Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorJim
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2011
     
    From the preliminary markings on the street it looks like Broadway in El Cajon is getting a bike lane.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2011
     
    Here is a google map streetview photo of Broadway in El Cajon, showing onstreet curb parking.
    [[_linker_]]
    Does anyone know if they're going to prohibit the parking? Or will the bike lane demarcate the door zone?
    • CommentAuthorJim
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2011
     
    I see little reason to permit parking on Broadway. Most, if not all, businesses have their own parking lots.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2011
     
    <blockquote><cite> Jim:</cite>I see little reason to permit parking on Broadway. Most, if not all, businesses have their own parking lots.</blockquote>
    What about the residential blocks?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2011 edited
     
    "Parking, like driving, is heavily subsidized in the US. In 2002: According to Donald Shoup, author of The High Cost of Free Parking, the total subsidy for off-street parking alone was between $127 and $374 billion in 2002. Take that, parking whiners."
    Source

    Note that these numbers do not include the subsidies given to motorists for on-street parking.

    Meanwhile, monthly parking rates downtown for one passenger car in London, Copenhagen and Amsterdam are $1,084, $567 and $587, resp - all substantially higher than even the most expensive US cities.
    • CommentAuthorJim
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2011
     
    Serge2:
    Jim:I see little reason to permit parking on Broadway. Most, if not all, businesses have their own parking lots.

    What about the residential blocks?


    Broadway is mostly businesses with a few apartment buildings
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2011 edited
     
    While rubbing elbows with thousands of cars today, all jamming into the Hillcrest area for the parade and -- unlike me on a bike -- mostly stuck in each others traffic, I was reminded me that reducing speed differential between cars and bicycles => Win!

    The speed limit in Europe in "built up areas" is 30mph (it could be, and often is, substantially lower). it is strictly enforced and frequently checked, by a variety of means.

    Here are the statutory fines for urban speeding in Norway, as an example as I am familiar with it:

    Exceeding 30mph speed limit, statutory fine:
    Under 3mph $100
    4-6mph $250
    7-9mph $500
    10-12mph $700
    13-15mph $1,100
    16mph+: Driver's license suspension (again, statutory)

    Any bets on how many $1,100 tickets or driver's license suspensions the SDPD issues to motorists doing 45mph on University, Washington, Kettner, India or El Cajon Blvd. ? Do you think they even bother to stop said speeding motorists (rhetorical)?

    "Green Wave
    Mon-Fri
    3PM - 6PM
    20km/h" (equiv. 12mph)
    (from Copenhagen)
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2011
     
    I think many of the European in-city speed limits are now 30km/hr ... about 18 mph.
    • CommentAuthorAlanKHG
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2011 edited
     
    Sigurd:While rubbing elbows with thousands of cars today, all jamming into the Hillcrest area for the parade and -- unlike me on a bike -- mostly stuck in each others traffic, I was reminded me that reducing speed differential between cars and bicycles => Win!

    The speed limit in Europe in "built up areas" is 30mph (it could be, and often is, substantially lower). it is strictly enforced and frequently checked, by a variety of means.

    Here are the statutory fines for urban speeding in Norway, as an example as I am familiar with it:

    Exceeding 30mph speed limit, statutory fine:
    Under 3mph $100
    4-6mph $250
    7-9mph $500
    10-12mph $700
    13-15mph $1,100
    16mph+: Driver's license suspension (again, statutory)

    Any bets on how many $1,100 tickets or driver's license suspensions the SDPD issues to motorists doing 45mph on University, Washington, Kettner, India or El Cajon Blvd. ? Do you think they even bother to stop said speeding motorists (rhetorical)?

    "Green Wave
    Mon-Fri
    3PM - 6PM
    20km/h" (equiv. 12mph)
    (from Copenhagen)

    One of the things that horrified me when I first got here was how many of the roads in the older neighborhoods seemed like freeways shoehorned into residential neighborhoods, and straight up freeways with 50mph+ speed limits in the newer neighborhoods.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2011 edited
     
    bikingbill:I think many of the European in-city speed limits are now 30km/hr ... about 18 mph.
    Indeed! There are many levels of speed limits below the statutory 50km/h (31mph), all the way down to 10km/h (equivalent to 6mph - there is even a speed limit sign using the term "walking speed"). The lower limits are used in those cases when speed differential needs to be lower than the one achieved using the default 50km/h limit - think residential and city center areas, and shopping districts. All speed limits 50km/h and below are enforced and ticketed as per the above table.

    The 50km/h is a statutory maximum speed in all "built up" (i.e., developed) areas - whether inside city limits or not. To transfer this to San Diego City, I can't think of a single non-freeway roadway here (perhaps with the exception of KVR) that would not have the 50kmh/31mph (or in many cases, lower) speed limit: Again, this limit would also be strictly enforced, without exception.

    To me, equitable infrastructure is more than the "hardware" we put in to provide non-motorists with equal access to public transportation corridors: It is also the software we put in place, which would include set speed limits and other signage, and other elements of the highway code, and - just as important, if not more! - the enforcement of it: The two types of "infrastructure" have to go hand in hand in order to provide an equitable transportation system.

    PS! Don't even get me started on the 85th percentile rule used in California - it is much too depressing: Perhaps I feel up to it another time...
    • CommentAuthorJim
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2011
     
    The bike lane on Broadway (between Ballantyne and East Main) in El Cajon is now done. It is the type with parking next to the curb, then the bike lane. Hope the drivers soon learn how to interact with them.
    Today, in less than a mile, I had four people speed past me then cut into the bike lane and slam on their brakes to enter a driveway. I also saw two cars pull into the bike lane half way down the block to make a right hand turn at the corner.
    • CommentAuthorJim
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2011
     
    Bike racks could wheel city into new parking era. Sometimes it takes personal experience to change a village.

    http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20110806-NEWS-108060319
    • CommentAuthormfutch
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2011
     
    I've got tickets to a Chargers exhibition game and was thinking about biking there since I live so close (Normal Heights). What is the bike locking situation at the stadium? Anyone done this?
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2011
     
    Jim:Bike racks could wheel city into new parking era. Sometimes it takes personal experience to change a village.

    http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20110806-NEWS-108060319


    I lived in that area from 1980 to 1982. Portsmouth, NH etc...
    • CommentAuthormfutch
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2011
     
    mfutch:I've got tickets to a Chargers exhibition game and was thinking about biking there since I live so close (Normal Heights). What is the bike locking situation at the stadium? Anyone done this?


    Yeah, so Qualcomm not so bike friendly. It was great to cruise past all the cars waiting to pay to park and straight up to the trolley station. But the San Diego MTS guy I talked to on the phone mislead me. I said I was going to a game and wanted to park my bike. He said there were bike lockers, but he didn't say anything about reserving them. I got there and they required a key to open. I called the number on the box but it went to voicemail. So my friend and I were forced to lock our bikes on the one bike rack available. The stadium has seating for 70,000 people and bicycle parking for 6. The rack was out of sight of any MTS workers or security, ripe for the stealing. We stripped everything off our bikes that might be stolen, but they wouldn't let us in the stadium with our seatposts. Went back to the bikes and left the seatposts on, but took the saddles (spent too much time breaking that thing in to lose it). If I were going to another Chargers game I would definitely bike again, just make sure I reserve a locker next time...
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2011
     
    mfutch:The stadium has seating for 70,000 people and bicycle parking for 6.
    How many lockers do they have for said 70,000 people?
    • CommentAuthormfutch
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2011
     
    Maybe 8 or 9 lockers. Plus the bike rack that can hold about 6 bikes.
    •  
      CommentAuthormarkphilips
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2011 edited
     
    this billboard reveals a dark truth about our society...We can blame the oil companies, developers, car manufacturers and the government for “making sure nobody walks or bikes”, and it is well deserved criticism. But at the end of the day it is us who bought into their propaganda and effectively dug our own graves.


    The Billboard photo was from "Who Killed the electric car." I believe it is still available in 10 minute video clips in Youtube.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011
     
    Two Caltrans representatives attended the SDCBC board meeting last night regarding a proposed Class 1 bike path to the west of I-5 between Sorrento Valley and Genesee, and extending up to Voigt on the UCSD campus. Some highlights:

    <ol>
    <li>The existence of such a path would mean loss of bicycle access to the freeway shoulder there which we currently have.</li>
    <li>The larger project here -- $90-100M -- involves rebuilding the Genesee/I-5 bridge to make it wider and improving throughput on Genesee. No exact numbers were given, but it sounds like the bike path will cost in the $6-10M range</li>
    <li>The main impetus to build this path, at least for Caltrans, appears to be to get bikes off the freeway.</li>
    <li>The proposed path would start at the north end down in Sorrento Valley on Roselle St, connecting just north of where the southbound ramp connects to Roselle</li>
    <li>The proposed path would head south west of the ramp and the I-5 all the way up to Genesee, hopefully through an expensive tunnel under Genesee, and continue up to Voigt. The tunnel under Genesee would be to the west of the Genesee/I-5 interchange. There would be connecting ramps for cyclists to use to get on/off Genesee on both sides of Genesee.</li>
    <li>The impetus for the tunnel is that the alternative is to provide an at-grade crosswalk crossing for bicyclists, and the concern is that this would reduce LOS (level of service) for traffic on Genesee. This makes me hopeful about it getting built with the tunnel. It makes sense do it with the bigger project while they have all that machinery, labor and material there anyway.</li>
    <li>Many of the details still need to be worked out, like path width, but it sounds like they will make it as wide as 20' where possible, though it some places they might have to go as narrow as 12' due to enviromental impact considerations.</li>
    <li>Also not sure where exactly it will connect with Voigt, but that will be at-grade.</li>
    <li>The hope is that this will induce cyclists who don't want to ride on the freeway to ride more. I'm wondering how many cyclists there are who are discouraged from riding by the freeway, but not that climb. I'm sure they exist, but I suspect that most people who won't ride on the freeway also would not want to ride a bike up out of Sorrento Valley even on a path.</li>

    </ol>
    • CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011
     
    Old Hwy 1 from the 1930's still exists in part down in the canyon east of the cyclocross course in the eucalyptus grove. I wonder if that is the route they are planning to use. Pavement there is overgrown, but still looks ridable in places.

    A dedicated tunnel for cyclists and pedestrians sounds like an expensive homeless shelter/latrine. Lighting and law enforcement may be a consideration.

    I will probably be 80 before any project this grand is completed. Fossil fuel powered vehicles may be on the way out by then, leaving vast expanses of pavement for cyclists and horsemen to use.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite> wpstoll:</cite>Old Hwy 1 from the 1930's still exists in part down in the canyon east of the cyclocross course in the eucalyptus grove. I wonder if that is the route they are planning to use. Pavement there is overgrown, but still looks ridable in places. A dedicated tunnel for cyclists and pedestrians sounds like an expensive homeless shelter/latrine. Lighting and law enforcement may be a consideration. I will probably be 80 before any project this grand is completed. Fossil fuel powered vehicles may be on the way out by then, leaving vast expanses of pavement for cyclists and horsemen to use.</blockquote> I got the impression that they would route the path closer to the freeway than the route old Hwy 1 takes, but the aerial view indicates a lot of open land that could be used further west, in the canyon between the campus services complex and Warren College residences. <a href="http://g.co/maps/gxnwj">google aerial view</a> They mentioned they had design ideas about how to allow daylight into the tunnel (I'm presuming from some kind of skylight or light tubes from the median above?), and artificial lighting at night. Normally I would agree with you about the unlikelihood of something like this actually happening in the foreseeable future, but in this case they already have a huge bridge-rebuild project going in, they really want bikes off the freeway, and a tunnel is the only way to keep up LOS, which is the whole point of this project. You can expect ground breaking in 2011.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011
     
    There have been NO ACCIDENTS on the I5 stretch. Why waste money on this?
    • CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011 edited
     
    That's good news, but The Powers That Be also promised to build a Class I bike path on the east side of SR15 back in the '90s when the 40th St. route was obliterated. Had they done so when the freeway extension was built they could have saved millions of dollars. As it stands today, the studies for the project are just being finished at the end of 2011 with no groundbreaking in sight in the near future. Now that Aldine Dr. is closed that leaves Texas St. as the only viable way for cyclists coming to and from the Uptown Mesa on the I-15 corridor. Fairmount Ave. has a narrow bridge south of Aldine that makes the route up to Meade Ave. too dangerous. Bachman and Presidio are okay if one is coming from the west, but too far out of the way to be practical from the east.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite> bikingbill:</cite>There have been NO ACCIDENTS on the I5 stretch. Why waste money on this?</blockquote>
    It is my understanding that Caltrans makes every reasonable effort they can to get bikes off of freeways, perhaps for liability reasons (in general, not necessarily tied to any specific incidents on any particular stretch). They did it on the 52. They tried to do on the I-15 with the new bike/ped bridge, but that didn't' work out because the bridge, which was originally supposed to be 24/7, is closed at night. So they have to leave I-15 open to bikes for when the bridge is closed (Caltrans is very unhappy about that). There is a similar situation on I-5 by Pendleton, which they have to leave open to bikes because Pendleton is not 24/7 (they close to bikes/public sometimes).

    Here, they see an opportunity. That's how it appears to me.

    Less cynically, some believe significant numbers of people will choose to ride bikes rather than drive if they don't have to ride on the freeway here.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbatmick
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011
     
    It would probably be much cheaper to create an access point to Science Center Drive from the valley or even to pay General Atomics to create public access to Tower Road while maintaining site security somehow.

    I support the idea of getting bikes of the freeway. The few times I had to take the short segment from Genesee to Sorrento Valley were never pleasant. I do believe that it would encourage more people to ride to UCSD and the other facilities on the Mesa, especially from the coaster station down there.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011
     
    <blockquote><cite> batmick:</cite>It would probably be much cheaper to create an access point to Science Center Drive from the valley or even to pay General Atomics to create public access to Tower Road while maintaining site security somehow.

    I support the idea of getting bikes of the freeway. The few times I had to take the short segment from Genesee to Sorrento Valley were never pleasant. I do believe that it would encourage more people to ride to UCSD and the other facilities on the Mesa, especially from the coaster station down there.</blockquote>
    For those headed south on Genesee, routing cyclists up to Science Center Drive or via GA would be a pretty major detour. And compared to the proposed path going all the way to Voigt, it's a big detour for those heading south through campus on Gilman and then Rose Canyon.

    A direct path like that from the station to the campus makes a hell of a lot of sense. Any "non-cyclist" working at UCSD who lives within biking distance of a Coaster stop will now have only the climb as an excuse to not take the Coaster/bike commute option (I remain skeptical about how many this will actually encourage). Off-campus students on a budget will be able to avoid expensive campus parking fees by parking down in Sorrento Valley and riding from there. In fact, that could create parking problems down there
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011
     
    There is a dirt path from the "Campus Point" area and I suspect something similar on the west side of I5.
    • CommentAuthorStephan
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011
     
    bikingbill:There have been NO ACCIDENTS on the I5 stretch. Why waste money on this?


    Perhaps because because the motivation is not primarily to get bicyclists off the freeway shoulder but rather to provide access for those people who would climb the grade but wouldn't ride on the shoulder. If the objective wasn't better bike access, why would they bother extending the path north to Voigt where there is no freeway access? By the way, a fair number of cyclists currently ride out of Sorrento Valley from the south end of Roselle up to Eastgate Mall on a dirt utility access road--a much steeper climb than the freeway shoulder.
    • CommentAuthorJayKay
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011
     
    I am big fan of this project. I would have started biking in a lot earlier if the freeway was not necessary. Its an entry barrier for newbies like myself.

    Hopefully this project will work together with the midcoast trolley expansion. That combo could take a lot of cars off the road
    • CommentAuthorShady John
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2011 edited
     
    Batmick is on to something with the Science Center Dr idea. The tunnel/path proposal would be nice for us on this forum, but realistically the hills make cycling through that area a non-starter for most people, even with the nice path. Instead, here’s what needs to happen:

    Build a small funicular from Sorrento Valley train station up to Science Center drive, and from there up to John J Hopkins Drive. How much would this cost to build and operate? I have no idea.* But consider these factors:

    1) Thousands of people work in the business park area to the north of UCSD along Torrey Pines Road, in addition to all of the employees of Scripps Green Hospital and TSRI, and, yes, UCSD. Thousands more (at least 2000) used to work at Pfizer and other companies on Science Center Dr.

    2) The commute by car from North County is bad—there is an incentive for people to get out of their cars. But taking the train now isn’t a great alternative because it’s so damn hard to get from the train station up to the employers on the Torrey Mesa. The hills and freeway route make cycling unattractive for most.

    3) Pfizer is sitting on a lot of under-utilized real estate on Science Center Drive. Wouldn't it be in their interest to pony up land and/or money to help get the funicular built? Wouldn’t that be an attractive place to site your company if your employees could get from the train station to work in 10 or 15 minutes with no car?

    4) With the funicular, the whole Sorrento Valley bottleneck opens up for cyclists. You ride through flat Sorrento Valley to the train station, hop the funicular (bikes travel free, of course), and it drops you out 350 feet up the hill, on the doorstep of UCSD, TSRI, Salk, Burnham, General Atomics, etc.

    If you think about the incredible investment that has been made for automobile infrastructure in that valley—essentially the entire valley has been turned into a massive freeway system at the 5/805 merge, and it will not be easy to stuff more lanes in there—then the funicular might be the most reasonable marginal-cost alternative to getting more people (cyclists and train passengers) through that bottleneck.

    *There is a funicular at Magic Mountain. There is a small one running from a house in La Jolla Farms to the beach at Black's. There were/are several famous funiculars in LA County. I don't think it would be preposterously expensive to build one in a setting where it would serve a great practical use.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2011 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite> Stephan:</cite><blockquote><cite> bikingbill:</cite>There have been NO ACCIDENTS on the I5 stretch. Why waste money on this?</blockquote> Perhaps because because the motivation is not primarily to get bicyclists off the freeway shoulder but rather to provide access for those people who would climb the grade but wouldn't ride on the shoulder. If the objective wasn't better bike access, why would they bother extending the path north to Voigt where there is no freeway access? By the way, a fair number of cyclists currently ride out of Sorrento Valley from the south end of Roselle up to Eastgate Mall on a dirt utility access road--a much steeper climb than the freeway shoulder.</blockquote> If they don't build the tunnel and extension up to Voigt, they would have to provide an at-grade signal at Genesee which means reduced LOS for Genesee traffic. I think that's why they're going to get the funding and justification for the tunnel, and I presume the piece up to Voigt is relatively inexpensive. A secondary motivation might indeed be to improve cyclist access, and that would explain the extension up to Voigt, but the impression I got at the meeting was that the primary motivation was to get bikes off the freeway. I mean, they pretty much said that had Caltrans known the Lake Hodges bike/ped bridge would not be 24/7 and so bikes couldn't be banned from I-15, they would not have supported that project. If providing access is the primary motivation, then why is whether cyclists lose access to the freeway a critical factor in whether that project occurs? By the way, Stefan, do you know if that extension up to Voigt is going to run next to the freeway, or in the canyon further west that leads up to the swimming pools? <a href="http://g.co/maps/99gt2">google map</a>
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2011
     
    A funicular could run from a few 100 ft from the station right to the end of Campus Point. You might want a second one to the Science Park area.
    • CommentAuthorsd_mike
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2011 edited
     
    Where exactly is this old alignment of Hwy 101 that people speak of at UCSD?

    FOUND:

    That roadway isn't old Hwy 101. It is just an old access road, cut off when I-5 was built.
    • CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2011
     
    You can see it down in the canyon from the south side of Genesee if you stop and go up onto the sidewalk. It's directly east of the CX course in the eucalyptus grove and northeast of Geisel (Central) Library. You can also see it from the parking lot behind the library where the soccer field used to be. I haven't been down there in 20 years.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011 edited
     
    Is anyone familiar with the stretch of La Jolla Blvd at its south end <a href="http://g.co/maps/tfsy5">between Loring St and Turquoise St</a>? If you are, then you're probably familiar with how many bicyclists traveling north salmon along the west (southbound) side of La Jolla Blvd, either on the sidewalk or in the bike lane. These are mostly folks who were riding along the boardwalk in PB until it ended, then followed the streets up to Loring at LJ Blvd where the only legal vehicular direction is to turn right. Faced with turning right, getting in the left lane, then a U-turn after waiting for the light to turn green, many choose to either get on the sidewalk or ride the wrong way in the bike lane. Apparently residents have complained and the city is trying to address this problem. The proposed design discussed at last week's Bike Coalition meeting by city bike coordinator Jim Lundquist is to put in a 2-way cycle track on the west side of La Jolla Blvd that actually starts on Loring at Crystal and continues along LJ Blvd to Turquoise St. My main problem with this proposed design is that instead of addressing the problem of salmoning, it exacerbates it. At least right now some are inclined to find an alternative (like the U-turn) to get to the other side of LJ Blvd and ride legally. If this cycle track goes in, more will be encouraged to salmon in the northbound direction along the southbound side. At least now the two salmoning options are obviously going the wrong way in a bike lane, or riding on a narrow sidewalk. Both options naturally induce slow speeds and caution, thus minimizing the risk as compared to the proposed cycle track. The cycle track will be an official sanction for travel in that direction, and will encourage more fast and less careful cycling. If this was an isolated stretch that would be one thing, but it’s not. In addition to the intersection with Tourmaline St. where surfers are driving in and out of there all day long, this stretch is riddled with driveways that go in and out of large apartment/condo complexes. The cross traffic problem is high, which is what makes the salmoning particularly hazardous here, especially by anyone coming out of Tourmaline or any one of those complexes who is turning right. Their natural inclination is to look left, perhaps after glancing to make sure there are no pedestrians coming from the right. Many will not expect nor look for bike-speed traffic coming from their right. This is probably the main risk when salmoning. It seems to me the solution here should be to address the root problem - the inability to easily and naturally get from Loring to northbound LJ Blvd - and solve that directly, rather than encourage the problematic work-a-round. To that end, what makes much more sense to me is make a bike-only left-only turn lane on Loring, along with a bike-only cut in the median, that bicyclists can use to get across LJ Blvd in two steps... first cross southbound traffic to get to the median, then merge into northbound traffic when safe (which occurs frequently because of the light at Mission). For both maneuvers the sight lines are good in the necessary direction. When crossing the southbound lanes, cyclists can see a long way to the north of LJ Blvd to know when it’s safe. Once in the median, cyclists can look back to see when the light is red and traffic is clear behind them to make it safe to cross. The only other thing is maybe a “KEEP CLEAR” stencil across the southbound lanes at that intersection for when traffic stopped at Mission backs up that far. What do others think?
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011 edited
     
    Some background information. The California Highway Design Manual (<a href="http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm">HDM</a>) specifically prohibits the kind of 2-way cycle-track being proposed here: <blockquote><strong>HDM Index 1003.2. </strong> Class II bike lanes shall be one-way facilities. <strong>Two-way</strong> bike lanes (or <strong>bike paths that are contiguous to the roadway</strong>) <strong>are not permitted</strong>, as such facilities have proved unsatisfactory and promote riding against the flow of motor vehicle traffic. </blockquote> This seems quite clear: <em>"Two-way ... bike paths that are contiguous to the roadway [which is exactly what this proposed 2-way cycle track would be] are not permitted."</em> Alta Planning has a "Lessons Learned" document concerning cycle tracks. See Page 11:
    [[_linker_]]
    Let's look at what they say, and how that applies to the proposed cycle track: <ol> <li><em>"Two-way cycle tracks require a higher level of control at intersections, to allow for a variety of turning movements. These movements should be guided by a separated signal for bicycles and for motor vehicles."</em> Again, I'm very concerned about the crossing at Tourmaline. I doubt a separated signal for bicycles and motor vehicles at that intersection is part of the proposal, but even if it is, that doesn't address the conflicts at all the condo/apartment driveways.</li> <li><em>"A two-way cycle track is desirable when more destinations are on one side of a street (therefore preventing additional crossings), if the facility connects to a path or other bicycle facility on one side of the street, or if there is not enough room for a cycle track on both sides of the road. "</em> Do any of these conditions apply for the proposed cycle track? I suppose you could argue that there are more destinations on the south side (for those who will be continuing west of LJ Blvd and not getting on LJ Blvd or crossing it to get to LJ Hermosa), but I understand the main purpose is to get cyclists safely along LJ Blvd to Turquoise St, and then to cross it there via crosswalk./li> <li><em>"To allow cyclists to comfortably pass each other, the cycle track should be a minimum of 12-feet wide."</em> I don't know if the proposal is to build a 12-foot wide cycle track. If it's not 12-feet, it doesn't even meet Alta's requirements. If it is 12 feet, or anywhere near that wide, that's exactly the kind of design that would encourage fast/unsafe cycling coming from an unexpected direction for the cross traffic.</li> </ol>
    •  
      CommentAuthorGeoff
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011
     
    I like the cycle-only left-turn lane idea. A small cut out with signage for bike-only seems to fit the bill. As an addition, instead of having to look back to see the red light, have a simple one-light signal that indicates red when the traffic light is red (you wouldn't want a green because it would endorse right-of-way that may be unsafe).

    As a guide to get to the center turn area, a diagonal stripe crossing area and yellow caution sign will give drivers a visual cue that bikes are crossing, without become a traffic control device. This would make the transition a right-angle crossing, which is easier on a bike than the shoulder-look merge to cross lanes of traffic from a bike lane.

    All-in-all, I think a key point to your proposal is that it is far more cost effective than a cycletrack the whole length of La Jolla, and would focus on that. All the points you raise about the cycletrack being unfeasible due to guidance is the re-inforcement ammo.

    "This is cheaper."
    "No, it's just painting two bike lanes side-by-side."
    "Yeah, but then you have to cut here, add there, make it this wide, and close the road for this long to build and paint it. See? It says so here. Why not just do the little cut through, add the signs, paint, and call it a day?"
    "Hmm, you may be right."
    • CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011
     
    Smoke salmon! Serve on toasted bagel with red onion, tomato, and cream cheese!
    • CommentAuthorModerator
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011
     
    Serge2:Is anyone familiar with the stretch of La Jolla Blvd at its south end between Loring St and Turquoise St?...
    Please refrain from double- or cross-posting threads from the SDCBC Open forum in this, or any other, thread on SDBikeCommuter: The good folks over at SDCBC have proven time after time that they are acutely capable of debating minute details of just about any subject under the sun at great length, and parallel universe input on this forum is therefore not required or requested.

    If members here wish to engage themselves in SDCBC discussions, here is a link to the SDCBC Open forum: Enjoy!

    Thank you for respecting this.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGeoff
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
     
    I phoned in a SD City Streets Division service request to have the left turn signal sensor adjusted on 28th St NB onto Main St. I had originally submitted an electronic request, and was advised to call the Traffic Signal phone number to provide more details. The female I spoke with on the phone was very pleasant, took the information, and said she would send a technician out to investigate. Seemed like an easy process, and took less than 60 seconds total. We'll see the what results.

    Is there any initiative to install bike-friendly traffic loop detectors in revised/new intersections? Do these kind of funds come from general street funds, or bicycle specific funds? I think it would make a difference when requesting budget increases to cite the number of intersections that need overhaul, if it was a bike initiative.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbatmick
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2011 edited
     
    I am not a big fan of those in-street contacts. Wouldn't buttons be more robust and cheaper? Here, it seems, they just put the buttons on the main mast of the light, sometimes out of the way even for pedestrians.

    Back in Germany we had these everywhere. Right next to the bike lane or along the roadside, conveniently located for dual use as support so you don't have to un-click from the pedals.



    Here's another model (in use). The separate signals for bikes can also be quite helpful, depending on location.

    • CommentAuthorsd_mike
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
     
    What if you are turning left or are trying not to get right hooked? Those buttons aren't so friendly that way.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbatmick
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
     
    sd_mike:What if you are turning left or are trying not to get right hooked? Those buttons aren't so friendly that way.


    Left turn lanes are indeed a problem. In my experience about half on them will not work for my bike. Sucks to have to wait for a car to trigger the loop or to simply run the red light in frustration. With a button I at least have a slightly less inconvenient way to trigger the light.
    • CommentAuthorsd_mike
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
     
    If you put your wheel over a side of the loop, it works for me about 95% of the time. When I can't find a loop, it rarely works. I have to run a red every morning going left onto Mission City Pkwy from Camino Del Rio S. I've called it in, doesn't help. There are no visible loops that direction.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGeoff
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
     
    A-yup, what Mike said: I'm making a left turn, and if a car isn't waiting, I have the choice of running a red, or do the pedestrian/two-point turn to go left onto Main St. The loop is in the road, but my tire won't trigger it (I've tried different loops and different positioning to no avail).

    We all know the woes of Harbor Drive. Combined with 28th St. and 32nd St. NB from Harbor, these are the biggest crippling points for easy cycling from base.

    I would be for a button if it was placed in the turn lane for me to click, but I don't see that happening.
    • CommentAuthorSam
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
     
    Is there some CA law against timed lights? I hate these crappy detectors!!
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2011 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite> batmick:</cite><blockquote><cite> sd_mike:</cite>What if you are turning left or are trying not to get right hooked? Those buttons aren't so friendly that way.</blockquote>

    Left turn lanes are indeed a problem. In my experience about half on them will not work for my bike. Sucks to have to wait for a car to trigger the loop or to simply run the red light in frustration. With a button I at least have a slightly less inconvenient way to trigger the light.</blockquote>
    As sd_mike says, it's not just a problem when turning left. Even if you're going straight, to be more conspicuous, predictable about going straight rather than turning right, and to avoid a right hook, you don't want to stop right next to the curb (which is where you have to be to reach a button). In fact, these designs encourage the arguably problematic behavior of stopping at the curb instead of out in the lane. Once the light turns green, it's easy enough to move aside as you cross the intersection to let the motorists pass.

    For the circular detectors, it's most effective to place your front wheel at a tangent to the circle, on the circle.

    But definitely call in those detectors that fail to detect you. The SD city streets division number is in my cell phone contacts, under "Pot Holes": 1-619-527-7500.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKathy
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
     
    State law says that signals must detect and be timed to allow cyclists to get through safely. If the light doesn't detect you it's broken - be sure to call it in!
    P.S. New bike lanes are in on West Bernardo Drive in Rancho Bernardo (from Poblado to Aguamiel). Finally. After only 9 years or so. Second part of the project is to include them on Bernardo Center Drive (West Bernardo to Rancho Bernardo Road) as well - they've marked the pavement so I'm hoping they are going in soon!
    •  
      CommentAuthormarkphilips
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2011 edited
     
    Futuristic infrastructure

    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeOct 10th 2011
     
    Is that Hermosa Beach? Near Good Stuff?