12 ms·

I think this is still an excellent idea for a lot of areas, especially Los Angeles where the traffic is horrendous all the time. It wouldn't take much to build

I think this is still an excellent idea for a lot of areas, especially Los Angeles where the traffic is horrendous all the time. It wouldn't take much to build this alongside major freeways so that you won't have to claim eminent domain and go through private properties. This would take up a max of an extra 10-15 feet on the side of freeways. Now, in LA a lot of freeways are built out so much that there's not even 10-15 ft without hitting a building or house, but there are a lot of areas this could work. Sometimes it takes 3 hours to go 10 miles in LA during rush hour, and this could make everything better.

zevyoura 13y ago
As an LA motorcyclist, I can tell you that almost no one would want to bike 10-15 ft. from the edge of the freeway. It's extremely loud and unpleasant, and there's a significant amount of debris that would need frequent removal.
- rdouble 13y ago
  Such a bike lane would be loud and unpleasant, but if separated from the road it would be similar in loudness and unpleasantness to the Williamsburg, Queensboro and Manhattan bridge bike lanes, which are widely used. That said, it would likely not work because the distances are much further in LA, and following the path of the freeway is not going to be the most direct route on a bicycle.
  - coolsunglasses 13y ago
    >would be similar in loudness and unpleasantness to the Williamsburg, Queensboro and Manhattan bridge bike lanes Lol nope. You clearly haven't been on a Californian freeway. --- has ridden a motorcycle in NYC, CA, Detroit, etc...
    - akgerber 13y ago
      On the Manhattan Bridge bike lane, my current daily bike commute, you ride within a couple feet of incredibly loud subway trains. It's definitely louder than the segment of my old daily bike commute when I rode on Interstate 5.
  - mturmon 13y ago
    No. The cars and semis will be going 55-70 mph, typically 5 lanes each way. It is incredibly loud. The bridges you mention don't have traffic like this.
    - tnuc 13y ago
      No they don't but they do have subway trains rolling on an all metal bridge which make them unpleasant.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      Why not just build a wall as a sound barrier to push the noise upward and over the bike lane?
      - greeneggs 13y ago
        The air quality is still going to be incredibly bad.
      - mturmon 13y ago
        Listing all the problems with any idea of a bike lane along a freeway will tire me out (starting with: there's no space, high barriers are regarded as ugly, there's no way to make the interchanges work, the freeway under road overpasses will permit larger road widths only with enormous expense, we can't even build carpool lanes and light rail, people won't stand for the construction delays). Let's not do this.
        EEGuy 13y ago
        Agreed mturmon; an open-air LA-freeway-adjacent bike path poses many technical, aesthetic, scale-of-access, cost and possible health issues. I do not think a freeway-adjacent bikeway would be popular with cyclists if open-air. LA has a freeway-adjacent bus rapid transit line (the "Sliver Line") which isn't very popular at 12K avg boardings in March 2013, compared to the far more successful rail-route-replacing "Orange Line" at 30K+ avg weekday boardings for the same month. The Orange Line has a parallel bike lane which is popular with cyclists and pedestrians, even into the evening as it's well-lit and well-landscaped. Edit: Reference for LA Metro system boardings: http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/ http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/
- rachelbythebay 13y ago
  The 237 bikeway in the South Bay runs on either side of a 6 lane freeway. Sometimes it's right up next to it (on the other side of a metal fence) and other times it's a few dozen feet away. It can be a little intimidating. I try not to think of those NASCAR crash videos where the cars go right through the (far stronger) fences and just pedal on. Most of the good bikeways around here are their own routes which exist on their own merits and don't sync up with the roadways. The few which manage to parallel a highway and are still enjoyable have a decent separation.
- riffic 13y ago
  The L.A. River bicycle path is at times right in between I-5 and the river. I'm sure there are other paths adjacent to a freeway.
  - mturmon 13y ago
    Yes. That's the best example in LA that I know of, of a bike path right adjacent to a freeway. Here's the rose-colored glasses description: http://thelariver.com/guide/biking/glendale-narrows-elysian-valley-bike-path/ http://thelariver.com/guide/biking/glendale-narrows-elysian-...
melling 13y ago
3 hours to go 10 miles. It's amazing that people could let it get so bad. I remember watching shows as a kid in the 1970's about how you couldn't get Californians out of their cars. They're not the kind of people who believe in mass transit. They just thought you should make the roads wider. I guess it still needs to get a little worse.
- mjn 13y ago
  LA is slowly improving its transit situation from what it used to be, though unevenly. A light-rail line from downtown to Pasadena was opened in 2003, and the subway system is finally being extended, it seems, through some of the more densely populated area of the westside: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_Extension http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_Extension The Metrolink commuter-rail system also runs 500 miles of track, and is now a reasonable option if you commute during typical rush-hours. However, it has very little service outside traditional commute hours, and its overall ridership is not very impressive, especially given the size (it gets less daily ridership than the much smaller subway does).
  - cpprototypes 13y ago
    The biggest issue with public transit in LA for commuting is the last mile problem. It's similar to the "last mile" problem of fast fiber optic cables to slow copper wires to homes. Here the issue is efficient and fast rail transit to extremely inefficient bus system for that last few miles from stations to work. I once tried to plan my commute using public transit and here's what I found: 1) Drive to rail station for park and ride? About 10 minutes, great. 2) Light rail to station nearest to my work place? About 30 minutes and covers 90% of the distance, awesome. 3) Station to my work place? About 1 hour using bus system... I'll just drive instead since even with bad morning traffic I'll still get there faster because the bus system is really really bad. I get a bit upset when I think about it because I can get there 90%, but that last bit is ruined by the stupid bus system.
    - Spiritus 13y ago
      For reference, how long does it take to drive yourself?
danielharan 13y ago
3 hours for 10 miles is about 3X slower than on a bicycle... :O
- claudius 13y ago
  10 miles in 3 hours is roughly walking speed.
pkulak 13y ago
Cycling right next to a freeway sounds gross. All you need to do is take some back roads, slap down some speed bumps, sharrows and other things to slightly annoy cars, and call it a day: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/348902 http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/348902 Nice and cheap, plus you get bikes away from cars entirely, not simply relegated to the side of a high traffic, high speed street. I think it's the best option for any city in the US where there just isn't the political will to do anything more.
- mtowle 13y ago
  You could also take unused railroad tracks and pave over them. It's been done elsewhere. Nice, long, straight bike paths.
  - pkulak 13y ago
    Yes, that is a fantastic option, and why Minneapolis has such great bike path, I believe. But, you've got to have the tracks first, and I'm not sure many cities do. And even then, you can't choose where your paths go.
    - jchrisa 13y ago
      Or the train company owns it and expects to use it "someday" so they stonewall.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Are there any concepts where you can pave down the center and on the sides of tracks? To keep the track useful for later use, but to still allow cyclists to use them?
    - egypturnash 13y ago
      This strikes me as a terrible idea for two reasons. 1. Slim bike tires getting stuck in the grooves left for the train tracks. 2. Big trains with a ton of inertia running at ~50-60 mph using the same route as cyclists going at ~10-20 mph.

zevyoura 13y ago

As an LA motorcyclist, I can tell you that almost no one would want to bike 10-15 ft. from the edge of the freeway. It's extremely loud and unpleasant, and there's a significant amount of debris that would need frequent removal.

rdouble 13y ago
Such a bike lane would be loud and unpleasant, but if separated from the road it would be similar in loudness and unpleasantness to the Williamsburg, Queensboro and Manhattan bridge bike lanes, which are widely used. That said, it would likely not work because the distances are much further in LA, and following the path of the freeway is not going to be the most direct route on a bicycle.
- coolsunglasses 13y ago
  >would be similar in loudness and unpleasantness to the Williamsburg, Queensboro and Manhattan bridge bike lanes Lol nope. You clearly haven't been on a Californian freeway. --- has ridden a motorcycle in NYC, CA, Detroit, etc...
  - akgerber 13y ago
    On the Manhattan Bridge bike lane, my current daily bike commute, you ride within a couple feet of incredibly loud subway trains. It's definitely louder than the segment of my old daily bike commute when I rode on Interstate 5.
- mturmon 13y ago
  No. The cars and semis will be going 55-70 mph, typically 5 lanes each way. It is incredibly loud. The bridges you mention don't have traffic like this.
  - tnuc 13y ago
    No they don't but they do have subway trains rolling on an all metal bridge which make them unpleasant.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Why not just build a wall as a sound barrier to push the noise upward and over the bike lane?
    - greeneggs 13y ago
      The air quality is still going to be incredibly bad.
    - mturmon 13y ago
      Listing all the problems with any idea of a bike lane along a freeway will tire me out (starting with: there's no space, high barriers are regarded as ugly, there's no way to make the interchanges work, the freeway under road overpasses will permit larger road widths only with enormous expense, we can't even build carpool lanes and light rail, people won't stand for the construction delays). Let's not do this.
      - EEGuy 13y ago
        Agreed mturmon; an open-air LA-freeway-adjacent bike path poses many technical, aesthetic, scale-of-access, cost and possible health issues. I do not think a freeway-adjacent bikeway would be popular with cyclists if open-air. LA has a freeway-adjacent bus rapid transit line (the "Sliver Line") which isn't very popular at 12K avg boardings in March 2013, compared to the far more successful rail-route-replacing "Orange Line" at 30K+ avg weekday boardings for the same month. The Orange Line has a parallel bike lane which is popular with cyclists and pedestrians, even into the evening as it's well-lit and well-landscaped. Edit: Reference for LA Metro system boardings: http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/ http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/
rachelbythebay 13y ago
The 237 bikeway in the South Bay runs on either side of a 6 lane freeway. Sometimes it's right up next to it (on the other side of a metal fence) and other times it's a few dozen feet away. It can be a little intimidating. I try not to think of those NASCAR crash videos where the cars go right through the (far stronger) fences and just pedal on. Most of the good bikeways around here are their own routes which exist on their own merits and don't sync up with the roadways. The few which manage to parallel a highway and are still enjoyable have a decent separation.
riffic 13y ago
The L.A. River bicycle path is at times right in between I-5 and the river. I'm sure there are other paths adjacent to a freeway.
- mturmon 13y ago
  Yes. That's the best example in LA that I know of, of a bike path right adjacent to a freeway. Here's the rose-colored glasses description: http://thelariver.com/guide/biking/glendale-narrows-elysian-valley-bike-path/ http://thelariver.com/guide/biking/glendale-narrows-elysian-...

melling 13y ago

3 hours to go 10 miles. It's amazing that people could let it get so bad. I remember watching shows as a kid in the 1970's about how you couldn't get Californians out of their cars. They're not the kind of people who believe in mass transit. They just thought you should make the roads wider. I guess it still needs to get a little worse.

mjn 13y ago
LA is slowly improving its transit situation from what it used to be, though unevenly. A light-rail line from downtown to Pasadena was opened in 2003, and the subway system is finally being extended, it seems, through some of the more densely populated area of the westside: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_Extension http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_Extension The Metrolink commuter-rail system also runs 500 miles of track, and is now a reasonable option if you commute during typical rush-hours. However, it has very little service outside traditional commute hours, and its overall ridership is not very impressive, especially given the size (it gets less daily ridership than the much smaller subway does).
- cpprototypes 13y ago
  The biggest issue with public transit in LA for commuting is the last mile problem. It's similar to the "last mile" problem of fast fiber optic cables to slow copper wires to homes. Here the issue is efficient and fast rail transit to extremely inefficient bus system for that last few miles from stations to work. I once tried to plan my commute using public transit and here's what I found: 1) Drive to rail station for park and ride? About 10 minutes, great. 2) Light rail to station nearest to my work place? About 30 minutes and covers 90% of the distance, awesome. 3) Station to my work place? About 1 hour using bus system... I'll just drive instead since even with bad morning traffic I'll still get there faster because the bus system is really really bad. I get a bit upset when I think about it because I can get there 90%, but that last bit is ruined by the stupid bus system.
  - Spiritus 13y ago
    For reference, how long does it take to drive yourself?

danielharan 13y ago

3 hours for 10 miles is about 3X slower than on a bicycle... :O

claudius 13y ago
10 miles in 3 hours is roughly walking speed.

pkulak 13y ago

Cycling right next to a freeway sounds gross. All you need to do is take some back roads, slap down some speed bumps, sharrows and other things to slightly annoy cars, and call it a day: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/348902 http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/348902 Nice and cheap, plus you get bikes away from cars entirely, not simply relegated to the side of a high traffic, high speed street. I think it's the best option for any city in the US where there just isn't the political will to do anything more.

mtowle 13y ago
You could also take unused railroad tracks and pave over them. It's been done elsewhere. Nice, long, straight bike paths.
- pkulak 13y ago
  Yes, that is a fantastic option, and why Minneapolis has such great bike path, I believe. But, you've got to have the tracks first, and I'm not sure many cities do. And even then, you can't choose where your paths go.
  - jchrisa 13y ago
    Or the train company owns it and expects to use it "someday" so they stonewall.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Are there any concepts where you can pave down the center and on the sides of tracks? To keep the track useful for later use, but to still allow cyclists to use them?
  - egypturnash 13y ago
    This strikes me as a terrible idea for two reasons. 1. Slim bike tires getting stuck in the grooves left for the train tracks. 2. Big trains with a ton of inertia running at ~50-60 mph using the same route as cyclists going at ~10-20 mph.