uke

Because we're (some of us, anyway) cyclists, and not martyrs?

Roody

Since they're completely off-topic, I would not enjy your pics if they were posted on an IMAX movie screen.

The Human Car

The problem with cloverleafs is the double threat from both sides, normally you only have to deal with crossing traffic from one side. With right turning traffic you stay to the left and with merging traffic you find a gap and stay to the right and on a cloverleaf it is like you're expected to do both simultaneously.

Road Fan

But, a grassy median is a feature of a very high speed or limited access road, and a crosswalk is a feature of a low speed arterial. Because of teh decel/accel lanes associated with the cloverleaf, there can and probably will be a mile between the overpass and the signalled intersection with a crosswalk. On the other side of the overpass, a similar distance away, will be another signal/crosswalk combo. That's not insignificant distance.

Overall you're highliighting the problems in overlaying a cycle traffic structure on top of a suburban "structured" or heirarchichal arrangement of roads, that do not support the needs of commuting and errand-running cyclists.

Wow, are we in deep ****.

pannierpacker

Sometimes cloverleafs are put wherever a highway/freeway cuts through a suburb and crosses another busy arterial road. Many times that's the only place you'll find a cloverleaf on the arterial road, where it intersects with a freeway. Unfortunately, even having that one obstacle there makes the road not worth travelling for bikers/peds and makes them have to detour several miles to another road. In the picture I posted above, the intersections with crosswalks are actually only .6 miles apart, and like I said before it seperates the town from a very nice lake/park area. .6 miles might seem far in some cases, but in other cases it's not.

Check out this other suburban situation (a place where 2 large shopping centers, some commercial buildings, and many apartment buildings exist in close proximity), and how the cloverleaf messes things up. To get around the cloverleaf you have to go a half mile out and then another half mile back:






Check out this same situation with some of my bike/pedestrian facility ideas, to make the area much more accomodating:



The blue path represents a possible new pedestrian bridge, which would connect the service road over the freeway to the major shopping center, providing easy access for people living in the apartments accross the freeway. This would be the cheapest solution, but the downside is that it only connects to private property (the mall). It would require the mall to cooperate in order to build it (which might not be easy).

The other solution (in green) is more like the type of solution I introduced in the creation of this thread. It would only be suitable to implement if the interchanges/bridges were rebuilt. The interesting thing is that when entering the path on the north end you would travel up a staircase or long ramp to get inside the median of the highway. Exiting on the south end would be easy since there is an intersection there. There is another intersection to the north about 1/2 mile further than the place that I'm proposing for an entrance, but it wouldnt do as much good I don't think, because it wouldnt exit near the mall. This solution may be expensive to retrofit, but it would have been pretty cost effective it if had been implemented in the first place and it makes use of public roads entirely.

Below is a picture of what the entrance to the median-bike-path might look like on the north end. I have two examples: a ramp and a staircase. The ramp one was created by popular request after my staircase picture drew a lot of hostility.

Ramp:


Staircase:

cudak888 

^
So that's how most government "cycling infrastructure" doo-doo heads think. Staircases for bicyclists, and an MUP in the middle of a highway.

That's enough to set commuter cycling and walking back another 100 years.

-Kurt

pannierpacker

Obviously it would be better if the cloverleaf were removed altogether, but how are you going to convince state government to remove those free-flowing interchanges, when they are already congested?

The solution I have provides a way to fit a pathway in this mess. Can you come up with anything better, without significantly modifying the interchanges?

And like I said before, it doesnt have to be a staircase, it could be a ramp too. I just made it a staircase, so it would make my drawing a little more understandable. The point is that there is a safe access point there which leads up to the sky

genec

My bike doesn't do staircases.

Stairs are for peds. Back to the classroom for you.

pannierpacker

Read my post a little better. I included a ramp in my paragraph. I really didn't want to have to draw one though because that's hard.

In any case, I would take a staircase over nothing.

Do you want to draw a picture with a ramp? Be my guest.

Or I'll do it over when I get home today, because you guys are so visually oriented.

pannierpacker

Note,
I have now provided a ramp drawing here as well, for those who were upset by my staircase drawing.

cudak888 

Ramp from where? The sidewalk?

-Kurt

genec

I was adamant about the stairs, as far too often cyclists are treated as merely rolling pedestrians, rather than as the efficient mode of transportation that they can be... moving at speeds up to 20MPH, easily. That pedestrian mindset is part of the whole reason cyclists are given second class treatment in roadway design.

BTW what you are illustrating is what I have seen in Oregon, for bridge crossings.

pannierpacker

Agreed. It's not good for cyclists to be treated like pedestrians, or else no one will take cycling seriously as a form of transportation.
Really, they've used this in Oregon already? Do you know of some examples? I'm curious.

Yeah, it could be turned into bitumous path.

genec

You'll have to get someone from Portland OR to verify this, but take a look at the 205 bridge at the "intersection" of NE Airport way as it heads north over Government Island into Washington. (it is not an intersection... the 205 goes over NE Airport way... but this is the easiest way to find it in Google). Look closely and you'll see exactly the kind of structure you have mentioned... it comes from a bike path that I believe connects to NE Marine Drive at NE 112th street, and then on to points further south... (if you use Google Maps, you'll see the bike path and note that it is NOT labeled with any road signs... sure would be nice if Google ID'd these as bike paths, but they don't show bike paths in my area either... ya gotta know they are there.)

As the bridge goes over the Columbia (or is it Hood) river it is split down the middle, and there is a bike path down the center of the bridge. My brother-in-law lives in Washougal Washington and I have seen this bridge, with cyclists on it, a number of times. You can use Google to zoom in and become "the little man" and take a look yourself; get down on NE Airport Way just east of the 205 bridge and just sort of look to the north and "walk" your way along and you will see the structure.

But really, perhaps one of our Portland folks can verify this and send pictures. It is really pretty cool.

John C. Ratliff

Yes, you are correct. There is a trail called the I-205 Trail which goes along I-205 north-south, and appears to continue over the Columbia River (Hood River runs into the Columbia about 40 miles upstream). The trail does have a connection at Marine Drive to another trail that goes from the I-205 bridge all the way to 33rd Street along the Columbia River, past the Iortland International Airport. I'm looking at the Northeast Portland Bicycle Map right now, which has it clearly marked. I have not ridden it, but I'm sure that it is there.

I did a little more work in Google, and found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_L...emorial_Bridge



John

smittie61984

Just deal with it is the best way. No one is going to spend big tax payer money to build a pedestrian bike bridge or a tunnel to go under the road. Just stop, chill, and when you see a break go. Riding a bicycle on the road is and always will be dangerous as long as we use public roadways.

genec

Thanks John... Next time I get up that way to visit my Bro-in-Law, I'm gonna ride that thing... it has got to be windy and noisy, being in the middle of the freeway and across the river, but man what a dedication to cycling.

That path along the river looks darn nice... I've walked part of it in the past, when I used to go to Portland regularly for CAD tool conferences... I walked around over by the marina area.

For anyone in the know, these conferences were the "Mentor User Group." These were my second experiences to and in Portland... and left a poor impression on me due to always having them in late October... it was always rainy, so that was my impression of the area. Then one year the MUG conference was held in early October... it was so nice, I just couldn't believe it was the same city.

genec

But the fact is that "big tax payer money to build a pedestrian bike bridge" has been done in more than one location in fact... why should we stop such progress?

John C. Ratliff

Take a look at this:

https://www.katu.com/news/40861807.html

John

smittie61984

Interesting (The portland thing) but that's because it's going to be a new bridge. Since they needed to get rid of the bridge lift I guess they decided to throw in some extra pavement. But you can about guarantee if not for CARS being obstructed no bicycle bridges would be going in. I also feel they are trying to almost make it a tourist thing. Like the Golden Gate Bridge. Give it a place for people to walk and look over the water. I doubt something like that would be proposed for something that overlooks homes, industrial parks, and malls. But who knows.

I felt a good solution is having a "Share the sidewalk" policy. I know in more urban areas the idea won't work since many people in city enviroments use sidewalks. But in your more suburban areas we have large spans of sidewalks with little foot traffic.

I'd also advocate that new sidewalks being put in be built similar to local parks and their multi-use paved trails that have basically two lanes. Which would allow bicyclists to move freely along with walkers. Similar to the Silver Comet trail which is a 100mile paved trail. Unfortunately it goes from nowhere to nowhere.


I've also heard that here in Atlanta there are rumblings of building similar trails on the old abandoned railways which would connect people to various points in the city. I'd donate time and money to that project. Which might be a step we would need to make. Show that we are willing to donate our time and money to help a project along that we want. Maybe hold some 5k runs or some organized bicycle rides similar to how a 5/10k would operate to raise money for these projects.

Basically if we show the non-riding tax payers that we are willing to do what we can to further our cause, then maybe they'd be more receptive to us. Just a thought.

cudak888 

I feel that you haven't read the archives about MUP's, or ridden on enough finished MUP's to know what they are like to ride upon.

-Kurt

mattotoole

Here's a video on dealing with cloverleafs and other merge/diverge situations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W0twza9B7o

The roads in this video are in my old "neighborhood" so I can assure you that while this is a strong rider, traffic here moves at 50 MPH plus so it can be pretty intimidating. OTOH, lanes in CA are wide and sight lines are good. I find these roads easier to deal with than their equivalents on the east coast.

From an engineering/planning perspective, the problem for cyclists is that the radii of these ramps keeps getting bigger, and motor vehicle speeds higher. Especially with modern cars, one can easily negotiate these curves without slowing down -- 50 MPH plus, one finger on the steering wheel, and a phone in the other hand!

For cyclists it's best if the curves are tight, to keep motor vehicle speeds down. Engineers are trying to eliminate slowing, stacking, and accordion effect, which is why they built the interchange to begin with. But mainly, the tighter the curves are, the more cars and trucks that go spinning off the road.

* Tight curves = more accidents

* Big wide curves = fewer accidents

That's the reality for traffic engineers.

Cyclists don't figure in because there are relatively so few of us. And we rarely speak up when these things are being planned.

nickthaquick1

why dont you upgrade your internet from dialup and stop complaining

I-Like-To-Bike

Because I'm not a smug Roadie Geek with a need to show or see whose banal pictures are the biggest in town.

10 Wheels

Nice video. Thanks for sharing.