Freeways with Bike Trails...

[dgolub]

The George Washington Bridge.

Also the Ben Franklin Bridge.

Well, if we're including bridges, how about the Brooklyn Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge, the Williamsburg Bridge, and the Queensboro Bridge (NY 25).

[froggie]

Also the I-94 Saint Croix River bridge (MN/WI state line).

If you're going to go that route, most major Twin Cities area freeway bridges have them.

[akotchi]

The Legacy Parkway north of Salt Lake City has a multi-use trail along its entire 12-mile length between I-15 and I-215.

[PHLBOS]

The Lieper-Smedley trail parallels I-476 between Rose Valley Road and Baltimore Pike (Exit 3) in Nether Providence Twp., Delaware County.

[bing101]

Does West Carquinez Bridge count Al Zampa in Vallejo they have a bike trail on the side of the bridge and also new East Bay Bridge from Oakland to Treasure Island has one. I forgot I-80 from CA-37 interchange to Hiddenbrooke Parkway in Vallejo has a bike trail on the side the freeway.

[roadman]

The replacement Whitter Bridge currently being constructed on I-95 between Newburyport MA and Salisbury MA will have a dedicated bike path - to be separated from the main travel lanes on the northbound side by a Jersey barrier.  It will connect the park and ride lot on the south side of the bridge with MA 110 on the north side of the bridge.

This is yet another consequence of a Massachusetts law that mandates that bike facilities be incorporated into all new state highway construction projects (unless it can be proven that it is physically infeasible to do so - and that isn't easy to accomplish) regardless of whether or not there is actually a demonstrated demand or need for the facilities that justifies the added cost.

[Alps]

The replacement Whitter Bridge currently being constructed on I-95 between Newburyport MA and Salisbury MA will have a dedicated bike path - to be separated from the main travel lanes on the northbound side by a Jersey barrier.  It will connect the park and ride lot on the south side of the bridge with MA 110 on the north side of the bridge.

This is yet another consequence of a Massachusetts law that mandates that bike facilities be incorporated into all new state highway construction projects (unless it can be proven that it is physically infeasible to do so - and that isn't easy to accomplish) regardless of whether or not there is actually a demonstrated demand or need for the facilities that justifies the added cost.

Provide a nice path, and bicyclists materialize. I've seen it.

[roadman]

Provide a nice path, and bicyclists materialize. I've seen it.

To begin with, the current Whitter Bridge has no bike facilities.  Nor has there been any demonstrated problem over the years with large numbers of cyclists illegally using the Interstate 95 shoulders to cross the river.  So, it's doubtful the decision to have a bike trail on the new bridge was made due to either address a real and legitimate need or to solve a safety issue.

Secondly, try getting permission to widen a road to multiple lanes with the argument "We think that demand might eventually increase (or the crash rate might decrease) to justify the cost, but we can't prove it at this time".  Better still, imagine if a state legislature passed a law that mandated the DOT install traffic signals at every intersection regardless of the need (or lack thereof) for signals at specific locations.  I think you see my point here.

Now, I don't object to cyclists and their rights to use the public roads, where granting them said rights is perfectly reasonable and proper.  However, I strenuously object to the tactics of an increasing majority in the bike lobby who have turned the arguments for better cyclist facilities from one of justifiable need to one of entitlement (which is exactly what the Massachusetts law smacks of).  Especially when providing those facilities due to an arbitrary mandate serves to divert every shrinking highway dollars from more important construction and maintenance.

[Alps]

Provide a nice path, and bicyclists materialize. I've seen it.

To begin with, the current Whitter Bridge has no bike facilities.  Nor has there been any demonstrated problem over the years with large numbers of cyclists illegally using the Interstate 95 shoulders to cross the river.  So, it's doubtful the decision to have a bike trail on the new bridge was made due to either address a real and legitimate need or to solve a safety issue.

Secondly, try getting permission to widen a road to multiple lanes with the argument "We think that demand might eventually increase (or the crash rate might decrease) to justify the cost, but we can't prove it at this time".  Better still, imagine if a state legislature passed a law that mandated the DOT install traffic signals at every intersection regardless of the need (or lack thereof) for signals at specific locations.  I think you see my point here.

Now, I don't object to cyclists and their rights to use the public roads, where granting them said rights is perfectly reasonable and proper.  However, I strenuously object to the tactics of an increasing majority in the bike lobby who have turned the arguments for better cyclist facilities from one of justifiable need to one of entitlement (which is exactly what the Massachusetts law smacks of).  Especially when providing those facilities due to an arbitrary mandate serves to divert every shrinking highway dollars from more important construction and maintenance.

None of what you said has to do with what I said. In fact, my argument directly contradicts your first paragraph. If you don't build it, of course they don't come.

[Bruce]

I-90 has a bike trail paralleling it for its westernmost 22 miles, from Seattle to Preston (between Issaquah and North Bend)

Some portions of the trail, such as the segment on the Lake Washington floating bridge, run right alongside the freeway lanes, while others are hidden away by trees and soundwalls. Just as I-90 continues underground on the west approach of the floating bridge, so does the bike trail in its own separate tunnel.


I-90 floating bridges from Leschi by SounderBruce, on Flickr

As a bonus, it even has directional headings on the trailblazer.


IMG_2306 by SounderBruce, on Flickr

[mgk920]

Does the Bike Trail have to be a separate pathway?  Because most of the Interstate Miles in Washington, aside from the Seattle-Tacoma metro areas, are open to bike traffic.  Same for Oregon, specifically I-84 through the Gorge.

The easternmost example that I am aware of (there may be others farther east) is that bicycles are allowed to use the main roadways on the I-79 Ohio River bridge in the Pittsburgh, PA area.

As for freeways with paralleling paths, I totally forgot one here in my own metro in my above reply from late 2013 - there is a series of paths along the US 10 freeway from its interchange with I-41 (Bridgeview interchange) westward to County 'M' (last westbound crossroad before the US 45 Winchester interchange), with ROW preserved along US 10 to extend them farther westward to County 'II' in Fremont.

Mike

[NE2]

The easternmost example that I am aware of (there may be others farther east) is that bicycles are allowed to use the main roadways on the I-79 Ohio River bridge in the Pittsburgh, PA area.

It might not be farther east longitude-wise, but bikes are now allowed on I-195 to Miami Beach as part of a pilot program.

[Revive 755]

MO 364 has a couple:  One from a short distance west of the Creve Couer Lake Bridge to west of the Missouri River Bridge, then it appears a couple additional ones have been built along the south side west of the Missouri River that stop at the start of the multiplex with MO 94.

[swbrotha100]

Sections of AZ 51 in Phoenix and Loop 101 in Scottsdale have a bike path/walking path on one side.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

CT 15 has a bike path on the Sikorsky Bridge. I think there have been proposals in the past to make a bike trail that would follow the Merritt Parkway (thank the NIMBYS).

[noelbotevera]

I-25 NB in Colorado near MM 255, bikes are allowed on the main lanes (1980s photo from Michael Summa proves this). I-76 near MM 92, bikes are also allowed there (there's a 1980s photo from Michael Summa in that area, but I don't know if it's allowed now).

[JakeFromNewEngland]

I just realized the Henderson Bridge in Rhode Island has a bike lane on the shoulder. Of course, this is an old freeway stub but it's still used today.

[thenetwork]

I think there have been proposals in the past to make a bike trail that would follow the Merritt Parkway (thank the NIMBYS).

NIMBYS rejecting a bike path!?!?  Blasphemous!!

[Pete from Boston]

The George Washington Bridge.

Also the Ben Franklin Bridge.

Well, if we're including bridges, how about the Brooklyn Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge, the Williamsburg Bridge, and the Queensboro Bridge (NY 25).

Limited-access, in the way that roads above water generally are, but not parts of freeways.

[lordsutch]

The South Carolina side of I-520 has a parallel bike path.

[CentralPAGal]

There are of course many rural freeways that allow bikes on the shoulders. The easternmost Interstate might be I-79 over the Ohio.

I've seen signs on part of the US 22/322 freeway north of Harrisburg, PA allowing bikes on the shoulder. That part of the highway is wedged right between a ridge and a rail line to the east and the Susquehanna river to the west though, so there's no other way through. Can't say that I've actually seen any bikes there though. I saw a bicyclist (going the wrong way, I might add) on the I-83 bridge over the Susquehanna a few months back though. he must have had a death wish...