Stacy

https://geoimages.berkeley.edu/worldw...schonLiaw.html

BroMax

My old auntie remembers when there were HORSE CARTS crossing the Ben Franklin! In those days it was called the Delaware River Bridge because it was the only bridge that far downstream. The original design of the bridge called for trolley car rights of way at the edge of the outside lanes, in addition to the separate speedline tracks. There is a trolley station inside each of the caissons on the Philadelphia side. Public Service (NJTransit's predecessor in the region) was to operate the cars. The tracks were to be a few inches lower than the rest of the surface and separated from the other traffic.

Too bad it never happened. Maybe at some future time (when traffic is lower because of scarce and very expensive petroleum) they'll engineer a way for bicycle traffic to take the old trolley route on/off the bride, through the caissons and into or out of the streets of Philly without mixing with motor traffic.

I do not understand how some places can be completely inaccessible by bicycle or pedestrian. Isn't that a violation of a common law right?

wheel

Good luck Chris,

joejack951

I drive across the Ben Franklin, Walt Whitman, and Commodore Barry bridges on a somewhat regular basis and every time I do I cannot see why bikes are not allowed in the traffic lanes. Now, before anyone starts in with "there's no shoulder/bike lane/wide outside lane/sidewalk" I need to ask how many of you ever ride on any other road without a shoulder/bike lane/wide outside lane/sidewalk and how many of you survived the event? What makes a bridge any different?

I just drove across the Ben Franklin last night to go pick up a bike I bought. The approach is city streets where traffic is slow as it is throughout the city. The speed limit on the bridge is 35 MPH. That's freakin' residential speeds. What a crock that bikes are relegated to a narrow path which they'd have to haul the bike up onto, and not even allowed to use at night or whenever the city feels like restricting access. Probably a lot of fun walking up that ramp with a loaded touring bike or trailer. It's not like the bridge is only one lane in either direction either. There's passing lanes for christ's sake. How much better of a cycling accomodation do you want?

The Walt Whitman is no worse than any high speed arterial road without shoulders, and better in one respect because it has so many lanes for traffic (more passing lanes). There's nothing tricky about the approach either which again is low speed city streets.

The Commodore Barry has a variable speed limit between 35 and 45mph and again has at least one passing lane in either direction (variable by moving barriers). I rode underneath the bridge right near the access point on the low speed city streets last night on my way into Philly (to get my girlfriend's car to go get the bike).

There is nothing about any of these bridges that makes them any less accesible by bike than any other multilane narrow lane roadway, the kind of roads that I ride ALL THE TIME, often with higher speed limits and more traffic than I see on the bridges. There is no minimum speed limit posted and no restriction of large trucks or motorcycles indicating excessive wind. The only thing keeping bikes off these bridges is the same kind of irrational fear that prescribes bike lanes/paths as the answer to every cyclists' problems on any road. It's bull S in my opinion.

[end bridge rant]

JohnBrooking

Here's an arial view of the Casco Bay Bridge connecting Portland, Maine, to South Portland. Sorry I don't have any from-the-ground pics. Not an interstate, but two fast-moving car lanes each way, and a drawbridge in the middle. It has nice wide (8'?) bike lanes on both sides, plus a sidewalk on the east side. I think I might even see a bicycle on the southwest side, just south of by the water treatment tanks. It (the bridge) is pretty new, I think it was built about 8-10 years ago.

The lanes on the bridge are fine, but they don't connect to much on either end! There is a pathway along the river to the west on the southern side, but other than that, you're pretty much just dumped in the road with lots of car traffic. I don't mind so much, since I'm used to traffic, but I'm sure it's intimidating to beginners. Also, heading north, it bends east past a series of one-way streets going the south, so if you want to turn west off the bridge, you have to go all the way to High Street (zoom in with the hybrid view) to double-back the other way. It's not convenient at all. And again, this is all mixed directly with lots of cars.

But the bridge is great!

Artkansas 

And I would have guessed it was lawyers and insurance companies.

joejack951

Commodore Barry Bridge

On the Pennsylvania side, you can see the two sets of on ramps, one coming off I95 and one coming from the city streets. The NJ side is fed by 130, a non-freeway road too.

Walt Whitman Bridge

On the PA side, you can see Front Street feed into the off ramp coming from I95. Kearsarge Roads feeds onto the bridge on the NJ side. Again, the approach is not limited to limited access freeway but again, no bikes allowed.

BearsPaw

Um, are we talking about the same bridge? The Ben Franklin, the big blue bridge in Philadelphia? The speed limit changes constantly (it has an LED speed limit sign), and everyone ignores it anyways. I usually go over it at about 55, and tons of people still pass me. And they aren't nice about it, people change lanes 2" in front of you with no turn signals.

If it were legal, I still would not ride my bike across it in the traffic lanes, unless the speed limit (and general civility) were actually enforced on the bridge. They have a couple DRPA dudes on the walkway at all times. I think my tax dollars would be better spent if they were on the bridge enforcing traffic laws, instead of blocking the walkway with their stupid jeep.

Chris L

And this is any different to any other roadway? Not where I ride. If I was that worried about traffic I'd think about hanging my bike up for good, because it doesn't get any better anywhere else.

Nobody is saying you have to ride there. What I am saying (and what seems to be beyond the comprehension of so many cycling "advocates") is that there are some of us who would like the option of riding there should we so choose. For those of us who ride for transport (again, another concept apparently beyond those who claim to be "cycling advocates"), it might one day be the best option.

There is a similar situation down in Hobart with the Tasman Bridge. Despite the fact that the traffic on the bridge is no worse than what you'll get anywhere else in the vicinity, I imagine there are probably some who prefer the "shared path" option there too -- until you realise that involves you hauling the bike (plus whatever you happen to be carrying at that time) up and down steps. Not exactly friendly for the transportational cyclist with a deadline to meet. As it was, I was in Hobart a month or so ago, and decided it would be much easier to simply go the 10-15km out of my way to use the Bowen Bridge to the north. Just as well I wasn't in a hurry I guess.

BearsPaw

It is different from other roadways in that it is a limited access highway. Based on my limited understanding of Australia, you would call this a Motorway. The Ben Franklin Bridge is part of I-676. I don't really have a problem with there being special roads for cars (ie: highways), so long as there is another road that cyclists can use. The Ben Franklin provides this. The thing I DO NOT like about this bridge is that the walkway is closed at night, so that they don't have to pay hard working DRPA officers to sit in idling jeeps while they guard the walkway from bicycle-hating terrorists, or whatever it is they do.

I'm not unfamiliar with the concept of riding for transport, I ride my bike across this exact bridge to get to work. (I live in Philadelphia, and work in New Jersey.) I can't speak for other areas, but in the Philadelphia area, the traffic on the highways is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than on the city streets.

This argument here boils down to whether or not limited access highways should exist. I think they are a good idea because they keep traffic lighter on city streets, allow the people who are just passing through to get through quicker, and reduce the noise levels in the city. The only way I could see it as an issue is if there were no other option for cyclists. Keeping the walkway on the Ben Franklin open 24x7 is a much more reasonable option than cycling on the highway.

jimblairo

I ride on the Jacques Cartier bridge between Montreal and the South Shore.

They shut it down on December 9. You have to use the Metro until April 15.

jimblairo

Montreal is a good area, there are cyclable ways to get off the Island.

They are seasonable. After December 9th all cyclists have to use the subway to get to the south shore.

Carusoswi

All the bridges crossing the river between PA and NJ to River Road are quite accessible to bikes. You just are not allowed to ride across - you have to dismount and walk your bike using the pedestrian walkway. I find it a bit annoying since you are welcome to ride either the streets or the sidewalks that approach the bridges, all of which can be quite congested on weekends - so, if it's ok to ride slowly among peds on the approaches, why not allow riding among them on the bridge walkways.

OTOH, if getting across is your main concern, nothing prohibits you from doing so on those bridges (Washington's Crossing, New Hope, Stockton, Bull's Island (foot bridge), and Frenchtown.

The GW bridge in NYC allows bikers to ride across using the wide walkways on either side (last time I was there, the south side was closed for repairs), but, interestingly, once you cross, you are not allowed to enter the little park (can't remember the name) on the Jersey side while riding a bike - makes no sense to me at all.

Caruso

Chris L

Motorways are perfectly legal for cyclists to use in every Australian state with the exception of Queensland. Even in Queensland, I have happily used them and consider them perfectly suitable for cycling on. Again, perhaps not everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps not the most interesting place to ride, but personally I find them no worse than any other arterial road. In fact, I recall one situation earlier this year in the western suburbs of Brisbane where a female I was riding with told me she was much more comfortable on the Ipswich Motorway than one of the dimly lit side street "alternative routes" -- irrespective of it's legality.

Again, nobody is forcing you to use it if you do not wish to. My question is why it should be denied to those who do wish to use it for whatever reason. I can find plenty of roads upon which there have been many many motorist fatalities (the Burringbar range not far from here comes to mind), yet never do I see anyone suggesting motorists to be banned from those roads "for their own safety" -- even after the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars constructing an alternative.

If it doesn't apply to anyone else, why should cyclists be subjected to that flawed logic?

Again, that's just your opinion that it's a more reasonable option. A cyclist who's in a hurry to to meet a deadline on the other side of the bridge and doesn't want to spend an age negotiating pedestrians, strollers and rollerbladers or whatever obstacles the council wishes to dump there might have a different opinion, as might the cyclist who works a late shift and has to cross in the middle of the night. Why should they be denied that option just because a few other individuals don't feel comfortable using that road?

LWaB

Minor correction, not all Queensland motorways are banned to cyclists. The Ipswich Motorway is fine, the Pacific Motorway is not.

I-Like-To-Bike

Yeah, too bad we can't live in the past. Every body could be slipping and sliding on horse poo. My father walked across the Delaware River Bridge in 1927 along with thousands of others on opening day festivities. He lived in Fishtown and worked at RCA Victor records in Camden.

Special right of way accommodation for trolleys (or horses) made sense in 1927 and would be a liability today considering that trolleys ran on almost every street in Phila. at the time of building the bridge and are almost non existent today with no trolley facilities within a mile of the bridge exit since 1991. See map of trolley routes in 1932 (all the blue lines are trolley lines, the red are bus routes.) None of the trolley lines exist today except for the West Phila. subway surface lines terminating underground at City Hall and the newly reestablished 15 Trolley on Girard Ave.

scott L R

I am planning on riding from Pittsburgh Pa. to Ocean City Md. My only obstacle is Chesepeake Bay. Possible ferry service opening next year. Possibly riding to the bay bridge and mooching a ride off of someone.

AndrewP

But bikes are not allowed on the subway during rush hours. You can get to the South Shore by the 2' wide sidewalk on the Mercier bridge to the Caughnawauga (sp?) Mohawk reserve.

joejack951

I would agree that it's ridiculous to have DRPA security on the pedestrian/bike path and that they could make a good bit of money from pulling over speeders on the roadway. But, this is no different from any other multilane arterial road. I know that not everybody drives at 35mph when that's the posted speed limit but most people are somewhat near that speed, as opposed to a 55mph area where you might find 80mph traffic. I've been on enough 35-55mph roadways to know that a cyclist can do just fine even in heavy traffic. So what if a couple people have to slow down and change lanes while you climb the hill. People are far more civil to me in terms of passing clearance while cycling than while driving on these roads as well.

The Ben Franklin does not provide an alternative for cyclists that is even close to what motorists are provided. You said it yourself that the path is closed at night and I do remember it being closed all day for quite a long time due to terrorist threats. Also, the Ben Franklin isn't much use to me to get into NJ since I'd have to go 32 miles out of my way to use it (trip distance difference from using the closest bridge). The Commodore Barry is a very similar bridge that's about 8 miles away, is not even part of a limited access highway (route 322), yet cyclists cannot use it.

Also, I have never seen a minimum speed limit posted on any of these NJ bridges. I thought that was one of the main justifications for not allowing cyclists on interstates.

Traffic on suburb arterials can be much worse than on city streets too but nobody is banning cyclists from those roads (at least not near me). Keeping the walkway open 24/7 AND allowing those cyclists who feel comfortable using the traffic lanes to do is the most reasonable option of all though, and a lot more reasonalbe than adding a walkway to those bridges that do not currently have one. To conclude that the traffic lane is not a reasonable place for a cyclist to be simply because you don't feel comfortable using that option is just piling onto the "cyclists should stay off the roadways" bandwagon that so many motorists and cyclists alike are already on.

I-Like-To-Bike

I agree that keeping the walkway open 24/7 is necessary and there is no credible excuse for closing the walkway at any time.

Why not provide a guesstimate of how many cyclists would actually cross that bridge each day (or even occasionally) in the traffic lanes rather than the available sidewalk. Better yet, how many would like to pay the bridge toll just like the motorists for the privilege of playing driving their bicycle just like a car in the traffic lanes?

My guess is somewhere between none and maybe 2 cyclists every 24 hours. And I also suspect that such bicyclists' comfort level for the traffic lanes on the bridge will not last long, and preference for the traffic lanes over an available sidewalk will not last a week. Lord help you (no one else will) if you should have a flat or mechanical breakdown, especially at night, while exercising your comfort level preferences on the BF Bridge.

wfin2004

Problem here [Tampa bay area] is most of the bigger bridges are part of the Highway Interstate System. So that eliminates anything under the usual 5 HP! Years ago you could ride across the Sunshine Skyway [13 miles across Tampa Bay between Palmetto and St. Petersburg] before it became part of the I-275 system. now you can still ride both ends to the middle but not across the big span. You can ride the 3 miles across the old Gandy Bridge but not the new Gandy. The Howard Frankland Bridge is part of I-75. The Courtney Cambell has a great path from both ends, but again, you can't cross the main span.

joejack951

If we started banning cyclists from roads simply because no cyclists might regularly use those roads, I probably wouldn't be able to ride anywhere (who cares about the one cyclist who rides the arterial roads around here?). As to paying bridge tolls, the current system is setup in a tier system, which if applied consistently to cyclists would have them paying something like $0.50 to use the bridge. I I could use the walkway for free or the travel lanes for $0.50, I'd probably use the walkway (although if I had a loaded trailer with me, the $0.50 option looks much better). If I was faced with hitching a ride or getting a cab to drive me over because it was nighttime or because of the current ridiculous ban on cyclists, I'd gladly pay the $0.50.

For someone who hates broad sweeping generalizations, you sure seem to know a whole lot about other cyclists comfort levels. I stand by my statement anyway that the bridge traffic on any of the three bridges I mentioned is not any worse than traffic I've dealt with before on arterial roads and often times less so. I'd prefer a flat on the bridge to a flat on a narrow country road with a rock wall on one side and a guardrail and 20 foot drop off on the other, and I ride on plenty of the latter type roads. And I'd much rather get a flat riding a bike than a flat while driving a car over a bridge. At least a good samaritan type could easily drive me and my bike off the bridge, whereas you're stuck with your car with the other scenario.

I-Like-To-Bike

You must have missed where I specifically asked for, and gave my own clearly labeled, "guesstimate".

And I stand by my statement that you and a tiny handful of ideologues are crying/whining over the lost "freedom" issue of riding when the mood strikes on a limited access highway instead of an existing parallel car free alternative. And using up advocacy points and creating numerous political enemies on a non-issue that would "benefit" an even smaller number number of cyclists, if any.

Chris L

No, he only hates broad sweeping generalizations in certain circumstances (i.e. if someone with a different view on a particular issue uses them). Quite typical of most of the people involved in "advocacy" really. Yes, it's petty, but he seems to thrive on it, both here and on other fora.

joejack951

I'm confused (seriously). Is your "guesstimate" of usage justification for your borad sweeping generalization of cyclists stating that no cyclist would want to use the bridge traffic lanes for more than a week?

You seem to miss my point that the current walkway system is not an alternative to the traffic lanes (it's not even open at night), and it only exists on one of the 4 bridges to NJ that are near me. The fact that I cannot ride my bike into NJ unless I use one specific bridge (which happens to take me 32 miles out of my way) and unless I do it during the daytime is a huge restriction of my freedom to use a public facility (which is not even a limited access highway in the case of the Commodore Barry Bridge). It would cost nothing (ok, a few signs would need to be removed) to allow access to the bridge by cyclists. I don't see how it could create political enemies when all I'm asking for is for a stupid ban to be removed. I want nothing else and I'm even willing to pay a realistic fee to use the bridge just like everybody else does. Just because the majority of cyclists and motorists, including ILTB, may consider using the traffic lanes to be "suicide" (a favorite term of fear mongerers when speaking of cycling), does not mean a ban should be imposed on all cyclists.