First let's talk about the "bike lane" for a moment. I would say that approximately 60-70% of the roads (highways - not roads in a city or town) I have used over the past 19 years have not had any sort of shoulder at all. Approximately 30-40% have had some sort of shoulder. The only reason that percentage is as high as it as 30-40% is because of the 6 years I cycled in Alberta where maybe about 60% the roads I rode had a shoulder.

Of the 30-40% of the roads I've ridden with a shoulder ... a miniscule percentage of them might have had something actually designated as a bike lane.

So we can indeed say with quite a high degree of probability that there will not be a bike lane where I ride.


I prefer either:

1) A large, fast-moving highway with or without lots of traffic ..... with a wide shoulder for me to ride on.

Or

2) A smaller, slower-moving highway with less traffic ... either with or without a shoulder. Most of this type of road doesn't have a shoulder, and that's OK.


I mentioned earlier that I use the basic paper map method of route finding, combined with trial and error. It really does work. I have rarely had any issues with the roads I've ridden on.

There was one time, however, when my instinct was to ride on the Bruce Highway in Queensland, but the campground operator suggested we use the Old Bruce Highway instead. It was more scenic, he said, and the traffic is slower. WRONG!! There was no shoulder and there were gravel trucks with trailers flying up and down that road. We were off and in the ditch several times as these things would not move over an inch. We knew the Bruce Highway was running along side the Old Bruce, and when we checked our map, we discovered a way to get over to it just a few km up the road ... so we dealt with diving into the ditch to get out of the way of these trucks up to that point ... and then headed for the Bruce Highway. The Bruce Highway was a wide, fast-moving highway ... with a wide shoulder. SO much better.

But the thing is, we discovered there was going to be a problem with the road and were only on it for maybe an hour before we fixed the problem.

Minnesota, for at least one state, has a bicyclists map which indicates high, medium, and low volume roads, bike trails, and which roads have at least 6 foot shoulders - also roadways, like interstates, on which cycling is not allowed. This is downloadable from the internet. Worked great in planning last summer's tour.

Google earth is a very useful resource, esp. aerial photos.

Generally secondary highways and farm to market roads work the best in my experience.

Exactly. You can pick up a basic road map of just about anywhere (I've done it in England, France, Belgium, Australia, the US, and Canada, so far) and see which roads are main roads and which roads are secondary roads. I'll generally choose the secondary roads but if a particular secondary road isn't working for me, I'll move over to another road.

This is also why I don't like the idea of booking ahead with my accommodations. During the day, I might have decided to go elsewhere. Or it might be taking me longer than planned. Or I might be travelling faster than planned.

Gosh - it sounds like most of you guys put in WAY more thought about your route than we ever do! We just figure out which direction we want to go and look at a map to see which roads go in that direction! We usually try to avoid the interstate, but other than that - we go! So far, we've cycled thousands of miles and have only ended up on really bad roads a handful of times - and those were times when were was no alternative even if we did want to take one!

I just decide where I want to end up,then point the bike in that direction and go.Whatever happens along the way is part of the fun.

I sorta deduce traffic volumes from the size of the dots that the road connects on the map. The road only goes through tiny villages? Excellent. Probably quiet. The road connects cities, and it doesn't look like there would be a more major route to take if you were driving? Avoid. (if there's a better choice)

Some places you want to go there is really only one road so you have to suck it up and ride the conditions. If a road sucks and there is a reasonable density of road grid around, I'd get off at the next paved road and go over the next road parallel to it.

Exactly!!

I've also ridden thousands of miles that way and have rarely had a bad road experience.

Not only do I ride that way on a tour, I ride that way in the area where I live as well. I get the local road map so I can identify the paved roads (I'm not so fond of gravel) ............ and go ride. I encourage people to do this ... get used to reading a road map, and get used to riding all sorts of roads.

Yeah - -

But I have found those incredible roads that wind along the riverbank and have, maybe, two cars per hour. Since there are computers at every small town library - you don't ever have to lock yourself in to any specific route.

For example, are you aware that there is a paved route from Thompson Falls, Montana to Plummer, Idaho across the Bitterroot Mountains - half of which is paved rail trail? Or the "600" roads in Virginia run between nearly every ridge in the Appalachians - lovely old farms and barns and nary a car.

I use Google Maps, spot-checking roads in Street View. If a road sucks, I'll look at the map/GPS and figure out an alternate route. However, I mostly tour in my home state, and have developed a good feel for what roads I will consider bikeable.

Go to your local Sam's Club, and pick up a State Atlas and Gazetter. Every road in the state will be on it, even the dirt, and grass ones.

It's a big red book - just carry the pages you will need.

The DeLorme Atlas and Gazetteers are great maps. I have used them for back country travel when heading to remote WW kayaking, mtn biking, or off road motorcycle racing destinations. They have all of the little back roads and even fire roads. I really don't think I would use them on the sort of tours I typically do, but they might be perfect for some tours especially if you are traveling off the asphalt and in a limited area.

I play connect the dots with Google Maps with the "Walking" option. Next I adjust the route based on: simplifying the routing, possible rail trails, DOT traffic maps, scenic byways, ACA routes, East Coast Greenway routes, etc.. Oh, and I use the "terrain" option in google maps to be sure google hasn't routed me on a "shortcut" over a mountain. (It happens)

Finally, I take pictures of the computer screen with my camera to document the route. I view the maps on the digital camera's display when I need to check my route. This way I don't have to haul around any physical maps.

Delorme Atlas and Gazetteer - great for exploring your state, maybe not so good for a long tour. I typically take short 2-3 week trips and the michigan atlas is with me always. Allows me to take that random dirt road that's barely on the map, and still end up where i want to be at the end of the day. Not that there's anything wrong with being lost...

I have all the DeLorme atlases for the western states and some of the eastern ones, too. But, one drawback of the Delorme atlases is that they do not distinguish between paved, gravel, and dirt roads. In the West, you can usually count on dashed lines to be dirt roads - but many of the solid lines are dirt/gravel, too. They just happen to be "primary" dirt roads.

We find out about those routes by talking with the local people. People are more than willing to help us out and they always suggest those routes.

Just one caution about using locals as a source. If they tell you the ride should take 2 hours and will have one significant hill .... triple that. It'll likely take about 6 hours as you slog over three significant hills.

After getting so frustrated on some of my tours with the information I was being given, I started tripling the time and hilliness of the routes and it came so much closer to reality.

I don't like looking at maps, or even cue sheets, while I'm riding. Part of the reason for this is that as I age, it's getting increasingly difficult to focus my eyes on a map; and doing so cramps them up so I can't enjoy the scenery as well afterwords.

On my recent tours --this year, that is-- I've been using a GPS. It's a simple navigational GPS; there's no interface to a computer, it doesn't track where I've been, etc. But it can figure out where I am, and I can enter the address of the place I'm going, and it will tell me how to get there.

So what I've been doing is this. Before I start out for the day, I study the map and figure out as much as I can about my destination for the day and whatever points I want to visit along the way; and I note whatever obstacles I want to avoid, such as highways. Then, based on my map study, I start on my way, choosing the roads that tempt me. I turn on the GPS only if I lose my sense of direction. Later in the day, when my destination is relatively close, I turn on the GPS. If it puts me on a road I don't like, I turn it off again, continue on roads I like for another few miles, and try again. Typically it will tell me something like "continue 2.4 miles" in which case I turn it off and ride 2 miles before I turn it on again. As I get closer to my destination, I spend more time with the GPS on.

The results of this method have been generally good; I've had lovely days of riding rural roads, enjoying the scenery with no worries about where I am. But not always. Occasionally I find myself on a road that's busier than I wanted, without good alternatives. That is, there might have been better options if I had taken a different route earlier, but having missed a turn some miles back, I am now stuck on a less-than-optimal road. In such cases, there's no alternative but to stick it out and hope a better route presents itself before long.

It's not perfect, that's for sure, but it is a method that works well enough for me, and I hope to get better at it over time.

I've pretty much given up asking locals about the hilliness of routes. I've actually had people get it wrong both ways. One route that someone told us "oh that's hilly!" turned out to be darned near close to pancake flat. I got really confused at that one. My only theory was they were a recreational cyclist with a really heavy bike! But yes most of the time drivers don't notice the hills that are there. And rollers can seem really hilly but be easy on a bike where its the long climbs that go unnoticed by the drivers.

I would also visit the regional forums here at Bikeforums. Just post a thread asking for the best routes from point A to B. Most of the advice will be helpful and bad advice is caught by peer review. This is most helpful near urban areas, but that's where the best route is essential.

I then check the suggested route on Google Maps and other resources.

Michael

We found the average motorist's estimations of hilliness and distance to be of little value. Big rig truckers on the other hand seemed to always be spot on.

Lucky Machka..I think most of the time she has called home Canada and Australia... My impression you have lower traffic volume and wide shoulders on roads such as the Trans Canada Highway.. Plus, Canadians are respectful people, so I've sensed.. Try high traffic volume roads with congestion and narrow lanes... In cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, or Cincinnati, there people are in a hurry and hostile towards slow moving vehicles such as bikes... Crazy biker.. Your plan sounds like a good one.. Sort of what I do.. Don't forget to check with highway authorities in your county.. Often they have maps offering suggested bike routes...

Although I've called Canada and Australia home, I've also travelled and cycled extensively in the US, France, and UK.

You've got a completely wrong impression of the TransCanada Highway. It has the some of the highest traffic volume in Canada. The 401 in the Toronto area and Hwy 2 in Alberta are the top two, I believe, with the TransCanada in the Fraser Valley of BC well up there as well. The TransCanada is the main transportation route across Canada for the trucker, vacationers, etc. etc., so even out of BC's Fraser Valley it is still a very busy highway.

And as for the shoulder situation ...

In BC's Fraser Valley I believe it does have shoulders, but bicycles are not allowed on it there. Then it goes into the mountains and varies from narrow shoulders to no shoulders at all ... completely with heavy truck and vacationer traffic. In Alberta there are indeed wide shoulders. There are also wide shoulders on Hwy 2 between Calgary and Edmonton and on most other main roads in Alberta. Once you hit Saskatchewan, there are usually shoulders but they aren't necessarily wide or nice. Into Manitoba, you'll have paved shoulders for small segments of the TransCanada, but mostly the shoulders are gravel. The TransCanada in Manitoba is very scary to ride on and I would not recommend it to anyone. Ontario from the Manitoba border to about Thunder Bay, I believe there are narrow shoulders, and around the Great Lakes, from what I've heard, there are none and again that section is not recommended for bicycle travel.

So no, you don't have lower traffic volume and wide shoulders on the TransCanada.

And if you want hurry ... go to Alberta. Everyone there is in a mad rush all the time. Hwy 2's speed limit is 110 km/h. Most people drive 120 km/h ... and many do much more than that ... and if you do the speed limit, they want you to be in the slow lane so they can pass you. I had a discussion once with some of my coworkers who were of the opinion that if you drove the speed limit, you had no right to be in the "fast" lane. I tried to explain that the slow lane was for drivers going less than the speed limit (if there are any!!), and that the fast lane is for drivers doing the speed limit who want to pass those who have opted to travel slower than the speed limit. They thought that was hilarious.

But that said ... I'd rather cycle on Hwy 2, with its wide shoulders and heavy, fast-moving traffic ... than on Hwy 1A for example, with its moderate traffic, no shoulders, and bad pavement.


And ... when I cycletour, I try to avoid cities as much as possible. If I fly into one, such as London, I prefer to try to take the train to a town out of the city and start my tour from there. I can't say as I'd want to include Cleveland, Detroit, or Cincinnati in a cycling tour if I could possibly avoid it. In general I prefer travelling to smaller towns.

Machka.. I've just been overly opinionated by having to ride in congested US cities with narrow roads and high traffic volume as I've earlier listed... . You just quickly get a sense you're not welcome.. Last time I saw Toronto , it had significant bike infrastructure.. Cleveland, no so much - yet some very hostile motorists..

personaly, i make a rough map using my state map, then i consult google for rough distances and then combine the two along with information from camping websites to make my own route maps. the state map i use is for bicyclists.

No worries we have some very hostile motorists in Toronto too And the bike infrastructure? Piecemeal, hardly connects to other pieces, often full of debris and potholes, and the plowed snow in the wintertime, parked cars frequently. I still feel welcome biking here for two main reasons, 1. there's lots of cyclists and 2. in the downtown (not true in the suburbs) roads are narrow and congested and so motorists are rarely moving much above bike speed. But nearly getting run over purposefully by hostile motorists that don't believe cyclists should be "taking the lane" on a 9' lane with cars in front of me moving at more or less my speed, NOT SO FUN.