U.S. Bicycle Route System

[mgk920]

Not sure why, but I prefer Michigan's shield to the standard one!

I wonder how 3dbrs (you heard it here first ) will be assigned--more like 3dus' (first digit means little in terms of spur or loop), or like 3dis. I also wonder if these "alternate corridors" will become USBRs in time.

I can see a good route from the approximate intersection of USBRs 70 and 79 (Cedar City, Parowan, or Beaver, UT?) up to USBR 76 near the Jackson Hole/Grand Teton area (USBR 179?).

Part of me wishes that they would be more like 3dis or they would at least allow intrastate routes.

The Michigan one has been submitted as a replacement for the current black and white sign in the MUTCD.

The thoughts on a '3D' for some routes is interesting, as, right now, we may be looking at a 'US(I)-41 v. I-43' thing between Milwaukee and Green Bay.  Both routes have scenic and practical transportation merit with lengthy segments of rail trails and other good usable surface roads that can be fairly easily stitched together into acceptable through routes.

Mike

[NE2]

Basing that off the national planning map that "identifies 50-mile wide corridors both prioritized (numbered) and un-prioritized (faint brown lines)".

Fixed for you.

Part of me wishes that they would be more like 3dis or they would at least allow intrastate routes.

They do... Check Alaska. http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-corridor-plan/

[Molandfreak]

Part of me wishes that they would be more like 3dis or they would at least allow intrastate routes.

They do... Check Alaska. http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-corridor-plan/

Beside the point. Alaska is different, since it can't connect to any other states (unless by ferry)

[NE2]

It's not besides the point when you look at routes that don't connect to Canada, especially 108.

[Molandfreak]

What's going on with BR 208 anyway? That doesn't make any sense.

[NE2]

What's going on with BR 208 anyway? That doesn't make any sense.

It's a spur of 8, if Yukon fills the gap.

[Molandfreak]

What's going on with BR 208 anyway? That doesn't make any sense.

It's a spur of 8, if Yukon fills the gap.

Trans Canada Bike Route System, anyone?

[silverback1065]

do these routes follow current roads or are they on sidewalks and separate trails?

[Molandfreak]

do these routes follow current roads or are they on sidewalks and separate trails?

Trails and roads with a wide shoulder.

[NE2]

Trails and roads, period. If they have shoulders, they have shoulders.

[kphoger]

Trails and roads, period. If they have shoulders, they have shoulders.

Yes.  Here's an example of a bike route with no shoulders.

[Molandfreak]

Trails and roads, period. If they have shoulders, they have shoulders.

Yes.  Here's an example of a bike route with no shoulders.

Please tell me that road at least gets very little traffic...

[NE2]

yawn

[Molandfreak]

yawn

I'll take that as a yes. It doesn't look like it has much traffic

Where was this discussed before?

[froggie]

Moland:  FYI, MnDOT requested and designated several sectons of USBR 45 along county roads that lack shoulders...CSAH 84 near Wabasha is one.

[Molandfreak]

Moland:  FYI, MnDOT requested and designated several sectons of USBR 45 along county roads that lack shoulders...CSAH 84 near Wabasha is one.

Thanks for the info, that's fine by me. Most of the county roads along the river don't get any traffic, anyway.

[kphoger]

yawn

I'll take that as a yes. It doesn't look like it has much traffic

Where was this discussed before?

It's US-61.  I have no idea what the vehicle count is.  The only times I've been on it were as a shortcut between Chester (IL) and northbound I-55; I can't imagine it being the primary route between many other places, though.

But that's not the point.  The point is that bicycle routes aren't necessarily on roads with shoulders.

[Rover_0]

Did some talking to Michael Sanders (Pedestrian/Bicyclist Program) at AzDOT, and here are the routes that they've planned so far:



They're tryinig to get USBR-66 established along old US-66, while USBR-70 will follow I-15 and then old US-91 into Utah. USBR-79 is slated to follow US-89A, US-89, AZ-64, I-40, AZ-89, and US-93 at least to Wickenburg. It also looks like USBR-90 is still in the planning stages, but I'd prefer it to run along old US-80. Perhaps USBR-79 could follow one of those USBR-90 alternatives.

[NE2]

This would probably make USBR 79 the first one to charge a (non-water crossing) toll ($12 Grand Canyon entrance fee).

[Alps]

Did some talking to Michael Sanders (Pedestrian/Bicyclist Program) at AzDOT, and here are the routes that they've planned so far:

Ahem... nice use of the US Bike Route shield there...

[NE2]

It's a sorta-cutout new-style USBR shield.

[agentsteel53]

that's a pretty darn good-looking shield!  when was that introduced?

I definitely like it better than the acorn on black background.

what is the relationship between these two and the green oval on white background?

[NE2]

First page of this thread:

never seen that shield variant before!

[Alps]

First page of this thread:

never seen that shield variant before!

Yeah but it's different than the AZ map, which is blatantly using CA spades.

[NE2]

The bottom's too curved to be a CA (or Hawaii) spade. On the other hand, it's pretty damn close to the specs: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia15/index.htm and maybe even closer to this rendering: http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/implement-a-us-bike-route/sign-a-us-bike-route/