I've been up the McKenzie Byway (242) twice this year so far. Hopefully once or twice more before it opens to traffic.

The problem that has often been pointed out is the gaps in the bike path network. So, while the McKenzie pass is nice, and I imagine not too bad even once it is open to cars, getting from here to there is a problem, with the McKenzie Hwy (126) getting slammed with cars and trucks.

I do too... but then one has to consider the foolishness of "Touring" specifically choosing a 20 mile hill climb just for the heck of it, then complaining about a route that goes over some short rolling foothills and adds a few extra miles.

I do realize, however, that 100 to 140 miles puts me at my daily limit. Adding an extra 10 or 20 miles to that, and a few extra hills just puts me beyond my limit.

Yeah

Also considering perpetual maintenance.

I think EWEB has had an interest in maintaining "parks"... so I am hoping they will be open to improved access through their property.

I can imagine making some bollards in my shop and planting them if I can get the organizations to chip in towards the materials costs. But gravel, paving, and trail/road grooming and maintenance can get expensive.

But I can imagine troubles with State, Local, City, and Federal agencies. As well as multi-use. 4-wheeling vs bikes? Some things like Logging may be a benefit if it opens roads for occasional use. A good website would even post where logging is occurring, or temporary (bicycle) route closures.

Hopefully working with TravelOregon and RideOregon will help with government coordination.

The McKenzie Hwy (126) for example is busy, and will always be busy. The sections with a wide shoulder are nicer than those without a shoulder, but still I prefer the tranquillity of less busy roads.

One of the problems with widening that road is that the narrow sections are bound by the river on one side and a mountain on the other, and could be quite expensive to widen. Of course, a wider road would benefit all users, trucks, cars, tractors, whatnot... and bicycles. Which means that the budget is bigger.

However, if there are existing secondary roads, then it may be cheaper to maintain the secondary roads than to widen the current HWY.

Yes, some of it is dependent on how the road bed was laid, but the Willamette River bike (and walking) paths in Eugene are a good example, and can get bumpy at times. Not that it wouldn't take much to resurface it once a decade or so, especially if the government invested in the recycling resurfacing equipment. They've been paving around the radio station a bit, but many of those bike paths have been largely unchanged for the last 40 years that I can remember, with lots of roots in places.

Yeah, that is one of my concerns. When I was riding along the EWEB canals, I noticed it didn't take much of a climb to spin my tires.

That means that if I have steep connectors linking roads, they will probably have to be paved, or designed so that they aren't steep.