U.S. Bicycle Route System

[agentsteel53]

I would not say it is close to the specs at all.  the specs are a perfect Reuleaux triangle; the implementation is a ... something else.

[mgk920]

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

I agree, a sign like that with a green background is less likely than the current design to be confused with highway route markers in most states.

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.

From what I've seen on ACA's website, it looks like 'intrastate' routes are allowed:
"For a route to receive official designation as a U.S. Bicycle Route, it must connect two or more states, a state and an international border, or other U.S. Bicycle Routes." (Emphasis added)
(source: http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/ )

Also, a video clip on the dedication of USBR 35 in Michigan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLSMTgR6DMU

And - the latest corridor map:
http://www.adventurecycling.org/default/assets/file/USBRS//USBRSCorridorMap.pdf

Enjoy!

Mike

[froggie]

Can I make a request:  don't embed YouTube videos into posts.  The embed code wrecks havoc with my forum viewing such as it is...I've already had to disable photos just to get the threads to load with this crappy ship bandwidth.  Just post a link to the YouTube vid.

Regarding the sign...shortened version is useful for bike-specific maps...but I think would still need some work to distinguish between it and regular vehicle routes on a regular road map.

[NE2]

Can't you disable Flash?

[agentsteel53]

Froggie, try Flashblock:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/flashblock/

it gives you fine-tuned disabling of Flash.

[mgk920]

Froggie, try Flashblock:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/flashblock/

it gives you fine-tuned disabling of Flash.

That's what I use!



Mike

[froggie]

I'm on a US Navy computer here for the next 4 months (sans the occasional port visit, but not many of those).  I cannot disable Flash, nor can I add any add-ons.  mgk's earlier embed is wrecking havoc with my being able to read this thread.  Only way I've been able to get in is by manually timing a page-load stop so I get the "quick reply" box but not the YouTube embed code.

[froggie]

Back on topic, and regarding an earlier subject, I E-mailed MnDOT's bike unit regarding USBR 45 and MRT concurrencies.  The condensed version I got back is that, for those segments where there are parallel MRT routes (north of La Crosse, Hastings to Elk River, through St. Cloud, and Brainerd to Bemidji), *BOTH* branches will be designated as USBR 45.  A few segments will need improvements such as trail improvements or shoulder widening first (plus the new I-90 Mississippi River bridge construction that'll shut down the "lowland" trail there for 2 years), but eventually all will be designated USBR 45.  I asked about signage, and MnDOT will only be signposting it as the Mississippi River Trail (MRT) for now, citing that "USBR signing is under discussion nationally to identify best practices".  Signs will be installed beginning this fall.

I also E-mailed them suggestions for USBR 20 and USBR 30, suggesting that USBR 20 utilize the Central Lakes Trail and Lake Wobegon Trail (currently a continuous rail-trail from Fergus Falls to St. Joseph, with a proposed extension to St. Cloud), and route USBR 30 across the St. Croix at Prescott, along the MRT spur there to Hastings, then along the "west side of the river" to downtown Minneapolis, then west out the Luce Line Trail.

One more note:  the wide "loop" that the western leg makes between Hastings and Inver Grove Heights will be fixed in the next couple years.  A new trail much closer to the river is being built, and I believe segments are already open...the full trail completion is expected sometime next year.

[mgk920]

From what I am aware of here in Wisconsin, WisDOT is currently working on stitching together some rail trails and connecting roads to designate USBR 30 westward from Milwaukee, starting at the Lake Express ferry terminal.

From the ACA's website ( http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-corridor-plan/ ):

"WISCONSIN

Model: DOT

Phase II: Designation

The state's Bicycle Council with assistance from WisDOT is implementing USBR 30 across Wisconsin. This route is mostly on trails managed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The portions that are not on trail are being researched by a contractor. The next step is for the DOT to seek agreements from the DNR and the local jurisdictions along the route. The Bike Federation of Wisconsin and the DNR are interested in aiding the WisDOT in efforts to develop other USBRs across the state.

For more information or to volunteer, contact larry(dot)corsi(at)dot(dot)wi(dot)gov"

There is a series of rail trails that extend from the downtown area of Milwaukee, starting with the Hank Aaron State Trail from the Lake Michigan lakefront, westward past Miller Park into the west suburbs, then following the Glacial Drumlin Trail through Waukesha to the Madison area, then other rail trails, including the Elroy-Sparta Trail (the USA's first designated public rail trail), to the La Crosse area.  I can then see something put together to have USBR 30 then roughly following the east side of the Mississippi River into Prescott.

-------------------

As for the other USBRs in Wisconsin, first, I have not yet begun pondering USBR 10, except that a series of rail trails does exist in the corridor along US 2 and 63 and that I wonder if it wouldn't be a bad idea to have it cross into Minnesota via the new Stillwater Bridge (OTOH, I'm kind of surprised that it isn't shown going east-west through Superior).

-USBR 20 - Would run westward from the S.S. Badger (US 10) ferry terminal in Manitowoc, roughly following the US 10 corridor across the state.

From Manitowoc to the Appleton area, I would have it follow County 'JJ' and then County 'PP' westward to the Hilbert area, County 'BB' to Sherwood (it would have to use a short segment of WI 57 for now between Hilbert and County 'BB', but the highway is straight, level, has excellent sight lines and paved shoulders, until the paralleling moribund rail line is finally abandoned).  From Sherwood, I would have it pass by the entrance to High Cliff State park and then use a couple of yet-to-be-built path segments along WI 114 into Menasha.  It would then cross the Appleton metro area using the Friendship State Trail across Menasha (including its long bridge over Little Lake Butte des Morts) and continue westward on the US 10 part of the Friendship Trail.  Currently, the Friendship trail ends at County 'N' at Winchester (ROW is preserved for it to Fremont), so it would have to use County 'N' and County 'II' (old WI 110), both low-traffic roads, to Fremont.

At Fremont, trouble begins.  With the recent US 10 four lane expressway upgrades, there is no system of through frontage roads between the cities, villages and unincorporated hamlets along the way westward to Amherst and until such can be developed in conjunction with future US 10 freeway upgrades, it will have to temporarily use the paved shoulders of US 10 between several of them and local roads that go well out of the way between the rest.  From Amherst to Amherst Junction, it can use the pre-1965 US 10, from where it would then follow the Tomorrow River State Trail to Plover ($4 daily or $20 annual state trail fee/toll required).  At Plover, I would then have it follow the Stevens Point 'Green Circle' Hoover Ave and Heartland trails into central Stevens Point.

From there westward, I have not yet really begun to dig into it, except that I would likely have it cross into Minnesota via the path on the I-94 Saint Croix River bridge.

-USBR 37 - Roughly follows the US 41 corridor through the state.

The best that I can come up with north of Jackson, WI uses the Eisenbahn State Trail from West Bend to Eden; County 'V' into Fond du Lac; local trails through the city; US 45 to Oshkosh; County 'A' to Neenah; Park St, Wisconsin Av and Lake St (trail along side of the street) to Fritse Park (junction USBR 20); then local streets into Appleton; the Newberry, County 'CB' and Kankapot Creek trails into Kaukauna; County 'ZZ' through Wrightstown and the Fox River trail through De Pere to downtown Green Bay.  North of Green Bay, it would likely follow local roads near the Lake Michigan (bay of Green Bay) shoreline into Marinette.

South of Jackson, it would use undetermined local roads to connect with established trails through Milwaukee County (junction USBR 30) and on southward to the Illinois state line to continue on to Chicago.  North of Marinette, it would then likely follow M-35 to Escanaba (junction USBR 10).

(Whew!)

This fun to ponder and yes, I will eventually be discussing this with WisDOT.

Mike

[hbelkins]

Can I make a request:  don't embed YouTube videos into posts.  The embed code wrecks havoc with my forum viewing such as it is...I've already had to disable photos just to get the threads to load with this crappy ship bandwidth.  Just post a link to the YouTube vid.

Does the possibility exist to remove the YouTube embed feature from the forum software? Perhaps that might be the way to go and just have people post links to YouTube videos the same way they do links to web pages.

[Alps]

Can I make a request:  don't embed YouTube videos into posts.  The embed code wrecks havoc with my forum viewing such as it is...I've already had to disable photos just to get the threads to load with this crappy ship bandwidth.  Just post a link to the YouTube vid.

Does the possibility exist to remove the YouTube embed feature from the forum software? Perhaps that might be the way to go and just have people post links to YouTube videos the same way they do links to web pages.

On the one hand, you have one user with an isolated issue that's close to unique for this forum, versus hundreds of users who enjoy the videos. While I have been behind some slow computers and firewalls and certainly appreciate where froggie is coming from, the needs of the many outweigh the few.

[froggie]

Right...I'm not asking for the mods to modify the forum software (as this is ultimately a temporary thing and Steve's right...I'm probably the only one affected by this).  I'm just asking users to post links instead of embed code for YouTube videos....thank you Mike for changing this one.

[froggie]

Of potential interest to SPUI, mgk, and the Wisconsin folks:  on their 2012 application for the northern portion of USBR 45, MnDOT included a map and verbage referencing relocating USBR 10 to pass through Itasca State Park and follow a corridor between Itasca State park and Duluth.  The map then shows USBR 10 following USBR 41 down to the Twin Cities, but also includes mention of a possible USBR 10 reroute in Wisconsin to go through the Duluth/Superior area instead of "detouring" down to the Twin Cities.  mgk mentioned this sort of routing in an earlier comment.

[Molandfreak]

Back on topic, and regarding an earlier subject, I E-mailed MnDOT's bike unit regarding USBR 45 and MRT concurrencies.  The condensed version I got back is that, for those segments where there are parallel MRT routes (north of La Crosse, Hastings to Elk River, through St. Cloud, and Brainerd to Bemidji), *BOTH* branches will be designated as USBR 45.  A few segments will need improvements such as trail improvements or shoulder widening first (plus the new I-90 Mississippi River bridge construction that'll shut down the "lowland" trail there for 2 years), but eventually all will be designated USBR 45.  I asked about signage, and MnDOT will only be signposting it as the Mississippi River Trail (MRT) for now, citing that "USBR signing is under discussion nationally to identify best practices".  Signs will be installed beginning this fall.

45E and 45W?

[mgk920]

Of potential interest to SPUI, mgk, and the Wisconsin folks:  on their 2012 application for the northern portion of USBR 45, MnDOT included a map and verbage referencing relocating USBR 10 to pass through Itasca State Park and follow a corridor between Itasca State park and Duluth.  The map then shows USBR 10 following USBR 41 down to the Twin Cities, but also includes mention of a possible USBR 10 reroute in Wisconsin to go through the Duluth/Superior area instead of "detouring" down to the Twin Cities.  mgk mentioned this sort of routing in an earlier comment.

Interesting.  I have not yet seen the proposed routing of USBR 41 southwards from Duluth, but does it use the grade of SOO LINE's former MStP-Superior line?  If so, then it, too, would enter Wisconsin.  For USBR 10 to use that to the MStP area and then back north in Wisconsin would be a lot of backtracking - and especially avoiding a very nice, scenic area in the far northwestern part of the state and in da wesdern Yoo Pee of Michigan.

BTW, IMHO, the path on the Bong Bridge (US 2) followed by all of WI 13 north of US 2 would be an ideal routing for it.

Mike

[Signal]

Some new signs, with a divided acorn-shape shield:

[silverback1065]

Some new signs, with a divided acorn-shape shield:

Where is this?

[Rover_0]

I've sent a suggested route to bike groups in Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California suggesting a USBR be routed from Moran Jct. in Grand Teton NP along US-89 to Logan UT, then present US-91/I-15/Historic US-91 down to the junction of USBRs 70 and 79 (presumably in Cedar City UT). I also suggested that USBR-70 from there to USBR-66 at Daggett CA could be a part of this route.

I also suggested that the Garden City-Provo route via Evanston WY be a USBR, probably USBR-177 or USBR-181.

I'd number it USBR-77 or USBR-81.

[froggie]

45E and 45W?

Looking back over the USBR 45 applications, MnDOT proposed signing a 'mainline' USBR 45 and a USBR 45A.  Generally, the "western" splits (west side of the river through MSP and St. Cloud, and the Paul Bunyan Trail/Heartland Trail routing between Brainerd and Bemidji) being the designated Alt routes.

Interesting.  I have not yet seen the proposed routing of USBR 41 southwards from Duluth, but does it use the grade of SOO LINE's former MStP-Superior line?  If so, then it, too, would enter Wisconsin.

I'd expect USBR 41 to use the routing of the long-established Munger Trail between Duluth and Hinckley, thereby it would not enter Wisconsin.

[Molandfreak]

Interesting.  I have not yet seen the proposed routing of USBR 41 southwards from Duluth, but does it use the grade of SOO LINE's former MStP-Superior line?  If so, then it, too, would enter Wisconsin.

I'd expect USBR 41 to use the routing of the long-established Munger Trail between Duluth and Hinckley, thereby it would not enter Wisconsin.

Which it should use anyway.

[Bruce]

Since this thread was last touched, a whole bunch of new routes were added.

October 2013: USBR 23, Tennessee; USBR 50, Maryland

May 2014: USBR 1, Massachusetts; USBR 10, Washington; USBR 36 and 37, Illinois; USBR 50, District of Columbia and Ohio

November 2014: USBR 1 and 76, Virginia (realigned); USBR 1, Massachusetts and Florida; USBR 10, Michigan; USBR 11, Maryland; USBR 90, Florida

May 2015: USBR 10, Idaho; USBR 45, Minnesota; USBR 70 and 79, Utah

September 2015: USBR 7, Vermont; USBR 21, Georgia; USBR 35 and 36, Indiana; USBR 50, Indiana; USBR 50A, Ohio; USBR 76, Kansas; USBR 90, Arizona

May 2016: USBR 7, Connecticut and Massachusetts; USBR 10, Idaho (realignment); USBR 176, Virginia; USBR 621, Georgia

[inkyatari]

What's the status of rt 66 becoming an official USBR at this point?  Seems to me like this would be a no-brainer.  I see that it's proposed.

I'd like to see the communities along I-55 in Illinois take the old abandoned pavement from the latest alignment and develop these as part of the route.

[mgk920]

What's the status of rt 66 becoming an official USBR at this point?  Seems to me like this would be a no-brainer.  I see that it's proposed.

I'd like to see the communities along I-55 in Illinois take the old abandoned pavement from the latest alignment and develop these as part of the route.

I'm also somewhat shocked in that the system of pathways that are being developed along I-70 west of Denver, CO are not on the current USBR route planning map.

Mike

[froggie]

Those are questions to take up with the relevant state DOT's, as they are the ones responsible for siting, routing, and requesting routes.

[hbelkins]

Kentucky is finally getting around to signing USBR 76 in its entirety.