Louis Le Tour

If anybody has any information about this route please respond. I'd rather not have to ride through the Rocky Mountains any more than necessary.

I found this and it appears that one can ride on interstates to access 80, and it's a go all the way across WY: https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconow...00404201454221

jamawani 

Yes, you can ride on nearly all of I-80 in Wyoming with the exception of a short stretch in Cheyenne - - but why? I-80 has an insanely high volume of truck traffic - plus the shoulder, although wide and safe, has its fair share of road litter - - tire fragments, metal, glass. I-80 has a moderate pass just east of Salt Lake and seven good-sized ridges between Rawlins and Laramie, finally the Lincoln Summit between Laramie and Cheyenne.

Not sure where you are coming from west of Salt Lake, but US 189 from Provo to Heber, US 40 thru Vernal to Steamboat, and Hwy 14 thru Walden to Ft. Collins is a far better cycling route with only 3000 ft more climing in 480 miles - - halving that to 240 miles up and 240 down, gives about 12 extra feet per mile of climbing. There are four summits with a long, intermediate stretch from eastern Utah to Steamboat not unlike the rolling terrain of I-80 in southern Wyoming - - just much less traffic and more scenic. There are also back road options that avoid many of the busier stretches of US 40.

If you are going to be north of Salt Lake, there are a number of options using US 30 and US 26 thru Kemmerer, Lander, and Casper.

boomhauer

+1

indyfabz

He's asked about at least one other interstate stretch (I-84, IIRC) in the past. He's trying to avoid as many hills as possible. Between the trailer, the dog and the motion sensor alarms he says he plans to bring, sounds like he'll be loaded down pretty good.

I rode a bit of I-80 east of Rawlins out of necessity and can verify what you say about debris. Fortunately, there was not much traffic that morning. That may have been due to the fact that it was early on July 5th.

jamawani 

I noticed that after I had posted when I checked his previous posts.
I've ridden a short stretch of I-84 - east of Boise - where there is no alternative paved route.
I've also driven both interstates extensively.
I-84 is tolerable - - I-80 is really nasty - - especially on a bike.

It is a shame that cycling advocacy groups such as ACA do not press for a non-interstate solution to the TransAm section.

fietsbob

Generally where the Interstate usurped the only easement/Right-of-Way, through a Place, you can use the Freeway break down lane/shoulder.

But if there are parallels to use.. why would you want to ?

pdlamb

I questioned a fair number of ACA's routing decisions, but I'll cut them some slack on this one. It's what, 8 miles on I-80 from Muddy Gap to Sinclair? Traffic and debris weren't that bad; noise was no worse than the next few miles from Sinclair into Rawlins on parallel roads; and best of all, I got to tell everyone back home, "I rode on everything from gravel roads to interstates." That stretch, IMHO, is a good place to collect those bragging rights.

indyfabz

IIRC, the I-80 section of the TA (W-E) is from Sinclair to the exit for WY 130, which takes you south to Saratoga. Muddy Gap in NE of Rawlins/Sinclair on U.S. 287.

Mr IGH

I have driven that stretch of I80 several times, both ways, and have to say it's a nasty ride on a bike. The winds are crazy strong, the speed limit signs are LED programmable, when the wind kicks up the limit drops from 80mph to as low as 45mph. I wouldn't ride it anymore than necessary.

cyccommute 

Although I agree that I-80 wouldn't be a good choice for bicycling...and it likely isn't going to save Louis Le Tour any hill climbing...I'm somewhat disappointed in your upbraiding of the ACA. As a lifelong westerner, I know that there are lots of places where riding an Interstate is the only alternative. The section on I-80 is one of them. A "non-interstate solution" along I-80 doesn't exist unless ACA is willing to build a road for bicyclists. They could send cyclists hundreds of miles out of their way to avoid a small section like the one on I-80 or just have them cyclist ride what is a noisy but ridable road.

nfmisso

+1 A couple years ago, saw a pickup - travel trailer roll; he was east bound with a 50+mph tail wind, no other traffic close, just picked up the trailer and flipped it, taking the pick up with it.

I would like to third or fourth the US40 suggestion thru Vernal (my mum lives there), and east.

jamawani 

"It's a shame ..." does not equal "upbraid" - - at least not in most dictionaries I can find.

And one should not, too readily, discount the possibility of alternatives.

a) Since I-80 is regularly repaved and modernized, as well as widened,
there is the possibility of including a service road as part of the next major renovation.
A service road provides a backup in case of closure of the main highway due to accident.
Also, a service road can be tied to expansion of the historic Lincoln Highway route.

b) Highway 71 runs south from Rawlins for 12 miles or so.
Then an unpaved county road runs east to Saratoga.
Although energy development is currently on hold, it will resume at some point in the future.
(Both traditional oil & gas as well as significant wind farms)
Any future energy development in southern Carbon County could include paving of the county road.

So, yes, there are ways of doing it.
If the knowledge is there, the planning, and the organizational support.

cyccommute 

Well you are certainly finding fault with the ACA for something over which they have no control.

I can certainly discount alternatives if they have little or no chance of happening. Or if they really aren't "alternatives".

So who is going to ask for that new service road as part of the next major highway renovation? Highway funds are tight...state and federal...and highway departments aren't all that likely to spend money on something that benefits a few bicyclists per year. A 2 lane roadway (a service road would have to be two lanes at least) costs, roughly, $250k per mile to build without obtaining property rights. Bridges for a two lane highway...you have to cross the Platte...cost roughly 10 times that amount. A quarter of a mile of bridging over the Platte River would cost in the neighborhood of $650k to $1.2 million.

If you think it is worth doing, why don't you propose it? You live in that state.

This one really isn't an "alternative". It's a 60 mile detour on questionable roads to avoid 6 miles of riding on an interstate highway. Alternatives should be reasonable.

Yes, there are ways of doing it. You just have to be willing to spend lots and lots of money, time and effort. Since you live up there, why don't you start?

jamawani 

Please permit me to clarify a few of your misunderstandings.

As per their website -

Membership | Adventure Cycling Association

And under National Advocacy Projects -

National Support for Bicycle Travel | Travel Initiatives | Adventure Cycling Association

So that leads one to conclude that not only is Adventure Cycling the largest organization for touring cyclists in the U.S., but also that they define advocacy as part of their mission. And although they may not have the pull of the NRA or Sierra Club, they certainly have more resources than a single rider in Wyoming.

As to your second point, you are again mistaken.

The rationale for a service road would extend far beyond a cyclists alternative. I-80 is one of the most critical cross-country road freight routes. The 12-mile segment between Sinclair and Walcott has no nearby alternative route in case an accident were to close that section of highway. In areas such as I-70's route through Glenwood Canyon, the narrow canyon precludes any service road. But such limitations are entirely absent in this stretch of I-80. A service road could be constructed in such a manner as to provide more secure access to the Union Pacific mainline, as well.

Furthermore, the roadbed and right of way of the Old Lincoln Highway still exist as a county road and the US 30 bridge over the North Platte River is still present and maintained. Image below, courtesy of GoogleMaps -

Finally, the Highway 71 alternative involves little extra distance. I know the roads, I have cycled them.
The current TransAm route from downtown Rawlins to Saratoga is 42.3 miles. The route via Hwy 71 and Bolten Road is 47.3 miles.
Were Bolten Road to be paved and improved, it would probably take off another mile or two.
That's a 5-mile difference, not 60.

To summarize:
1. Adventure Cycling Association does advocate for route improvements.
2. Much of the infrastructure for a paved service road already exists - including right of way.
3. An alternative route south of Rawlins would add only a couple of miles.

jamawani 

Back to the OP - -

There's been some heat in the discussion, but some of us really dislike even the short stretch of I-80 that is part of the TransAm and others of us find it tolerable for a short distance. I would think hundreds of miles of I-80 would be very trying, however.

cyccommute 

And let me clarify your misunderstandings. I would go further and say that Adventure Cycling is the only organization for touring cyclists in the US as well as the largest. But with less than 50,000 members, any advocacy it can do is extremely limited. And, with that few members, it's funding is extremely limited as well. They spend their money on finding routes that take advantage of existing facilities rather than build them or push for states to build facilities. As a member, I'd rather that they continue on that kind of mission...finding and mapping good routes...than get bogged down in fixing 6 miles of frontage road that would be mostly useless to anyone but a few cyclists a year in Wyoming.

There are lots and lots of areas along the US interstate system where there are no service roads for many more miles than that little stretch of I-80. I-25 from Walsenburg, CO to Raton, NM (58 miles) comes immediately to mind. But there are lots of others. Some how those sections of the interstates do quite well without service roads and no one seems to be calling for those sections to be filled in. Like I-80, I-25 has a UP line that carries a lot of rail traffic on it without road access but it does so for many more miles.

But, again, if you see a need for additional roadway, suggest it to your local representative. I'm sure they will find $1.5 million dollars for such an important project.

...Oh, and you'll need about 5 years of planning. And you might still need that new bridge to carry the traffic that would jump off I-25.

You are correct that the bridge exists. That saves about a million dollars. You are still short $1.5 million.

And I'm sure that ACA looked at that section of road for their route. They probably rejected it for the same reason that most touring cyclists would reject it...it's not that good of a road for a loaded road style touring bike. They try to avoid major roads as much as possible...sometimes too much for my tastes...but even they would draw the line at 20 or 30 miles of bad road to avoid 6 miles of interstate travel.

You have no problem with riding on marginal roads in the middle of no where to avoid even the hint of traffic. But that is just you. Most people wouldn't go that far out of their way.

1. Yup. But it takes someone to make them aware of the "problem". Step up.
2. Yup. All but 6 miles of frontage road exists along that route. Even at a relaxed pace, that's 30 to 45 minutes of travel and hardly worth $1.5 million and 5 years of planning.
3. More then a couple and about 25 miles on dodgy roadway with no services.

rhm

For what it's worth (which is probably not much), I once rode from Washington to Iowa on I-90. I don't think I'd do it again, but it was fine. Interstate highways cast a certain kind of pall on the surrounding countryside, adding and detracting at the same time. If I go back to that part of the country, I want to see the part that doesn't have an Interstate going through it. Other than that, I have no misgivings about riding on the highway.

unterhausen

I used to ride on I 84 almost every day, but I got off as soon as I could. I have ridden on I80 in Utah, the traffic was annoying. As someone said upthread, the wind can be really bad, and often is

mev

I've ridden on small parts of I-5 (WA, CA), I-84 (OR), I-15 (NV), I-10 (CA, TX), I-25 (CO, NM, WY), I-80 (UT, WY), I-70 (CO), I-76 (CO), I-90 (MT). I don't mind riding interstate if necessary and in a few spots even prefer to the alternatives (e.g. US-85 vs I-25 crossing WY/CO border).

However, thought of several hundred miles of I-80 through southern Wyoming - compared to an alternative that favors US-40, CO-14 route described above is definitely not a choice I would make. Two big reasons I would favor the non-Interstate route is (a) scenery in that area definitely in favor of non-Interstate and (b) traffic/tires, I-80 through that area seems particularly predisposed as a major truck route - and I suspect I'd pick up a lot more little wires causing punctures - and generally not being a pleasant ride.

indyfabz

Commenting on I-90 between Chicago and Erie, PA, Steinbeck once wrote:

"When we get these thruways across the whole country, as we will and must, it will be possible to drive from New York to California without seeing a single thing."

Expressing a similar sentiment, Charles Kuralt once said:

"The interstate highway system is a wonderful thing. It makes it possible to go from coast to coast without seeing anything or meeting anybody. If the United States interests you, stay off the interstates."

I guess it depends on where, when and how long. As I noted above, I didn't find the section of I-80 being discussed bad at all, but I rode it early a.m. on July 5th 15 years ago. That may have influenced the amount of traffic. I rode portions of I-84 through the Columbia River Gorge. Not the most preferred route, but there was no alternative, and the mileage was relatively minor. Another stretch of interstate riding I did was on I-94 in North Dakota. Maybe 10 miles. It was the only paved road that went east from the town we stayed in the night before. I'd be shocked to learn that I got passed my even ten vehicles. But again, that was nine years ago and we started out very early in the a.m. I have also ridden a couple of section of I-90. One east of Missoula, MT and one west of Butte, MT. (Every mile of interstate highway in MT is open to bikes.) Not pleasant riding, but I didn't feel like I was in great danger, especially after riding shoulderless state roads with high speed limits.

Someone from another country (Australia, IIRC) started a thread on another forum in response to the death of a fellow countrywoman who was struck and killed by a drunk driver in IN while riding in the middle of the night. He argued that she would be alive today had she had been able to legally ride the interstate. He argued further that all sections of interstate highway should be open to bikes. Anyone who has driven something like the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95) knows that that is an unsustainable position, but he couldn't be persuaded otherwise.

BigAura

Touring on Interstates makes no sense to me.

mev

I don't have a big issue with a 10-20 mile stretch of Interstate, particularly if it connects some otherwise good routes - and ideally: (a) in area with very few on/off ramps, e.g. rural interstate and (b) traffic not insanely high (c) reasonable shoulder. Some good and bad examples:

- Cycling across the US, I came across a ~12 miles of I-10 in AZ. Unfortunately the shoulder had some annoying "rumble strips". Each 25ft or so, there was a grooved trench about 2.5 inches wide and 0.5 inches deep. Thump, thump, thump. The rumble strip issue isn't unique to interstates, but that particular instance was poor and there was enough traffic that it didn't make sense to ride in travel lane until I saw someone in my rear mirror.
- Cycling across Western Kansas in Grove and Trego counties, my paper maps had conflicting information about the status of "old 40" which paralleled I-70. Some listed it as gravel and some listed it as paved. I incorrectly assumed, it had started as gravel and had since been paved. In this case, the reverse happened - these two counties decided cost of maintaining a deteriorating paved highway would be easier if they tore out the pavement and went back to gravel. Some of it was a bit obnoxious soft gravel and this was at least one instance I would have been happier on shoulder of I-70 (if it had been allowed) for distance it required me to get to better E-W cross road.
- I haven't been on the Sinclair portion of I-80 but don't see a big issue given the length. However, planning to spend multiple days cycling several hundred miles of I-80 across Wyoming when a perfectly reasonable (and more beautiful) alternative exists just a little further south - doesn't make sense to me.

So if that interstate is a connecting portion and 10 or 20 miles long of rural interstate - no big deal, but a lot more than that is where I'd draw the line.

indyfabz

Yeah. And I noted, sometimes a stretch of interstate is the only paved option. Try getting between Butte, MT and the start of MT 1 to ride the pretty Pintler Highway to Georgetown Lake without riding on (a) muddy roads or (b) I-90 for maybe 6 or so miles).