If it’s Fayetville, Arkansas, it looks like it has some gravel and mountain bike paths, but also low-traffic mountain roads that probably have poor passing opportunities. And it also looks like people might come to cycle there.
From Fayetteville, road cyclists will discover one of the largest road networks in Arkansas – with over 400 miles of scenic paved roads accessible from town. Low traffic density, high road quality, and diverse mountain topography make Fayetteville the ideal destination for your next road cycling vacation.
So there’s a possibility local traffic is being held up by tourists cycling nowhere in particular on roads where you might have to wait a while for a safe passing opportunity, made even longer by people struggling with an incline.
What would be a good infrastructure solution to this problem?
Yes, I guess that’s really the only good answer. Just on mountain roads, space might be at a premium, but there are probably alternate routes a bike path could take.
Yes, but with all the construction equipment already there, it’s a fraction of the cost to build it alongside. Also that way you can wildlife protect it along with the highway. A seperate route would be at risk of animals (and need to be wary of migration paths) or need its own protection and animal crossovers.
You have a separate bike pathway/trail that twins the road
For this specific use case, that’s only a viable alternative if the separated bike path is just as wide as the road itself. Normal bike paths designed for cyclists commuting or otherwise transporting themselves can be half the width for a bi-directional cycleway as a single car lane, but for cyclists training in the hills, they need the road width to be able to take corners at speed safely.
Uhh… the pathways have 20/km limit, it’s also for pedestrians, roller bladders, skateboarders etc. and your risking your life going fast in the mountains wildlife can be around any corner. If you’re treating a pathway or trail like a road, you’re an ass.
If you’re road training, than you do it on roads… they don’t need to make a specific trail just for that. Don’t go on a busy road, there’s plenty of less used roads that you can do that on.
And how would you be going fast UPHILL, this is mountainous territory that’s being talked about.
Do you think the only people biking on scenic mountain highways are trainers?
We get plenty of overseas tourists who would be a disaster on the regular roads, it’s also illegal on some roads to cycle as well since it’s so dangerous for everyone.
I think this post clearly shows a picture of a sports cyclist, the post referenced a location with clear advertising aimed at attracting sports cyclists, and the discussion thread above makes it very unambiguously clear that we’re talking about sports cycling. One would have to be completely oblivious or wilfully ignorant to pretend otherwise.
As someone who does both sports cycling and transport cycling, I fucking hate it when people from one side act as though the other side doesn’t exist or is lesser than or not worth considering. The fuckwits who complain about “tour de france wanabees” while claiming to be cycling advocates are no better than NIMBYs complaining about their parking. We’re all on the same side here, and anyone who acts otherwise can fuck off as far as I’m concerned.
Are you seriously suggesting that trails should be built for one particular group of bikers? Where no one else could safely use that trail safely? Not even a pedestrian or a person with disabilities? That’s a great use of resources lol.
The link also talks about all types of cycling.
There’s plenty of roads with almost no traffic that road cyclists can use, why do you think they’re being ignored? They aren’t the problem demographic here.
A simple solution is to have extra wide bits where the topology allows it, with the width added to the uphill side of the road. Adding an unseparated bike lane on long straighter sections or round the bend is usually going to be sufficient for relatively low-speed mountain overtakes. What you should never do is encourage anyone to overtake a cyclist going downhill.
I’ll add that even in the US, it’s somewhat common for mountain roads to periodically have an extra passing lane, pull-off points, or an extra wide shoulder so motorists can get around slower traffic.
So there’s really no excuse for not adding a bike lane on uphill portions in cycling heavy areas whenever those roads need to be repaved.
…so maybe we’ll see some of that in the next 50 years…
If it’s Fayetville, Arkansas, it looks like it has some gravel and mountain bike paths, but also low-traffic mountain roads that probably have poor passing opportunities. And it also looks like people might come to cycle there.
https://www.experiencefayetteville.com/experience/cycling
So there’s a possibility local traffic is being held up by tourists cycling nowhere in particular on roads where you might have to wait a while for a safe passing opportunity, made even longer by people struggling with an incline.
What would be a good infrastructure solution to this problem?
Is this a serious question? You have a separate bike pathway/trail that twins the road.
Like in Banff National Park
Yes, I guess that’s really the only good answer. Just on mountain roads, space might be at a premium, but there are probably alternate routes a bike path could take.
Yes, but with all the construction equipment already there, it’s a fraction of the cost to build it alongside. Also that way you can wildlife protect it along with the highway. A seperate route would be at risk of animals (and need to be wary of migration paths) or need its own protection and animal crossovers.
For this specific use case, that’s only a viable alternative if the separated bike path is just as wide as the road itself. Normal bike paths designed for cyclists commuting or otherwise transporting themselves can be half the width for a bi-directional cycleway as a single car lane, but for cyclists training in the hills, they need the road width to be able to take corners at speed safely.
Uhh… the pathways have 20/km limit, it’s also for pedestrians, roller bladders, skateboarders etc. and your risking your life going fast in the mountains wildlife can be around any corner. If you’re treating a pathway or trail like a road, you’re an ass.
If you’re road training, than you do it on roads… they don’t need to make a specific trail just for that. Don’t go on a busy road, there’s plenty of less used roads that you can do that on.
And how would you be going fast UPHILL, this is mountainous territory that’s being talked about.
Road training is literally what we’re talking about here?
Do you think the only people biking on scenic mountain highways are trainers?
We get plenty of overseas tourists who would be a disaster on the regular roads, it’s also illegal on some roads to cycle as well since it’s so dangerous for everyone.
I think this post clearly shows a picture of a sports cyclist, the post referenced a location with clear advertising aimed at attracting sports cyclists, and the discussion thread above makes it very unambiguously clear that we’re talking about sports cycling. One would have to be completely oblivious or wilfully ignorant to pretend otherwise.
As someone who does both sports cycling and transport cycling, I fucking hate it when people from one side act as though the other side doesn’t exist or is lesser than or not worth considering. The fuckwits who complain about “tour de france wanabees” while claiming to be cycling advocates are no better than NIMBYs complaining about their parking. We’re all on the same side here, and anyone who acts otherwise can fuck off as far as I’m concerned.
Are you seriously suggesting that trails should be built for one particular group of bikers? Where no one else could safely use that trail safely? Not even a pedestrian or a person with disabilities? That’s a great use of resources lol.
The link also talks about all types of cycling.
There’s plenty of roads with almost no traffic that road cyclists can use, why do you think they’re being ignored? They aren’t the problem demographic here.
No. And only an intentionally bad-faith reading of my comment could come away thinking it was.
A simple solution is to have extra wide bits where the topology allows it, with the width added to the uphill side of the road. Adding an unseparated bike lane on long straighter sections or round the bend is usually going to be sufficient for relatively low-speed mountain overtakes. What you should never do is encourage anyone to overtake a cyclist going downhill.
Here’s some examples from Australia:
I’ll add that even in the US, it’s somewhat common for mountain roads to periodically have an extra passing lane, pull-off points, or an extra wide shoulder so motorists can get around slower traffic.
So there’s really no excuse for not adding a bike lane on uphill portions in cycling heavy areas whenever those roads need to be repaved.
…so maybe we’ll see some of that in the next 50 years…