A couple weeks ago I wrote about the outstanding new online Minneapolis Bike Map, which I adore but, due to an emotional defect, could only find unpleasant things to write about. The father of this map, Nat Case, map scientist of Castle Hedberg, wrote in to encourage me to check out the paper version. Considering the fact that they designed the map for paper, it is only fair to check it out, but I’ll put my habit of being unfair aside and actually follow his suggestion.
Right off the bat, I need to clear the air. In the last post, I failed to credit good Sir Case for the innovation of mapping bike lanes on the actual side of the street they are striped on – which a) is an indication of the unsafe practice of left-side striping, b) allows the portrayal of contraflow lanes and c) gives a quick indication of whether a street is a one-way, which tends to be unpleasant to ride on. So kudos to you, Nat Case, for creating a technique that will soon be as ubiquitous as velcro, but for bike maps.
The paper map is really big – and really great. The white streets are much less overwhelming at this size (maybe I just need a bigger computer monitor). The differentiation between “local streets” (darker) and “busier streets” (lighter) is a lot more apparent on paper than online, and it sure is a useful distinction. I like that the streets where “bicycles [are] prohibited or strongly discouraged” are so dark that they blend into the background – they are, after all, contrary to the spirit of multimodalism that infuses this map.
My main criticism of the online map – that symbolizing on-street lanes with dotted lines made them seem impermanent, especially since many of them are in fact not yet in existence – is still present in this map. Actually, the large format of the paper map seems to make off-street paths more obvious, reinforcing my belief that they both could have been symbolized with solid lines, leaving dotted lines to symbolize planned bike lanes and paths. If it still would have been too hard to tell the difference, how about making them different shades of red?
But overall, the new map is really good. A beautiful, suitably Minnesotan subdued color palette, chock full of bikey info, and maybe best of all: loaded with lanes, paths and other bike facilities. We really are lucky to live in what is (or will be) one of the nation’s best biking cities.
One more piece of unfinished business from that post a few weeks ago – Twins Way, the sidewalk that Hedberg was compelled to mark as an off-street path. If only someone was similarly compelled to mark the actual Twins Way. Instead the cyclist who hangs a left upon exiting the Cedar Lake Trail will find no indication that they are on a bicycle facility.
But what a sidewalk! I’d guess it is 15-20 feet wide, since it appears about as wide as the asphalt next to it. But a bike path? Who knows? It seems more logical to conclude that the sidewalk is wider than usual because there isn’t a sidewalk on the other side. The path isn’t particularly suited for bikes – there are beg buttons at the intersections, and at least one is very difficult for cyclists to reach.
I don’t get hung up on strict mode separation, but this design seems ill-suited to a city where the only police interaction with cyclists is to ticket them. It’s unclear whether this stretch is in a business district, but riding on the sidewalk isn’t a good idea anywhere. It seems like a waste to tear up brand new concrete, but some kind of marking should be added. I’d suggest the following sign:
Twins Way would have been a good candidate for a woonerf. It has low auto traffic, except for around gametime, when the traffic-calming qualities of a woonerf would have been ideal. The intersection around the could have been asphalt, and the rest of the road a wide expanse of brick pavers. I’ll be sure to suggest that next time they build a stadium.