OldZephyr

The last time MN DOT put out a statewide bicycle map was in 2001; it wasn't a particularly good map even then, and after 12 years it had become seriously outdated. When MN DOT announced last year that it was coming up with a new statewide bike map, I was excited to hear that, and I participated in a workshop and then submitted additional suggestions and comments to MN DOT.

The 2013 bike map is online, and it's a disappointment. While all maps will have some errors, this map has so many errors (and omissions) that it should *not* be relied upon by touring cyclists as a useful route planning tool. The information presented is not only inaccurate and incomplete, but it is poorly presented, and the final product is far behind what other states have done.

Traffic density and shoulder width are perhaps the two most important pieces of information for a touring cyclist. MN DOT has botched the handling of both of these key items.

Traffic Density: First, the map shows only two levels of traffic ("light" and "heavy"), with *no* indication anywhere of what that means in terms of AADT. That's bad enough, but even that limited information is wildly inaccurate and inconsistent. For example, between Duluth and the Iron Range, a stretch of US 53 is shown as having "light" traffic, even though that stretch is a busy 4 lane highway with AADTs of between 7,900 and 10,500 vehicles/day. Town Line Road (County Road 16) comes into that stretch of US 53 south of Eveleth, and is shown as having "heavy" traffic with an AADT of 950 vehicles. Hunh? A long stretch of US 169 south of Lake Mille Lacs in Mille Lacs County is shown as having "light" traffic, yet that stretch has an AADT of over 10,000 vehicles! Yet MN 23 in northern Pine County has an AADT of 840 vehicles, and it's shown as having "heavy" traffic. Hunh? And then there are instances where roads which have similar AADTs (and similar pavement and shoulder characteristics) are right next to each other, yet one is shown as having "heavy" traffic and one is shown as having "light" traffic.

I could go on and on, but there are so many errors that it's evident that there was a breakdown in the process of gathering the raw traffic information, or proofing the data, or both. The traffic density information is incomplete (due to the failure to delineate what is "light" and "heavy" traffic) and remarkably inaccurate.

Shoulder Width: The map also purports to show roads with shoulders that are at least 4 feet wide, but many roads which have such shoulders are not shown as having those shoulders. I am familiar with the roads in the greater Duluth area, and many roads with wide shoulders are shown as having shoulders of less than 4 feet. So the map is inaccurate in that respect.

Furthermore, the map is incomplete, because a number of major roads are presented without any shoulder or traffic density information (including ones that are key cycling routes out of Duluth).

Unpaved Roads: The map doesn't make any distinctions between paved and gravel roads! This is a nearly unbelievable oversight given that a fair number of county roads in northern Minnesota are gravel roads. In this respect, the standard Minnesota state highway map is more useful than the bike map because it shows which roads are paved and which roads aren't.

Bike Trails: The map shows a number of bike trails that have not been constructed, and which are unlikely to be built in the near future (e.g. the Mesabi Trail between Ely and Embarrass is only completed for a few short segments, but the bike map shows a completed trail all the way to Ely).

Other thoughts: The bottom line is that the map is close to useless due to the incompleteness of the information presented, and the inaccuracy of the information that is presented.

Last year MN DOT presented a draft map for comment, and it had the same accuracy and incompleteness issues. In my comments to MN DOT, I pointed out specific accuracy problems and the incompleteness of the information presented, and was assured that the draft map was only a design mockup, and that the final product would be carefully reviewed for accuracy. Unfortunately, MN DOT plainly put very little time into proofing the accuracy of the map. Many of the errors I pointed out to MN DOT during the comment process are in the "final" map.

When I compare the Nebraska or Iowa bike maps with what MN DOT has done, it's really disappointing to me, because those states have shown that a good bike map can be produced using the state highway map as a base.

jamawani 

O.Z. - I have taken state "Bicycling Maps" to task numerous times. Many - besides Minnesota's - are just as bad. It's pretty bad when amateurs on line can do a better job that people who are supposedly paid to do it can do. States are supposed to have multi-modal transportation as part of their federal transportation funding. So nearly all have some kind of Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator. In many states, I suspect that this is just a placeholder job. Maybe a spot to put Senator Takemoney's nephew or niece. Usually, the state has no real bicycle program to administer. So he is she just cranks out drivel like the map you mention. Oregon is THE exception, but Iowa is good, too.

PS - I've asked Maryland's BikePed Coordinator for more than 10 years to address access for cyclists on the Bay Bridge. I've asked Alaska DOT for fair access through the Whittier Tunnel. Nada. Zip. Whether in politics, business, education, the medical profession - administration is just for show. It's just about appearances.

OldZephyr

Thanks for your comments, especially the sentence I put in bold. It's really a disgrace that people like you and me -- armed with nothing more than some highlighters, and the online county maps and AADT maps -- can do a far better job than MN DOT. When I get the time, I think I will post bicycling maps of Minnesota Counties that I've put together for my own use -- they are not pretty, I just use highlighters over the base county maps, but the information presented is better and far more useful to bicyclists than what MN DOT has done here.

I'm also going to try and alert folks via CGOAB and ACA.

Here's a link to the Minnesota Bicycle Map in case you want to see the sad, gory details: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/maps.html

indyfabz

At least one good thing has come of this: Those (like me) who didn't know it before now know that there is a MN town nammed Embarrass.

lennon_68

Lol, not only is it there (in the middle of nowhere), it's the coldest place in MN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarrass,_Minnesota

gna

Right next to Frostbite Falls.

B. Carfree

I don't know the current state of affairs regarding my state's bike map, but when I first came here in 2000 I picked up a printed version. It was rather ridiculous what they called their bike routes. It included narrow, high traffic two lane winding highways without shoulders that had great parallel routes just a few miles away. I finally chased down the source of this nonsense and found that there was federal and state money available to do maintenance and upgrade work on a roadway that was designated as a bikeway, so administrators just made the designation.

This sort of nonsense can have real consequences. My wife ended up shepherding a group of youths from out of state and their ride leader through an uphill tunnel on such a road. They were just following the state bike map. (My wife was driving a large van, so she just drove behind them with her fourways going and soon had a large collection of cars and trucks behind her.)

OldZephyr

Good point -- this isn't some kind of abstract exercise.

The Minnesota map, as it now stands, misleadingly shows a 4 foot paved shoulder for a 6-7 mile segment of MN 61 northeast of Two Harbors along Minnesota's North Shore. Cyclists are going to think that using that segment of MN 61 to go up the North Shore will be pleasant and safe. But there isn't such a shoulder for about a 6-7 mile stretch, there's at best a couple of feet to the right of the fog line, and that 6-7 mile stretch is twisty and very heavily used in the summer with significant truck, tourist, and RV traffic (AADT is around 6000, but probably a lot higher on summer weekends). Ugh. In fact, I won't go on that particular stretch unless it's early in the morning, I take a bypass route instead using county roads.

See jpeg below for context.

tshelver

If you go online, how does the OSM Cyclemap project compare?

Accessible from any Android (or probably Ios) with free or very cheap software, and open to the be updated by the man in the street.

OldZephyr

The OSM looks to have a good base map, looks like a promising idea. Thanks for pointing it out. I wasn't aware of it.

tshelver

If you have an Android phone, it's easy (and free) to install OsmAnd and have a look at the topo Cyclemap. Probably viewable on Apple and Windows as well, but I haven't tried that.

It's also relatively easy to make updates, corrections and add new POIs and tracks from a computer

OldZephyr

Late last night I sent to MN DOT staff a modified and expanded version of my original post, and attached 2 jpegs showing the problems in the Duluth area, as well as my extended comments from 2012. It was a pretty detailed critique of the map.

Early this morning there was an e-mail from Tim Mitchell of MN DOT thanking me for my comments, and asking if I had time to talk today. This was an amazingly fast response!

He and I spoke for almost a half hour this afternoon, and he told me there are a number of staff members working right now to revamp the map. I am hopeful that a revised map would include more levels of AADT data than the current two.

Tim said that MN DOT would provide a thorough response to my comments soon, and he explained some of the challenges of getting good data, particularly paved shoulder width (as I had suspected, the data they have is for plain old shoulder width, and it doesn't necessarily show whether the shoulder is paved).

After talking with Tim, I was left with the feeling that the most significant design problems with the map were *not* the result of apathy or laziness by the people involved. For example, the reason the "light traffic" and "heavy traffic" designations bore no relation to AADT is because MN DOT was not using an absolute scale. Instead, MN DOT was comparing the same types of roadways with each other. For example, US 53 has a light level of traffic for a 4 lane highway built to freeway standards with an AADT of 7900, hence the light traffic designation, while MN 73 (with an AADT of around 1700) has a heavy level of traffic for a narrow two lane highway with no shoulder. So that explains the baffling and inconsistent designations of "light" and "heavy" traffic. Put another way, I think MN DOT was trying to rank the desirability of roads (similar to what Illinois does, but with fewer gradations). Tim acknowledged that the map didn't make that clear in any way, and I think MN DOT is rethinking its approach, and I hope MN DOT goes the route of states (e.g Iowa) that simply provide the AADT and shoulder information, and leave it to the user to determine desirability. Wisconsin takes an approach that is a bit of a hybrid, but the Wisconsin maps still make it clear what roads have higher traffic (even if the AADT data isn't directly supplied).

I understand the reasoning behind the Illinois approach of ranking roads according to a formula that takes into account pavement width, traffic density, shoulders, etc. But from personal experience, that can result in truly goofy evaluations of road desirability (e.g. isolated rural roads with virtually no traffic ranked as undesirable because they are very narrow). Better to show more gradations of traffic density and provide paved shoulder information, because those are the two most important variables.

Anyway, I was grateful to receive such a prompt response from MN DOT and am feeling more hopeful now that a better map will be forthcoming.

goldfinch

I am from northern Minnesota and was searching for maps and came across this post. I looked at the maps and noted the errors. The errors regarding shoulders are really a problem.

I also note that they missed some shoulders on some roads that are in fact paved. For example, Cromwell north on 73 has a nicely paved shoulder. But south of Cromwell the road has no shoulder and frightening traffic.

OZ, I don't know if you will be back to check this thread, but what route do you take to bypass the bad section north of Two Harbors?

OldZephyr

Thanks for the information. The bike map shows OK shoulders for a stretch of 73 north of Cromwell. So is the shoulder OK all the way between Cromwell and Floodwood?

As for MN 61, I have done some follow up.

We went up MN 61 this last weekend past Grand Marais, and I brought along a tape measure to measure shoulders. I was surprised to find out that much of MN 61 between Two Harbors and the Lafayette Tunnel does indeed have a 4 foot shoulder, but it's *just* 4 feet, and 4 feet sure doesn't feel like a big enough shoulder there given the width of the traffic lanes, the traffic density, and the traffic mix. And there are places between the Lafayette Bluff Tunnel and Two Harbors where the shoulder becomes very small, the worst being a stretch for about 2 miles between the Silver Cliff Tunnel and the Lafayette Bluff Tunnel -- specifically, there are a couple of curves near the Encampment River (with guardrails squeezing the shoulder to way less than 4 feet) that make things really uncomfortable, and a stretch where 61 goes to four lanes with fast heavy traffic and a tiny shoulder. Ugh.

Bottom line remains that I won't bike between Two Harbors and the Lafayette Bluff Tunnel unless traffic is really light, such as early in the morning.

I have made a map of the bypass around the bad stretch north of Two Harbors, I'll post the map soon.

There also is about a 1/2 mile stretch on the west side of Two Harbors with no real shoulder east of the Culver's, for that I go on the sidewalk on the lake side of 61 or take side streets. There is a large shoulder in Two Harbors between Lake County 2 and the railroad bridge, but that's often filled with cars, taking side streets is possible there.

I measured shoulders between Beaver Bay and Silver Bay on MN 61, and while the map shows that stretch as having 4 foot shoulders, that's incorrect, instead they're around 30" in most places, and crumbling here and there. Ugh. Best to take West Road up to the new bike Trail from West Road to Silver Bay.

Looks like there is shoulder work and reconstruction that will be done on an approximately 5 mile stretch west of the Manitou River bridge: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/d1/projec...ais/index.html

When that's done, the 37 mile stretch from the Lafayette Bluff Tunnel to just east of the Little Manitou River bridge will either have at least 5 foot shoulders (and in many cases, will be much wider than that), or will have the Gichi-Gami bike trail available. If you bypass the section immediately north of Two Harbors, a person could ride with reasonable shoulders (or bike trail or sidewalk or paralleling side road) all the way from downtown Duluth to Ski Hill Road in Lutsen *except* for 7-8 bad miles located between the Little Manitou River bridge and the west side of Schroeder (2-3 foot shoulders), and a similar bad stretch of less than a mile in Tofte between Tofte Park Road and the bike trail on the east side of Tofte (that leads to Ski Hill Road in Lutsen). The 11 mile stretch of MN 61 from Ski Hill Road to the Cascade Beach State Park campground entrance isn't at all good, but if you're willing to go on immediately paralleling gravel roads (County 35 in Lutsen, and Cascade Beach Road east of there), you can cut out 6 miles of that bad 11 mile stretch. MN 61 from the Cascade Beach campground entrance to the Canadian border has great shoulders. Bottom line is that if you're willing to take bypasses, some of which use gravel roads, and if you're comfortable with riding on 5+ foot shoulders, "only" around 14-15 miles of MN 61 will be problematic/undesirable between Duluth and the Canadian border once the work is done in 2014 west of the Manitou River bridge.

goldfinch

Yes, the shoulder is good from Cromwell to Floodwood. This summer about 8 miles of the road was repaved and some of the shoulder was repaved. I regularly ride this route, going from Cromwell to Floodwood, having a root beer float at the gas station, and then back again.

Thanks for the information on going up the shore. I do not like that stretch north of Two Harbors and am curious as to your route. I also ride the side streets in Two Harbors and take the trail where it is completed. I was just up at Lutsen riding locally. The summer traffic had eased off a bit but the trucks are always scary. I am going to outfit a bike this winter that will better handle gravel roads so those types of detours will be a better option.

goldfinch

But across the state from Climax.

OldZephyr

I take 15th St. in Two Harbors (by the Culvers) going north, it turns into Waldo Road, then right (east) on Westover, left (north) on Lake County 2, right (east) on gun Club Road, left (north) on Lake County 3, and right (east) on Castle Danger Road. I rejoin 61 at the Rustic Inn where Castle Danger Road joins up with 61. The stretch to Gooseberry State Park (and the bike trail) is 4 lanes in part, but the shoulders are huge.

A shorter alternative is to take 61 through Two Harbors, then left on Lake County 3 (near Betty's Pies), then right on Castle Danger Road. That does cut off some distance and hill climbing and gravel, but it means more time on 61 through Two Harbors (where the shoulder is problematic) and past Two Harbors (where 4 feet doesn't feel wide enough to me).

goldfinch

Thanks OZ. That helps.

OldZephyr

Here's a map of the bypass routes.

goldfinch

What is the quality of the gravel on Castle Danger Road? Can a bike with 700 x 28 tires handle it?

gna

True, but it's only 30 miles from Fertile to Climax.

OldZephyr

We've ridden that road with 700 x 28 tires with no problem. When we've been on it, it's had a nice smooth surface, better than many paved roads. Sometimes gravel roads get that way once the gravel gets smushed down and is no longer loose. It's a pretty road and generally with a nice steady grade.

goldfinch

Great, I might try it out before the snow falls.