Peninsula Planners Balk at Closing Off Evergreen Street at Nimitz Without Community Feedback

by on September 23, 2022 · 45 comments

in Ocean Beach

By Geoff Page

The highlight of the Peninsula Community Planning Board’s regular monthly meeting, September 15, was another end around maneuver by cycling advocates attempting a major change to a well-traveled Point Loma street.

Evergreen Street

Read this agenda item:

Approval of letter requesting city to install traffic diverters for the area of Evergreen Street near Nimitz.

This item appeared at the very bottom of the agenda and was discussed at the end of a two-hour meeting. It says “the area of Evergreen” and “near Nimitz,” intentionally diluting what it really meant. It is highly unlikely that anyone reading this innocuous agenda item would understand that this was a proposal to close off the entrance to Evergreen Street from Nimitz to cars.

This kind of vague agenda item does a great disservice to the community. It has been a common, sneaky tactic used by the certain cycling advocates for several years. This same tactic was used to sneak in the changes on West Point Loma a couple of years a go that generated great anger when the residents woke up to the changes. Only three people showed up to comment on the Evergreen proposal as follows:

  • Andy Hanshaw, Executive Director of the San Diego County Bike Coalition
  • Will Rhatigan, Advocacy Director, San Diego County Bike Coalition
  • Stephan Vance, Chair, San Diego County Bike Coalition

Hanshaw and Rhatigan each identified themselves as representing the San Diego County Bike Coalition. Vance, the chair of that group, never said a word about his affiliation.

So, three members of a major cycling advocacy group showed up because they knew what the item was. They knew because cycling advocate and PCPB member Nicole Burgess made sure they knew.

Adding to the deception was use of the word “diverter” and an attempt to explain that this did not close the street, when it really does.

The proposal is outlined in a draft letter the PCPB’s Traffic and Transportation subcommittee wanted approved at the meeting. The whole letter is misleading. Despite Burgess’s attempt to soften the idea of diverters, the letter clearly states its purpose:

The PCPB Transportation Sub-Committee request PCPB to recommend to the City of San Diego to eliminate through traffic onto Evergreen Street from Nimitz Blvd by adding a diverter (e.g. planting boxes or bollards), which can still allow emergency vehicle access.

The wording “eliminate through traffic” tells the real story. The second paragraph continued the deception:

Evergreen is designated as a Bike Blvd and using diverters is one successful strategy to create a safer and more comfortable bike facility while also creating a better neighborhood street with less traffic.

Burgess repeated that Evergreen was a “Bike Blvd” in her PowerPoint presentation. This is completely untrue, but first, what is a bike boulevard?

Here is how the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan describes bicycle boulevards:

Bicycle boulevards are local roads or residential streets that have been enhanced with traffic calming and other treatments to facilitate safe and convenient bicycle travel. Bicycle boulevards accommodate bicyclists and motorists in the same travel lanes, without specific vehicle or bicycle lane delineation.

These roadway designations prioritize bicycle travel above vehicular travel. The treatments which create a Bicycle Boulevard, heighten motorists’ awareness of bicyclists and slow vehicle traffic, making the boulevard more conducive to safe bicycle and pedestrian activity.

Bicycle Boulevard treatments include signage, pavement markings, intersection treatments, traffic calming measures and can include traffic diversions. Bicycle boulevards are not defined as bikeways by Caltrans Highway Design Manual; however, the basic design features of Bicycle Boulevards comply with Caltrans standards.”

The point is that the potential impacts of a street being designated a Bicycle Boulevard are far more than just a designation on paper.  Of course, none of the cycling advocates said a word about what a bicycle boulevard actually is, or what designating a street this way would mean for residents on that street. More deception.

Table 3-2: Non-Classified Proposed Bikeways on page 21 of the city’s Bicycle Master Plan illustrates the possible changes a newly designated bike boulevard could experience.

Evergreen has never been designated a bicycle boulevard, something Burgess was forced to admit after questioning. Burgess’s PowerPoint slide titled “Benefits” listed this: “Helps create the designation of a Bicycle Blvd.” This did not comport with the wording in the letter that stated “Evergreen is designated as a Bike Blvd.”

When confronted with this Burgess fumbled. She said she thought the PCPB maybe designated it four or five years ago but she was not sure. This was the exact same answer Burgess came up with in June of 2021 when another letter she pushed through the PCPB Traffic and Transportation subcommittee containing the words “Bike Blvd.” was challenged.

This writer researched her claim and found no such previous PCPB action. Apparently, Burgess never bothered to find that information in the past year either. This kind of vague, unsupported claim is a hallmark of some cycling advocates.

Because of this writer’s objections, the previous letter was rewritten to state “Bicycle Route.” This writer again asked for information showing this designation was ever made and none was provided. When the chair of the PCPB, Fred Kosmo, was apprised of this and was asked to remove that wording, he refused.

But, happily, a wrench got thrown into the attempt to approve the Evergreen letter. Board member Mandy Havlik, who chairs the Traffic and Transportation subcommittee, introduced the item and immediately said they were withdrawing it from an action item – something requiring a vote – and making it an information item because of some “important information” they received.

The “important information” Havlik referred to was that they learned they needed to do public outreach in the affected area first. Wow. One would have thought this was already done before the letter was drafted, unless, of course, one has witnessed the tactics of some cycling advocates. This is something they hate to do because they get opposing opinions. Go figure.

This may have been a fortunate result of a recent outrage over what the city and the cycling advocates tried to sneak in on Evergreen back in April of this year. To refresh memories, there was a big blow up and embarrassment for the mayor on Gold Coast Drive in Mira Mesa, when residents woke up to a single car lane in the street and two bike lanes.

What Gold Coasters saw is called an “advisory lane.” It was discovered that the city planned to do the same thing on Evergreen but it was caught when only striping layout marks had been placed.

The city back-tracked on Gold Coast and Evergreen. There was a cost to put Gold Coast back together but since no actual striping was applied on Evergreen, the change did not incur any costs.

The major error on both those projects was a complete lack of public outreach. The city did not even ask, they just decided to do it and then tell everyone how great it was later. But, when the city faced a blast furnace of anger from the public about Gold Coast, it probably got the message.

That lesson, and considering that Evergreen had already been in the glare of the spotlight, probably caused the city to suggest to the PCPB that they do outreach before making a request for a major change on a popular Point Loma Street. The subcommittee will report back to the full board at some point and, depending on the feedback, either shelve or approve the letter.

During comments on the proposal, board member Korla Eaquinta spoke against the idea from the perspective of a person who has lived in the area for many years. Her comments were about the effect this would have on the surrounding neighborhoods that she could see from using these streets regularly herself.

A few other board members expressed various personal reservations about the proposal and some liked it. The members agreed to reserve discussion about it until after the outreach results are available.

A community member of the PCPB Traffic and Transportation subcommittee, Paul Grimes, who voted against the letter in subcommittee, had a number of things to say. Grimes stressed that this is a complicated intersection that has been recently modified by the city and there are problem with those changes. He said the whole intersection needs to be studied before proposing something like closing off one of the streets.

There was agreement that the intersection needs something and the idea of a roundabout came up, which would be an ideal solution to this spot.

What has become increasingly clear is that certain cycling advocates have taken a firm hold of the PCPB’s Traffic and Transportation subcommittee with the full cooperation of the subcommittee chair. Yet, they are still running afoul of other board members who reasonably question the proposals.

Unfortunately, the recent Community Planning Group changes will make things easier for developers and the cycling community to get their way by closing the door on public review. The public will have to be even ore vigilant in protecting the streets of Point Loma from ideas like this.

Sports Arena and West Point Loma Blvd.

There was a second draft letter from the Traffic and Transportation subcommittee titled “Prioritize funding for bicycle safety improvement at Sports Arena and W. Pt Loma Blvd.” This was not controversial because it was simply asking for funding. See map.

This letter is best explained by quoting all of it and including the map.

We write to ask you to prioritize funding for a city identified need at the intersection of Sports Arena and W Pt Loma Blvds. Currently, a west bound bicyclist or scooter rider in the class 2 bike lanes on Sports Arena, is forced into an unmarked merge in the middle of the intersection; W Pt Loma Blvd only has two vehicle lanes, the right most with class 3 bicycle sharrows (see attached aerial photo).

This is a dangerous situation in a high-speed, high-volume corridor, creating a weak link in an otherwise consistent class 2 and 4 bikeway serving commercial and residential properties from Rosecrans to Rue de Orleans (soon to be extended with the completion of the W Pt Loma Blvd cycle track). By proactively addressing this, you can reduce the risk of preventable serious injury or fatality of unprotected road users.

A service request in spring resulted in the Traffic Engineering Division qualifying this intersection as needing improvement, placing it on the unfunded projects list. Simple and inexpensive solutions exist, such as a bicycle box for cyclists and scooters to safely queue in front of cars. Without funding, the city engineers won’t start designing the solution. We ask you to elevate it to funded status. Thank you for your time and commitment to Vision Zero in the Peninsula and Midway.

Because this intersection is the border between the Midway planning area and the Peninsula planning area, the board decided to table a decision until after the Midway meeting on September 21. Some, including Burgess and Havlik, urged the PCPB to go ahead and vote on it contingent on what Midway decided later.

Burgess particularly tried to push the item to a vote. At one point, Burgess said something that was illustrative of a tactic cycling advocates often use, making an unsubstantiated claim. That is a polite way of saying a person lied. Burgess said, “I’ve been to many Midway meetings over the last five years and this intersection continues to be discussed as a dangerous intersection at that group.”

This writer has been to almost every Midway meeting in the past five years, not just “many,” and the subject of this “dangerous intersection” has never come up.

Chatsworth crosswalk at Plumosa Park

The third letter from the PCPB’s Traffic and Transportation subcommittee was also a funding request for an already approved crosswalk and pedestrian island at Chatsworth and Plumosa Park. Apparently, the project is partially funded with a design set to be finished in “FY2023.” The letter requests funding as soon as the design is done. Frankly, the only thing this letter accomplished was some positive PR for the board and certain board members in particular.

Linda Lukacs

Republican Linda Lukacs, who is facing District 2 city council member Jennifer Campbell in the November election, made an appearance. She began by introducing herself and making a statement about her priorities, if elected to office.

Lukacs said she had a background in healthcare, academics, and leadership. She said “I put all of my careers on hold” to run for the D2 seat. She said she ran because her husband challenged her to do something about her outspoken opinions.

Lukacs then listed her three priorities: The homeless situation was first and she said we needed to focus on mental illness and drug addiction in that population. Public Safety was second and it seemed to mostly consist of beefing up the police force. The third item was our crumbling Infrastructure and she mentioned rolling blackouts and the water shortage problem.­

These were clearly very broad overarching issues with no real specifics. Lukacs was asked what she would do for Point Loma in particular. She replied that more work needed to be done on the vendor ordinance and the STVR ordinance and the pier needed replacing.

Lukacs did say she opposed lifting the 30-foot height limit but emphasized that this was a complex issue that she would be happy to discuss with anyone if they wanted to call her.

That was an antennae twitcher because being for or against the removing the height limit is pretty much a black and white decision. The response seemed to indicate it was not black and white for her.

Lukacs stated her position on ADUs and said one per property should be enough. She said she believed setbacks need to be included to enhance open air and landscaping. She said parking had to be respected and she favored having these on owner occupied residences.

When she finished , Lukacs said “Email me! I answer every email myself.” Surprisingly, only two questions were asked of Lukacs by the board or attendees.


There were three projects on the agenda. The first was an application at 993 Rosecrans for a Coastal Development Permit to convert an existing single car garage into a 440/SF JADU (Junior ADU). The Project Review subcommittee voted unanimously to deny the project due to multiple serious issues.

The applicant decided to by-pass the full board and take the project directly to the city. This has happened before. The city does not like it when this happens, but will allow it.

With the new CPG reforms, developers like this one will not have to seek public approval, they will only need to get approval from the very accommodating city Development Services Department.

The PCPB voted unanimously to deny the project. The reporting form will include a letter of explanation and a request to notify Code Enforcement about existing, non-conforming issues on the property. This was the first time this writer has ever seen a planning board notify Code Enforcement.

The second project was about modification a cell tower site at 3801 Marquette Place. It passed unanimously as these kinds of projects always do.

The third project was for a 2-story 684/SF ADU at 4261 Santa Cruz. It passed unanimously.

Cañon Park

According to board member Don Sevrens, the money is there to build the Cañon Street pocket park. Sevrens related how the budget that contained $1.55 million extra for the park budget was “de-appropriated,” presumably because of the 101 Ash Street debacle. But, he then said that the Parks and Recreation Director, Andy Field, has now assured him that the money to build the park is there.

Sevrens stated that this was confirmed by “another manager,” he did not name, and the manager told Sevrens they can skip permitting and all that and get right to bidding. As related in The Rag last month, the budget already had $1.1 million in it to date. Why another $1.5 million was needed is a mystery. Sevrens did not respond to The Rag article.

Other news

  • SANDAG – Board member E. Javier Saunders gave a report of a SANDAG meeting he attended. He related that SANDAG has dropped the idea of a Grand Central Station facility at the NAVWAR location. SANDAG will focus on other goals.  The first is to create a central mobility hub in the downtown civic center complex. The second is an Intermodal transit hub to be built adjacent to the Port of San Diego Administration Building on Pacific Highway across from the new rental car facility. Then, they will create people movers to both airport terminals and will build a direct trolley link.
  • SDPD Community Relations officer David Surwilo explained that community pressure got the city moving on the homeless situation getting the police the support they needed. He said they now have “No Vehicle Habitation” signs they are placing in areas where this has been a problem. They also now have services they can offer and if people living on the street refuse any of that, they can be made to move.
  •  Tracy Dezenzo who is on the city’s Arts and Culture Commission, related that they are looking for community members for a panel to evaluate grant applications. Anyone interested can contact Dezenzo at Tracy is also a member of the OB Town Council and the OB Planning Board.
  • The PCPB will continue Zoom meetings indefinitely.
  • Board chair Fred Kosmo still insists on warning everyone they are being recorded and warned meeting participants, once again opened the meeting with the warning , “Be careful and choose your words carefully.” This admonition is unnecessary and is detrimental to public participation in the planning board discussions.



{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }

Greg September 23, 2022 at 1:48 pm

The big money shadow bicycle lobby strikes again Geoff!


Jabez September 23, 2022 at 6:32 pm

Great idea! Very helpful for the community.


Sam September 23, 2022 at 9:27 pm

So when do we start taxing bicycle owners? It’s not right that car owners have to pay for all the roads but can’t use them as intended.


Debbie September 23, 2022 at 9:36 pm

Good idea Sam! They should have to have a license plate and annual inspection tag to make sure they are in compliance (lights, brakes, mirrors etc.) and pay to use the roads and fined for violations. The bike thing is out of control.


Chris September 23, 2022 at 10:03 pm

“The bike thing is out of control.” LOL!! This opinion of yours is out of control.


Geoff Page September 26, 2022 at 1:26 pm

Chris, when the city just decides to put bike lanes everywhere with no public input and using ill-advised designs, that is out of control.


Chris September 26, 2022 at 3:07 pm

I guess I have a different definition of what it means to be out of control. The new lanes I’ve seen that have gone in have not had the negative impact so many were afraid of. It least I haven’t seen it. Parking reduction is almost unnoticeable, but again that’s in the areas where I ride.


Geoff Page September 26, 2022 at 4:00 pm

It’s very simple to me, Chris, any government, that is supposed to be by the people and for the people, should not be proceeding ahead with anything that the people have not asked them to do. No one asked for Gold Coast and there are plenty of very unhappy people up and down Park and 30th.


Chris September 23, 2022 at 9:56 pm



Debbie September 24, 2022 at 11:04 am

Yeah, and have to buy insurance also! And might as well add helmet requirements.


Chris September 24, 2022 at 1:47 pm

You and Sam are giving absurd arguments. As I pointed out, most cyclists own cars. You know this just by virtue of living in SD. As a also pointed out, the majority of roads are paid for from property tax revenue. There are valid reason to be concerned about how and where bike lanes go in, but you two are giving straw man argument.


Geoff Page September 26, 2022 at 1:20 pm

To quote Marge Gunderson in Fargo, “I’m not sure I agree with your police work there, Chris.” From what I read, property tax is not used for roads, the money comes from gas taxes. But, if you know otherwise. please share.


Chris September 26, 2022 at 2:44 pm

While gas taxes and registration pay for some, those do not pay for the majority.


Paul Webb September 26, 2022 at 3:23 pm

I would point out that the Frontier Group has advocated removing the “user fee” status of gasoline and other fuel taxes and proposed treating them as a tax that could be spent like any other tax. Where will that leave those of us who are dependent on cars and buses for our transportation needs? Not all of us can ride bikes, particularly not for shopping, work trips, etc.


Chris September 26, 2022 at 3:41 pm

I’m not sure what you mean by “removing the user fee status”. I don’t think they are supporting the idea of eliminating cars out of existence, just for communities to not be so dependent on them. Everyone I know who bike commutes still have their vehicle for things like shopping, work trips where driving is the only alternative (tho shouldn’t that change?), transporting things like surfboards, paddleboards, kayaks, furniture, whatever the case is.


Geoff Page September 27, 2022 at 10:28 am

“removing the user fee status” means using the money collected from the gas tax for those who buy gas, i.e., cars. Frontier wants to be able to use the money for other things.


Geoff Page September 26, 2022 at 3:55 pm

I checked this, and The Frontier Group out. The article is full of figures and not a single attribution. And everything else I read says property taxes go to the state that then redirects the money to counties and cities and the money is used for many things, only one of which is streets. The gas tax is distributed the same way and is called a Road Fund and it is restricted to road uses. I’d need to see some back up of all the information that article had in it.


Chris September 26, 2022 at 5:07 pm

Geoff Maybe this is better?
Perhaps it varies state by state? I’ve always been told that the majority of roads are paid for by a combination of property taxes and general taxes (income, sales) and only small portion come from gas taxes. If that’s not the case in California the color me surprised.
I will say this tho. If it really is the case the roads in our state are primarily paid for by gas tax, people who complain about us cyclist not paying what they think is our fair share overlook the fact that the majority of us DO own motor vehicles so we still pay annual vehicle registrations and gas when we do use them. As for those who don’t drive, I have no issues with my tax dollars paying for bike infrastructure.


Paul Webb September 30, 2022 at 8:27 am

Chris, at the state level, 59% of transportation funding comes from special funds, i.e. gas taxes, vehicle licenses, and other restricted resources. Much of the rest comes from federal grants. The general fund contributes less than 25% of the total transportation budget. I’m not sure how much of the general fund comes from property taxes.


Chris September 23, 2022 at 10:01 pm

As you are aware, roads are paid for primarily from property taxes. As you are also aware. most cyclists own cars so with all that in mind, you are knowingly giving a weak argument.


Geoff Page September 26, 2022 at 1:29 pm

From what I’ve read, Chris, property taxes are not used for used, the money comes from gas taxes. But, if you have a source that says differently, please share.


Chris September 26, 2022 at 2:44 pm

I posted this same link in your previous response:


Chris September 26, 2022 at 3:03 pm
Geoff Page September 26, 2022 at 3:57 pm

The second link references the first one. Still no attributions or references.


Gary Huber September 24, 2022 at 9:40 am

I actually did live in a college town that required annual bike licenses. It was a sticker that you would put on the frame.


FrankF September 24, 2022 at 9:08 am

Thanks for the report, Geoff.

The Evergreen and Nimitz change is an “over my dead body” issue for me. And the bicycle coalition is swerving way outside of their lane. The onerous bike lane additions to Nimitz, West Point Loma, Pershing and 30th Street are outrageous.

And yes, I’m a bike commuter. I’d much prefer to cycle on an unrestricted roadway than do battle with a narrow bike lane lined with plastic delineators, aka: spears.


Geoff Page September 26, 2022 at 1:22 pm

Thanks, Frank. Every time I suggest cyclists use more of the adjacent side streets in stead o major thoroughfares, I hear crickets.


Chris September 26, 2022 at 5:17 pm

As of yet I have not ridden the lanes along West PL or Pershing. I ride along 30th almost every weekend and enjoy it a lot TBH. Yeah I could use the adjacent side streets but since they’re there I might as well take advantage and again I enjoy them a lot so I guess it’s safe to say that one person’s Hell is another’s paradise. Nimitz I plan to try out this weekend.


Paul Grimes September 26, 2022 at 5:48 pm

Chris, thanks for being honest and that you really don’t seem to need 30th street bike lanes, but since they are available you’ll use them.
Unfortunately, those who want to park on 30th to do business probably don’t think the same about using side streets for parking as they have to hoof it to get to the businesses on 30th.


Chris September 26, 2022 at 6:10 pm

Interestingly I usually do see available parking (North side of 30th) when I go along there. Probably depends on the day and time. Also there’s a multi level pay parking on 29th just west of Univ. The top two levels always have plenty of available parking so if you’re going to a business close to the intersection of 30th and University that’s always an option.


Chris September 27, 2022 at 12:51 pm

Something I will be honest about. Yes I did say I could have used the side streets but had these lanes along 30th would have been put to a vote, I would have voted for them. When word got out they were being put in I didn’t exactly campaign against them. If they would have been voted down, yes life would go on but since they’re in place I do like them.


Geoff Page September 27, 2022 at 1:02 pm

Chris, you are a straight shooter and I understand your position. But, you really said it when you wrote this:

“had these lanes along 30th would have been put to a vote, I would have voted for them.”

That was the problem, they were not put to a vote.


Geoff Page September 27, 2022 at 10:31 am

“removing the user fee status” means using the money collected from the gas tax for those who buy gas, i.e., cars. Frontier wants to be able to use the money for other things.


Geoff Page September 27, 2022 at 10:33 am

Well, Chris, if everyone admitted what you just did, saying you could use the side streets, then maybe thr whole 30th street bike lane fiasco could have been avoided.


Geoff Page September 27, 2022 at 10:35 am

Watch yourself on Nimitz. The speed limit is 45 mph and cars go faster quite often. I would never get out on a road like that on a bike with just plastic bollards for protection. Be careful, buddy.


Chris September 27, 2022 at 12:52 pm

Will do. Hopefully it’s not worse than going along Harbor Dr.


triggerfinger September 27, 2022 at 3:54 pm

chris have you tried just biking in the parking structure on 30th? i was thinking we could close it off to cars and paint some bike lanes in there for the recreational bicyclists to do laps. the view is nice up there so seems like a waste to just use for vehicle storage. and safer to cycle there, and the cars and trucks could then park by the businesses for work/patronage/deliveries/etc or whatever those working class losers are always rushing around doing. win win


Chris September 28, 2022 at 5:53 am



triggerfinger September 28, 2022 at 9:45 am

yup thats about the same reaction commuters and business owners have to some of these cockamamie bike lane proposals

i also love how vision zero is used as an excuse for all these “improvements”. if it saves only one life! more people biking will always mean more deaths and injuries. maybe the bike coalition could start with teaching cyclists what those red octagons are for.


Chris September 28, 2022 at 10:36 am

I guess we all have our different ways how we’d like things to be.


Paul Grimes September 24, 2022 at 10:26 am

Thank you for the detailed coverage. I opposed the Evergreen closure at the subcommittee meeting because the intersection was recently changed to funnel traffic into a narrower area to hopefully prevent a home from being hit by out-of-control autos. I believe the bulb created to narrow Nimitz is too large and creates too much funneling of traffic. “Correcting” an issue made by poor planning isn’t the best practice.
It should be noted that it is almost certain that the recent striping changes were designed by the “bicycle group” of the city. The intersections should be reviewed as should the Nimitz road diet from Rosecrans to Evergreen. The road diet starts/ends too close to Rosecrans and is creating unnecessary merging and cueing issues.
Regarding the Advisory Bike lanes, when a bike lane was added after resurfacing on Pt. Loma Ave. (Canon to Ebers) I saw the design and Advisory Bike Lanes had been planned. I wonder how many other city streets had Advisory Bike Lanes in the works when Gold Coast happened?
Regarding the island on W. Pt. Loma Blvd, I complained via Get it Done that the island should be reduced in size while the island was being “upgraded” with new ped ramps a couple of years ago. The concrete on this large island was totally replaced, but the island still stuck out into an area that would allow a contiguous bike lane from St. Arena to the recently installed ones on W. Pt. Loma Blvd. Obviously, it was ignored.


Deb Porter September 24, 2022 at 12:43 pm

thank you Paul for your careful and informative explanation of this issue. I agree with you, especially about the Evergreen St. changes. I believe the city needs to check with those who are affected by those changes, which they have not done, and perhaps choose not to. I think their plans for Evergreen are ill advised.


Geoff Page September 26, 2022 at 1:24 pm

Thanks, Paul for providing more detail about your comments and your thoughts about this intersection.


Will September 24, 2022 at 11:21 am

The W. Point Loma road diet that is coming is exciting to me. I wish they would have a two-way bike path completely separate from cars. The safety aspects of something like this would be tremendous and probably enough entice those who would like to take bikes for convenience and health, but fearful being so near swift moving motorists. There are so many food options a mile away that I currently have to drive to or navigate some risky, fast moving traffic via a bike.

There are great YouTube channels that analyze basic city planning concerning various layers of transit. Not Just Bikes deals primarily with how to get more people to utilize bicycles and create safer and more livable communities. City Nerd analyzes planning and land use in general. Both are excellent.

What I have discovered is that our city has so much potential to not be as overtly car-focused as we are. The ebikes and even golf carts gives me hope that we can stitch something better than our current snarl of automobile traffic. I wish we planned like gas is $10 a gallon because it’s going to happen.


Paul Grimes September 26, 2022 at 4:29 pm

Will, apparently two-way bike lanes can work, but are not the usual practice. If one side of the street has fewer intersections it can work well, but WPLB, which is connected to the Sports Arena Bike Lanes has intersections on both sides of WPLB. Additionally, WPLB has some medians that are unmovable, which means a two-way bike lane would have problems fitting.


Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: