Touring via Trail
 

If the gov decided to convert one national trail into a fully functional paved bike path. Which trail would you choose and why or why not?

The link to the map (2.5 meg PDF file) http://www.nps.gov/carto/PDF/TRAILSmap1.pdf

Things to consider:

1. environmental impact/historical preservation.

2. How wide should the bike path be?

3. Would you prefer concrete, blacktop or packed earth?

4. Would the route include camping sites or motels or a mixture of both with signs?

5. Should the route include "watering" stations? If so; how often? (miles etc.)

6. Should it be fee-based or free?

7. Or would you rather have a brand new route created? A new route which links all the National Parks together for example. (without actually entering the park)

8. Or would you rather NOT build any new routs thru untouched areas?

None of the above?

Agree 100%.

I do not want paved trails cutting through national parks, in the High Sierra, or in pristine areas of Appalachia.
There are places where bicycles need not go.

1. How wide should the bike path be?

Standard width through towns (10 feet?) so there would be room to pass joggers, moms with strollers, people with dogs, kids on bikes with training wheels, etc. It could be narrower out where you wouldn't see so many people.

2. Would you prefer concrete or blacktop?

I don't care, but care should be taken to make sure tree roots don't rise up and make it unrideable (like the bike path heading north into Sandpoint, Idaho.)

3. Would the route include "natural" camping sites or "modern" motels or a mixture of both?

I'm not sure what "natural" camping sites refers to. I'd like to see plenty of hiker/biker sites along the way with hiker/biker prices.

4. Should the route include "watering" stations? If so; how often? (miles etc.)

Yes. Every 30 miles?

4. Should it be fee-based or free?

Free would be right, but I wouldn't mind paying a toll, like a toll bridge, for the first few years to help pay for construction.

5. Or would you rather have a brand new route created? (A new route which links all the National Parks together for example.)

I'm dubious whether this will ever happen. Whatever choices lead to it being done and in such a way that significant numbers of people will actually use it are what I'm in favor of.

I am a supporter of bike paths as a way of attracting more people to the use of bicycles. My experience locally has been "build it, they will come." The very limited miles of bike paths we have are always well used. On a weekend the nicer one is always packed! I think one factor stopping people from riding their bikes is fear of traffic. If we build bike paths, lots more people will ride.

Thirded!

Bingo. - fourthed
On the other hand: reclaiming an already built highway for bike/HPV only use would be ideal. Im thinking something small, slow and scenic- state highways and the like. Kick all the cars off to the nearby interstates. two-lane blacktop should be about perfect.

I'd like to see a TransAmerican Rails-to-Trails ala Katy Trail system. One giant bicycle corridor of smooth, traffic free riding from coast to coast using old railroad lines.

1. How wide should the bike path be? >8' in towns, 5' is enough elswhere.

2. Would you prefer concrete or blacktop? Prefer blacktop, but packed dirt is fine with adequate drainage.

3. Would the route include "natural" camping sites or "modern" motels or a mixture of both? As the local community can provide, but I would like information to be posted on distance to next campsite or motel and phone numbers.

4. Should the route include "watering" stations? If so; how often? (miles etc.) Yes 20 miles max. I would like information to be posted on distance to next "watering" stations

4. Should it be fee-based or free? A nominal charge for a year's use, to be collected or enforced by people working on trail maintenance.

5. Or would you rather have a brand new route created? (A new route which links all the National Parks together for example.) Linkage to connect existing routes is needed (particularly S of L Michigan, and the SE and SW))

How about bike paths along the new high speed rail lines. Not that I think the high speed rail will ever get built but a man can dream.

Shoulders on low-traffic roads would be the cat's meow - -
But I don't expect to see them in this economy.

I believe that there can and should be separated, paved bike-ped facilities with multiple lanes in built-up areas to accommodate cyclists and walkers. These should not wind around every tree-stump and behind every shopping center, but should instead be direct routes for people going places. They should access shopping, government, work places, parks, and residential areas. Too often, trails start nowhere and go nowhere - and are just for recreational use. In addition, they should either be grade-separated, or have the stop signs for the motor-vehicles. I have frequently stayed on a roadway when there is a parallel trail rather than have to stop every 100 yards.

As for cross-country trails, the issue of paving can be contentious. I'm sure that a lot of folks would love a paved C&O Trail, but it would contravene the historic preservation of the canal tow path. It would be different with the ATA section. Also, most of the National Park Service designated trails are historic in nature; thus, paving would not be appropriate except, perhaps, for short sections in developed areas that would also give wheelchair access.

There are a number of paved trails outside of urban areas - the Root River Trail in Minnesota comes to mind. Surface maintenance and expense of upkeep is an issue with paved trails.

If one wanted to envision a cross-country paved rail trail, the best possibility would be to work with the former Milwaukee Road line - abandoned from Miles City, Montana to Seattle. In Washington it has been converted to the John Wayne Trail - most of it is extremely rugged except for the Iron Horse Trail portion using the Snoqualmie Tunnel under the Cascades. The Mickleson Trail in the Black Hill of South Dakota is lovely. Nebraska is developing the Cowboy Trail across the state. Iowa has many rail trails, but there are not cross-state trails. On can already cross Illinois almost entirely on rail or canal trails. Indiana and Ohio have the abandoned Erie-Lackawanna corridor that can be used - small sections in both state have been developed. Finally there's the ATA / C&O Trail from Pittsburgh to Washington, DC.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...mRailTrail.jpg

I think this is probably the best idea yet. Are you listening, US Government?

+1. Keep bike trails out of national parks. We have plenty of space to ride in; we don't need to mess up NPs too.

Perhaps OP is from the IMBA? IMBA did some fine mass-scare tactics ... er ... lobbying to get people on-board to support bike trails in national parks, using IMHO half-truths concerning such usage. I took my name off their list for those pranks.

Shoulders don't work, because they are left overs of the roadway system and then autos expect you to ride on them.
The very definition of a shoulder states they won't be in good condition. I prefer wider lanes then they have to keep them up.

Rather not.

Would rather have a *really* comprehensive set of national maps with roads graded on width, traffic volume, shoulder availability. There are lots of great roads out there in many parts of the country, but it can be tedious to put together long routes without having better information (there is a lot more to the country than the Adventure Cycling maps).

I agree already enough roads already built just not enough info. Also most NF/NP have tons of unpaved logging roads we don't need any more.