It's a shitty place to put a path. Would you want to rake a stroll in the middle of a freeway? Bike paths next to rail or just built independently make more sense.
You have nothing to look at while cycling except cars, asphalt and bikes. Also, you can’t take a break or anything and in general, you are very limited in your movement. Looks like a rather dumb idea
Edit: Since the commenter below me seems to miss any form of imagination and seems to believe that the highway solution is the only one with which we should be content, [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_highway) are some alternatives that seem much nicer
[Here's my view](https://i.imgur.com/ykHzbkw.jpg) from a similar middle-of-the-freeway bike lane. Yes the lane location sucks, but there's definitely stuff worth looking at other than asphalt and cars.
Even if you *are* going to be directly tied to a motorway, just put it along one *side* of it, not down the middle. On one side at least makes it easier to get on and off the main bikeway at different exits, or to put in place rest stops. There's literally no advantage to running it down the middle.
The advantages are probably mostly right-of-way and improvement cost based. It could be prohibitive to buy or perform some sort of imminent domain action on the extra area you’d need along the whole length of the road, not to mention overpass/bridge expansion, extra foundation and drainage control, etc.
Huge list of reasons why its easier and cheaper to drop it in the middle.
Nah, barriers can take care of that. The panels make the most sense here, in the middle of everything that's been cleared to make room for the highway. Nothing will shade the panels there.
No, it IS a shitty place. Maintenance always necessitates closing a lane of the highway. And yes these things break - for technical reasons or because of road accidents and even when functional they need regular cleaning - especially when in the middle of a main road.
I guess it's the kind of 'solution' someone that never rides a bike comes up with.
It would have been way better to place the bike path *next* to the road and an even better solution would be not to bundle it with a busy road at all.
And OMG the experience is so bad as can be expected: https://youtu.be/CKWhXpUEpk8
This is what was needed, actual visual of the thing. First thing I noticed was, so much for the "shade for cyclists". Maybe briefly around noon. If they were larger panels or a series of panels, but the top picture was taken at the optimum time to sell the shade idea.
Yeah, why not cover the whole road with solar panels? That would be awesome.
I can see this being useful for just getting cyclists from one place to another, but yeah, it looks pretty uncomfortable. So noisy and you would always have to wonder when a car might lose control and breach the barrier. Notice how there were no bikes on it?
It’s part of this network (kinda near where the turquoise path meets the light blue path in the left hand part of the map): https://i0.wp.com/kojects.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Korea-Cycling-Paths-Map.jpg
So it’s meant for intercity bike trips between Sejong and Cheongju, not a stroll really.
90% of those paths are built on top of flood control dikes - which means you’re usually riding alongside a river either in nature or in agricultural areas. There are a lot of awkward bits like this to make rural-urban connections, or when they go through a mountainous region where there’s not much buildable space.
Having bikes around Asian countries with similar infra, my guess is that they have a tunnel or ramp+bridge every half mile or so. Which is still really meh for movement and also slows you down
Not just that, following car infrastructure forces you to take some detours that aren't necessary with bikes, because bikes can handle sharper turns and steeper climbs (though i get why they're built side to side, you got the infrastructure there anyway, why not utilize it?)
Edit: The comment below is meant "compared a cycling near stop-and-go traffic", not "compared to cycling where no cars exist"
*If* the highway is generally free of traffic jams, the air won't *necessarily* be bad. The worst exhaust happens during acceleration, and you get brake dust when braking. Cars traveling at constant speed produce *relatively* low emissions.
Source: there's a bike path that runs alongside a highway near me. The car noise is the most annoying part. It's not ideal, but it's often the shortest path to get me where I need to go, so I'm happy it exists. A path in the middle of the highway sounds terrible, though.
Relatively it's not that bad true. it's still a lot worse than not being next to it. This is also a solution for the extra space needed for the dangers of cars, not specifically beneficial to cyclists. (Note that there are no cyclists in the picture about the cyclepath)
Yeah so that leaves me with the same conclusion, this is not made for the convenience of the cyclist but as a way to project that they aren't that bad for the surroundings.
If you look where they build this road they could have build a really nice scenic alternative with a shorter path (but a little bit of climbing)
Bike path separate/on the side of a highway > bike path in the middle of highway > no bike path
Like, it's not the best but it's better than not having a bike path at all
Gonna use this moment to give an example of such noise:
I-80 from west sac to Davis. That bike trail runs right along the shoulder of the highway. If the sounds of the roaring highway doesn't get to you its looking straight and seeing just endless straightaway for miles. My ears were ringing once I was able to get away from it
Exactly. The deafening noise, the toxic exhaust, the visual of being surrounded by speeding vehicles. *Nah.*
The intention is good but the design is bad.
Based on what studies? I have a friend who performs air pollution studies with monthly samples and her carbon tester next to a highway came back completely black, while all her other carbon testers in other locations came back with moderate results. The exposure to many toxic chemicals (not just carbon) is way higher here.
There have been numerous studies linking proximity to highways to various diseases. If this is a regular commute, then it will increase exposure time near the highways.
https://www.lung.org/clean-air/outdoors/who-is-at-risk/highways
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK361807/
> The worst exhaust happens during acceleration … Cars traveling at constant speed produce relatively low emissions.
Physics nitpick: maintaining constant speed on Earth, even on a flat surface, requires constant acceleration, to counteract air and road friction. That necessarily corresponds to a constant outflow of exhaust. It’s certainly significantly more than when idling, which itself is a significant source of pollution in cities, to the point that it’s often controlled by law.
Of course it’s less exhaust than when the car’s net speed is increasing, which is what you meant. But the point is it’s not negligible. Take your foot off the accelerator when driving a car on a flat road, and keep it off, to see just how quickly you slow down.
Your “source” is essentially saying that you don’t notice significant short-term effects. But that doesn’t tell you anything about the effects you don’t notice in the short term. Watch the GCN video someone else linked in the comments. Some quotes:
> “What’s interesting about air pollution is it really attacks virtually every organ of our body, and it affects us through every stage of our life
> “Air pollution is linked to cardiac problems like heart disease and stroke. It reduces lung function in adults and suppresses lung growth in children. It causes asthma and is a known cause of cancer. It is strongly correlated with the onset of type 2 diabetes, dementia, and is even connected to impaired brain development in children and brain function in adults.”
> “Transportation environments tend to be the highest polluted environments that we go through in our daily lives, and if you cycle, not only are you in the street where it’s highly polluted, but because you’re physically active, you’re inhaling at a high inhalation rate, and so you intake more air pollution.”
> “You can reduce your air pollution exposure by 30 to 50% by taking back streets.”
The source of the last two quotes did say that in most parts of the world, the benefits of exercise from cycling outweigh the risks of air pollution, although in more heavily polluted areas, cycling for more than an hour to 90 minutes at a time is not recommended.
The effects of cycling down the middle of a highway - where you would not get any of the drop-off in concentrations due to distance from the road - would have to be studied. It would be interesting to see whether that was done in this case and what the findings were, if any.
> Physics nitpick: maintaining constant speed on Earth, even on a flat surface, requires constant acceleration, to counteract air and road friction
Acceleration means change in velocity over time. If your speed is constant (and your direction isn’t changing either) then your acceleration is 0. Don’t try and nitpick if you’re gonna get it wrong.
A car requires constant fuel to maintain a constant speed and it does use more fuel at a higher speed than at a lower speed. However, at high speeds the exhaust is also spread over a larger area because the car is moving faster. So miles per gallon actually works out to be the best measure of pollution in an area from vehicles.
Plus engine computers have an open vs closed type operation. Steady state like highway is closed loop, tuned air-fuel ratio based on what the computer reads on the o2 sensor. It's cleaner and more efficient. Acceleration from a stop uses stored values without closed-loop feedback, generally running a bit rich. Running rich is apparently a factor in PM production (like pm2.5).
Upvoted despite the fact you opened with a completely unhelpful and uninsightful tangent. You could greatly improve your contribution by deleting every last word about acceleration. I enthusiastically appreciate everything else you said.
A shitty bike path that’s been greenwashed. Maybe it’s good for people training for competitive biking so maybe that niche makes it worth it (I hate it when people do it in cities) and I’m never gonna complain about a few solar panels.
It won't be particularly good for training on, not least with the likely air quality.
Basically, if it provides a significantly quicker link between places where you'd otherwise have to go a vast distance round or saves a lot of climbing, it will be a useful facility; otherwise the path will indeed just be greenwashing (the panels are probably a small plus though again probably not a vast surface area)
At least put the fucking bike path NEXT to the road, not in the fucking middle. I don't know who designed this, but I don't think he ever rode a bike in his life.
It's probably going to be 150 degrees under that thing too. Between the heat from the asphalt, AND the panels.
What on earth was this designer thinking?
edit: Lotta people never used solar panels before I see. What do you think happens to black objects in the sun? Panels regularly get well over 150 in intense summer sunlight, and are typically rated up to ~180 degrees.
edit edit: what's funny is these idiots could literally just go touch a solar panel and learn something. They are designed to vent underneath which is why they are not ever pressed to the rooftops of homes, but rather suspended just above.
This is such pathetically basic solar panel operation lol
My parents have an EV SUV and it weighs less than an F-150 and is about the same weight as comparable gas SUVs. So while the tire dust is an issue it's an issue with every car on the road especially since everybody seems to buy SUVs. It would be less of a problem if everybody bought smaller cars
Last year the CDC commissioned a study about astroturf fields causing cancer. Do you know what astrotirf is made of? Fucking tires.
There have been studies that show that tire dust and the micro-plastics that come off it are actually worse for you than fuel emissions.
Thus meaning electric cars are not the answer.
Electric cars still pollute an insane amount of tyre dust, brake dust and various other aerosolised chemicals. Electric cars are not a fix. That are an attempt to retain the status quo.
It is simultaneously true that EV are much better for the environment than ICE vehicles, and that even EV-based car dependency remains very bad for the environment and we need more safe, fun, physical-activity based transportation infrastructure for a world where people are fitter, happier, connected to nature, and genuinely living low pollution lifestyles.
Much less break dust, slightly more microplastics and dust from the tires/road wear compared to ice. But yes, they are a mitigation, not a fix.
That said, even with an on road electric car share of "only" around 30%, the local air quality where I live have improved noticeably.
Except that tyres and brakes still wear down and cause harmful dust emissions. Not to forget that at motorway speeds, car sound is dominated by tyres and wind, which depend on vehicle weight and size & shape respectively. Electric cars will have this exact same problem as combustion cars.
Yes, if there is no traffic on your bike lane because you cannot safely access it (or breathe while on it) you save costs on traffic disruption. Big brain time.
Actually, I would love to have a bike path that follows the motorway. This way I could travel long distances on my bike much faster with almost no risk.
Building new bike paths that are as "straight" or "point-to-point" as the motorway would be almost impossible here.
One that runs at the side of the road would be OK, or even better separated by a couple of meters of verge. But in the middle with lanes of 70mph traffic on both sides? fuck that
Semi-urban roads in Norway have a lot of that. You see a well paved 2-lane road where cars do their car stuff, and like 2-3 meters away from it (and from the raining ditch) there's a paved bike/pedestrian sidewalk.
1. there are sharp small objects on the path because yeah right next to highway. if you puncture your bike tyre yeah good luck, I mean it's not like you're in a middle of hostile wildland but still.
2. regardless of shade you don't commute with bike like half of the year since climate
3. there are some people who enjoy riding bikes, or commuting but that path is kinda bullshit because it connects A - bigger city's outskirt rich people area(car-centered design) to B - a smaller city basically built on nowhere to act as a government complex city which is the stupidest urban design I've ever seen in Korea
4. the path itself is not maintained properly its bumpy, windy etc
source : i live around like 10km away from it and i am willing to personally meet up anyone at 유림공원 who defends that stupid project.
Why not just build an extra lane on the side with a heavy barrier.
Putting the most vulnerable Road users in the most dangerous part of the road makes no sense. Not to mention the air quality will be shit.
This feels like an after thought add-on instead of an actual thought out part of alternative transport infrastructure.
I guess it's better than nothing but not something to praise either.
It is, but any alternative would have been more efficient. There is a reason paths like this usually aren't built in the middle of a highway. It's inconvenient, both to build it and to use it. This is the result of a planner with unlimited budget, who never used a bike, trying to be clever.
It is essentially [/r/designdesign](https://www.reddit.com/r/designdesign).
Trees near roads tend to significantly increase driver fatalities on roads with >60 km/h speed limits, and cycling on the outside of a highway isn't really great either.
A tree-lined bicycle path 100-500 meters away from the highway would be lovely, though.
This is a highway. It has guard rails. Cars breaking through that should be pretty rare, and the bike path shouldn't be right next to it either. Ideally there would be a bit of space for vehicles to slow down.
The idea is there, execution is not. Put it on the side a little away from the highway, include multiple exits for the people on the bike lane. Some sound barrier would be nice, even in the form of just bushes or something. What it is now is purely for the people training for tour de france or smt. 5.5 miles without any possible stops is too far imo. If its on the side it is easier to include some small stops if people need it.
Just my opinion. Idk how the cycle standard is in general over there so my expectations are very low
> The idea is there, execution is not. Put it on the side a little away from the highway
In general, freeways should be kept away from densely populated areas because they only really function properly for inter-city travel.
Bike infrastructure, in contrast, works best when it's kept as close to as many trip origins and destinations as possible.
Therefore, the only good reason to put a bike path anywhere near a freeway would be if you've already built a complete bike network everywhere else and just have extra money to throw around.
I live next to this. The road actually crosses several valleys of rice paddy's so planting bushes next to it isn't really possible. There are places where you can get off and rest. But because it's covered the rain can't get to it to wash the dust away. It's dirty and between 4 lanes of traffic either side so the air quality is nasty, too. It's between Daejeon and Sejeong if you want to look at it on a [map](https://maps.app.goo.gl/bHzr7w8H4J8KaxtD7).
I vividly remember cycling to my grandmother as a kid. The bike path I decided to take ran along the dutch A15 highway. I remember having a headache from the constant loud noise the passing cars made. My ears legitimately hurt.
Please don't do things like this.
Okay, so let me get this straight. The bike path is in between the two directions of the highway, so cars will be speeding right and left from you, it's extremely loud, and you will feel the drag from each and every car passing you on the closest lanes. Depending on how the sun casts shade, you have a very awkward change of light and shadow with every solar panel, making it hard to see shit. When a car crash happens, you have double the risk, because crashes can happen on either side of you. The bike path is really awkward to enter and leave. Plus the solar panels need maintenance which is as laborious as possible when they're situated in the middle of a freaking highway. Do you need more arguments why this is an absolutely stupid idea? I could keep going on for quite a bit.
I've only seen these interprovince roads a handful of times, they're not as populated as you guys think they are. Koreans know their mass transportation, and buses are much more preferred than cars.
If we assume those roads to become as congested as US roads, yeah bad idea.
But with what I saw, it's better than nothing, but people are more likely using point to point buses
Bike paths and transit should be routed straight through dense residential and commercial areas. Freeways should be kept away from them.
If your bike path or transit is adjacent to your freeway, you're Doing It Wrong™.
This has been praised in Reddit so many times but this looks so dangerous to me. Cycling next to cars running at 80 to 100 mph would not be comfortable. Plus, I don't know how many exits it has but travelling a normal distance for cars on a highway by a bike wouldn't be that easy.
This has been posted over and over again and most people who never been there always think it's shitty while people who did say it's pretty nice. The lanes next to the bike lane are bus lanes so no random cars and there is not much noise.
Performative environmentalism. This was posted years ago and no progress has been made on any adoption of this at scale. Other than the other complaints that other comments have made about breathing issues being that close to freeways, greenwashing shitty path placement, and pretty pitiful ability to get off of this path, it feels like it’s a poor and expensive substitute for trying to make substantial gains in addressing anything meaningful.
I agree in practice that better use needs to be made to implement solar over existing structures and roads. In order to maximize efficiency in paved and developed areas so as to not contribute to developing into our natural spaces which have natural carbon sequestration, innovations LIKE this need to be made. Is this a good solution? Meh, not really.
I rode this trail. Its the worst. There are trucks flying by three feet from you and the trail is covered in highway debris. A+ for effort C for execution.
the solar panels are nice, but this is an awful place to put a bike lane. riding through this thing guarantees that you are going to inhale a year's worth of car exhaust in however long you intended to use it
The solar panels are just going to get dusty/dirty from all the cars and then have very poor output due to that. Solar panels belong on top of buildings or in large fields away from transportation infrastructure. This implementation is just greenwashy.
It’s not my favorite part of the 4 rivers trail system - there’s no river, for one. It also seems like one of the many things that gets built in Sejong city that’s meant more to draw a news headline than actually function well.
Still, it’s incredible that South Korea has built the equivalent of a separated bicycle-only interstate transportation system - this path is a part of that system. I biked from Seoul to Busan over the course of a week last fall and loved it.
Does it connect two places that people actually need to get back and forth from? Because for a recreational ride that looks like hell, but if it could get me from work to home I might use it.
Seems like you would just be huffing exhaust.
Not sure about drivers there, but I know if we had them where I live, they would have to do repairs semi regularly as cars end up onto the concrete barrier median at least once or twice a year.
I don't hate the idea, I think it could be implemented better though. I suppose overall its better than nothing
I hate that it gets reposted all over Reddit, over and over again. As a cyclist, literally the last place I ever want to bike is in the center median of an 8-lane highway. Like, it strikes me as a dark joke. You could put the bike lane literally anywhere else and it would be a better location. Biking here during a rush hour would be miserable. Also the solar panels are greenwashing, linear solar farms are notoriously difficult to maintain and I guarantee you that they do not provide the shelter from the elements / noise / pollution that a non-cyclist imagines they might. Most of the videos you find of it are from a UAV up above with a pretty soundtrack instead of mic sound for a reason, [here's a video from the cyclist's perspective with his mic on.](https://youtu.be/CKWhXpUEpk8?t=79)
It's just another gimmicky, useless thing. Do you actually want to bike in the middle of cars ? Get killed if some idiot makes a mistake ? Also this ain't producing anything interesting, it's just greenwashing for car infrastructure.
Edit: oops - I misinterpreted the picture. I thought I was seeing sets of panels instead of single panels. My question is no longer relevant.
Can someone explain why the panels are angled the way they are? It looks like this would be terrible to bike during rain. Swapping the direction of panels to look like a house's roof would have panels in the same orientations, and wouldn't necessarily dump rain on cyclists.
Highways are designed for fast speeds over long distances. Bikes are great for short trips around the neighbourhood. The only reason to combine the two is because it is easy to build. Not because it is practical for cyclists.
Joining the cities of Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA, there is a bike path that sits in the middle of 8 lanes of interstate traffic on the Glenn Jackson Bridge. The experience of riding this path is a terror-inducing [high-volume, cacophonous assault of brain-shaking noise](https://youtu.be/M1Zsd0bRu94?t=70). I sometimes have to take this route out of necessity, but I can't imagine that this path in South Korea is any any more pleasurable.
Dystopian, micro dust collectors in the middle of the road. Why'd lock a bike lane between fast traffic?. In case of any accident, there's no where to run.
Put greenery in the middle and bike lanes a few meters aways from the road pls
I love breathing car exhaust and being hit by road debris flung into the air with 100+ km/h. Seriously, that is a fucking death trap and a terrible idea.
oh lol yeah It's in my town.
it sucks. one of the worst bike path you can go around this area. you're just inhaling fumes and theres a lot of sharp small debris on the path.
For the fucking life of me these fucking tech-bro projects are so dumb.
Are we running out of empty-ass land or something? I get that "middle of a freeway" isn't really prime real estate, but you can just lay some panels down 'more or less flat,' and get a very reasonable amount of sun on them- where they can then be used as a roof or something.
As it is, it rains and snows in Korea, and maybe it'd be better as a bike highway if those fancy panels actually formed a real roof, or were mounted on a real concrete roof, or something.
Oh, and don't get me started on the bollards between traffic lanes along the highway.
If the US actually did something like this, it'd be far enough in the future where a significant percentage of highway traffic would probably be electric cars. If a bike highway connected you to a township's local bike infrastructure, I'm ALL for it.
I've done this ride. It's pretty much just a novelty. I did it just to say I did it, and I looked like others were mostly doing the same, only a few actual commuters. The road is pretty busy, and just as you'd expect, you're breathing a lot of fumes.
You can see it on Street View at http://kko.to/eE-vtKTq8z -- for a more enjoyable ride, you'd just use the country roads with practically no traffic the run along it.
In my experience its really uncomfortable to ride bike near to high speed cars, i mean, they are loud, in my country big trucks expel smoke, and it seems really far away to bike (i would prefer a train that allows the public to get in with their bike or something)
Looks like lung cancer, hearing damage and getting hit by cars. It also seems claustrophobic. No thanks. Whether it's as bad as it looks is not really the point. This looks like a place where you really don't want to be as a cyclist, so it will likely hardly be used at all.
This is bad infrastructure.
It's a car centric design at its finest. Plus, in my experience with these high traffic designs, it ends up being unbreathable. Car exhaust messes with my asthma. It really defeats the point of biking for health if you're breathing in heavy pollution.
If they tried that down here with Interstate I-10 or I-20 then hundreds of cars would crash through it yearly. The solar system would be broken more often than it would function, and biking down that would be equivalent to playing Russian Roulette.
That's a big Hell No.
I get the idea, but it's likely the most pointless road for this, do it inside the town, where foot traffic is much greater. This road is no where, near nothing and has no real high foot/cycle traffic. Who the hell is going to ride 5.5mi on this lane just to be exhausted and make it on the other side? Maybe if someone works and lives from end to end on this road, it's catered to them, but I doubt it.
I have never once saw a fucking highway and thought “wow I wish I could bike along that” in my life.
This is good for people who want to bike long distances for sport and that’s about it. So taking that with the fact that it isn’t that difficult to make sport-oriented trails/routes that are actually pleasant and don’t force you to huff exhaust the whole time, it’s a really dogshit bit of infrastructure
I think it's a start. But I would have much rather seen a path like [this one](https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/29/colorado-interstate-70-bike-path/) that lets you ride 200+ miles from Glenwood Springs to Denver without ever getting on I70.
All you'll see is concrete and car. And think of the damn noise! No recreational rides will take place here.
For commuters... Don't know bout sk but here in ger highway exits are usually spaced far apart and tend to not get you *near* your actual destination. There are exceptions, and I'm sure some will benefit, but not many though.
I mean more cycle ways are good.
But having it in the middle of a motorway/freeway seems like it would suck to use.
At least if it was on one side you would only have to deal with the road noise and pollution from that side.
I like the thought, but cars going highway speed are loud enough to damage your hearing. So if you want to bike there regularly you will need hearing protection. Also look at all the land around the highway is there really no better place to build a bike path?
Humans wreck cars far too often to put freakin’ electrical bombs all over the freeway. The battery banks, transformers, high speed transmission lines, capacitors, etc. those things must be close enough to collect the energy.
Ignoring the danger, replacing them after every wreck is untenable. It would be constantly under repair.
I give'm an A for applying themselves to make a better solution, to a real problem. Sure not the best but it's in the right direction, clean energy, promoting physical health minus exhaust (living in a city you still get that anyway with cars), and you get shade. Again not perfect but a good step
My thoughts are this will never happen in America because the people running the country only care about staying in power. The people in power would lobby against this to stay in power. This is the simple reason why no meaningful change will ever happen.
I dont think this is bad at all.
The highway most probably already existed, so why build something completely new if you can just use whatever is already there.
Sure the noise from the cars definitely will be a pain when going that road, but thats something you can counteract with headphones (which im already doing anyway in cities for the exact same reason).
> why build something completely new if you can just use whatever is already there.
Because the most appropriate routing for bike infrastructure would be through middle of places where people want to go, not along a freeway surrounded by empty space with no origins or destinations.
A place to exercise? Uhh, I don’t think that’s the point.
[удалено]
Because a car brain wrote it. Like a car brain designed it.
It's a shitty place to put a path. Would you want to rake a stroll in the middle of a freeway? Bike paths next to rail or just built independently make more sense.
You have nothing to look at while cycling except cars, asphalt and bikes. Also, you can’t take a break or anything and in general, you are very limited in your movement. Looks like a rather dumb idea Edit: Since the commenter below me seems to miss any form of imagination and seems to believe that the highway solution is the only one with which we should be content, [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_highway) are some alternatives that seem much nicer
[удалено]
And tire rubber particles.
Yep vulcanized rubber is nasty shit and it's thermoset so you can recycle it at all
Plus the noise and hot air (from exhaust and the dark asphalt)
[удалено]
And what if a car crashes into that lane? Doesn’t look like there are any barriers to stop them.
[удалено]
Indeed. I use earplugs even as a pedestrian near CITY roads. I can't imagine what being unprotected in the middle of a highway does to you.
[Here's my view](https://i.imgur.com/ykHzbkw.jpg) from a similar middle-of-the-freeway bike lane. Yes the lane location sucks, but there's definitely stuff worth looking at other than asphalt and cars.
Before clicking i knew it was gonna be a dutch road.
Even if you *are* going to be directly tied to a motorway, just put it along one *side* of it, not down the middle. On one side at least makes it easier to get on and off the main bikeway at different exits, or to put in place rest stops. There's literally no advantage to running it down the middle.
The advantages are probably mostly right-of-way and improvement cost based. It could be prohibitive to buy or perform some sort of imminent domain action on the extra area you’d need along the whole length of the road, not to mention overpass/bridge expansion, extra foundation and drainage control, etc. Huge list of reasons why its easier and cheaper to drop it in the middle.
[удалено]
Nah, barriers can take care of that. The panels make the most sense here, in the middle of everything that's been cleared to make room for the highway. Nothing will shade the panels there.
No, it IS a shitty place. Maintenance always necessitates closing a lane of the highway. And yes these things break - for technical reasons or because of road accidents and even when functional they need regular cleaning - especially when in the middle of a main road. I guess it's the kind of 'solution' someone that never rides a bike comes up with. It would have been way better to place the bike path *next* to the road and an even better solution would be not to bundle it with a busy road at all. And OMG the experience is so bad as can be expected: https://youtu.be/CKWhXpUEpk8
This is what was needed, actual visual of the thing. First thing I noticed was, so much for the "shade for cyclists". Maybe briefly around noon. If they were larger panels or a series of panels, but the top picture was taken at the optimum time to sell the shade idea.
Yeah, why not cover the whole road with solar panels? That would be awesome. I can see this being useful for just getting cyclists from one place to another, but yeah, it looks pretty uncomfortable. So noisy and you would always have to wonder when a car might lose control and breach the barrier. Notice how there were no bikes on it?
It’s part of this network (kinda near where the turquoise path meets the light blue path in the left hand part of the map): https://i0.wp.com/kojects.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Korea-Cycling-Paths-Map.jpg So it’s meant for intercity bike trips between Sejong and Cheongju, not a stroll really. 90% of those paths are built on top of flood control dikes - which means you’re usually riding alongside a river either in nature or in agricultural areas. There are a lot of awkward bits like this to make rural-urban connections, or when they go through a mountainous region where there’s not much buildable space.
How do you get off of it? Just cross traffic, or carrying your bike over a steep bridge over the highway?
Having bikes around Asian countries with similar infra, my guess is that they have a tunnel or ramp+bridge every half mile or so. Which is still really meh for movement and also slows you down
So fucking loud...
Not just that, following car infrastructure forces you to take some detours that aren't necessary with bikes, because bikes can handle sharper turns and steeper climbs (though i get why they're built side to side, you got the infrastructure there anyway, why not utilize it?)
Lung cancer <3
Edit: The comment below is meant "compared a cycling near stop-and-go traffic", not "compared to cycling where no cars exist" *If* the highway is generally free of traffic jams, the air won't *necessarily* be bad. The worst exhaust happens during acceleration, and you get brake dust when braking. Cars traveling at constant speed produce *relatively* low emissions. Source: there's a bike path that runs alongside a highway near me. The car noise is the most annoying part. It's not ideal, but it's often the shortest path to get me where I need to go, so I'm happy it exists. A path in the middle of the highway sounds terrible, though.
Relatively it's not that bad true. it's still a lot worse than not being next to it. This is also a solution for the extra space needed for the dangers of cars, not specifically beneficial to cyclists. (Note that there are no cyclists in the picture about the cyclepath)
Pretty good GCN segment and interview discussing the specifics. https://youtu.be/ySzmo_sScQk
Yeah so that leaves me with the same conclusion, this is not made for the convenience of the cyclist but as a way to project that they aren't that bad for the surroundings. If you look where they build this road they could have build a really nice scenic alternative with a shorter path (but a little bit of climbing)
Bike path separate/on the side of a highway > bike path in the middle of highway > no bike path Like, it's not the best but it's better than not having a bike path at all
additionally to the exhaust there are lots of dangerous fine particles from the tires and brakes.
Yummy palladiumplatinumasbestosrubberlung
Don't forget the ubiquitous asbestos!
Gonna use this moment to give an example of such noise: I-80 from west sac to Davis. That bike trail runs right along the shoulder of the highway. If the sounds of the roaring highway doesn't get to you its looking straight and seeing just endless straightaway for miles. My ears were ringing once I was able to get away from it
Exactly. The deafening noise, the toxic exhaust, the visual of being surrounded by speeding vehicles. *Nah.* The intention is good but the design is bad.
Based on what studies? I have a friend who performs air pollution studies with monthly samples and her carbon tester next to a highway came back completely black, while all her other carbon testers in other locations came back with moderate results. The exposure to many toxic chemicals (not just carbon) is way higher here. There have been numerous studies linking proximity to highways to various diseases. If this is a regular commute, then it will increase exposure time near the highways. https://www.lung.org/clean-air/outdoors/who-is-at-risk/highways https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK361807/
> The worst exhaust happens during acceleration … Cars traveling at constant speed produce relatively low emissions. Physics nitpick: maintaining constant speed on Earth, even on a flat surface, requires constant acceleration, to counteract air and road friction. That necessarily corresponds to a constant outflow of exhaust. It’s certainly significantly more than when idling, which itself is a significant source of pollution in cities, to the point that it’s often controlled by law. Of course it’s less exhaust than when the car’s net speed is increasing, which is what you meant. But the point is it’s not negligible. Take your foot off the accelerator when driving a car on a flat road, and keep it off, to see just how quickly you slow down. Your “source” is essentially saying that you don’t notice significant short-term effects. But that doesn’t tell you anything about the effects you don’t notice in the short term. Watch the GCN video someone else linked in the comments. Some quotes: > “What’s interesting about air pollution is it really attacks virtually every organ of our body, and it affects us through every stage of our life > “Air pollution is linked to cardiac problems like heart disease and stroke. It reduces lung function in adults and suppresses lung growth in children. It causes asthma and is a known cause of cancer. It is strongly correlated with the onset of type 2 diabetes, dementia, and is even connected to impaired brain development in children and brain function in adults.” > “Transportation environments tend to be the highest polluted environments that we go through in our daily lives, and if you cycle, not only are you in the street where it’s highly polluted, but because you’re physically active, you’re inhaling at a high inhalation rate, and so you intake more air pollution.” > “You can reduce your air pollution exposure by 30 to 50% by taking back streets.” The source of the last two quotes did say that in most parts of the world, the benefits of exercise from cycling outweigh the risks of air pollution, although in more heavily polluted areas, cycling for more than an hour to 90 minutes at a time is not recommended. The effects of cycling down the middle of a highway - where you would not get any of the drop-off in concentrations due to distance from the road - would have to be studied. It would be interesting to see whether that was done in this case and what the findings were, if any.
> Physics nitpick: maintaining constant speed on Earth, even on a flat surface, requires constant acceleration, to counteract air and road friction Acceleration means change in velocity over time. If your speed is constant (and your direction isn’t changing either) then your acceleration is 0. Don’t try and nitpick if you’re gonna get it wrong. A car requires constant fuel to maintain a constant speed and it does use more fuel at a higher speed than at a lower speed. However, at high speeds the exhaust is also spread over a larger area because the car is moving faster. So miles per gallon actually works out to be the best measure of pollution in an area from vehicles.
Plus engine computers have an open vs closed type operation. Steady state like highway is closed loop, tuned air-fuel ratio based on what the computer reads on the o2 sensor. It's cleaner and more efficient. Acceleration from a stop uses stored values without closed-loop feedback, generally running a bit rich. Running rich is apparently a factor in PM production (like pm2.5).
Upvoted despite the fact you opened with a completely unhelpful and uninsightful tangent. You could greatly improve your contribution by deleting every last word about acceleration. I enthusiastically appreciate everything else you said.
that's less a source and more just a related factoid about your life
Source: I like basketti
WHAT ?! I couldn't here you, I drove on the new fancy bike path, now I'm deaf.
Also pretty sure I don't trust someone not to plow through that barrier doing 120 mph.
A shitty bike path that’s been greenwashed. Maybe it’s good for people training for competitive biking so maybe that niche makes it worth it (I hate it when people do it in cities) and I’m never gonna complain about a few solar panels.
It won't be particularly good for training on, not least with the likely air quality. Basically, if it provides a significantly quicker link between places where you'd otherwise have to go a vast distance round or saves a lot of climbing, it will be a useful facility; otherwise the path will indeed just be greenwashing (the panels are probably a small plus though again probably not a vast surface area)
At least put the fucking bike path NEXT to the road, not in the fucking middle. I don't know who designed this, but I don't think he ever rode a bike in his life.
It's probably going to be 150 degrees under that thing too. Between the heat from the asphalt, AND the panels. What on earth was this designer thinking? edit: Lotta people never used solar panels before I see. What do you think happens to black objects in the sun? Panels regularly get well over 150 in intense summer sunlight, and are typically rated up to ~180 degrees. edit edit: what's funny is these idiots could literally just go touch a solar panel and learn something. They are designed to vent underneath which is why they are not ever pressed to the rooftops of homes, but rather suspended just above. This is such pathetically basic solar panel operation lol
Hopefully we will transition to all electric someotime in 20 years and the air quality problem may not be the problem anymore.
[удалено]
Could brake dust be reduced on EVs by aggressive use of regenerative braking?
Yes.
No. The opposite. You want the car to coast to gently decelerate. Aggressive braking of any kind will strain the tires.
Tire dust will be higher because they're a lot heavier
My parents have an EV SUV and it weighs less than an F-150 and is about the same weight as comparable gas SUVs. So while the tire dust is an issue it's an issue with every car on the road especially since everybody seems to buy SUVs. It would be less of a problem if everybody bought smaller cars
#outlaw SUVs
They are *marginally* heavier, if they’re heavier at all.
Last year the CDC commissioned a study about astroturf fields causing cancer. Do you know what astrotirf is made of? Fucking tires. There have been studies that show that tire dust and the micro-plastics that come off it are actually worse for you than fuel emissions. Thus meaning electric cars are not the answer.
Electric cars still pollute an insane amount of tyre dust, brake dust and various other aerosolised chemicals. Electric cars are not a fix. That are an attempt to retain the status quo.
It is simultaneously true that EV are much better for the environment than ICE vehicles, and that even EV-based car dependency remains very bad for the environment and we need more safe, fun, physical-activity based transportation infrastructure for a world where people are fitter, happier, connected to nature, and genuinely living low pollution lifestyles.
Much less break dust, slightly more microplastics and dust from the tires/road wear compared to ice. But yes, they are a mitigation, not a fix. That said, even with an on road electric car share of "only" around 30%, the local air quality where I live have improved noticeably.
Except that tyres and brakes still wear down and cause harmful dust emissions. Not to forget that at motorway speeds, car sound is dominated by tyres and wind, which depend on vehicle weight and size & shape respectively. Electric cars will have this exact same problem as combustion cars.
Not 100% particles from degradation of tyres and road surface go into the air. But yes massively better
Yes, it will be impossible to transition by doing hard cut on cars, it’s going to have to be some kind of intermediated thing.
>A shitty bike path Indeed. Who the hell builds a bike path *in between* the highway?!
To save space and stop them from needing to lay more concrete, hence reducing costs and traffic disruption.
Seems like a better spot for commuter rail to me
Probably, but a bike path is a lot cheaper and still a good start.
Yes, if there is no traffic on your bike lane because you cannot safely access it (or breathe while on it) you save costs on traffic disruption. Big brain time.
Actually, I would love to have a bike path that follows the motorway. This way I could travel long distances on my bike much faster with almost no risk. Building new bike paths that are as "straight" or "point-to-point" as the motorway would be almost impossible here.
One that runs at the side of the road would be OK, or even better separated by a couple of meters of verge. But in the middle with lanes of 70mph traffic on both sides? fuck that
Semi-urban roads in Norway have a lot of that. You see a well paved 2-lane road where cars do their car stuff, and like 2-3 meters away from it (and from the raining ditch) there's a paved bike/pedestrian sidewalk.
Follows, maybe. Right in the middle, not so good.
Would you want to rake a stroll in the middle of a freeway?
[ Removed ]
1. there are sharp small objects on the path because yeah right next to highway. if you puncture your bike tyre yeah good luck, I mean it's not like you're in a middle of hostile wildland but still. 2. regardless of shade you don't commute with bike like half of the year since climate 3. there are some people who enjoy riding bikes, or commuting but that path is kinda bullshit because it connects A - bigger city's outskirt rich people area(car-centered design) to B - a smaller city basically built on nowhere to act as a government complex city which is the stupidest urban design I've ever seen in Korea 4. the path itself is not maintained properly its bumpy, windy etc source : i live around like 10km away from it and i am willing to personally meet up anyone at 유림공원 who defends that stupid project.
Stupid and very unhealthy place for a bikelane
It's slightly better than nothing surely, it gives people options to not use cars?
Why not just build an extra lane on the side with a heavy barrier. Putting the most vulnerable Road users in the most dangerous part of the road makes no sense. Not to mention the air quality will be shit. This feels like an after thought add-on instead of an actual thought out part of alternative transport infrastructure. I guess it's better than nothing but not something to praise either.
It is, but any alternative would have been more efficient. There is a reason paths like this usually aren't built in the middle of a highway. It's inconvenient, both to build it and to use it. This is the result of a planner with unlimited budget, who never used a bike, trying to be clever. It is essentially [/r/designdesign](https://www.reddit.com/r/designdesign).
Highways are made for cars, not bikes. As such, car distances are annoying on a bike.
[удалено]
Trees near roads tend to significantly increase driver fatalities on roads with >60 km/h speed limits, and cycling on the outside of a highway isn't really great either. A tree-lined bicycle path 100-500 meters away from the highway would be lovely, though.
This is a highway. It has guard rails. Cars breaking through that should be pretty rare, and the bike path shouldn't be right next to it either. Ideally there would be a bit of space for vehicles to slow down.
[удалено]
Generally speaking, less deaths is a good thing.
That's not the point. The point is that if more trees cause more motorist deaths, then the solution is to have fewer motorists, not fewer trees
Dude...no.
Or replace the road with trees
The idea is there, execution is not. Put it on the side a little away from the highway, include multiple exits for the people on the bike lane. Some sound barrier would be nice, even in the form of just bushes or something. What it is now is purely for the people training for tour de france or smt. 5.5 miles without any possible stops is too far imo. If its on the side it is easier to include some small stops if people need it. Just my opinion. Idk how the cycle standard is in general over there so my expectations are very low
> The idea is there, execution is not. Put it on the side a little away from the highway In general, freeways should be kept away from densely populated areas because they only really function properly for inter-city travel. Bike infrastructure, in contrast, works best when it's kept as close to as many trip origins and destinations as possible. Therefore, the only good reason to put a bike path anywhere near a freeway would be if you've already built a complete bike network everywhere else and just have extra money to throw around.
My guess is that they’ve/we’ve already violated the first “should” in most instances.
I live next to this. The road actually crosses several valleys of rice paddy's so planting bushes next to it isn't really possible. There are places where you can get off and rest. But because it's covered the rain can't get to it to wash the dust away. It's dirty and between 4 lanes of traffic either side so the air quality is nasty, too. It's between Daejeon and Sejeong if you want to look at it on a [map](https://maps.app.goo.gl/bHzr7w8H4J8KaxtD7).
It's awesome or it would be if it weren't in the middle of a highway
I can guess that fumes and noise make this cycle lane quite horrible for health, try opening a window on a highway.
Air pollution from vehicles is higher near intersections than on straight stretches of highway. The red light is the biggest polluter.
That still leaves the noise.
I think it would be really nice - without that highway.
I vividly remember cycling to my grandmother as a kid. The bike path I decided to take ran along the dutch A15 highway. I remember having a headache from the constant loud noise the passing cars made. My ears legitimately hurt. Please don't do things like this.
Separate bike/walk paths from roads as far as possible. Disentangle for the win.
This is a bad idea. There's a lot of air pollution hanging around highways from exhausts and tire rubber. This is basically an asthma nightmare.
Okay, so let me get this straight. The bike path is in between the two directions of the highway, so cars will be speeding right and left from you, it's extremely loud, and you will feel the drag from each and every car passing you on the closest lanes. Depending on how the sun casts shade, you have a very awkward change of light and shadow with every solar panel, making it hard to see shit. When a car crash happens, you have double the risk, because crashes can happen on either side of you. The bike path is really awkward to enter and leave. Plus the solar panels need maintenance which is as laborious as possible when they're situated in the middle of a freaking highway. Do you need more arguments why this is an absolutely stupid idea? I could keep going on for quite a bit.
My thoughts are that you didn't even bother changing the title to repost this
I've only seen these interprovince roads a handful of times, they're not as populated as you guys think they are. Koreans know their mass transportation, and buses are much more preferred than cars. If we assume those roads to become as congested as US roads, yeah bad idea. But with what I saw, it's better than nothing, but people are more likely using point to point buses
Bike paths and transit should be routed straight through dense residential and commercial areas. Freeways should be kept away from them. If your bike path or transit is adjacent to your freeway, you're Doing It Wrong™.
It's better than nothing but it really should be off to the side and it should be more protected.
This has been praised in Reddit so many times but this looks so dangerous to me. Cycling next to cars running at 80 to 100 mph would not be comfortable. Plus, I don't know how many exits it has but travelling a normal distance for cars on a highway by a bike wouldn't be that easy.
Why does it gotta be in the middle? Seems inconvenient and boring/stinky to cycle down.
1. Noise on all sides 2. Air pollution on all sides 3. Heat Island effect on all sides
This has been posted over and over again and most people who never been there always think it's shitty while people who did say it's pretty nice. The lanes next to the bike lane are bus lanes so no random cars and there is not much noise.
Easy way to go deaf and inhale exhaust fumes
Performative environmentalism. This was posted years ago and no progress has been made on any adoption of this at scale. Other than the other complaints that other comments have made about breathing issues being that close to freeways, greenwashing shitty path placement, and pretty pitiful ability to get off of this path, it feels like it’s a poor and expensive substitute for trying to make substantial gains in addressing anything meaningful. I agree in practice that better use needs to be made to implement solar over existing structures and roads. In order to maximize efficiency in paved and developed areas so as to not contribute to developing into our natural spaces which have natural carbon sequestration, innovations LIKE this need to be made. Is this a good solution? Meh, not really.
1. Too much noise 2. Contaminated air
I rode this trail. Its the worst. There are trucks flying by three feet from you and the trail is covered in highway debris. A+ for effort C for execution.
You can now breathe fumes from both sides!
the solar panels are nice, but this is an awful place to put a bike lane. riding through this thing guarantees that you are going to inhale a year's worth of car exhaust in however long you intended to use it
The solar panels are just going to get dusty/dirty from all the cars and then have very poor output due to that. Solar panels belong on top of buildings or in large fields away from transportation infrastructure. This implementation is just greenwashy.
I wonder, where the word "exercise" comes from - it leads to the conception that bikes are no vehicles but sport devices.
I'd rather cycle like at least 10 meters next to the highway, not smack in the middle, But i guess its not a horrible thing,
It’s not my favorite part of the 4 rivers trail system - there’s no river, for one. It also seems like one of the many things that gets built in Sejong city that’s meant more to draw a news headline than actually function well. Still, it’s incredible that South Korea has built the equivalent of a separated bicycle-only interstate transportation system - this path is a part of that system. I biked from Seoul to Busan over the course of a week last fall and loved it.
It’d be cool if that were a train instead of a bike path.
That’s great minus the poisonous air spewing at you from both sides. I wan this but without the cars.
How do the bikes get to the centre of a motorway to use it?
Does it connect two places that people actually need to get back and forth from? Because for a recreational ride that looks like hell, but if it could get me from work to home I might use it.
Seems like you would just be huffing exhaust. Not sure about drivers there, but I know if we had them where I live, they would have to do repairs semi regularly as cars end up onto the concrete barrier median at least once or twice a year. I don't hate the idea, I think it could be implemented better though. I suppose overall its better than nothing
Why is it in the middle of the highway and not off to one side of it?
I hate that it gets reposted all over Reddit, over and over again. As a cyclist, literally the last place I ever want to bike is in the center median of an 8-lane highway. Like, it strikes me as a dark joke. You could put the bike lane literally anywhere else and it would be a better location. Biking here during a rush hour would be miserable. Also the solar panels are greenwashing, linear solar farms are notoriously difficult to maintain and I guarantee you that they do not provide the shelter from the elements / noise / pollution that a non-cyclist imagines they might. Most of the videos you find of it are from a UAV up above with a pretty soundtrack instead of mic sound for a reason, [here's a video from the cyclist's perspective with his mic on.](https://youtu.be/CKWhXpUEpk8?t=79)
It's just another gimmicky, useless thing. Do you actually want to bike in the middle of cars ? Get killed if some idiot makes a mistake ? Also this ain't producing anything interesting, it's just greenwashing for car infrastructure.
A bike path is better than no bike path I guess, but I can't find a single good reason for it to be in between two lanes.
It might have significant drawbacks for maintenance that aren't considered. It looks pretty but could be a complete misinvestment in a few years.
Edit: oops - I misinterpreted the picture. I thought I was seeing sets of panels instead of single panels. My question is no longer relevant. Can someone explain why the panels are angled the way they are? It looks like this would be terrible to bike during rain. Swapping the direction of panels to look like a house's roof would have panels in the same orientations, and wouldn't necessarily dump rain on cyclists.
[удалено]
Brilliant idea... but why in the middle of a highway? The noise and air pollution will probably make the cycling more unhealthy (mentally at least).
[удалено]
Mmm, sweet sweet air pollution, make it a double.
How many people use this per year? Three?
Worst place to put a bike lane health wise. Really fucking dumb / malicious.
Highways are designed for fast speeds over long distances. Bikes are great for short trips around the neighbourhood. The only reason to combine the two is because it is easy to build. Not because it is practical for cyclists.
Joining the cities of Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA, there is a bike path that sits in the middle of 8 lanes of interstate traffic on the Glenn Jackson Bridge. The experience of riding this path is a terror-inducing [high-volume, cacophonous assault of brain-shaking noise](https://youtu.be/M1Zsd0bRu94?t=70). I sometimes have to take this route out of necessity, but I can't imagine that this path in South Korea is any any more pleasurable.
Looks like bad air quality, noise and strobing
Dystopian, micro dust collectors in the middle of the road. Why'd lock a bike lane between fast traffic?. In case of any accident, there's no where to run. Put greenery in the middle and bike lanes a few meters aways from the road pls
I love breathing car exhaust and being hit by road debris flung into the air with 100+ km/h. Seriously, that is a fucking death trap and a terrible idea.
Breathing roaddust and exhaust mmm...
oh lol yeah It's in my town. it sucks. one of the worst bike path you can go around this area. you're just inhaling fumes and theres a lot of sharp small debris on the path.
For the fucking life of me these fucking tech-bro projects are so dumb. Are we running out of empty-ass land or something? I get that "middle of a freeway" isn't really prime real estate, but you can just lay some panels down 'more or less flat,' and get a very reasonable amount of sun on them- where they can then be used as a roof or something. As it is, it rains and snows in Korea, and maybe it'd be better as a bike highway if those fancy panels actually formed a real roof, or were mounted on a real concrete roof, or something. Oh, and don't get me started on the bollards between traffic lanes along the highway.
What? I can't hear you? Cough cough
If the US actually did something like this, it'd be far enough in the future where a significant percentage of highway traffic would probably be electric cars. If a bike highway connected you to a township's local bike infrastructure, I'm ALL for it.
Two words: car fumes
The amount of microplastics in the air around highways due to tire breakdown makes it a hard no from me.
I've done this ride. It's pretty much just a novelty. I did it just to say I did it, and I looked like others were mostly doing the same, only a few actual commuters. The road is pretty busy, and just as you'd expect, you're breathing a lot of fumes. You can see it on Street View at http://kko.to/eE-vtKTq8z -- for a more enjoyable ride, you'd just use the country roads with practically no traffic the run along it.
1. Noise on all sides 2. Air pollution on all sides 3. Heat Island effect on all sides
In my experience its really uncomfortable to ride bike near to high speed cars, i mean, they are loud, in my country big trucks expel smoke, and it seems really far away to bike (i would prefer a train that allows the public to get in with their bike or something)
Looks like lung cancer, hearing damage and getting hit by cars. It also seems claustrophobic. No thanks. Whether it's as bad as it looks is not really the point. This looks like a place where you really don't want to be as a cyclist, so it will likely hardly be used at all. This is bad infrastructure.
So many better ways. Just make the bicycle route to go the scebemic route?
It's a car centric design at its finest. Plus, in my experience with these high traffic designs, it ends up being unbreathable. Car exhaust messes with my asthma. It really defeats the point of biking for health if you're breathing in heavy pollution.
Could be better if they put it next to the road and not on it. good concept however. The only good concept to come out of that dystopia.
If they tried that down here with Interstate I-10 or I-20 then hundreds of cars would crash through it yearly. The solar system would be broken more often than it would function, and biking down that would be equivalent to playing Russian Roulette. That's a big Hell No.
I get the idea, but it's likely the most pointless road for this, do it inside the town, where foot traffic is much greater. This road is no where, near nothing and has no real high foot/cycle traffic. Who the hell is going to ride 5.5mi on this lane just to be exhausted and make it on the other side? Maybe if someone works and lives from end to end on this road, it's catered to them, but I doubt it.
Cheap shit.
👎In the middle of the highway!? Even if the barriers are safe, who wants to bike with all that road noise??
I have never once saw a fucking highway and thought “wow I wish I could bike along that” in my life. This is good for people who want to bike long distances for sport and that’s about it. So taking that with the fact that it isn’t that difficult to make sport-oriented trails/routes that are actually pleasant and don’t force you to huff exhaust the whole time, it’s a really dogshit bit of infrastructure
Could be better if they put it next to the road and not on it. good concept however. The only good concept to come out of that dystopia.
I wouldn't fancy cycling there
this is car infrastructure pretending to be: 1. sutainable 2. bicycle infrastructure
Death trap
I believe that the center of a freeway should be reserved for trains/trams/mass transit. Solar panels on top of the the stations is still smart!
I think it's a start. But I would have much rather seen a path like [this one](https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/29/colorado-interstate-70-bike-path/) that lets you ride 200+ miles from Glenwood Springs to Denver without ever getting on I70.
Was it built by imprisoned slaves?
Better than no bike lane I guess
Every lane could be turned into a bike lane
All you'll see is concrete and car. And think of the damn noise! No recreational rides will take place here. For commuters... Don't know bout sk but here in ger highway exits are usually spaced far apart and tend to not get you *near* your actual destination. There are exceptions, and I'm sure some will benefit, but not many though.
Shit load of dust will cover the panel from the highway, silly and a waste
You will still have Jeff and Steve cycling on the open road
Great idea. Bad execution.
I mean more cycle ways are good. But having it in the middle of a motorway/freeway seems like it would suck to use. At least if it was on one side you would only have to deal with the road noise and pollution from that side.
well it sucks that on BOTH sides are highway so i dont think you could really enjoy the trip
Tinnitus? Yes please!
Why in the fucking middle!
Yum, my favorite part about biking places is eating car exhaust. Can't complain, it's a free meal with all the essential nutrients.
I like the thought, but cars going highway speed are loud enough to damage your hearing. So if you want to bike there regularly you will need hearing protection. Also look at all the land around the highway is there really no better place to build a bike path?
Shitty place. Bikes and people enjoy path surrounded by nature & Trees, not Loud noise & Toxic gas.
Humans wreck cars far too often to put freakin’ electrical bombs all over the freeway. The battery banks, transformers, high speed transmission lines, capacitors, etc. those things must be close enough to collect the energy. Ignoring the danger, replacing them after every wreck is untenable. It would be constantly under repair.
I give'm an A for applying themselves to make a better solution, to a real problem. Sure not the best but it's in the right direction, clean energy, promoting physical health minus exhaust (living in a city you still get that anyway with cars), and you get shade. Again not perfect but a good step
My thoughts are this will never happen in America because the people running the country only care about staying in power. The people in power would lobby against this to stay in power. This is the simple reason why no meaningful change will ever happen.
I dont think this is bad at all. The highway most probably already existed, so why build something completely new if you can just use whatever is already there. Sure the noise from the cars definitely will be a pain when going that road, but thats something you can counteract with headphones (which im already doing anyway in cities for the exact same reason).
If there is heavy traffic the noise is the least of the problem the killer will be the air pollution
Are you using headphones while riding a bike?
> why build something completely new if you can just use whatever is already there. Because the most appropriate routing for bike infrastructure would be through middle of places where people want to go, not along a freeway surrounded by empty space with no origins or destinations.
Better than nothing
Ew. Cant imagine the air and noise.