Beyond the Autobahn: Germany's New Bike Highways

YJ has the inside track...tell us ?

On 2/26/2016 5:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/26/2016 1:33 AM, James wrote:
On 26/02/16 15:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/25/2016 9:59 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
With the recent opening of a "bike highway," Germany is
taking the
lead in Europe by starting to build a network of wide,
dedicated
bicycle thoroughfares designed to lure increasing numbers
of commuters
out of their cars and onto two wheels.

Cycling highways are fundamentally different from usual
cycling lanes.
Highways are around 4 to 5 meters wide -- twice the width
of many bike
paths -- so faster cyclists can overtake slower ones in both
directions. High-quality asphalt is often used to enable
bicyclists to
travel faster. These highways are designed with few or no
intersections with major roads, and as few traffic lights
as possible
-- all intended to enable cyclists to travel effortlessly
within or
among cities and suburbs. Like autobahns, the biking
highways are
designed to allow travelers to cover large distances
without leaving
the network.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/20...bike-highways#




I've read about this before, but I've not seen any details
on how they
will arrange for "few or no intersections with major
roads" while still
being useful for transportation. It seems there would be
relatively few
locations that could be practically served while meeting
that criterion.


Grade separation.


Gee what could that cost?

http://www.channel3000.com/news/Cons...pring/37691412

Bicycle infrastructure is expensive bu at least at the end, you actually
get something pretty useful if it's done right. Think about how much a
mile of freeway costs, typically in the hundreds of millions of dollars
per mile.

On 2/26/2016 6:05 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

The problem here is there are too many people living in the burbs and
outer cities and working in Montreal. There are only 2 major highways
getting into the city so they need to do something. Trying to get
people on bikes is one part of it.

Back in the olden days, there was an extensive inter-urban streetcar
network throughout the lightly populated San Francisco Bay Area. It's
pretty much all gone except in San Francisco. BART eliminated the need
for a small part of it. Transit out of the burbs in my area is now
mainly by single occupancy vehicle, or bicycle. The exception is the
private bus networks set up by major employers.

Quebec doesn't seem like the ideal place to get people on bikes.

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 8:59:45 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 26/02/2016 8:43 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/25/2016 11:33 PM, James wrote:

Grade separation.

Yes, this is how it's done in the U.S. We have many such grade separated
MUPs in my area, and if we could just ban pedestrians, scooters,
skateboarders, roller-bladers, etc., they'd be a lot faster. Actually
they're already pretty good during weekday commute times, but on
weekends they get those other uses in large quantities. They've spent a
lot of money doing grade separation, and they do it gradually, starting
off with traffic lights then building overpasses.



Having them wide enough to allow "passing lanes" helps with that. But
generally you're right, they're not wide enough here so they get crowded
here with the roller bladers etc. and slower cyclists.

There's a nice path that I can use on my commute but it's too crowded
except for my early morning ride in. On the way home I take the less
scenic traffic jam infested roads.

Note that it's a DEDICATED BICYCLE HIGHWAY thus roller bladers etcetera aren't/won't be allowed on it.

Cheers

On 2/26/2016 12:15 PM, sms wrote:
On 2/26/2016 5:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:


Gee what could that cost?

http://www.channel3000.com/news/Cons...pring/37691412


Bicycle infrastructure is expensive bu at least at the end, you actually
get something pretty useful if it's done right. Think about how much a
mile of freeway costs, typically in the hundreds of millions of dollars
per mile.

Let's think about cost vs. benefit metrics.

Contrary to Scharf, I don't think a four-lane urban freeway typically
costs hundreds of millions per mile. Ten million dollars per mile is
much closer, according to a couple sources, for example
http://www.artba.org/about/transportation-faqs/#20

Bike lanes (not separate paths, apparently) average about $130,000 per
mile, according to
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/..._bikelanes.cfm

I've heard estimates of one million dollars per mile for separate
bikeways. For example,
http://www.brucefreemanrailtrail.org...bout_faqs.html
says "How much does the design and construction of a rail trail cost?
In 2007, the state budgeted $5.8 million, including management overhead,
for constructing Phase 1, a 6.8 mile section. This works out to an
average cost of about $853,000 per mile. Acton and Concord had
engineering estimates performed that show that the average cost will run
about $1,000,000 per mile, due to major bridge work and road crossings."

Admittedly, figures for both freeways and bike paths vary tremendously
based mostly on terrain and cost of right-of-way. But yes, bike trails
are much cheaper than freeways per mile.

The problem comes in terms of transportation payback. It's very unusual
for a freeway to carry less than, say, 30,000 vehicles per day, and many
get up into the hundreds of thousands per day, year round. By contrast,
if an American bike path gets 1000 users per day in the summertime, it's
reckoned to be a huge success. So on the basis of persons served per
day, bike paths lose. And for person-miles, the numbers would be far,
far worse.

Those who claim a bike path will help solve the problem of crowded
freeways are deeply into fantasy. The difference will never be noticeable.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/26/2016 1:27 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 8:59:45 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 26/02/2016 8:43 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/25/2016 11:33 PM, James wrote:

Grade separation.

Yes, this is how it's done in the U.S. We have many such grade separated
MUPs in my area, and if we could just ban pedestrians, scooters,
skateboarders, roller-bladers, etc., they'd be a lot faster. Actually
they're already pretty good during weekday commute times, but on
weekends they get those other uses in large quantities. They've spent a
lot of money doing grade separation, and they do it gradually, starting
off with traffic lights then building overpasses.



Having them wide enough to allow "passing lanes" helps with that. But
generally you're right, they're not wide enough here so they get crowded
here with the roller bladers etc. and slower cyclists.

There's a nice path that I can use on my commute but it's too crowded
except for my early morning ride in. On the way home I take the less
scenic traffic jam infested roads.

Note that it's a DEDICATED BICYCLE HIGHWAY thus roller bladers etcetera aren't/won't be allowed on it.

Hmm. Has that idea ever worked anywhere?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:56:33 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/26/2016 2:33 AM, James wrote:
On 26/02/16 15:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/25/2016 9:59 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
With the recent opening of a "bike highway," Germany is taking the
lead in Europe by starting to build a network of wide, dedicated
bicycle thoroughfares designed to lure increasing numbers of commuters
out of their cars and onto two wheels.

Cycling highways are fundamentally different from usual cycling lanes..
Highways are around 4 to 5 meters wide -- twice the width of many bike
paths -- so faster cyclists can overtake slower ones in both
directions. High-quality asphalt is often used to enable bicyclists to
travel faster. These highways are designed with few or no
intersections with major roads, and as few traffic lights as possible
-- all intended to enable cyclists to travel effortlessly within or
among cities and suburbs. Like autobahns, the biking highways are
designed to allow travelers to cover large distances without leaving
the network.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/20...bike-highways#



I've read about this before, but I've not seen any details on how they
will arrange for "few or no intersections with major roads" while still
being useful for transportation. It seems there would be relatively few
locations that could be practically served while meeting that criterion.

On 02-25-2016 21:59, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
With the recent opening of a "bike highway," Germany is taking the lead in Europe by starting to build a network of wide, dedicated bicycle thoroughfares designed to lure increasing numbers of commuters out of their cars and onto two wheels.

Not sure exactly what "taking the lead" means. On the way from Venice
to Oberammergua in 2013, much of the route we took had a paved trail
nearby on which we saw many bicycles. Probably wasn't as wide as the
ones in Sir's cited article, but they were in long-distance use between
cities/villages.

--
Wes Groleau

Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Fri, 26 Feb 2016
09:05:11 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 26/02/2016 8:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/26/2016 1:33 AM, James wrote:
On 26/02/16 15:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/25/2016 9:59 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
With the recent opening of a "bike highway," Germany is
taking the
lead in Europe by starting to build a network of wide,
dedicated
bicycle thoroughfares designed to lure increasing numbers
of commuters
out of their cars and onto two wheels.

Cycling highways are fundamentally different from usual
cycling lanes.
Highways are around 4 to 5 meters wide -- twice the width
of many bike
paths -- so faster cyclists can overtake slower ones in both
directions. High-quality asphalt is often used to enable
bicyclists to
travel faster. These highways are designed with few or no
intersections with major roads, and as few traffic lights
as possible
-- all intended to enable cyclists to travel effortlessly
within or
among cities and suburbs. Like autobahns, the biking
highways are
designed to allow travelers to cover large distances
without leaving
the network.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/20...bike-highways#




I've read about this before, but I've not seen any details
on how they
will arrange for "few or no intersections with major
roads" while still
being useful for transportation. It seems there would be
relatively few
locations that could be practically served while meeting
that criterion.


Grade separation.


Gee what could that cost?

http://www.channel3000.com/news/Cons...pring/37691412




They solve that problem by making it so expensive to begin with that
adding the bike infrastructure is insignificant. The Turcot Exchange
has been bid out at 3 billion. Most estimates think it will come in at
5. What's a couple million for a bike path?

The problem here is there are too many people living in the burbs and
outer cities and working in Montreal. There are only 2 major highways
getting into the city so they need to do something. Trying to get
people on bikes is one part of it.

It's a heck of a lot less expensive than making provision for that
many people in cars!


It is.

--
duane

On 2/26/2016 1:15 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:56:33 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/26/2016 2:33 AM, James wrote:
On 26/02/16 15:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/25/2016 9:59 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
With the recent opening of a "bike highway," Germany is taking the
lead in Europe by starting to build a network of wide, dedicated
bicycle thoroughfares designed to lure increasing numbers of commuters
out of their cars and onto two wheels.

Cycling highways are fundamentally different from usual cycling lanes.
Highways are around 4 to 5 meters wide -- twice the width of many bike
paths -- so faster cyclists can overtake slower ones in both
directions. High-quality asphalt is often used to enable bicyclists to
travel faster. These highways are designed with few or no
intersections with major roads, and as few traffic lights as possible
-- all intended to enable cyclists to travel effortlessly within or
among cities and suburbs. Like autobahns, the biking highways are
designed to allow travelers to cover large distances without leaving
the network.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/20...bike-highways#



I've read about this before, but I've not seen any details on how they
will arrange for "few or no intersections with major roads" while still
being useful for transportation. It seems there would be relatively few
locations that could be practically served while meeting that criterion.


Grade separation.

That would be their plan, I'm sure, but it's hugely expensive. I've
been over four (IIRC) modern bike path bridges within 60 miles of my
home. (One was since removed, BTW.) They're showpieces, but one can't
afford showpieces very often. And if the project can't afford them very
often, it seems the routes must avoid most busy roads. That makes the
routes sound less useful.

Even for those willing to spend huge sums of public money, it seems each
bridge or underpass would divert money that could be used instead to
build an additional ten to fifteen miles of perhaps lateral paths.

BTW, Stevenage in Britain has grade separations for its extensive
bikeway system. But that system has been a failure. See
http://evworld.com/urban.cfm?newsid=17

One of the problems, supposedly, is that people feel insecure going
through the underpasses, especially at night.

But a bigger problem is that Stevenage did nothing to actively
discourage car use. By contrast, Dutch cities tend to make car parking
rare and super-expensive, and they close direct routes to cars so car
trips take longer than bike trips, etc. etc.

It seems that as long as it's easier to get into a car and turn the key,
almost everyone will prefer to drive.

I think it will become parallel infrastructure for eBikes. Except for the devoted recreational cyclist or racer, most people don't want to ride that far to get to work, but you can game the system with an eBike. I was thinking about that -- in Vancouver, Washington, housing is cheaper, and there is no state income tax (meaningful later when I retire). The bridges and traffic into Portland are miserable, but I could beat the traffic and deal with the extra 10 mile distance by riding an eBike. I'd get something fast. Clear the way!

-- Jay Beattie.


friendly, hip, eco-sensitive
Oh, and 200HP, 218mph:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/20/l...bike-revealed/

Your firm has an employee electric vehicle subsidy right?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971