The timing for this is interesting – because of the many issues with right-of-way, as well as building a mile of trail through the densest part of the urban core, this is going to be monstrously expensive. Estimates for the total cost of this last segment exceed $9.2 million dollars, paid via a combination of state funds, federal earmark, donations and even funds from the city of Minneapolis.

A lot of people question this expense, particularly at a time of challenging federal, state and municipal budgets.

One thing to keep in mind is that this won’t ever become any cheaper, short of a zombie apocalypse that devastates that piece of Minneapolis and makes the construction easier. Costs to get the construction going are cheaper now than at any time in the recent past, due to high labor supply.

The maze to get from the de facto current trailhead to the river frustrates many. Some of the city’s recent shenanigans with parking, bike lanes, taking streets two-way from one-way, and etc. haven’t helped. Obviously, this of itself doesn’t justify expense – but the completion has been planned for many years.

Completion is scheduled for November. I am assuming that the extension, like the rest of the trail, will be plowed during the winter, adding to the Minneapolis commuter trail network that is quite workable even in the nastiest months of the year. However, it’s always good to confirm plowing each year – budgets being what they are.

Wired Magazine are ‘crowdsourcing’ reviews, asking people to try their route and see what comes out of the system. It’s a generally savvy crowd, so they aren’t assaulting Google (or their data sources) for errors.

Meanwhile, others are claiming Google is providing hazardous directions. The notable in this category is the NY Post, who found that Google’s data on NYC bike routes is not accurate. Commenters on this article are embracing the general run of bike-hater joy, discussing running bikers off the roads, how this is all a liberal conspiracy, etc. You know, the usual.

As someone who works with Google services every day (for money!), I’ll say that I come closer to the opinions of the Wired folks. It’s a beta project. The pedestrian walking routes instructions have also been notably erratic (routing people onto highways, onramps, sidewalk-free zones). There are prominent buttons to provide feedback. Garmin and other GPS instructions haven’t been 100% either.

GPS services and Google Maps are always going to be limited by their data sets. I think anyone going somewhere unfamiliar, or coming in from out-of-town, needs to view Google Maps as a guide. Talking to a good local bicycle shop, or a local bicycle club, will ever be your best bet for getting the real (and most current) poop on local bike routes, including road construction, reality of what traffic levels are like, and even if they’re scenic or not. No online data set will ever match the know-how of the local cyclists!

Peter Birch, Product Manager for Google Earth, was present to introduce the new features. Google Maps for Bicycling has routes and information for 150 US cities, including on-street routes and bicycle trails. Shannon Guyman, another Googler, was on-hand to provide a live demo. Each said that this enhancement is part of Google’s commitment to provide maps for people – not just ‘cars.’

We got a nice live demo, but as always, Google created a nice video demo for the rest of you:

Like other Google Maps options – cars, transit, and walking routes – the biking layer is routable. To provide directions between two places, the algorithm looks for routing info in the following order:

• Bike paths/trails

• Dedicated bicycle resources (bike lanes, sharrows, other bicycle facilities)
• Roadways that have been designated as bicycle-friendly by some data source, often signed routes

The Maps team have also adjusted estimated trip times based on average cycling speeds.

Trails and on-road facilities are marked on the bicycle layer, and okay roads feature a dotted blue line. Minneapolis’ downtown is below (clicky to enlarge):

You can either just look at an area, or route between two points. When routing between two points, you can drag the route to change it. To see a local area map, click the ‘More’ button and select ‘Bicycling’ to see suggested routes.

Google is also doing a Twitter content to give away a bike worth up to $2500 of the winner’s choosing. Deets on that are at http://maps.google.com/biking.

I also spoke to the Product Manager after the presentation. Right now, the Bicycle layer is not showing anything more specific in terms of businesses or landmarks than is shown normally. We discussed the possibility of using the Local Business Center data of businesses, many of which are tagged by business type, to potential preference showing bicycle businesses on the map, and adding ‘Bicycle Parking’ as an option for business owners to indicate on their Business Center listings. These are both long-term potential upgrades, which would make for some sweet marketing potential for bicycle-friendly businesses like ice cream shops, cookie parlours, and bike shops.

I know that relative to Minnesota, we have the excellent cycle-route wiki Cyclopath, so some of the locals may not be impressed. However, in a broader sense, this is a good development in the sense that this covers 150 cities and may assist local visitors to various towns – not just MSP. Unlike Cyclopath, this isn’t a user-contributed system, so it may not always provide the best routes. In cases where routes offered are a bit bunk, Google have asked that users provide feedback to improve the system.

Meanwhile, Senators Tom Coburn and John McCain released a report criticizing 100 projects being funded by the Obama administration’s stimulus law. Included on the Senators’ list was funding for the final extension of the Cedar Lake Trail to the new Twins stadium at Target Field. This funding has been defended by Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and by the League of American Bicyclists.

• A curve and downhill leads up to the tunnel.
• Prior accidents have occurred in or near the tunnel, although they have not necessarily been well-tracked by Three Rivers Park District.
• Kids like to play in the tunnel.
• The lane has a dashed line, not a solid, which suggests to people that using either lane is ok.

The issues with the sight lines leading to the tunnel is almost undoubtedly an engineering issue. But issues like kids playing in the tunnel on a bike path, and the discussion of making the lane line solid not dashed so people know to stay in the lane? Those aren’t engineering issues. I would argue those to be inherent issues of bicycle paths. People should KNOW to stay in their lane and use caution if needing to go around someone in their lane – this is just common sense. And of course kids like to play in tunnels. Tunnels are FUN. I suspect all the signage in the world isn’t going to change that tendency – or cause parents to police their kids much better.

I’ve said it 3.2 billion times: People want to act as those bicycle trails conform to different traffic rules than roads – and they do, in the sense that there are likely to be MORE hazards, rather than fewer. Lane placement and visibility remain key, as does bicycle control.

Knowing what I do of legal issues, I smell an upcoming lawsuit for facility deficiency leading to wrongful death, due to the engineering issues. But the bulk of issues identified in the Star-Tribune article aren’t engineering issues – they’re just reality.

MPR focuses on the helmets, but this really isn’t about helmets. Even the most strident and yelping helmet advocate will admit (if forced) that helmets are not magical. They help, certainly, in the event of impact, but they’re still plastic and styrofoam.

A more important factor in this accident, I think, is that one rider came out of their lane while turning, creating the head-on situation. Head-on crashes – whether cars or bikes or anything else – have greater consequences than rear-end collisions, because both objects have momentum towards each other. This is elementary physics.

I don’t know this tunnel well, and don’t know if there’s really design flaw or if it was user error. Following rules of lane usage – on roads and on trails – is really critical for the safety of all users of a throughway.

My sympathy goes out to the family of the victim, as well as to the other rider involved.

Right now, the littlest cyclist rides in a trailer. He gets a bit bigger, we may use a child seat for a while before graduating to tag-a-longs and eventually a tandem. With any of these options, I think routing is a key to making the experience good for parent and child. here are key elements I’d want in any route used for family cycling:

• Reasonable distance: Distance is both a factor of parental fitness (especially with a trailer!) and child willingness. Know your kid, and plan accordingly. Toddlers require input and diversion. This can either be built in as stops to allow for longer mileage, or shorter mileage can be planned to accommodate the kiddo.
• Destination/Rest stop: As above, where will you be stopping? With a toddler, a chance to play and run about a little is nearly essential. Ice cream or a tasty snack – either carried along or purchased on route – is also a big plus. My kid loves the ice cream stops – a genetic predisposition, to be sure.
• Terrain: With any sort of extended trailer, trail-a-bike, etc., be sure to avoid anything especially technical. The idea of taking the downhill next to Fort Snelling, which is steep and has a sharp left turn at the bottom? Just say no. If the kid is an active participant, ease into hills.
• Timing: We like to time rides such that they coincide with Natty’s nap. The gentle rhythm of the trailer puts him straight into zonk-zone.

This last weekend we rode 18 miles, mostly via trail or trail-option routing. We stopped at DQ. It was flat and shady, and Natty got Blizzard and hot fudge. Happiness.

Ice Cream Sundae – 18 miles (jpg)

Per the MinnPost, a number of improvements are planned. Those that will best impact cyclists include:

• A creek along the Water Street roadside, intended to capture runoff from the bluffs and address the near-constant standing water/ice on the roadway.

• Three ‘resting spots’ along the River – which will be great as safe ‘pull-off’ areas for those with flats or other mechanicals.
• Eventual picnic shelters and restrooms
• Butterfly garden and native plant restorations

These projects will be raising funds and getting started soon.

We have another fine example of this genre over at the Strib again. The comments, especially, contain a fine run of the usual: Get on the sidewalks, what of the nice trails we paid for so you would get out of our way, you only obey laws when you feel like it, roads are less safe than trails. More haters on parade, egged on by even reasonable comments from people who know their bicycle laws.

I’ve written about this all before – Toys, Letters & the Bullying Response being the most notable case. As Bob Mionske has said, even if every cyclist stopped at every stop sign (which is a good plan, mind you), you’d still get the misguided squawking about bicycles not belonging on roads.

As bicycle advocates, we’ve got miles and years to go before we reach full acceptance.