Bikes along Limited Access Highways

[realjd]

So I can't find the original article anymore, but here's an opinion piece that ran in our local paper today about a plan for FDOT to allow bikes along some bridges currently designated as "limited access". Specifically it references the Pineda Causeway locally, a short, 55mph freeway over two bridges that bikers currently use illegally.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110524/COLUMNISTS0207/105240315/Matt-Reed-s-time-let-cyclists-join-traffic-Pineda-Causeway-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

Personally, I'm for it. It provides a crucial link for beachside bikers to ride from the barrier island to the mainland. And there's wide shoulders for everything except the bridges themselves where the shoulder narrows. Besides, bikers are allowed on high-speed roads with more dangerous stop lights. Why would the safer overpasses all of a sudden make it more dangerous to bike down? And why should we care if it's more dangerous? Let adults make their own decisions.

Are there any other places in the US where bikes are allowed on freeways? I vaguely remember seeing a few stretches in San Diego where bikers were told to use the shoulders.

[jemacedo9]

US 22/US 322 near Harrisburg in two places:  between the first Dauphin exit and the PA 443 exit, and between the PA 325 exit and across the Clarks Ferry Bridge.  PA Bike Route J is signed on both stretches - both stretches is in a narrow strip of land between the Susquehanna River and a mountain, and shares a railroad.  At the end of each stretch there are signs that state "BICYCLES MUST TAKE EXIT" and I believe "BICYCLES MUST USE SHOULDER". 

Also, in Valley Forge, several years ago the Betzwood Bridge was demolished which ran parallel to US 422.  There are bike trails in the main park, and the Schuylkill River Trail, and there must have been enough pressure that for a while, there was a shuttle van for bikes wanting to cross the river.  Eventually, they squeezed the EB lanes of US 422, added and new Jersey Barrier to create a raised bike lane on the shoulder.  Signs were posted for bikes to walk, and the "lane" had fencing on either side.  Just recently it was announced that a new pedestrian/bridge will be built where the old Betzwood Bridge was.

[froggie]

Several of the western states allow bicycles on their Interstate highways.

[Bryant5493]

I saw a person riding a bike on TN-111 freeway near Dunlap.


Be well,

Bryant

[US71]

Several of the western states allow bicycles on their Interstate highways.

I thought that was generally verboten

[agentsteel53]

I thought that was generally verboten

generally, yes, but if there is no practical alternate, then the bicycle (and pedestrian!) traffic is routed onto the interstate.

for example, the famous barren stretch of I-70 between Green River and Salina allows all traffic, because the alternate (US-6, most likely) would be a detour of over 80 miles.

[NE2]

Several states (including New Mexico) allow bikes on all freeways outside urban areas.

[myosh_tino]

Several states (including New Mexico) allow bikes on all freeways outside urban areas.

Most California freeways have a sign prohibiting bicycles similar to the one posted by NE2 (Pedestrians-Bicycles-Motor Driven Cycles-Prohibited, Calif sign code R5-10a) although there are a few rare occasions where bicycles are allowed on the freeway for short stretches like between two exits.

Let me correct myself.  According to the Caltrans website, of the 4,000 plus miles of freeway in the state, about 1,000 miles are open to bicyclists.  These 1,000 miles are usually found in rural areas of the state where there are no good alternate routes.  If a freeway prohibits bicyclists then it has to have a sign similar to the one NE2 posted (Calif sign code R5-10a) at the on-ramp.

[vdeane]

Why would the saver overpasses all of a sudden make it more dangerous to bike down? And why should we care if it's more dangerous? Let adults make their own decisions.

I believe the idea is so that cars don't have to slow down on the freeway.

[NE2]

Let me correct myself.  According to the Caltrans website, of the 4,000 plus miles of freeway in the state, about 1,000 miles are open to bicyclists.  These 1,000 miles are usually found in rural areas of the state where there are no good alternate routes.  If a freeway prohibits bicyclists then it has to have a sign similar to the one NE2 posted (Calif sign code R5-10a).

That sign allows bikes.

[myosh_tino]

Let me correct myself.  According to the Caltrans website, of the 4,000 plus miles of freeway in the state, about 1,000 miles are open to bicyclists.  These 1,000 miles are usually found in rural areas of the state where there are no good alternate routes.  If a freeway prohibits bicyclists then it has to have a sign similar to the one NE2 posted (Calif sign code R5-10a).

That sign allows bikes.

I know, California's sign is laid out the same as the one you posted except it adds the word "Bicycles" in between "Pedestrians" and "Motor Driven"

[NE2]

Are there any other places in the US where bikes are allowed on freeways? I vaguely remember seeing a few stretches in San Diego where bikers were told to use the shoulders.

Well, they're not quite freeways, but bikes are allowed on the Osceola Parkway, including the toll portion, and the Midpoint Bridge in Fort Myers. The toll booth on the latter, as well as that on Orlando's Goldenrod Road Extension, has a special bike bypass path.

In addition, Alex's photos of the extension of SR 293 show FDOT's so-called "undesignated bike lanes" at the diamond interchange with Lakeshore Drive.

[Stephane Dumas]

Close but no cigar, the new A-25 bridge between Montreal and Laval have a bikeway path. Some bikepaths are also built in the freeway ROW like A-55 between Bromptonville and Windsor. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.539797,-71.99873&spn=0.01016,0.027466&t=k&z=16 as well as I-275 near Detroit http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.419465,-83.423234&spn=0.005354,0.013733&t=k&z=17

[realjd]

Why would the saver overpasses all of a sudden make it more dangerous to bike down? And why should we care if it's more dangerous? Let adults make their own decisions.

I believe the idea is so that cars don't have to slow down on the freeway.

That doesn't explain why bikes would be banned from riding on the shoulder. I think we can all agree that bikes in the travel lane of a full freeway would be a bad idea.

In addition, Alex's photos of the extension of SR 293 show FDOT's so-called "undesignated bike lanes" at the diamond interchange with Lakeshore Drive.

I've never understood why FDOT doesn't just paint their little helmeted bike rider stencil on these and make them official. Is there a reason they like to leave them "undesignated"?

[NE2]

I've never understood why FDOT doesn't just paint their little helmeted bike rider stencil on these and make them official. Is there a reason they like to leave them "undesignated"?

I've heard that this would require them to keep it clear of debris.

[Mr_Northside]

Bikes can use the I-79 / Neville Island Bridge to cross part of the Ohio River.

Also, the last time I was on the MD-32 freeway from I-97 to US-29, bike lanes were added (by striping & labeling) on the shoulders.  I can't remember if it was like that for the whole stretch, but I know it was for the eastern stretch. 

[froggie]

I thought that was generally verboten

Through practice, but not by requirement.  Per FHWA, there is no Federal law or requirement to ban bicycles from Interstate highways or other freeways...it's left up to each state.

[NE2]

Are there any other places in the US where bikes are allowed on freeways? I vaguely remember seeing a few stretches in San Diego where bikers were told to use the shoulders.

In addition to the Florida examples I mentioned, bikes might be allowed on some of the Jacksonville freeways. There are no signs posted, for example on the Acosta Bridge (signs are posted on the Mathews and Hart Bridges though), and it's certainly safer than the open grate of the Main Street Bridge, but I'm not sure what the default is when no signs are posted. The law says that "Except as provided herein, no person shall operate upon a limited access facility any bicycle, motor-driven cycle, animal-drawn vehicle, or any other vehicle which by its design or condition is incompatible with the safe and expedient movement of traffic." But a limited access facility is "A street or highway especially designed for through traffic and over, from, or to which owners or occupants of abutting land or other persons have no right or easement, or only a limited right or easement, of access, light, air, or view by reason of the fact that their property abuts upon such limited access facility or for any other reason." This includes not only freeways but also surface arterials like John Young Parkway and the Goldenrod Road Extension, both of which are marked as bike routes. So the law as it stands is not being followed by the government, and so I would expect a sign to be required to prohibit bikes from a limited access facility.

[Kacie Jane]

Several states (including New Mexico) allow bikes on all freeways outside urban areas.

Washington is certainly one such state.  Unfortunately I don't know exactly where they are allowed, but I have seen a handful of "Bicycles Must Exit" signs on I-5, ergo they must be permitted before those signs...

Edit: This page lists all the state highways that prohibit bicycles. By my estimation, about 65% of I-5 allows them (the biggest chunk that doesn't stretches from Lakewood to Marysville), and all of I-90 does save for the westernmost 17 miles and Spokane proper.

[mightyace]

I vaguely remember seeing bicycle signs on I-70 west of Denver back in 1976.

I've personally run across this so rarely, I can't remember the last time I've seen one.

[mapman1071]

From ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures March 2002
Section 1000 - Miscellaneous 1030-1
1030 CONTROLLED-ACCESS HIGHWAYS AS BIKEWAYS

Bicycles are permitted by law to operate on all State highways, including controlledaccess
highways, except where excluded by administrative regulation and the
posting of signs to give notice of a prohibition. Also refer to ADOT ITD policy MGT

02-1 Bicycle Policy.

It is, therefore, intended that bicycles shall not be prohibited from
controlled-access highways except under those conditions where alternate
routes are available and where such alternate routes are considered
comparable or better in terms of convenience and safety.
It is not practical to establish specific criteria or absolute values to determine
alternate routes. Each case shall be judged on its own. Factors that may be
considered in evaluating the situation include, but are not limited to, traffic
volumes, roadway geometrics, pavement surface conditions, travel times and
distances, and potential for conflicts.

1030.1 BICYCLE RESTRICTIONS

R17-3-407 of the Arizona Administrative Code restricts the use of controlled-access
highways. The following list contains the boundaries for the prohibition of bicycles
on controlled-access highways in Arizona:
Route Bicycle Prohibition
I-8 MP 174.54 (Trekell Road) to MP 178.33 (Jct. I-10)
I-10 MP 132.66 (107th Avenue) to MP 267.11 (Valencia Road)
I-15 no prohibitions
I-17 MP 193.89 (Jct. I-10) to MP 217.10 (Pinnacle Peak Road)
I-19 MP 43.24 (km 69.59) (Duval Mine Road) to MP 63.09 (Jct. I-10)
I-40 no prohibitions
SR 51 prohibited entire length
US 60 MP 160.65 (Jct. I-17 at Thomas Road) to MP 198.41 (Goldfield Road)
SR 101 prohibited entire length
SR 143 prohibited entire length
SR 153 prohibited entire length
SR 202 prohibited entire length
SR 210 prohibited entire length


Bicycles may be prohibited from using controlled-access highways on the
recommendation of the District Engineer with the approval of the State
Traffic Engineer.

[citrus]

For a non-rural example, bikes are allowed on the shoulder of I-5 between Genesee Ave and Sorrento Valley Blvd in San Diego. The nearest alternate routes to get to Sorrento Valley (lots of office parks, and a Coaster commuter rail stop) are quite circuitous. Torrey Pines Rd is not far to the west, but it has a huge hill, and getting to Sorrento Valley would require overshooting it quite a bit and then looping back south. To the east, Camino Santa Fe and Carroll Canyon Rd seem just as long. The shoulders there seem extra wide, and there are signs on I-5 warning of bikes on the shoulder and telling bikes that they must exit at either end of this segment. I've seen bikes on this stretch moderately often.

[realjd]

I just thought of another one. Peña Blvd. in Denver - the freeway to the airport. It's VERY well signed as a bike route even though the airport itself is out in the middle of nowhere.

[thenetwork]

General Rule of Thumb on Interstate/Freeways in the West:  If there is no nearby frontage road or old highway alignment connecting exits, then it is permissible to bicycle on the shoulder.

The classic example is down along the I-40 corridor in NM & AZ...If there is a segment of old Route 66 that is still drivable between exits, then bicycles must follow that alignment.  If a stretch of old Route 66 is not drivable, or it dead ends for whatever reason, then bicycles may use the freeway.

Same thing in W. Colorado -- bikes must use a paralleling thru segment of US-6 (or designated bike path).  If none is available, then you may use the shoulders of I-70.  There are some places where CDOT is building a separate bike trail off of the interstate to keep the bikes separate from the cars.  One current trail project is between Canyon Creek & West Glenwood where there are some narrow winding curves and no off-freeway thru-access.  I'd love to see them put one along I-70 between Palisade & Debeque through Debeque Canyon -- It would make for a great scenic ride.