I originally posted this as Southwest Michigan Planning, although I intended to draw some comments and suggestions from around the country. Kinda dumb, I guess, because it only drew comments from people interested in Michigan. Well anyway let's try it again...

I just attended a very successful planning session with the regional commission for non-motorized transportation development( www.swmpc.org). They have been hired by Michigan DOT to create regional interconnections using trailways, bike paths, bike lanes and designation of preferred low traffic routes for cycling. They are looking at it from a comprehensive perspective, going from county to county to attempt to fulfill each communitie's needs as well as gain consensus for the most proper connectivity between them and other regions.
Are other states taking the same approach? I found this to be very encouraging and enlightening.

All Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) are required by Federal law (SAFETEA-LU and up coming CLEAN-TEA) to do just that - make plans. Funding them and getting them on the ground is a whole other ball of wax.

The Alliance for Biking and Walking released figures on the current federal rescission and funds that can be used for bike/ped projects, which basically says more then our fair share of bike/ped projects got killed to support more car centric roads.

-------FHWA Formula-Final Rescissions-Difference
MI----$7,228,923----$21,081,084----$13,852,161--Transportation Enhancements
MI----$19,307,955---$14,270,507---$(5,037,448)--CMAQ
MI----$1,053,235----$3,071,458-----$2,018,223----Recreational Trails Program

As I said funding bike ped projects is the hot issue now.

I'm in WA state, but i know Oregon specifically addresses bike traffic on rural roads with facilities requirements.

This would be one way for michigan to better plan for bikes in rural counties.

here's a brief from oregon.gov

from what i remember, michigan was a bit sloppy with the rec trails funding, they were doing some goofy stuff up around Marquette, don't know what became of that trend in MI trails planning....

Both of you are right on when it comes to our planning. The commission's intent is to get ahead of the game by identifying the most useful places to develop non-motorized facilities. They are not intending to develop pathways, linear parks or rail trails (those are primarily funded privately). Their focus is on the routes which will be most useful to cyclists and pedestrians for transportation, if an existing or developing trail project fills part of that need fine, but they are focused upon using existing right of way and the best ways to integrate motorized and non-motorized transportation.
For instance, in the meeting we just had we identified 4 different routes in and out of the county which would be attractive for cycling. One of them, a pet project of my own for the past few years, will be a 16 mile segment of county roads which will connect trail projects being developed between Battle Creek and Kalamazoo and another between Grand Rapids and Lansing. The road commission intends to apply for federal enhancement funds to provide the addition of bike lanes along the 16 mile route.
In Michigan, our road commissions are required to spend 10% of their budget on non-motorized facilities, but, from what they tell me, that gets used up quickly just on maintaining pedestrian crosswalks, sidewalks, curb cuts etc. So the funding issue is a constant problem. Most projects get done in coincidence with pavement overlays, but with Michigan funding down as it is, most of that is on hold and may not be rescheduled in our area for 10 to 15 years.

Delaying a resurfacing project for 10-15 years, just means that you turn a $1,000,000 resurfacing project into a $40,000,000 rebuilding project, because the broken pavement has let water in to rot out the road bed. Sidewalks often can last a long time, around here they tend not to replace them wholesale, instead they will simply cut out sections that need to be replaced for some reason, could be damaged, utilities work, realignment, wheel chair access, etc. A 1km walk can see sections like this 1956, 1965, 1971, 1998, 1985, 2004, 1969, 2002, 2008, 1973, etc. The 1956 section is actually original...

As for bike lanes, it really should be a streamlined process, for example as part of state road standards, then when they are repainting a road, the lanes are included if there is enough space, if not, then it's part of the road rebuilding process.

Oh we all agree the resurfacing needs to be done, here in Michigan, most have been placed back on the schedule until absolutely necessary. The budgets in this state (with a falling population) are disappearing before they can be put on paper. In this county they have placed all resurfacing on hold until their budget stabilizes. But that is what the planning commission is trying to help prioritize for the state, where money can be effectively spent in the coming years since the funds for non-motorized facilities is limited. Are there any efforts being made in the Toronto area to get public feedback to prioritized the routes which are developed for cycling? I think the time being spent here in local communities is going to make a tremendous difference in the coming years.

it's ironic that in an era of scarce funding that motorized private automobile transport would continue to receive such a great raft of subsidies. seems states should wise up and realize the incredible cost of maintaining public roads is unsustainable. force motorists to pay more for the share of use, and commercial truck use as well..


bikes are not going to wreck pavement like motor vehicle traffic.

it's subsidy after subsidy for the motor vehicle these days. our governments have bent over backwards for private mobility and now we begin to pay the price. maybe the states should put a stop to the gravy train for private automobile use, as radical and unamerican and potentially crippling as it sounds.


pollution, ground water contamination, (biggest polluter of puget sound is the private autombile...) how about that lead exhaust back in the 60's eh?, congestion, sprawl, obesity, lack of personal mobility for the elderly, traffic deaths and wasted time and incredible outlays of public monies to support drives past the abandoned downtown to the walmart and the costco and the dairy freeze.


but boy do we ever have buttloads of high quality exhaust!


sorry, just a little grousing. so tragic that michigan is in such dire straights but now it has to maintain all this roadway infrastructure.

I mean, how long is michigan going to have to maintain the construction fiasco that is the Zilwaukee Bridge? to what purpose?

I know this gets federal funding more so than state highways but exemplary of the huge inflated roads system in michigan and the largess of a perfect ****storm that was the infernal combustion engine.

You're definitely preaching to the choir, but the irony is that even in Michigan, where our culture and economy has been soooooo dependent upon the automobile, people are actively supporting and expanding cycling facilities. It takes a bludgeon over the head but sooner or later people pay attention.

Counties should, like cities have an ongoing budget for repairs, this would include road resurfacing, bridge re-decking, line painting and other similar projects, and you can pretty much determine that if you resurface a particular road today, that in 2039 you will be back there doing the same job again. Pushing back todays maintenance simply means that you will either have a much bigger job in the future, or more projects to complete a couple of years down the road. In some places states/provinces are actually running deficits to fund some of these projects, simply to keep construction workers employed.


Toronto has the infamous bikeway network, a planned collection of bike lanes and routes covering the city, with 1004km of bike lanes, sharrows and off road paths. As of October 6, 2009 they had 418km actually build, so at the current average rate they will probably be finished closer to 2031 then 2011. Part of the problem in Toronto, is that to install a bicycle lane, you need to go through a process similar to a zoning variance, with public consultations and a council vote. Building anything that passes in front any business is likely to bring the wrath of the local Business Improvement Association, because we all know that only people in cars, parked within 5mm of the front of the business the want to waddle into, ever buy anything.

What is needed is an update to the road standards that requires all streets that are rebuilt with more then a certain number of motor vehicles per peak hour, have a bicycle lane installed, if there is room, when the street is repainted , if there isn't room, then when street construction work is planned.

The past practice around here has been to mark off a bike lane where ever there is enough shoulder to fit, provided there is enough public pressure for bike lanes. What we have in many cases (not all) are a bunch of incomplete lanes for a few miles here and there. The commissions intention is to stop that type of work which provides a hodge podge bunch of roads to nowhere, and instead improve and mark off routes that cyclists agree will be usable for transportation.
Of course we all know what happens anytime you infringe upon parking spaces. Business owners have not gotten the idea that cyclists can be customers also, but that goes back to the public perception of bicycles as toys rather than transportation.

Spot on! "Let's stripe in some opportunistic bike lanes that don't encroach on either on-street parking or travel lanes."

if you take a look at most bike planning, and guidelines from AASHTO on how to go about this,


identifying routes likely used by bicyclists is core to this process.

in rural areas this can consist of simply picking the direct, paved road on the map that goes between to centers of population. In small towns it usually recognizes routes between schools and residental as part of safe routes to school identification and will take into consideration areas of confluence like shopping centers, grocery stores, post office, etc.Identifying bike routes in a small town of a couple thousand people is likely to be fairly straightforward.

Once routes are identified, bridges and over/underpasses need closer look soon in the process to identify 'pinch points' for immediate short term fixes prior to potentially long term, more extensive retrofits.

As a case in point and areas I'm slightly more familiar with that you may be too, bicycling needs in Northwestern lower Michigan, to look at bike routes between Empire and Frankfort, or Frankfort to Manistee, are going to be fairly straightforward.

In the Upper peninsula its going to be even more obvious- just put a wide shoulder on the paved roads between communities! Urban areas need their own cooridinated plan on the county level perhaps rather than municipality by municipality.

The problem of course is in the financing and implementing bicyclist friendly travel enhancements.

state requirements ensuring adequate shoulder widths on all repaving projects is a good way to go about this slow-term.

The state requirements here have been addressed and are part of the reason MDOT is having the commission study the issue. They are requiring 5 feet as minimum for a bike lane, so they are trying to be careful to identify the most effective routes.