Advocacy & Safety - How are bike routes Determined

I was curious if anyone knew how official bike routes on U.S. or state roads were determined. Here in New York State we have three or four (with #s assigned to them, even) which run statewide, and they generally have a bike lane, although in some spots there is simply a "share the road" sign when there is not enough room for a lane. Which brings up another question. Who determines what roads are deserving of "Share the Road" signs. I know these signs are used when there is absolutely no shoulder. There are few bike lanes here (unlike say, Wisconsin), but here and there I do see the share the road signs. Do advocacy groups petition for these? Does the state DOT make these determinations? Because I see them on county, state and town roads but I can't imagine they are all designating these independently.

California is blessed with numerous cycling advocates, who have actively helped traffic engineers and governing bodies identify and classify cycling routes. In San Diego County, streets without bike lanes or wide curb lanes are often designated as Bike Routes if they provide essential transportation links and/or are popular with cyclists.

I was curious if anyone knew how official bike routes on U.S. or state roads were determined.
I don't know about state roads, but Atlanta's counties have often picked the most inferior, often out-of-the-way routes for "bike routes," mottled with potholes, rough pavement and lots of on-street parking to set you up for dooring. I hate to say it, but whenever I see a "share the road" sign where I'm riding, I feel like taking another route just to show motorists that "share the road" signs do not mean, "this is the only place I'm allowed to ride my bike."

I wonder if I'm getting negative as I age...

Actually, in the past couple of years, they have repaved some of the worst spots, which shows somebody is on the ball. But I still get the feeling that motorists think a bike lane or other bike-related signage means you have to ride your bike there, nowhere else.

Brisbane City Council used to designate certain roads that were wide enough to share comfortably, and that were popular with cyclists as 'Bicycle Friendly Zones' (BFZs) and used a largish yellow bicycle symbol, but no line marking.

They don't do that now. Now they designate roads that aren't really wide enough to share comfortably (ie. not wide enough to put in a proper bike lane without buying anything more than paint), but which cyclists are likely to use anyway as 'Bicycle Awareness Zones' (BAZs). The really cool thing about it is that they use exactly the same symbology for both.

Actual Bike Lanes are only painted on roads that are already wide enough for them to fit, ie. the road is wide and safe making the paint largely redundant. When the road narrows, the bike lane terminates, leaving those who like to rely on painted lines SOL. Bike lanes serve little more purpose than allowing the authorities to say they're 'doing something for cyclists', without actually doing anything significant (or expensive). It's a cheap way to shut advocates up. Or am I being too cynical?

Or am I being too cynical?

I hope not, because I feel exactly the same way. In fact, I noticed exactly the same phenomenon down here on the way back from Austinville last night.

In answer to the original question, I will ask "determined by whom?". I determine my own "bike routes" when I ride. The way I look at it, I have the experience of over 120,000km of cycling upon which to rely. This generally puts me one up on anyone else who tries to determine where I "should" ride.

Well from my experience I can definetly say that the cyclist arn't in mind when these "bike routes" are made.. Last summer I rode across PA, on the so called bike route.. And there was pot holes, bumpy roads, and place with no shoulder. Couple sections even had no shoulder than about 2 ft from the edge of the road was gravel and grinded road, so you practically had to ride in the middle of the road.. My theory is they pick a road and, throw up the signs. Saturday I am leaving for a ride from NY to Maine.. Im hoping the "bike route" is a little more biker friendly..

Not sure about the state, but I got some good info on how Adv. Cycling chooses a route.

State wise, there are some roads in NY that aren't the best for cycling but because they are long and straight, they are dedicated as the "bike route" signs you see.

Like if you're by Lake Champlain going north, Rt 9 is the logical driving route but parts of it is narrow two lane roads (one lane both way) and there is a lot of logging that goes on so you have to deal with these huge flatbed trucks carrying logs flying up the road with no shoulder.

I think the state gets as much input from cycling organizations and groups but for their budget/time, it typically can't compete with their need to support their vehicular traffic.

Jay

Here's a blurb about the proposed routes for Missouri:

The proposed cross-state bicycle routes have been offered to the MoDOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee by the Routes Subcommittee. The routes have been selected on the basis of average daily traffic volume data and topography. The routes have not been ground-tested. They are not approved by MoDOT. They are offered purely for consideration, comment, and suggestion by cyclists across the state.
(emphasis mine)

MoDOT is requesting public comment. (see the Missouri Bicycle Federation website (http://www.mobikefed.org/mobikemap2004/index.html))

I'm guessing other states also choose routes based on traffic volume.

I found this:

http://www.velo.qc.ca/bikewaydesign/index.lasso

And for the Canadians who are interested:

http://www.velo.qc.ca/bikewaydesign/index.lasso?training

The price is steep for an individual. I suppose it's made for city planners, etc.

I'm not as cynical as our Aussie friends here. I've been living here two years and have seen improvement in a bike path stretch I use regulary. I have noted that when rural roads are repaved, they put a paved shoulder. During last night, a bike lane was added at another spot I ride often. It doesn't make the road wider but it does increase awereness to drivers and cyclists who would not ride there now do. And that's what we need! More cyclists! Bikes are different than cars and have different needs. If we can get more people biking, we will get better infrastructure.

I say encourage the good shots and when something is not so well done, try to be constructive and bring your experience to those in power.

That said, I have seen my share of stupid bike path and "shared roads". :mad: Here, we have the Route Verte (http://www.routeverte.com/ang/index.lasso) (Green Route). Last year on my Gaspésie Tour (http://community.webshots.com/album/93885586OniTGS), I was riding on a nice road with smooth paved shoulder, by the sea... couldn't be more perfect. Then there's this "Route Verte" panel indicating a right turn on some obscur back road. I didn't take the turn. Just looking at the road, the pavement wasn't so nice and my experience with following panels had not been always good. Sometimes, a panel is missing! I just kept on going on my nice paved shoulder by the sea... BTW, a few kilometers later, the Route Verte was coming back to the main road. Go figure...

I'm not as cynical as our Aussie friends here.
You can add this American to that list.

Sometimes you just have to say, "The Emperor has no clothes."

Near where I live, in northern NJ, the bike route happens to be a pretty good way to get to the bike path. I was pretty much riding the same the route long before it was made official with the obligatory green signs. Other than leading through a nasty intersection that I avoid, it seems to make sense. It wouldn't surprise me if a local club or enthusiast put up the signs along his or her regular route... as a kind of message to motorists 'watch out for bikes!'

Anyway, I ride on whichever roads I feel like (except for the highway etc), but follow the path when it happens to be somewhere I'd ride anyway ;)

Near where I live, in northern NJ, the bike route happens to be a pretty good way to get to the bike path. I was pretty much riding the same the route long before it was made official with the obligatory green signs. Other than leading through a nasty intersection that I avoid, it seems to make sense. It wouldn't surprise me if a local club or enthusiast put up the signs along his or her regular route... as a kind of message to motorists 'watch out for bikes!'

Anyway, I ride on whichever roads I feel like (except for the highway etc), but follow the path when it happens to be somewhere I'd ride anyway ;)
Makes me think about why rivers run where they do. Man makes his own modifications to natural waterways, but creeks and rivers flow where they want.

I ride where I want, too.