in order to alleviate car congestion at some interchanges. I feel comfortable biking on them, depending where they are and how busy it is, but I know most people don't.
What are some good ways for state transportation departments to construct these types of "high car quantity" interchanges/intersections but to do so in a way that allows for bikes to continue along down the same road to get past them?
One solution is to build a pedestrian/bike bridge, to connect service roads that could run alongside the highway. This only works when there is 1) a service road nearby, and 2) there is enough room to build the bike bridge 3) enough funds within the city to build the bridge (since state DOTs usually don't pay for pedestrian bridges)
Another idea I thought of recently was this:
Construct a pathway that runs down the middle of the road (between the opposing traffic lanes) as it goes through the cloverleaf, with a barracade on each side of the pathway. The way pedestrians and bikes could access this cloverleaf is by boarding it from the crosswalk at the nearest intersection on both sides of the cloverleaf. The cost of this would probably be a lot cheaper than constructing a seperate pedestrian/bike bridge. This picture illustrates what I have in mind:
What do you think? What would it take to convince cities/states to look into this type of idea?
I think that without strong cycling lobbying, states and other authorities will not entertain major road marking changes and especially expensive road geometry changes. So we need to think of low-cost solutions.
How will cyclists get to the median path? If we're not to cross up to three lanes of traffic moving up to 80 mph, there must be a crossing facility designed that separates the cycle travelway from the motor-vehicle travelway. It must be installed at closely-spaced locations allow exit/entry access to at least the major accesses. If your going to cross and remain separated, there has to be a cycling overpass or underpass. Chicago (just for example) has a few steel ped/cyc bridges that cross Lake Shore Drive and allow access to Lake Michigan, but they are over 50 years old. All bridges need maintenance over time, even if the build cost is low.
Road problems need to be analyzed in terms of use cases. Is your problem mainly while cycling on the shoulder, or in using a MUP that parallels the arterial? Is it with the interface between the merge/diverge and US 169, and crossing that interface when fast cars are entering/exiting the cloverleaf? Is it in negotiating the cloverleaf to get to the cross street (Rockford Road in your example)?
Why is the best travel choice to use the high speed road? Isn't there an alternative road cyclists can use?
I guess we're in a hole in the road design policies, where bike-legal highways are built with features of a true non-bike-legal limited access highway, or when a high-speed bridge is the only way to cross a waterway or other obstacle. The Ambassador, Blue Water, Zilwaukee, and Mackinaw Bridges in Michigan are other examples. I don't know how one might go from Detroit, MI to Windsor, ON by bike.
My overall answer: show a strong and broad understanding of all aspects of the problem, and a means of implementing this solution concept that is not expensive. Even more, show that it is the best solution to support the expected volume of cyclists on such a road, and hence justifies the public cost. Highway departments have the charter to use public money to promote and improve public transport, but they need to focus on the projects that will either remove the biggest dangers, improve the biggest bottlenecks, facilitate commercial transport, or improve accessibility for a large segment of road users.
I don't see the set of cyclists that are willing to use 60 mph limited-access highways as being large. Many people, even here, argue for separated cycleways such as MUPs.
Road Fan