TX Bicycle Tourism Trails Study (BTTS)

[txstateends]

The BTTS has completed and published its study, which begins the process of looking into a statewide bicycle tourism trail system.  Tourism and recreation possibilities are acknowledged, and bikeway paths and design characteristics are presented.  An accompanying state map shows 3 levels of trails: cross-state spines, connecting spurs, and regional routes.  Eventual connectivity and compatibility of the cross-state spines with the US Bike Route system is referenced as a long-term goal.



https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/modes-of-travel/bicycle/plan-design/tourism-study.html

[mgk920]

Interesting.  Thanks for posting this.

:-)

Mike

[In_Correct]

The BTTS has completed and published its study, which begins the process of looking into a statewide bicycle tourism trail system.  Tourism and recreation possibilities are acknowledged, and bikeway paths and design characteristics are presented.  An accompanying state map shows 3 levels of trails: cross-state spines, connecting spurs, and regional routes.  Eventual connectivity and compatibility of the cross-state spines with the US Bike Route system is referenced as a long-term goal.



https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/modes-of-travel/bicycle/plan-design/tourism-study.html

When is this supposed to happen? Is it really going to be along Interstate 35 and Interstate 40? Will they be tolled? We can't even get automobile and rail roads built timely??

[txstateends]

The BTTS has completed and published its study, which begins the process of looking into a statewide bicycle tourism trail system.  Tourism and recreation possibilities are acknowledged, and bikeway paths and design characteristics are presented.  An accompanying state map shows 3 levels of trails: cross-state spines, connecting spurs, and regional routes.  Eventual connectivity and compatibility of the cross-state spines with the US Bike Route system is referenced as a long-term goal.



https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/modes-of-travel/bicycle/plan-design/tourism-study.html

When is this supposed to happen? Is it really going to be along Interstate 35 and Interstate 40? Will they be tolled? We can't even get automobile and rail roads built timely??

From the looks of the map, this won't be along or parallel I-35 closely.  As for I-40, it was mentioned recently that most of the navigable part of Route 66 would be at least looked at as part of a future USBR 66.

I don't see how any bike route, local, national, or in-between, could even try to be tolled.  Shunpiking goes on by car enough already.  Bikes could really go around any tolled section with little problem.

[mgk920]

It looks to me like there are lesser routes (I'll call them 'TXBRs') that are planned to run closer to I-35 and others.

BTW, the only places where I could see any kind of per-use tolling for a pedestrian/bicycle ('BiPed'?) facility would be for a major crossing or other choke point where there is no other conveniently available route, ie, a Mississippi or Hudson River crossing, Glenwood Canyon, etc.  The Mackinac Bridge charges a toll for 'Pedestrians and bicycles transported'.

Also, Wisconsin's DNR (Department of Natural Resources) does require an annual tag on bicycles ($20/year?) to use state park trails.  This mainly covers several of the major cross-country rail-trails in the state.

Mike

[djlynch]

It looks like a lot of the Austin-to-San Antonio segment, particularly south of San Marcos is the old US 81 (or other, even older routes) that is still in the TxDOT system as a bunch of different farm/ranch to market roads. Certainly would make for a more pleasant biking experience than alongside an interstate. I used to drive down to San Antonio that way when I was a student at Texas State.

[Bobby5280]

A bunch of these routes look like they'll be running alongside various kinds of highways. If or when these trails are built hopefully they'll be more than just a painted stripe along the side of a highway shoulder. While it would be the cheapest alternative it would also be, by far, the most dangerous. There's just too many motorists who don't pay full attention to the road. Riding a bicycle on the shoulder of a highway or even a city street is risky.

[In_Correct]

Yes I agree. If they do not have separate carriageways for the bicycles, riding bicycles can be so dangerous, they might as well place them parallel only centimeters to rail lines.

And I apologize for the route confusion. I Googled earlier before I originally posted and found maps with different routes. They are probably old versions.

[NE2]

Stop overestimating danger. You're more likely to die from obesity if you don't ride.

[kphoger]

Stop overestimating danger. You're more likely to die from obesity if you don't ride.

I was also thinking about cyclists who suffer from heat stroke or dehydration while riding.  They're more likely to get help if they collapse near a road than far from a road.

[MikieTimT]

Stop overestimating danger. You're more likely to die from obesity if you don't ride.

I was also thinking about cyclists who suffer from heat stroke or dehydration while riding.  They're more likely to get help if they collapse near a road than far from a road.

And if you're biking Texas in the summer, that's a real possibility.

[Bobby5280]

Stop overestimating danger. You're more likely to die from obesity if you don't ride.

840 bicyclists were killed by vehicles in the US in 2016. Over 5000 pedestrians were killed by vehicles the same year. That's a lot of death I'm supposedly overestimating. Honestly there is no such thing as overestimating the amount of people driving with their heads up their backsides. Add to that the folks driving while drunk or high.

Also there are other places to ride a bicycle rather than on the shoulder of a Goddamn highway.

Try a spin class at a local health club for starters. That would actually be far more productive at burning calories and shedding the pounds. Lots of people bicycling outdoors do a lot of non-productive coasting during the ride. That goes along with the folks expecting to lose all those pounds merely by walking. Big freaking waste of time. Proper diet and a lot of time at the gym gets results.

[mgk920]

Stop overestimating danger. You're more likely to die from obesity if you don't ride.

840 bicyclists were killed by vehicles in the US in 2016. Over 5000 pedestrians were killed by vehicles the same year. That's a lot of death I'm supposedly overestimating. Honestly there is no such thing as overestimating the amount of people driving with their heads up their backsides. Add to that the folks driving while drunk or high.

Also there are other places to ride a bicycle rather than on the shoulder of a Goddamn highway.

Try a spin class at a local health club for starters. That would actually be far more productive at burning calories and shedding the pounds. Lots of people bicycling outdoors do a lot of non-productive coasting during the ride. That goes along with the folks expecting to lose all those pounds merely by walking. Big freaking waste of time. Proper diet and a lot of time at the gym gets results.

Bicycles are legal on interstates in many parts of the rural western USA.  The wide hard right shoulders required by design standards, looooooong sight lines and often relatively light motor vehicle traffic make for an amazingly safe and comfortable ride.  Bicycles are also legal on the main roadways of the I-79 Ohio River bridge near Pittsburgh, PA.

Mike

[Bobby5280]

Bicycles are legal on interstates in many parts of the rural western USA.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I've seen bicycle signs on stretches of I-25 in Southern Colorado. Unfortunately the shoulder where the bicyclist is expected to ride is no wider than usual. There's no barrier separation either. It doesn't exactly make for an "amazingly safe" situation. In that I-25 example the speed limit is 75mph, which means lots of vehicles are doing 80mph or more. All it takes is for someone to swerve or over-correct a little and the bicyclist is splattered regardless if he had a legal right to ride there.

[kphoger]

Unfortunately the shoulder where the bicyclist is expected to ride is no wider than usual. There's no barrier separation either. It doesn't exactly make for an "amazingly safe" situation. In that I-25 example the speed limit is 75mph, which means lots of vehicles are doing 80mph or more. All it takes is for someone to swerve or over-correct a little and the bicyclist is splattered regardless if he had a legal right to ride there.

But that's no different than the thousands of miles of 75-mph highways in Texas that already permit cycling–substantially better, in fact, than those with no shoulder at all.

[In_Correct]

Stop overestimating danger. You're more likely to die from obesity if you don't ride.

I was also thinking about cyclists who suffer from heat stroke or dehydration while riding.  They're more likely to get help if they collapse near a road than far from a road.

And if you're biking Texas in the summer, that's a real possibility.

They are much more likely to get help if they collapse on a dedicated bicycle road. ... from other cyclists.

Pigs are much more likely to fly to a dehydrated cyclist. Motorists are very unlikely to stop and help a dehydrated cyclist. I would not be surprised if they crash in to a cyclist after either driving too slow or driving too fast on their mobile devices and cigarettes and alcohol instead of paying attention.

Even if Texas roads are superior,

The cyclists need their own roads. If it is a separate from the carriage ways, (And there are plenty of carriage ways and rail ways needing to be twinned.) they can still be close enough to the carriage ways without being on them. Or there can be barriers such as cement walls or guard rails or posts or these things:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2018785,-97.7546605,3a,20.4y,188.81h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stqopSZSncIZku4pcAIYXBw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 

[kphoger]

They are much more likely to get help if they collapse on a dedicated bicycle road. ... from other cyclists.

I suspect you're overestimating the number of cyclists a given stretch of cycleway in a remote area would see during a given day–especially when the weather that day is hot enough to cause the issue in the first place.  I can easily imagine a cyclist collapsed on a cycleway, invisible to vehicular traffic, going hours or even days without rescue.  Of course, this is all wildly hypothetical to begin with.

[Brian556]

Stop overestimating danger. You're more likely to die from obesity if you don't ride.

840 bicyclists were killed by vehicles in the US in 2016. Over 5000 pedestrians were killed by vehicles the same year. That's a lot of death I'm supposedly overestimating. Honestly there is no such thing as overestimating the amount of people driving with their heads up their backsides. Add to that the folks driving while drunk or high.

Also there are other places to ride a bicycle rather than on the shoulder of a Goddamn highway.

Try a spin class at a local health club for starters. That would actually be far more productive at burning calories and shedding the pounds. Lots of people bicycling outdoors do a lot of non-productive coasting during the ride. That goes along with the folks expecting to lose all those pounds merely by walking. Big freaking waste of time. Proper diet and a lot of time at the gym gets results.

The spin class idea is the best argument I've heard. Roads are not playgrounds or gyms. People need to take their recreational/fitness activities elsewhere

[kphoger]

Stop overestimating danger. You're more likely to die from obesity if you don't ride.

840 bicyclists were killed by vehicles in the US in 2016. Over 5000 pedestrians were killed by vehicles the same year. That's a lot of death I'm supposedly overestimating. Honestly there is no such thing as overestimating the amount of people driving with their heads up their backsides. Add to that the folks driving while drunk or high.

Also there are other places to ride a bicycle rather than on the shoulder of a Goddamn highway.

Try a spin class at a local health club for starters. That would actually be far more productive at burning calories and shedding the pounds. Lots of people bicycling outdoors do a lot of non-productive coasting during the ride. That goes along with the folks expecting to lose all those pounds merely by walking. Big freaking waste of time. Proper diet and a lot of time at the gym gets results.

The spin class idea is the best argument I've heard. Roads are not playgrounds or gyms. People need to take their recreational/fitness activities elsewhere

????

Cyclists shouldn't ride their bikes on roads???

[mgk920]

Stop overestimating danger. You're more likely to die from obesity if you don't ride.

840 bicyclists were killed by vehicles in the US in 2016. Over 5000 pedestrians were killed by vehicles the same year. That's a lot of death I'm supposedly overestimating. Honestly there is no such thing as overestimating the amount of people driving with their heads up their backsides. Add to that the folks driving while drunk or high.

Also there are other places to ride a bicycle rather than on the shoulder of a Goddamn highway.

Try a spin class at a local health club for starters. That would actually be far more productive at burning calories and shedding the pounds. Lots of people bicycling outdoors do a lot of non-productive coasting during the ride. That goes along with the folks expecting to lose all those pounds merely by walking. Big freaking waste of time. Proper diet and a lot of time at the gym gets results.

The spin class idea is the best argument I've heard. Roads are not playgrounds or gyms. People need to take their recreational/fitness activities elsewhere

????

Cyclists shouldn't ride their bikes on roads???

In many of those instances, the interstate is the only reasonably available routing for the bicyclist to use.

Mike