Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


 

Messages - GSullivan

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
31
Thanks Paul for pulling this all together. It really does have some important pieces spelled out in it. Let's keep talking about how we might simplify it so that it creates a working template that states can use (and then they can add relevant pieces vs. removing process that doesn't apply). It would be great to have other forum members take a stab at different versions.

32
Chairman Oberstar and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have introduced the Surface Transportation Bill of 2009. Read it at http://transportation.house.gov/

Read Bike Portland's blog http://bikeportland.org/2009/06/18/oberstars-500b-t-bill-would-establish-livability-office-us-bike-route-system/

And the media take on it http://www.examiner.com/x-2429-DC-Bicycle-Transportation-Examiner~y2009m6d21-Oberstar-reveals-transportation-blueprint



33
Greetings! Nothing is out of the picture yet. The corridor plan is just that, a plan. Although I have been talking to CALTRANS about the USBRS, we haven't gotten into the details of the corridor plan and the plan can change depending up a number of factors: the state's interest in connecting cities, the cities willingness to be a part of the system and the routes that can be defined as appropriate. The routes chosen may be spurs into cities and skirt around the urban centers entirely or might provide alternative loops, etc.

One thing that might play into how the corridor plan and the eventual route system in Calfornia turns out is the movement to create a California route network (possibly similar to what states like NY and PA have done). There is much momentum behind this idea right now and the USBRS could become a "user" of the state system that develops from this movement. You can learn more here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1451-1500/ab_1464_bill_20090504_amended_asm_v97.pdf

34
Be A Volunteer and Build Alliances / Re: Volunteer in Oklahoma
« on: June 22, 2009, 05:13:59 pm »
John, Thanks for posting on the forums. It will help move us forward in OK and beyond to have as many voices show up here as possible. If we start working with OK on routing, I will let you know. In the meantime, be sure to let the OK DOT know you're a willing volunteer. You can access all the bike ped coordinators from this website: http://www.walkinginfo.org/assistance/contacts.cfm

35
Be A Volunteer and Build Alliances / Re: Intro Thread
« on: June 22, 2009, 05:07:24 pm »
Hi Rob,
The best way to help get the USBRS established is to work with the group that ends up being the lead organization for developing the routes. In Illinois case, I am hoping that IL DOT decides that these bike routes are a worth while investment and start organizing an effort to work on them. I have been in contact with the DOT and the League of IL Bicyclists. I think there will be a time in the near future when they might be able to work together. If you could contact LIB and let them know you'd be willing to help advocate for bicycling in your county and city board, I think that would benefit both cycling in general and the USBRS in the long term. Ed Brumley is your man.

Thanks. Great to hear you're a willing voice.

37
Good idea Paul. I believe there is a un-prioritized corridor between those two routes but it probably should be linked.

I think as we move toward implementation through IL, the discussion should center around how to link into Detroit. You're right, it isn't very direct but there is probably a background reason based upon our inventory of routes as to why the corridor dips south.

I appreciate your input.
Ginny Sullivan

38
Research and Resources / Penn support biking and walking trails
« on: June 03, 2009, 07:44:31 pm »
Some good news from Pennsylvania!

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09148/973432-100.stm

39
Hey - here's Ray LaHoods blog post for May 20 honoring Bike Safety Month. Check out what he has to say.

http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/05/bicycling-is-only-healthy-when-you-ride-safely.html

40
Corridor 66 Implementation / Re: Route 66 in IL and beyond!
« on: May 20, 2009, 01:03:26 pm »
So I spoke to Ed Barsotti at the League of Illinois Bicyclists and they have Route 66 mapped out. Check out the maps and their site: http://www.bikelib.org/route66/

Scroll down to the "User Guide Segments" to see the maps.

I believe there is a great deal of support that can be generated to create this US Bike Route. Let's get some other states to contribute to this discussion~

41
Corridor 66 Implementation / Route 66 in IL and beyond!
« on: May 20, 2009, 12:55:06 pm »
Here's another way local groups can get assistance with projects.

The National Park Service helps partners plan successful locally-led
outdoor recreation and natural resource conservation projects.

August 1 is the deadline for the next round of assistance from our
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss project ideas
with RTCA staff before submitting an application.

Visit www.nps.gov/rtca for more information.

The folks are AWESOME and can really make a difference in planning and executing your projects. Give them a call and check out the program.


42
I sent Paul information on the NPS Rivers Trails Assistance Program. They are GREAT people who do AMAZING work. If you have a project that might work for their program, visit their site. Deadline to apply for assistance is August 1!

The National Park Service helps partners plan successful locally-led
outdoor recreation and natural resource conservation projects.

August 1 is the deadline for the next round of assistance from our
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss project ideas
with RTCA staff before submitting an application.

Visit www.nps.gov/rtca for more information.



43
Corridor 35 Implementation / Re: USBR 35 in Michigan
« on: May 20, 2009, 12:47:48 pm »
This is an email that I've posted. If you are interested in seeing the maps Paul sent, please email Ginny and I will email them to you. They were too large to post on the forums. Thanks.


Scott;

Here are some maps we have put together to show bike trail linkages in the Lakeshore area.  Some of the trail is in place.  The proposed routes are based on our research of bicycle plans, recreation plans and master plans approved by various local governments.

The map research is preliminary, we hope to eventually extend our mapping research to St. Joseph and the Indiana State line, and begin discussion on a Lakeshore route with the Southwest Michigan Planning Commission and Berrien County.

The City of South Haven priority is promoting bicycle tourism. Our initial thought is to focus on a route that follows the lakeshore and provides access to tourist attractions in lakeshore communities.  You will notice that parts of the routes that we have included in the map leave the lakeshore. From our point of view, it would be preferred to focus on the lakeshore route, with lakeshore meaning trying to stay within a mile, more or less of Lake Michigan, and connecting all of the harbor/beach/lakeshore towns. I'm not sure if that matches the goals of US35, but if it does we would be willing to try to coordinate the section between Ludington and the Indiana State Line.

Our meeting regarding a Saugatuck - South Haven bicycle trail on the 28th is open to anyone who might be interested.  The group is meeting for the first time, and its focus may shift to a more regional effort.

Paul VandenBosch
Project Manager
City of South Haven

44
Corridor 35 Implementation / Re: USBR 35 in Michigan
« on: May 20, 2009, 12:38:35 pm »
From: Scott C. Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:30 PM
To: Paul Vandenbosch
Cc: Todd Scott
Subject: South Haven to Saugatuck route

Paul,

Ginny Sullivan forwarded your message to Todd (who officially works for the Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance) and myself (who unofficially volunteers).  I'm a planning commissioner for China Township in St. Clair County, and I do about fifteen other things, and if I could figure out how to get paid for eight or ten of them I'd be rich.

We have been working on one of the five U.S. Bicycle Route corridors assigned to Michigan, designated U.S. Bike Route 20, which will run from Marine City (where there is a bicycle-accommodating border crossing into Ontario) to Ludington then via ferry to Manitowoc and on westward.  Since we have learned that Wisconsin will first be working on USBR 30, which will connect to Michigan via the Milwaukee-Muskegon ferry, we have added a segment of USBR 35 from Muskegon to Ludington to our honey-do list, and that's where your project comes in, to my thinking.

None of these national bike routes will be "trail-only" projects; that's inconceivable.  For USBR 20 and the part of USBR 35 we've looked at, our basic premise is we use good regional trails wherever we find them on the corridor, and where we don't have that, we use paved rural roads when possible and state roads with paved shoulders where necessary, favoring scenic routes where they exist, and going into communities where we can (so a bicyclist can get lunch or a Coke, use the bathroom, etc.).

U.S. Bike Route 35 on a national level is a very long corridor, stretching from the deep south up through Michigan.  The Michigan portion, as you doubtless are aware, runs up the Lake Michigan shoreline.  The current work we have done only covers the segment from Muskegon to Ludington and is in a very early draft stage.  (I can show you that if you'd like to see it.)  Not very many people have seen it yet or are even aware that we're working on it.  (Josh DeBruyn, from the MDOT Nonmotorized Office, is one of the people aware of this.)

I think - and Todd, feel free to chime in - that the USBR 35 segment we're working on would be much better if it can be extended further north or south.  Certainly if you have an excellent facility, existing or to be built, from South Haven to Saugatuck, it would make sense to consider incorporating that into the route.  Of course, we'd have to connect it to the Muskegon-Ludington portion, somehow.

The process for designating a route and having it approved to be part of the U. S. Bicycle Route System is a fairly long one, complex and largely untried.  This is all brand-new stuff we're doing.  In Michigan, one thing that's likely is that we will need to have lots of local buy-in and transmit that up to Josh at MDOT, who then will apply to AASHTO for route designation on the various routes.  Once that's done, assuming AASHTO approves a route, then it can be signed and mapped as a U. S. Bicycle Route.

From your own point of view, if you are in the grant-application process, I think the potential to establish your project as a segment of a route of national significance might help in the scoring system the various grant agencies use.

Keep in touch!

Regards,
Scott Anderson
Vice Chair, Planning Commission
Charter Township of China
St. Clair County, MI

45
Corridor 35 Implementation / USBR 35 in Michigan
« on: May 20, 2009, 12:37:38 pm »
Ginny;
 
The City of South Haven is working together with neighboring communities to create a bike trail connection between South Haven and Saugatuck, Michigan.  This would be a route along the lakeshore through a very attractive tourist destination.
 
Are there any larger bike routes that we can coordinate with, connect with or otherwise use as a reference in grant writing?
 
Also, I noted that US Bike Route 35 stops at the northernmost tip of the lower peninsula of Michigan.  It seems like it should continue to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, which is a border crossing to Canada.  I'm not sure who the person is to make this comment to.  Can you direct me to whoever is putting the plan together and would be the appropriate contact for this comment?
 
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Paul VandenBosch
Project Manager
City of South Haven

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6