City of San Diego Map of Scooter Corrals in Ocean Beach

by Source on September 9, 2019 · 39 comments

Here is the official map from the City of San Diego on scooter corrals in Ocean Beach.

{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }

ZZ September 9, 2019 at 11:33 am

More are needed on the far north and south of the map.

Do people take them up and down the steep hills of Pt Loma? I took one down Voltaire St’s less steep hill, I’d be scared to do a steeper one like Del Mar Ave.

triggerfinger September 13, 2019 at 12:03 pm: Why would you want them where there are no tourists? They wouldn’t get used. Also they won’t go up the hills.

Reply

retired botanist September 9, 2019 at 2:11 pm

Would love to know what the total square footage of all that free scooter parking space is…

Frank Gormlie September 10, 2019 at 12:22 pm

I’m with you on this. Add it all up – and I bet it’s a very pretty penny – all for nothing! Our public space is taken over – we call it “encroachment” – by private commercial corporations all out for their OWN bottom line. More of the public commons just gone.

ZZ September 10, 2019 at 12:56 pm

Never explained: why street parking for scooters is bad but cars is OK. I know why: you have a car but not a scooter. How do you think people without cars who sometimes ride the ebikes and scooters feel?

“For their own bottom line”

Well I didn’t know street parking of cars is limited to charitable organizations.

Frank Gormlie September 10, 2019 at 2:31 pm

Here it is: you own your car (or the bank does) but you do have legal possession of it (most of us) so the space is for mainly residents’ cars – residents = the public. They – the scooter companies – own all the scooters yet they get to park their machines on our public space without costing them a dime (sure they pay the city a measly amount to be on the streets).

Babs September 10, 2019 at 3:19 pm

and yet they are still left in the middle of the sidewalks !

retired botanist September 10, 2019 at 3:38 pm

I would also add to ZZ’s car v. scooter ‘entitlement’ comment that cars are not left randomly on the sidewalks, they are not riding up and down boardwalks, and they are (in about 90% of locations nowadays) paying a parking meter (over and above their taxpayer status) to use that public/municipal space. If a restaurant, retail outlet, or any other for-profit entity has to lease or pay for their parking areas, why should Bird, Lime or any other for-profit scooter company be given free space?!
Here’s how “people without cars who sometimes ride the ebikes and scooters” SHOULD feel: Just like anyone else. If if they “feel” otherwise, take it up w/ the mfg’er of the scooter they’re renting. If they own their own scooter, lock it to a bike rack while they’re in a store, or take responsibility like any other bike owner. There’s simply no reason for any City to give select vendors a free parking space. :-)

ZZ September 10, 2019 at 4:13 pm

If the distinction of “owned by residents” v “owned by corporation” was of any importance for city parking, we’d have different rules for street parking for rental cars, leased cars, and cars owned by corporations. We don’t.

And cars block sidewalks all the time. Trying walking down the 5000 and 5100 block of WPL. You will see any cars shutting from the driveway well into the sidewalk.

I really have no issue with people not liking scooters. It is the BS about how this is somehow a progressive position. It is not. Scooters are a godsend for the slice of our population that doesn’t have the money for a car, but is physically able to ride one. You want to take that away so you have even more room for your cars. That’s politics. But don’t kid yourself, you’re on the side of oil companies and Trump here. You do admit they’d take your side here, right?

Vern September 11, 2019 at 8:19 am: Good morning ZZ.
From your post above it seems that while you “… really have no issue with people not liking scooters…”, just words away, you really do have an issue “with people not liking scooters”. You seem to be equating folks with being “… on the side of oil companies and Trump here…” and none too pleased with that notion of yours.

Reply

Dr. Jack Hammer September 9, 2019 at 2:14 pm

Is Bird aware of this? According to some Bird watchers, they are instructed to leave them on the street, not in the corrals. Example: the corner of Ladera and Sunset Cliffs…
Bird is instructing them to place them on the sidewalk, as there is no corral in that location.

kh September 9, 2019 at 9:12 pm: They are allowed to place them by the sidewalk if there is no street corral on that block. But they are supposed to limit them to groups of 4 with at least 40’ spacing from the next group.

Reply
Geoff Page September 13, 2019 at 3:35 pm: Every single time I find one of these things on a sidewalk, I heave it to the side. The inconsiderateness of so many people is infuriating. I think I’ll make a trip down to Ladera Street this weekend. No, I won’t toss them into the ocean, that is stupid, but I’ll get them off the sidewalk.

Reply

Vern September 9, 2019 at 4:13 pm

Corrals?? That e-waste is laying around all over the place.

retired botanist September 9, 2019 at 5:25 pm: yeah, and my tax dollar is footin’ that bill. Infuriating.

Reply

Doug Blackwood September 9, 2019 at 10:50 pm

Corrals in red zones: its a business of litter: they are a blight! Where’s our rep on this?
If we parked in a red zone: big ticket; it ain’t right! Scooters be gone.

nostalgic September 10, 2019 at 9:53 am

The 40′ distance between nests of 4 scooters where no street corrals are designated is the width of a narrow city street. This makes 16 scooters per street corner legal anywhere.

Vern September 10, 2019 at 11:25 am

So buses, cars, first responders, bicyclists and street sweepers just have to go around these “corrals” filled with privately owned, rental e-scooters?
Piles of petro-chemical e-waste – and this is progressive, eh?

Eric September 10, 2019 at 7:48 pm

More injuries per mile than any other mode of transportation. A hazard to pedestrians, the elderly and the handicapped. Sizable carbon foot print, they are not green.

Tyler September 11, 2019 at 6:35 am

These comments remind me of the “dizzying vertigo” style of comments from Coronado residents after bike lines were proposed or installed.

ZZ September 11, 2019 at 9:00 am

That’s the NIMBY boomer style. They know what they don’t like in their guts, and throw up justifications for it. Scooters aren’t green cause… they have batteries! Just like Teslas! Also, the proles who ride them (certainly not me) would be taking the bus instead. Ride the bus like you are supposed to proles! Also, they are dangerous, look at these anecdotes! Comparative statistics on different modes of transport? What are those?

Vern September 11, 2019 at 10:05 am

Those batteries have proven to be quite handy, as I’ve been told.

Eric September 11, 2019 at 2:53 pm

I hate to dip to a lower level but what the heck. Well little, self entitled, millennial name caller, the comparative statistics have been discussed in several articles in The Rag and they are relevant. In just the last couple weeks the editor dude posted a link to an article in which they were discussed. Here is one of them and in this article you’ll find more links.
https://obrag.org/2019/08/the-scooter-rebellion-is-fueled-by-serious-injuries/
You just keep up your temper tantrums, name calling and foot stomping it’s hilarious.

retired botanist September 11, 2019 at 3:12 pm

One of the great things about these threads is that by the time they run their course, I usually end up chuckling over the comments, which helps displace my original pique about the subject! And mirth is always better than fury-

And I am pleased to read that others agree with my views on “electric”. We’ve glommed onto this idea that anything electric is somehow better/superior to whatever its replacing. That’s the biggest white and greenwash going! As Eric and Vern point out, the energy and carbon footprint path that precede some of these products (or sustain them) is much more consumptive than consumers realize or are willing to research. Electric is better than fossil fuel, but it all depends how we GET TO that electric-

ZZ September 11, 2019 at 5:02 pm

Portland’s study of the issue said that while the data is not definitive, it looks like a substantial improvement. About a third of scooter trips replace either regular or Uber/Lyft car rides. All by itself, a giant reduction in pollution, and concentrated in the more urban areas most effected by car pollution.

“we estimate that during the pilot, e-scooters prevented automobiles from emitting approximately 122 metric tons of CO2”

Eric September 11, 2019 at 10:50 pm

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-02/are-e-scooters-good-for-the-environment%3f_amp=true

Walk, ride a bike or take a bus is greener and safer.

zz September 11, 2019 at 11:31 pm: Once again, “ride the bus you proles!” say the people who own million dollar homes.

Reply
triggerfinger September 13, 2019 at 12:00 pm: I used to walk. Then one day I found out walking was bad for the environment because it doesn’t involve electric motors and lithium batteries and a “sharing” app. Now I ride scooters for all my ~1mile trips. With the time I save, I now shame all those walking luddites and cripples who complain about their sidewalks being blocked.

Reply

Vern September 11, 2019 at 7:46 am

Given that many trips taken on these scooters are replacing virtually carbon-neutral choices (walking, biking, or even public transit), the scooters could in fact be increasing total transportation emissions in a city.

Every night, these scooters are rounded up and collected by employees and freelancers (often by car, truck, or van) to be charged overnight and then redistributed in locations with expected demand for them the next morning. If the emissions of these gasoline-powered vehicles collecting & redistributing the scooters were taken into account, then the dockless electric scooter programs would not be considered the green option that companies suggest they are.

Eric September 11, 2019 at 8:41 am: Add in the mining, the drilling for oil, the production of materials used, the manufacturing, the transportation to the ports, getting them from China to here on ships burning bunker oil, from the port in diesel big rigs and local gas powered vehicle distribution, their relatively short life span and lack of ability to recycle. There isn’t much green about them.

Reply

Vern September 12, 2019 at 5:25 am

Many, or at least some, who “… own million dollar homes….” spent their youths and early careers, walking, riding bikes, skateboarding and taking the bus to and from school, work, doctor appointments and yes, even the beach. Not such a bad after all.

Eric September 12, 2019 at 9:32 am

Once again the self entitled millennial, name calling troll responds with nonsense and baseless attacks. I know many blue collar construction workers like myself that worked their lives at hard labor destroying their bodies, sometimes working two or more jobs, commuting for an hour or more in each direction taking public transit and walking to where the work was, even out of state because that’s what Journeypeople had to do to make their house payment and feed their family. We bought homes where we could afford them in shitty neighborhoods and worked our way up over a 40 year period but just like like Veruca Salt the self entitled want theirs now. Not a single one of the hard working construction workers were jealous, pissing and moaning about those before them that worked hard and invested in themselves and their families. A single mom that I worked with doing line work commuted from Sutter Buttes to San Rafael every damn day to keep her kid fed and a roof over her head. Your trolling comments are, childish, ignorant, baseless and self serving.

Robert Burns September 12, 2019 at 11:11 am

I love the corrals (cages) for this e-trash (except for the misappropriation of public commons for private profit). The fact that e-trash is still found pervasively outside the corrals tells me that the e-trash cartels don’t like them.

PS: Why are e-trash fictitious names (e.g., ZZ) allowed here? No ID, no comment!

Geoff Page September 13, 2019 at 3:32 pm: Yes, Robert, I agree completely with allowing pseudonyms on any on-line media. I think that is the single biggest contributor to the nastiness we see everywhere. If people had to use their real names, I think that would temper a lot of this. Letting them hide like that just encourages the stupidity. I’m sure editor dude has his reasons for allowing this, maybe he will chime in as to why. But, I really appreciate anyone who uses their real name as you do. I use my name because I am willing to answer for anything I write.

Reply

ZZ September 13, 2019 at 4:24 pm

“Robert Burns” you say? Sure…. you can call me Walter Scott going forward.

When you are retired or self employed, you can say what you want. When you are young and have potential employers Google you to look for anything “controversial,” not so much, especially if you have a unique name.

Geoff Page September 13, 2019 at 4:33 pm

ZZ, if you post respectful, responsible comments that only provide a difference of opinion, potential employers won’t care. What they would care about would be personal insults and trolling because that illustrates a personality they would not want in their organizations. And, if it is a big concern, be selective in what you comment on, show some restraint, stay off the media. There’s a thought. But to hide behind a pseudonym so a person can be disrespectful and act like a troll, is cowardice. Don’t get your hackles up, this is not a comment just on you personally, although you have made a few comments that might qualify. But, think each time how you would respond if you did have to back up your posts with your own name and act accordingly. That might keep the conversation agreeable.

kh September 13, 2019 at 5:07 pm: I see both sides of this.
The easy rule is don’t say anything you wouldn’t say in person.

Forcing someone to identify themselves when posting on online does discourage trolling… but it does so by the threat of public shaming. Public shaming has it’s place, but it’s far more abused in my opinion than is anonymous commentary.

Those words will be on the internet forever, and will be taken out context and used it to publicly lynch them.

In theory people could dismiss occasional crude or inappropriate comments, because we have done it. But in practice, they are taken literally, and acted on when it becomes convenient to cause someone personal harm. Employers don’t fire people for posting something stupid online somewhere. They fire them only when a lynch mob begins broadcasting it and they fear the backlash hurting their business.

Reply

retired botanist September 13, 2019 at 5:16 pm

Oh whoa, this descended into something else. For the record, my name is Kris and most folks, like one of our editors, Frank, and Geoff probably, and Seal and others who post on this newspaper, all know exactly who I am. The reason I use a pseudonym, although I’d prefer to call it an alternative signature- there’s nothing pseud about it- I am who I am whether its retired botanist or Kris, is simply because I like to compartmentalize my communications so that my personal emails aren’t confetti’ed with comments or posts about topics I comment on, whether its the Washington Post or the Ob Rag. It has nothing to do with ‘hiding’. Unlike George Sand, who perhaps had other reasons for her nom de plume, a nom de plume is not necessarily a ‘hiding” tactic to disseminate snarky stuff…
I simply would never post anything that I won’t stand behind, regardless of the name I choose, whether that’s with my employer or my community, or any other entity.
Now. What were we talking about in this thread?! :)

Geoff Page September 17, 2019 at 1:19 pm: Two responses from two people I would not direct my comment at. kh and retired botanist have never posted anything along the lines of what I was referring to, you both post respectful, reasonable comments even when someone comes after you. I’m not sure I agree entirely with you, kh, but I expect you’ve seen something along the lines of what you wrote, which was why you mentioned the shaming. Understood. As for you retired, I understand your point as well but there is a fix. I use different emails for different things so I can keep my main one less cluttered. I have a Yahoo one for ordering things to avoid the inevitable flood of ads that follow. I use another gmail account here. But, as I said, neither of you are examples of people hiding behind a pseudonym in order to throw stones.

Reply