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 - NE2

Pages: [1]
Another option for the St. Louis to Louisville Route could be to go south from Mt. Carmel on Illinois 1 to Crossville, Illinois .  At Crossville, take Illinois 14 to Historic New Harmony, Indiana, then head east toward Evansville and Louisville.  This would allow a crossing into Indiana.  This a toll bridge but leads into a very scenic and historical area.
Illinois 14 is not traveled because most of the traffic stays on Interstate 64.  Again this might be another option.
This bridge has since been closed to all traffic:
Nearest alternates are:
*Wabash Memorial Bridge to the south - which is electronic toll collection only, and it's not clear how cyclists are supposed to pay:
*I-64 to the north - no bikes
*Mt. Carmel - new bridge opened 2011 with wide shoulders, as omayer describes above
There's also a weird one-lane wooden toll bridge at St. Francisville. Might be fun but not a way to route unsuspecting cyclists:

Research and Resources / Parts of USBR 97 are closed to bikes
« on: October 03, 2012, 11:17:06 pm »
According to Alaska's 2010 application to AASHTO, USBR 97 (not identified by number in the application) follows the Seward and Glenn Highways through Anchorage. But Google's mid-2011 Street View photos show 'pedestrians and bicycles prohibited' signs on many freeway sections of these highways. There are certainly alternates open to bikes - Old Seward Highway to the south, and a sidepath along the Glenn Highway (not sure if it's plowed in winter). But the point is that nobody bothered to check the route - nobody at Alaska DOT and nobody at AASHTO (the ACA gets a pass because apparently they weren't consulted). It's not too surprising to me, since they've done the same sort of thing for U.S. Highways, but it's a little troubling.

South Atlantic / Re: Cross Florida Greenway Connection to the East Coast?
« on: October 08, 2011, 09:05:38 am »
That bridge on I-95 is in the Pellicer Creek Conservation Area:
It doesn't seem to be useful as part of a through route.

There seem to be some problems with the proposed numbering as shown on Most major routes are multiples of 5, yet the existing 1 and 76 are included. So why not use 101 for the Pacific Coast route, to match the highway number? 76 is a bigger problem - there seems to be little reason to take it northwest to Oregon, except the desire to give a named route a single number. (If you look at the history of the U.S. Highways, few if any named highways received a single number; the Lincoln Highway, for example, switched from 30 to 530 to 50 across Utah.) Assuming current 76 is to stay, why not take it to Southern California on 70? Colorado Springs to Missoula could be 75, and Missoula to the Oregon Coast could be 30. The existence of 76 also causes bunching of even numbers in the northern half of the country. This could be partially solved by replacing 80 with the newly-freed 70 and 84 with 80. To better match the parallel highway numbers, the multiples of ten from 20 to 50 should be renumbered from 10 to 40 (76 would of course make a good 50 or 60), and 10 should be 2.

Pages: [1]