20101101 general implementation usbrs


Published on

Published in: Sports, Travel
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Welcome. This slide show will take you through the background and vision of the U.S. Bicycle Route System and will provide viewers with the basic process for developing interstate bicycle routes. I am Ginny Sullivan, special projects director for Adventure Cycling Association. I will explain who we are and why we’re helping with this visionary project in the next few slides.
  • Here is the outline for the presentation.
  • Adventure Cycling Association (ACA) – also known as Bikecentennial was founded in the 1970/s during the first boom in bicycle travel. As a non-profit organization with the specific mission to inspire people to travel by bicycle, ACA realizes the importance of a public and accessible system. We’ve watched the bike networks in Canada and Europe grow, their impact on mode-share and the transportation options they provide.
    At ACA, we’ve developed routes – over 40,000 miles of mapped routes in our network.
    Demand continues to increase for bike travel resources - in 2004 we sold 22,000 maps, in 2007 27,000 and 2010 31,700. We’ve also seen the largest number of visitors– almost 1,000 cyclists have come through our Missoula office this cycling season.
    Over the last 10 years, we’ve seen a 30% growth in sales and 40% growth in memberships – we are currently at our highest number ever – with almost 45,000 members. In 2010, ACA saw growth in every department across the board – from a 16% increase in tour participants, to an increase in donors and charitable donations and ad sales in the Adventure Cyclist magazine.
  • Adventure Cycling is known for it’s great publications, including Adventure Cyclist Magazine, published 9 x per year, this magazine showcases bike travel across the world with inspiring stories and photos.
    We also produce great international resources for those looking to travel outside the U.S. Don’t do a Google search and spend hours combing through what you don’t want. Use, The Cyclists Yellow pages which is now a comprehensive on-line only resource.
  • Speaking of on-line. Adventure Cycling has it all – an 800 page, fully packed website. To help us highlight our resources, programs and projects we also host a blog and use social media sites. By the way, the concept of the U.S. Bicycle Route System really resonates with the public – we have over 14,000 “fans” on our USBRS Facebook page and have a section of the website devoted solely to the project. Visit www.adventurecycling.org/usbrs
  • Our headquarters sees thousands of cyclists come through every year. This is lawn mower man (paid his way across the US by mowing lawns with this push mower) who is part of a traveling exhibit of photographs taken by Greg Siple, our co-founder and resident art director.
    Travelers are as diverse as you can imagine – from countries across the globe and at all ages - they ride for any number of reasons. Don’t think that this is just for the very fit and extreme cyclists. We see families, college students and retired couples in their 60’s, 70’s and 80’s all the time.
  • Of course, we inspire bike travel through events as well. Our niche is self-contained bike tours – carrying all the gear you need and biking for an extended period of time (3 weeks to 3 months). But we also offer supported, hybrid (van carries gear but cyclists camp/cook), inn-to-inn tours too.
  • And finally, Maps – what we’re known best for and what puts us in the unique position to help coordinate the U.S. Bicycle Route System.
    Our maps show very detailed information; breaking the route into sections and providing turn-by-turn instructions all on waterproof, tear-proof paper. But best of all – we provide a service log, weather conditions, elevation profile and route highlights (history, flora/fauna and geology info) that make the route come alive.
    Trying to stay current and relevant with our maps is no small challenge. We are converting our map info into GIS, provide FREE GPS waypoints (available from our website) and are constantly looking to the future to be prepared for new mapping technology such as portable devises.
  • ACA’s route network is now at 40,000+ mapped miles across much of North America. Our most recent route, released in the spring of 2010 is the Sierra Cascade Bicycle Route. In 2011, we’ll be releasing a new Alternate Route to the Underground Railroad Bicycle Route.
    Keeping our maps current and expanding our route network is a demanding job for out 4+ cartographers.
    Of important note – the ACA route network began developing in 1970’s. During the 70’s, 80’s and well into the 1990’s cities were not a welcome place for bike travelers. Trying to route cyclists through suburban and high traffic areas on fully-loaded bicycles was not easy. Therefore the ACA route network does not necessarily link cities as destinations. However, today urban networks are evolving - getting better and better, and the growing interest in bike travel makes linking cities as destinations an important criteria for the U.S. Bicycle Route System.
  • Let’s take a moment to talk about the national transportation scene.
    Meet Ray LaHood, republican from IL and the Secretary for Transportation. Mr. LaHood is probably the biggest advocate for “livability” the bicycle community has ever seen in this office.
    Here’s a brief run-down on Secretary LaHood’s impact:
    Made an appearance at the National Bike Summit, March 2010 to say, “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation over non-motorized”
    Created a new policy emphasizing the above point: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/policy_accom.htm
    Mr. LaHood also writes a very popular blog, called Fast Lane and in July, he blogged about the USBRS http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/07/us-bicycle-route-system-begins-connecting-america.html
  • In Congress, we have our champions as well. Take Mr. Peter DeFazio – a key ally who supports the USBRS and the departing, Mr. James Oberstar who leaves his position as Committee Chair of the House Transportation & Infrastructure in January. We continue to hope for funding for planning, signing and infrastructure grans in the next federal transportation bill, however, with major leadership changes in the House, the look of the bill could be vastly different than what was previously proposed.
    What that bill will look like is anyone’s guess – a 2-3 year bill or a traditional 6 year bill, everything hinges on funding and leadership.
  • Supporters include America Bikes (the national bike leader’s political arm) the League of American Bicyclists -- through their Bike Friendly America program and the National Bike Summit; Alliance for Biking and Walking will be tracking USBRS progress through their annual Benchmarking report; American Trails supports through their website and the National Trail Symposium; National Center for Biking & Walking through the Pro Walk Pro Bike Conference; Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals and the American Public Works Association.
    Financial supporters (both past and present) include the Lazar Foundation and Education Foundation of America, New Belgium Brewery, the SRAM Fund/Bikes Belong. Additional support comes from Adventure Cycling members and donors.
  • So what is the U.S. Bicycle Route System?
    First off, the national designation for an interstate route – whether it is a highway or bike route – comes from AASHTO – the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All state departments of transportation (DOTs) belong to AASHTO and AASHTO provides guidance, policy, and research on transportation planning. The process for designating an U.S. Bicycle Route through AASHTO must be submitted by a DOT. How we get to that point can vary – from grassroots route development to state bike/ped advisory councils, there are many ways to get the job done.
    Why is it important?
    The system will integrate the urban networks blossoming from the west to the east and connect cities, suburbs and rural areas. The system will take advantage of what already exists and help planners focus on gaps. These routes can also be a way of prioritizing roads or trails – ie. trail funding for completion or shoulder widening. The idea is that anyone can hop on a U.S. Bicycle Route and make there way to the rural and scenic destinations that make such good places to ride.
    How did this all start?
    [next slide]
  • Let’s start at the beginning.
    In the 1800s, bicycles became a very popular vehicle for transportation & recreation. Over 125 years ago, the League of American Wheelmen (now League of American Bicyclists) pushed for paving roads so that cyclists and other road users could travel from town to town and from farm to market without mud and muck hindering their progress. This Good Roads Movement founded by the League gave birth through the years to the extensive world-class road transportation network (and organizations such as AASHTO & FHWA) that serve our economy and way of life today.
    In the 1900s, the automobile began replacing the horse & buggy and the bicycle as a preferred mode of transport. Bicycles continued to see quite a bit of use, but mostly for local & short-distance trips.
    However, in the 1970s, the bicycle was rediscovered, both for recreation and transport. And there was a surge in long-distance bike travel beyond the local neighborhoods to places across the country. This interest led people to travel hundreds or even thousands of miles, and to “discover the real America” at a pace that allowed much greater interaction with their surroundings.
    This is, not coincidently, around the same time Adventure Cycling Association, formally known as Bikecentennial (1973) and initial interest in establishing U.S. Bicycle Routes (1977) through AASHTO was established.
  • In 1978, a Purpose and Policy for a system of U.S. Bicycle Routes was established through AASHTO, and in 1982, two national routes were established. US Bicycle Route 1 (shown in red) established in VA & NC, and US Bicycle Route 76 (shown in blue) established in VA, KY, & IL.
    However, after the designation of these two routes, no other U.S. Bicycle Routes were proposed, even though the intervening years saw significant interest in long-distance bicycle travel and establishment of route networks by individual states and long-distance cycling organizations, like Adventure Cycling Association.
  • As part of the process, an official U.S. Bike Route sign was established. This photo is on the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia, which is also part of Adventure Cycling’s TransAmerica Bicycle Trail.
  • The idea of nationally designated interstate bike routes was re-invigorated in 2003. ACA initially approached FHWA who suggested AASHTO take up the charge. AASHTO then formed the USBRS Task Force in order to develop a national plan states could use for interstate route development.
  • USBRS Task Force, formed in 2004, is chaired by Richard Moeur, traffic design manager from Arizona DOT. Richard already served on the AASHTO Sub Committee on Traffic Engineering and is an avid cyclist. The Task Force formed under the Joint Technical Committee on NonMotorized Transportation and is made up of AASHTO committee members and three non-profit bicycle organizations: Adventure Cycling Association, East Coast Greenway Alliance and Mississippi River Trail, Inc. In 2005, Adventure Cycling began offering staff support to the Task Force and has been coordinating with AASHTO and the states ever since.
  • The Task Force had a national vision – to come up with a large scale plan – or system - that states could use to implement routes across state lines. The vision included a six phase plan:
    1. Collect, compile, and review information on existing and proposed multi-state bicycle routes.
    2. Develop recommended corridors to comprise a logical national system, called the U.S. Bicycle Corridor Plan. Corridors demonstrate an area (+/- 50 mile width) where a route could exist. View the criteria established by the Task Force at www.adventurecycling.org/corridorplancriteria.
    3. Develop a logical designation system for U.S. bicycle routes and assign appropriate designations to each corridor.
    4. Produce a map of the draft U.S. Bicycle Corridor Plan including recommended designations.
    5. Distribute the draft Corridor Plan for review multiple AASHTO committees for approval
    6. Present revised draft Corridor Plan for review by the Standing Committee on Highways for endorsement as an “official corridor plan.” This happened in Oct 2008.
  • The inventory of bicycle routes was the first step and we began by pulling together routes we knew about – ACA in blue, MRT in red, ECG in pink. The dotted line is ACA’s Great Divide Route which isn’t suitable for road bikes so we initially inventoried but then removed.
  • Then went state by state and assembled as much information as possible. sources came from a variety of places, some were established state routes or routes promoted through other agencies
  • Some routes were given to us by the DOT as well as bike clubs and/or advocacy groups based upon suitability maps and information.
  • Some states, like FL provided no information but are one of the first states to sign-on to develop US bicycle routes, integrating their blossoming trails and regional routes
  • We also gathered trail data using the RTC database. In 2005 the database lacked consistency and we found many disparities between what was listed and what was actual. We stuck to documenting trails 50 miles or longer to keep things simple. The other requirement we looked for was that trails be suitable for road or touring bikes (surface treatment). The Task Force recognized the trails locally would be stitched into the network by the local organizations or agencies during implementation.
  • We threw if altogether and it looked like spaghetti on a map. Notice all the mis-alignments, what we call now “opportunities” to make the routes meet at the state lines and to use some of these long trail systems as a major draws for interstate route development.
  • Next, the Task Force began the process of laying down potential corridors. Our first few attempts created a very dense plan and AASHTO asked us to prioritize routes in order to make the plan feasible and to begin the next phase – assigning designations (route numbers). .
    A sub-committee developed USBRS Corridor Criteria which also provides some suggested route criteria for states to use during implementation. The corridor criteria basically states:
    When applicable, meet the AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities; Access destinations and regions with high tourism potential, including routes that incorporate important scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational values; Link major metropolitan areas to connect key attractions and transportation nodes; Reasonably direct in connecting cities or attractions; Make natural connections between adjoining states, Canada, and Mexico when possible; Have more or less even distribution north to south, east to west, though route density will need to consider both population density (greater populations may equal higher route densities) and available, suitable roads; Include major existing and planned bike routes, including both on-road facilities and off-road shared use paths and trails that are suitable for road bikes; Offer services and amenities such as restaurants, accommodations, camping, bicycle shops, and convenience/grocery stores at appropriate intervals.
  • In order to meet the criteria and prioritize the corridors, we researched metro areas of 200,000+ populations or the state capitol; communities with transportation hubs and national scenic destinations, scuh as National Parks, as a way to prioritize the corridors.
  • Once we had a pretty good take on what the plan would look like, then the Task Force researched designation systems. After a looking at alphabetical, one and three digit numbers, combo system, we determined the numbering system established in 1982 was still the best option to accommodate future growth and alleviate potential naming conflicts with local trails and routes. It was also familiar to AASHTO.
    Next, we assigned the numbers to the prioritized corridors.
  • The most recent National Corridor Plan Map, notice the little brown corridors - we didn’t want to loose all the work we did in getting the initial corridors down and paper so we left them in and they can be prioritized as long as the other states affected are in agreement.
    The corridors are negotiable and can be changed, added or taken off based upon state interest
    View the Draft Corridor Plan Map at www.adventurecycling.org/corridorplanmap
  • Because the corridor system was based upon existing or potential routes, the USBRS doesn’t require adding much additional infrastructure or policies. Using existing systems will provide states with an opportunity to focus on route development within their long-range transportation plans.
    It is the hope that as states designate, these routes will not only be promoted in the state, but the roads and trails will be improved and/or maintained due to their status as a USBRS. However, there is no dedicated funding for USBRs. Planning, infrastructure investments and signing must be funded locally or at the state level.
  • The sign on the left is the current USBR sign as found in the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The old USBR sign had the number on top and the bike on the bottom. The federal highway administration (FHWA) switched the two in the most recent manual.
    The green sign was approved in 2009 at the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The reason for the green version was to coordinate with the state bike route signs and also add the “US” to show the interstate status.
    In summary, either sign can be used. In order to post the green sign, the state agency must ask FHWA for interim approval until the next MUTCD is released.
  • Remember:
    It will be up to the states to adopt the corridor plan once it’s been approved by AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Highways.
    Just because a corridor is not prioritized does not mean that it can’t become part of the USBRS.
    AASHTO has a process for designating national routes (more on this in a moment)
    We hope signage develops over the years but realize this is dependent of funding and agency priorities. We hope to see growth of the USBRS now that a system is in place to support the development.
  • Remember:
    It will be up to the states to adopt the corridor plan once it’s been approved by AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Highways.
    Just because a corridor is not prioritized does not mean that it can’t become part of the USBRS.
    AASHTO has a process for designating national routes (more on this in a moment)
    We hope signage develops over the years but realize this is dependent of funding and agency priorities. We hope to see growth of the USBRS now that a system is in place to support the development.
  • Jakob Helmbolt, VA Bike/Ped
    "I surmise that we will likely designate something for that in the future once the details from AASHTO are hammered out.  It will fit well with our pending efforts to establish a network of statewide bike routes."
    Just because Virginia is ahead of the other states doesn't mean its work is done. Helmboldt anticipates that some roads will have to be changed because of increased traffic.
    "We are also developing our first state bike plan which will help us identify areas of the USBR system that need to consider realignment to better corridors (i.e. those with less suburban sprawl development) as well as roadway improvements.  
    "Much of the USBR routing is along rural secondaries which means low-volume (traffic) roads, but which also typically lack shoulders.  Coupled with a high-growth state there are segments of the routes that are getting more traffic and which need some better bike accommodations.
  • USBR 20 and 35 seemed to be a logical starting point.
    Go over bullets on slide
    USBR 20 route identification started in October 2008 shortly after the AASHTO BOD meeting.
    USBR 35 got started about a year later in November 2009, after someone within the USBR 35 Corridor heard me give a presentation on the State of Bicycling in Michigan in April 2009.
    That presentation included a couple slides on USBR 20.
    Both of these routes were viewed as “low hanging fruit” so to speak.…………
  • Handouts that promote the USBRS
  • 20101101 general implementation usbrs

    1. 1. The U.S. Bicycle Route System Background, Vision & Implementation November, 2010 Created by Ginny Sullivan Adventure Cycling Association
    2. 2. Overview • Who is Adventure Cycling Association • National Update • AASHTO Task • USBRS Vision • AASHTO Process/Signs • State Progress • Resources • Draft Criteria • Implementation • Routes, Trails & Greenways in Partnership
    3. 3. Adventure Cycling: Who We Are • “America’s Bicycle Travel Experts” • Started as Bikecentennial in 1973 • Largest cycling membership group in North America: 44,000+ globally • Non-profit mission: to inspire people of all ages to travel by bicycle • 28 staff and many volunteers • Outside Magazine ’08 Best Place to Work • Create some of the best bike route maps, publications, special cycling routes (40,000+ miles) in North America • Fantastic bike adventures and education
    4. 4. 40+ Tours • Southern Tier –Van Supported • VansAm on the TransAm • Heart of the UGRR • Pueblos to Peaks • C&O/GAP
    5. 5. • Conversion to GIS • GPS Waypoints • Elevation profiles • Technology & the future • Maps Working Group • Waterproof, Tear-proof
    6. 6. http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/07/us-bicycle-route-system-begins-connecting-america.html
    7. 7. “We are writing to express our strong support for a U.S. Bicycle Route System … As enthusiastic cyclists, we believe that such a system has many important merits.” Congressman Jim Oberstar, Chairman, Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Congressman Peter DeFazio, Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    8. 8. National Organizations Supporting the USBRS The Education Foundation of America The Lazar Foundation American Public Works Association
    9. 9. ** A Nation of Networks ** ** Connected and convenient interstate bike travel from city center to countryside **
    10. 10. History of US Bicycle RoutesHistory of US Bicycle Routes In 1970’s interest in long distance bicycle travel picks up
    11. 11. First US Bicycle routes designated in 1982 *US Bicycle Route 1 (red) *US Bicycle Route 76 (blue) _______ No routes designated since
    12. 12. Began Project late 2003 Staff Support 2005 ** AASHTO Approval 2008 **
    13. 13. The Vision To encourage the development of a coordinated system of US bicycle routes across the country. The Task Force is charged with developing a recommended national systems-level or corridor- level plan for use in designating potential future US bicycle routes.
    14. 14. A Z Y G S L E • Pennsylvania state designated routes • Adventure Cycling’s Northern Tier not shown Arkansas Memphis to Fort Smith cross state route from the Dept. of Parks & Tourism US-70, 49, 107, 64, AR-147, 50, 70, 1, 284, 306, 38, 31, 319, 60, 236, 89, 10, 176, 9, 154, 7, 155, 22 Per advocacy groups AR-7 a western-central north-south route US-71 western side north-south route AR-1 eastern side north-south route US-62 northern side east-west route US-82 southern side east-west route
    15. 15. Arizona - NO DESIGNATED CROSS STATE ROUTES Description of possible routes based on suitability map Route US-160 US-89 to eastern border AZ-264 US-160 to eastern border AZ-87 AZ-264 to AZ-260 US-191 US-160 to southern border US-163 US-160 to northern border AZ-85 I-8 to southern border AZ-86 AZ-85 to I-19 AZ-286 AZ-86 to southern border AZ-95/US- 95 AZ-72 to I-8 US-93 Hoover Dam to US-60 US-60 I-10 to US-93 US-89 I-40 to northern border US-60 US-70 to eastern border US-70 US-60 to eastern border US-89A US-89 to northern border AZ-389 US-89A to northern border US-8 Western border to I-10
    16. 16. Florida - NO DESIGNATED CROSS STATE ROUTES No cycling suitability map Doesn’t include ACA routes
    17. 17. Minnesota Taconite State Trail Paul Bunyan State Trail Soo Line Trail Minnesota Valley State Trail Willard Munger Trail Luce Line State Trail Central Lakes Trail Heartland State Trail
    18. 18. Put it all together…
    19. 19. Inventory of existing routes overlaid by the proposed corridor system
    20. 20. Most routes will be on existing roads and facilities.
    21. 21. USBR M1-9 MUTCD USBR M1-9 Alternate NCUTCD 2009
    22. 22. Implementation: Big Picture Route applications submitted to AASHTO by State DOTs – Neighboring states submit together OR connect to an existing USBR or foreign country – Include maps and route descriptions – Sign-off from DOTs • Installation of signs & trailblazing • Expansion of the system – Spur, alternate & loop routes – New routes & corridors
    23. 23. Implementation: State by State • State & local agencies determine best approach – Route Identification – Road Assessments – Coordination with transportation divisions, counties, townships and MPOs – Also aligning routes with neighboring states • Who Does the Work? - Volunteers, bicycle and/or trail advocates - Agency staff
    24. 24. State Progress http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes/nbrn/USBRSStatusReport.pdf
    25. 25. Virginia’s USBR 1 & 76 - Part of their State Bike Plan - Realigned Routes in 2007 – work in progress… - Signed through much of state - VA Bike Federation uses USBR 1 & 76 for events and club rides
    26. 26. Michigan: USBR 20 and 35 • Local Interest and Support • Mix of existing facilities plentiful •Multi-Use Pathways •Paved Shoulders •Low-volume roads • Interest from adjacent States •Volunteers from Michigan Trails and Greenway Alliance and a Corridor Committee of city managers/planners
    27. 27. Ohio Kentucky Indiana • Ohio: working on USBR 25 using rails trails to ease the need for multiple jurisdictional agreements • Kentucky: first priority is realignment of USBR 76 then will work on USBR 25 in partnership with OH • Indiana: drafting a route for USBR 35 since Michigan is working on this route currently.
    28. 28. Oregon & Washington Cycle Oregon is helping the DOT determine routes to implement Bicycle Alliance of Washington is bringing the WS DOT on board
    29. 29. Long Trail & Partner Perspectives
    30. 30. Mississippi River Trail Goal: A transportation corridor that helps recreational cyclists gain access to State and National Parks, Wild Life Refuges, & Cultural and Heritage sites
    31. 31. What are your state opportunities?
    32. 32. • Agreement by DOT • Coordination with Neighboring States • Identification of partners, volunteers and supporters • Review of community and MPO bicycle plans, Greenways and Trails maps • Determine a DRAFT route, have communities review/suggest • Resolutions of Support of routes by state and local governments • Application to AASHTO for route number • Development of wayfinding tools – signage, pavement markings, public maps 43 Process in Most States
    33. 33. • AASHTO & Task Force Liaison • Corridor Plan Map • Meeting Coordination • Training & Mapping • USBRS Blog Social Media • News & Updates • Forums for discussion • Links to Important Sites • Contacts & Stakeholders • Future GeoDatabase
    34. 34. Resources Available • Background Info • AASHTO Application & Instructions • AASHTO Purpose & Policy • Sample Criteria • Road Assessment tools • Research & Studies • Benefit Handouts • Steps for Designation & Flowchart • Guide to Gaining Agency Support • Template Resolution of Support • How to Form an Implementation Committee www.adventurecycling.org/usbrs
    35. 35. Benefits of the USBRS http://bit.ly/USBRSBenefits • Economic Impact: – Millions of dollars can be brought into state economies. • Transportation: – Green, cost effective, high rate of return Health: Increase access, safety, reduces health risks Environmental: Decrease fuel consumption, conservation, appreciate natural surroundings.
    36. 36. FL-GA Route Criteria (Draft) - Heart • Has intrinsic scenic or cultural quality • Supports natural connections between adjoining states, Canada, and Mexico • Accesses destinations with high tourism potential and scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational values • Includes or intersects regional and local bicycle routes, including roadways and shared use paths that are suitable for touring bikes • Provides services and amenities such as restaurants, overnight accommodations (including camping), bicycle shops, and convenience/grocery stores at appropriate intervals 47
    37. 37. FL-GA Route Criteria (Draft) – Spine • Reasonably direct route connecting cities or attractions along the corridor • Even distribution of north/south and east/west routes, consider population density and availability of suitable roads & trails • Can be linked to major metropolitan areas, key attractions and transportation hubs • Meets design and operational criteria for bicycle facilities • Ferry or shuttle crossings have regularly scheduled service available to cyclists and alternate routes available when out of service (seasonal) or infrequent 48
    38. 38. Important Web Links • General Information www.adventurecycling.org/usbrs • AASHTO Special Committee on Route Numbering http://cms.transportation.org/?siteid=68 • National Corridor Plan Map www.adventurecycling.org/corridorplanmap • Inventory Report www.adventurecycling.org/usbrsinventoryreport • Task Force Criteria www.adventurecycling.org/corridorplancriteria • US DOT Secretary Ray LaHood on Fast Lane http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/07/us-bicycle-route-system-begins- connecting-america.html • Discussion Forums http://www.adventurecycling.org/forums/index.php#5 49
    39. 39. Your thoughts? www.adventurecycling.org Ginny Sullivan, Adventure Cycling (406) 721-1776 x 229 gsullivan@adventurecycling.org Richard Moeur, AZ DOT rmoeur@azdot.gov Jim McDonnell, AASHTO jimm@aashto.org