Just reminiscing on my college days, when I used to travel regularly between Toledo and Detroit to see family.
Much of the time, I would use I-275 to get to the west side of Detroit. One of the most interesting traits about I-275 was that it had the distinction of being the only interstate highway that had a bike path running along side of it -- not just part of it, but the whole length of the freeway from Monroe to Novi, MI.
When the freeway was completed in the late 70s, the I-275 Metro Trail began at the intersection of I-75 and Post Road, just south of the I-275 interchange and ended at Meadowbrook Road, located along I-96 just west of the I-96/I-275/I-696 interchange. With brief turn-offs from I-275 near the intersections of I-94 and M-14, The 44-Mile bike path was mostly within the I-275 ROW just west of the interstate. And much like an interstate, the bike path did not necessarily provide access at all cross-streets -- just like the interstate, the trail would "exit" at certain roads -- however there were several additional access points (official or not) that freeway traffic did not have access to.
Much of the I-275 Metro remains, although the majority of the southernmost part of the trail in Monroe County fell into disrepair in the late 90s and was abandoned.
Are there any other freeways which offer separate bike paths along them? I know there is a shorter stretch of a bike path built along I-480 on the west side of Cleveland between Exit 3 & Exit 6.
Suncoast Parkway in Florida has a bike trail following it. If you go from Van Dyke Road near Tampa to US 98 near Brooksville you have a good 50 miles of trail.
New York has a batch of them. On Long Island, the Wantagh Parkway and the Bethpage Parkway have parallel bikeways. In New York City, NY 9A and portions of the Cross Island Parkway and the Belt Parkway have parallel greenways. In Westchester, the Bronx Parkway has a parallel pathway. (Yes, they use different terminology--bikeway vs. greenway vs. pathway--in the different regions.)
I-66 in Arlington VA has two separate bike trails along different freeway segments (one along the eastbound lanes east of exit 69, and the other along the westbound lanes from west of exit 71 to at least exit 72).
Northeast of Anchorage AK, the Glenn Highway freeway (AK-1/Interstate A1) has a short stretch with a bike lane along the northbound lanes. I think that is the part of the freeway where the old highway was obliterated by the freeway, and there is no alternate non-freeway road for bicyclists to use.
Md. 200 (ICC) has a decent bike/pedestrian trail along some sections, but not others, including a huge gap between Md. 650 and U.S. 29.
I-66 between U.S. 29 at East Falls Church (Arlington County) and U.S. 29 at Rosslyn (also Arlington County) has a heavily used system of trails that runs along it. The trail continues (first as part of the Mount Vernon Trail) and then back parallel to I-66 across the T. Roosevelt Bridge into D.C.
I-95 between U.S. 1 (Richmond Highway) south of Alexandria and Md. 210 (Oxon Hill Road) has a trail alongside or nearby that was built as part of the Wilson Bridge reconstruction.
I-395 near the Virginia approach to the 14th Street Bridge and the Jefferson Memorial in D.C. has a trail alongside.
Not quite a freeway (functional class expressway), Va. 286 (f/k/a 7100), the Fairfax County Parkway, has a trail along most of its length. To the south, Va. 294 (f/k/a 3000), the Prince William Parkway also has a trail most of the way.
The eastern part of ADHS Corridor H, U.S. 48 between Wardensville, W.Va. and Bismarck, W.Va. is signed that bikes may use its shoulders (like Va. 286 and most ADHS corridors in West Virginia, it is not quite a freeway - there are some driveways and at-grade intersections)
Part of M-6 south of Grand Rapids has a dedicated bike trail, the Frederik Meijer Trail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederik_Meijer_Trail).
The Charter Oak Greenway runs parallel to I-384 for most of its length.
A 9-10 mile segment of CA-1 between Del Monte Avenue in Marina and Del Monte Boulevard in Monterey has the Monterey Bay Recreational Trail running parallel to it.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/pages/i205_mup/index.aspx
The George Washington Bridge. :bigass:
Here in Florida, SR 404 (Pineda Causeway) recently got bike lanes: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=A9&Dato=20130801&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=308010069&Ref=PH
There are of course many rural freeways that allow bikes on the shoulders. The easternmost Interstate might be I-79 over the Ohio.
I-291 in CT has a bike path along its ROW from the west end of the Bissell Bridge to near US-5.
MA-146 has a section of bikeway paralell to it along the new freeway section in Worcester and Millbury.
There is a lengthy series of bicycle paths along I-70 in the hills west of Denver, CO. Where there are no paths nor other convenient alternate routes, they may use the highway's main roadways.
The latter is surprisingly common, especially in the western USA.
Mike
Oh yeah, I forgot to note that some segments of US-101 in southern Monterey County/northern San Luis Obispo County allow bicyclists to use the main roadway. I even saw a bike race use the freeway once...
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on December 22, 2013, 10:45:41 PM
A 9-10 mile segment of CA-1 between Del Monte Avenue in Marina and Del Monte Boulevard in Monterey has the Monterey Bay Recreational Trail running parallel to it.
I've biked on that!
CA 56 is another example of a freeway with a bike trail. Much of it is separated only by a jersey barrier with a chain-link fence on top.
The Creek Turnpike has one. ROW for it was given to the city of Tulsa as part of a land-swap deal with OTA, which wanted to take a city park for the highway.
CA-52 over the hill between the Santo Rd. and Mast Rd. interchanges. there is no reasonable alternate route to the freeway between those two points, thus the need for bike accommodation.
The sidewalk attached to the Mendota Bridge continues as a bike trail on both sides of the bridge. It is part of USBR 45.
The Pineda Causeway (SR-404) freeway here in Florida has a brand new bike lanes. They use green paint to highlight the lane at on and off ramp conflict points. There are a few details here:
http://cflroads.com/asset/file/229/pineda_bike_lanes_plus_signs.pdf
It's unique in that it isn't physically separated like most freeway bike lanes. They run the lanes along the shoulders.
FDOT is experimenting with bike lanes along some freeway bridges like this because cyclists for years have ignored the laws keeping them off of the bridge with little to no problems.
Quote from: mgk920 on December 23, 2013, 12:19:36 AM
There is a lengthy series of bicycle paths along I-70 in the hills west of Denver, CO. Where there are no paths nor other convenient alternate routes, they may use the highway's main roadways.
The latter is surprisingly common, especially in the western USA.
Mike
Saw the sign "bikes must exit" on my way to Vegas. I was amazed bikes were allowed....
If we're talking about separate bike trails, then CA 56 and CA 52 have them in San Diego. If we're talking about bike lanes on the freeway, off the top of my head I have:
- I-5 between Sorrento Valley Road and Genesee Avenue
- I-5 between Oceanside Harbor Drive and Cristianitos Road
- US 101 between Seacliff and Bates Road
- US 101 between Hollister Avenue and Buellton
- CA 23 between Olsen Road and Tierra Rejada Road
- US 101 between Liberty Canyon and Lost Hills Road
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 23, 2013, 02:50:16 PM
The Creek Turnpike has one. ROW for it was given to the city of Tulsa as part of a land-swap deal with OTA, which wanted to take a city park for the highway.
Part of it has a trail paralleling it, namely the portion in south Tulsa.
The I-35E bridge in St. Paul has a bike portion attached.
Bicycling is allowed on all South Dakota Interstates, so I suppose that makes all the Interstates in South Dakota bike trails. I've never seen one in my limited experience driving there, though.
US1 from ME196 to just east of the ME24 Cook's Corner interchange.
I-295 from the East Deering interchange (Entrance 8) to Preble Street Extension, a bit closer to exit 6 than Exit 7.
Quote from: SPUI on December 22, 2013, 10:48:42 PM
The George Washington Bridge.
Also the Ben Franklin Bridge.
Quote from: 1 on January 02, 2014, 08:59:35 PM
Quote from: SPUI on December 22, 2013, 10:48:42 PM
The George Washington Bridge.
Also the Ben Franklin Bridge.
Also the I-94 Saint Croix River bridge (MN/WI state line).
Mike
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.
Quote from: 1 on January 02, 2014, 08:59:35 PM
Quote from: SPUI on December 22, 2013, 10:48:42 PM
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).
QuoteAlso 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.
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.
The Lieper-Smedley trail parallels I-476 between Rose Valley Road and Baltimore Pike (Exit 3) in Nether Providence Twp., Delaware County.
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.
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.
Quote from: roadman on January 08, 2014, 06:58:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Steve on January 08, 2014, 07:19:38 PM
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.
Quote from: roadman on January 08, 2014, 08:17:20 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 08, 2014, 07:19:38 PM
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.
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.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8882/17467314928_0fa465563c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/sBwybd)
I-90 floating bridges from Leschi (https://flic.kr/p/sBwybd) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
As a bonus, it even has directional headings on the trailblazer.
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7660/17652324182_6bfcf87ea7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/sTSLYW)
IMG_2306 (https://flic.kr/p/sTSLYW) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
Quote from: TEG24601 on January 04, 2014, 11:22:57 AM
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
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2015, 11:44:04 AM
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.
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.
Sections of AZ 51 in Phoenix and Loop 101 in Scottsdale have a bike path/walking path on one side.
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).
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).
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.
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on May 29, 2015, 07:17:19 PMI 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!!
Quote from: dgolub on January 04, 2014, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 02, 2014, 08:59:35 PM
Quote from: SPUI on December 22, 2013, 10:48:42 PM
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.
The South Carolina side of I-520 has a parallel bike path.
Quote from: NE2 on December 22, 2013, 10:48:42 PM
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...