Does this sound familiar?
The City of San Diego has its sights set on Convoy Street for the next round of bike lanes, as part of its goal to make the area more conducive to walking and biking. And while the city is putting in bike lanes, it will eliminate nearly 300 parking spaces along Convoy Street
Local businesses are very concerned about this loss of parking, which are in high demand.
This is exactly what happened along 30th Street in North Park. The city installed bike lanes and removed nearly 400 parking spaces and local businesses howled in protest – but to no avail.
Yet, now, “As a local and small business owner, that’s definitely a little punch to the gut,” said Cristian Liang, owner of Common Theory. “People complain about there’s nowhere to park, so taking away parking spaces along the street and adding bike lanes is going to definitely exacerbate that problem even more.”
But not to worry.
“Right now, the Convoy area is really difficult to get around as someone walking or riding a bike,” said Will Rhatigan, Advocacy Director for the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition. “By putting in bike lanes, by improving the sidewalks, improving road safety, you’re going to give people an option to really treat the Convoy District as a destination.”
Here’s a report by Brian White at CBS8:
“There’s really no space for bikes on Convoy,” said cyclist, Allen Beach, who lives in the area. “You really can’t go on the street here with the way traffic is.” Potholes and cracked pavement can make biking a treacherous venture along Convoy. “It’s bumpy,” said Beach. “These roads probably need a fresh coat of pavement.”
That’s exactly what the city is planning to do over the next few months, and while they’re repaving Convoy, they’ll be adding bike lanes too.
“They might be trying to widen the sidewalks a little bit more for more walkability,” said Lauren Garces, Special Events Director for the Convoy District Partnership. “And then we’re going to have a protected bike lane, which eliminates the parking.”
The bike lanes would bring the loss of nearly 300 parking spaces along Convoy Street, which currently, are in high demand.
“I can’t believe they would even put bike lanes in here, I mean, who can get here from a bicycle?” said Elaine Dill, customer of a local spa.
A number of businesses along the Convoy Asian Cultural District are concerned about the loss of parking.
“As a local and small business owner, that’s definitely a little punch to the gut,” said Cristian Liang, owner of Common Theory. “People complain about there’s nowhere to park, so taking away parking spaces along the street and adding bike lanes is going to definitely exacerbate that problem even more.”
Garces says they’re working with the city on possible solutions, such as replacing some of the parallel parking on side streets with angled parking, so they can fit in more spaces.
“We’re identifying roads with the city to know if we can add more angled parking to this area to mitigate that impact, lessen that impact of the parking spaces being lost,” said Garces, who pointed CBS 8 to a parking survey people can fill out to give their feedback before January 15, 2023.
{ 92 comments… read them below or add one }
This is ridiculous. Convoy and the surrounding areas are all commercial, very few residences of any kind anywhere near Convoy. People will need to drive to the area with their bikes in the back and park somewhere nearby. This location makes no sense.
Geoff, I don’t think ‘sense’ has anything to do with it. It just feels like more of an ‘agenda’ being implemented and damn the unintended, or ignored, consequences. The Convoy area being a mostly commercial area means their customers have to drive to get there. That just isn’t gonna happen if the parking is gone.
So question: If businesses are impacted by a drop in customers/revenue the city will certainly compensate their losses, yes? s/
I wonder just how far this is going to go, how many streets are in the politicians master plan to do this to? No doubt the total number of expected lost parking spaces when all those streets are converted has to be on some city employee’s computer, yes? All this was made public?
San Diego is too spread out, too many miles between everything that people go to. Ride your bike to do laundry or a week’s worth of groceries?
It’s ridiculous that the politicians are forcing this down people’s throats when they are unwilling to fully fund decent mass transit alternatives to cars! If these ‘leaders’ did that FIRST I could see bike lanes being part of that change, but not like this.
sealintheSelkirks
“It’s ridiculous that the politicians are forcing this down people’s throats when they are unwilling to fully fund decent mass transit alternatives to cars!” That says it all.
All city elected and top staff should be required to use public transit.
No exceptions.
I’ve told this story before, but I’ll tell it again. When I was working in the planning department at the airport, both the City and SANDAG opposed our plans for building new parking structures. Theur staffs were adamant that all travel to and from the airport be by some form of public transportation, and that no one should drive a private automobile to the airport. Of course, when departing a meeting they would line up to have their parking tickets validated. They all, despite being located very near the highest frequency bus line in the MTS system, drove single occupant vehicles to the airport. Do as I say, not as I do.
As someone who is very pro bike lane, I think for this plan to work is going to require more than just bike lanes along Convoy. I don’t live up there anymore so I don’t spend as much time as I used to so my big question is, are the lanes that will go along Convoy connect to other lanes north, south, east and west? Would it work for someone who lives in Clairemont to be able to safely bike to Convoy? How about from the two trolly stations in the area? I would actually look forward to taking my bike on the trolly, get off on either the Balboa or Clairemont Mesa stations and bike to Convoy if there will be a safe way to do so. So a whole separate issue from how many people bike in SD is if there is going to be a safe connection to get to to Convoy.
There is no Clairemont Mesa Trolley Station.
The Clairemont Drive Trolley Station is located along the westside of Morena Boulevard which runs along the 5 frwy.
The Balboa Station is located along Balboa Avenue between Interstate 5 and Morena Boulevard.
Both are part of the recent Mid-Coast Trolley extension project.
My mistake. But still my question is if there are or will there be lanes from those two stops that will connect to lanes in Convoy?
Take a look at the area in layers on Google Maps. See what you think then.
Chris, you are pointing out a very major flaw in how bike lanes and other bike infrastructure is being implemented in San Diego – there is no real planning to construct a comprehensive, usable and valuable network of bike routes/lanes. It seems to be a matter of, well we’re going to resurface this road, let’s remove parking or traffic lanes and put in bike lanes. There are so many time where a bike route/lane just ends with no connection to another route. I long for meaningful planning.
I agree they are badly laid out. So does everyone I know who supports bike lanes even at the expense of parking. They often DO in fact end with no connection.
Heading North on Harbor Dr. is a perfect example. The lanes suddenly ends with no warning when there’s a merging lane coming in. It does resume but if you’re not savvy, it’s definitely a death trap. At least the lanes along 30th (as unpopular as they are with many) are pretty solid for the most part going from Adams all the way to South Park. There are a couple sections where they end but only for a block. Once you get all the way to Upas yes you have to go left to get back on 30th but from there it’s again solid all the way to SP.
You guys should take your own advice and look at the Google Maps bike layer. There are bike lanes connecting to Convoy on Ronson, Balboa Ave, Kearny Villa Rd/Aero Dr, and Linda Vista Rd… All major corridors. Right now, the Convoy District is largely a gaping hole in the bike network — new network density and connectivity (exactly the thing you’re pretending you care about) will certainly be achieved by adding a tiny sliver of bike right of way on Convoy and taking a tiny sliver from cars.
Next step is Clairemont Mesa Blvd — that road is a death trap. I used to cycle there all the time growing up with a friend who lived in Clairemont and I’m lucky I never got hit.
This won’t be a commuter cycling route and it surely is not an attraction area tp bike for enjoyment.
I’ve definitely never thought of Kearny Mesa as cycling destination and Convoy being no exception, but if the lanes go in as planned I’ll be curious to see how they work out. As I mentioned before I wanna see how they connect with other streets. If there are no plans for that to happen then I will agree they are a waste.
And that would be sad because I really would be up for a bike adventure to that area of town if doable.
If they do this, that will be all it will be a bike adventure to try once. I don’t see how anyone would use it to commute anywhere. They need to make the area desirable first. Because of all the different Asian oriented restaurants and stores, maybe they could it make a destination like Little Italy. That would take a lot.
I actually agree in that I don’t see how anyone would use it to commute either but time will tell. The key is how it will connect to other bike routes. I used to live in Clairemont so I’m pretty familiar with that stretch. I used to hang out at O’brien’s all the time. After leaving that area and moving to Hillcrest we’d still go there from time to time but not nearly as often. For me, if biking becomes doable I would probably go there more often than I do these days.
Back in my O’brien’s days (and Liar’s Club in MB), it was interesting how that place and all the Asian businesses right there in that very same strip mall were two entirely different worlds with little interaction. In the years since I know things have changed. With some of the more modern and dare I say “hip” Asian restaurants that have gone in, who knows? It very well may become an Asian version of Little Italy which would IMO can be both bad and good.
Meant to say, if it becomes an Asian version of LI, it can be both bad and good.
Why bad, Chris?
Geoff,
My fear is that it could become a place more geared towards tourists than the various Asian communities that have made up the bulk of businesses there for years.
Or put another way, it’s authenticity could be diminished, at least to some degree. But who knows? Time will tell. There have already been in the last decade more modern and hip restaurants that have gone in there, some of which are pretty damn good.
And to be fair, perhaps the kids of the people who originally made that area what it is have different ideas than their parents.
Convoy area is actually a big draw for the grouping of asian restaurants. I don’t know how many customers would ever bike there, but it is a go-to spot.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting your question but why would the fact the restaurants in that area are mostly Asian have anything to do with people biking there?
I was responding to Geoff’s comment
“They need to make the area desirable first. Because of all the different Asian oriented restaurants and stores, maybe they could it make a destination like Little Italy. That would take a lot.”
I’m saying it already is a popular destination. Now whether people are going to bike there to meet friends over hot pot, I can’t answer that one.
Go it. Good question tho. I would if there’s a safe way to get there (Convoy) from the trolly stops at Balboa or Clairemont Dr. Plus there’s O’brien’s. Also many of the new Asian restaurants are more modern than the traditional one’s that have been there for years, so maybe it can become a bike destination. Or maybe not but I will try it.
Just curious, Chris. Do you bike to restaurants and have a regular meal and then get on the bike to go home after eating? I’d have to eat pretty light to do that myself.
Geoff,
Yes I actually do almost every weekend. Sometimes I ride l the way down to IB from Hillcrest, stop and eat a full meal and then ride all the way up the strand to Coronado, take the ferry to DTSD and ride uphill back to Hillcrest. And not on an ebike even. Two weeks ago I ride all the way to Rocky’s, ate and rode all the way back.
Well, the exercise sounds great, I just couldn’t do that on a full stomach.
Maybe the mayor is planning a daily bike trip there.
Realistically, no one (including the most vocal supporters of bike lanes) believes he is doing any of this for any reason other than his own political ambitions. My self and every supporter I personally know of bike advocacy are naive enough he truly cares about our safety. Oh I’m sure there are people who truly admire him but I don’t seem to come accross them.
So in other words, I doubt he will make any bike trip anywhere. He’s an advocate for public transit (which I support) but uses is own personal driver.
The mayor, just like everybody else, wants there to be public transit, but, like everybody else, he wants someone other than himself to use it. This is true of almost every transit planner I have ever met – transit for everybody else and private single occupant auto for me. The former(?) bicycle coordinator for SANDAG (I think his name was Stephan) is the only exception I know of – I used to see him riding to work pretty often.
I know a few individuals who work in urban planning that use public transit AND bike. And they own vehicles but using the sparingly. Granted they are not mayors.
Chris, I’ve known lot of individuals who work in urban planning, but not that many use transit or bike to work.
Interestingly, when I started my career at Caltrans many years ago, there was one civil engineer who worked at the Old Town HQ who biked from Escondido every day. Go figure.
It seems pretty safe to say that very few public employees, specifically at the upper levels, use public transit, much less ride bicycles.
The coordinator you are speaking of rode to work almost every single day rain or shine in a full professional grey suit. A true legend of bike planning at SANDAG.
Apparently the finish to my comment was edited. Sorry. But I still chuccle!
Is this part of Gloria’s program he calls “Sexy Streets”?
As much as I’d like to crap on this, the article briefly mentions at the end that diagonal parking will be added to make up for some (all?) of the lost parking.
That seems like critical information before telling the world they’re removing parking spots that are already scarce. Of course it’s likely the city has no real plan, and already made the decision to add bike lanes to the repave effort without even figuring out who would use them, where they’d connect to, and what the parking situation is and how to mitigate impacts.
If angled parking makes sense in that area, then do it. With or without bike lanes, it’s needed.
Also most public lots and parking structures, including in that area, have terrible signage that doesn’t show the rates until you actually drive into them. Sometimes not until you start punching buttons and already have another car behind you. This deters people from using them. They need to have pricing clearly visible from the street.
Haven’t been to North Park since the parking went away. Guess I won’t be going to Convoy
There’s an underutilized multi parking structure on 29th. Always plenty spaces available. But hey if you don’t want to go to that area anymore, oh well.
The context that all these complaints about whether or not Kearny Mesa is a cycling destination are missing is that Kearny Mesa’s 2020 community plan update rezoned huge portions for high-density housing and planned for this bike infrastructure! Driving will not be a viable way for the thousands of new residents to get around their neighborhood with parking already so congested. They will need bike lanes and crosswalks. Every time the city does one of these quick builds, people start getting hysterical about “top-down” government practices, but they fundamentally don’t understand how these bike lanes get planned. Local community planning groups WANT and ASK the city for these lanes! The only locals resisting them are always business owners who rely on public right of way being used for free parking for their businesses. Ever notice that the complainers are always a local business owner?
The bottom line is Kearny Mesa wants to be more than a giant parking lot — its residents want more housing and slower walkable/bikeable streets. People who want to be able to park there but don’t even live there really shouldn’t have any say in the matter.
Too much of what you wrote doesn’t make sense.
You wrote, “They will need bike lanes and crosswalks.” The word “will” says it all. These people are not here yet and may never materialize. What sense does it make to put this in and then wait for years for people to show up?
You wrote, “The only locals resisting them are always business owners who rely on public right of way being used for free parking for their businesses. Ever notice that the complainers are always a local business owner?” So, you have evidence to show that none of the residents in Kearny Mesa were opposed to this, only businesses? The businesses are the most vocal because their livelihood will be the most immediately and adversely affected.
You wrote, “People who want to be able to park there but don’t even live there really shouldn’t have any say in the matter.” I guess that last part means us? Do you have any idea what a community consists of? A viable community thrives on good business. Good business thrives on customers. So what are they to do, wait for customers for years and years? People who don’t live there will have a say in the matter when they stop coming to Kearny Mesa.
Geoff, I have seen you, specifically, along with many other contributors to the OB Rag complain constantly about the fact that high-density housing is being built before the infrastructure to support the traffic it will generate. Which is it, should we let the people materialize, in which case you’ll whine about traffic, or should we prepare for them, in which case you’ll whine about bike lanes?
Here’s an article from 2022 describing a massive apartment development being built in Convoy District, since you can’t be bothered to look anything up before attacking city projects: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/story/2022-07-02/project-will-add-531-apartments-to-san-diegos-convoy-district-where-there-are-no-homes-today
I’m very much pro bike lanes but 22 designated “affordable” apartments out of 531? What a great deal.
Agreed, pretty sad to see. But this is just one of many coming developments and the lack of affordability doesn’t change the fact that they’ll need infrastructure to support this population increase.
Yes they will need the infrastructure to support this but I seriously doubt much will pan out the way the planners anticipate. Time will tell as I always say.
Yes, they will need infrastructure to support them and bike lanes are pretty ow on that list.
“Low”
Wouldn’t a development like this ultimately displace the entrepreneurs that set up shop in this otherwise lower rent area?
“… In the 1980s and 1990s, however, small Asian-owned businesses sprang up along Convoy Street — restaurants, small grocery stores, doctor’s and dentist’s offices — with entrepreneurs drawn to the area because of the low rents in the malls..”
Rents will undoubtedly rise in the area making it more difficult to survive economic downturns and volatility for the small businesses that exist there now.
Wash, rinse, and repeat. Same story everywhere. That’s why I don’t have a warm and fuzzy that all this new high density housing will help the overall cost of living like so many claim that it will. I’ve mentioned before many times about multi family units that have sprung up in the uptown area that are sitting more than half unoccupied. Despite the published 1.25% occupancy statistic, there are plenty of places that are just not attracting new residents due to cost. My fear with this project going up is two fold. Either it WILL fill up and as you said, just drive up the overall rents in the area (probably forcing many out), or it won’t fill up and rents will still go up. There really are investors that seem willing to lose money or perhaps they make enough profit with small # of people who DO move in that are able and willing to pay the asking price.
(Who are you replying to, besides yourself here?)
Oh no, we need to prepare infrastructure before building of course. That means upgraded sewer, water, storm drainage, electricity, cable TV, and street construction. It makes no sense to put bike lanes ahead of all that. The time to do bike lanes is when the finished streets are placed, after all the underground upgrades, you build from the bottom up. THEN, you build up.
“People who want to be able to park there but don’t even live there really shouldn’t have any say in the matter.” – LOL. By your comment, neither should the business owners, is that a fair assumption?
That’s not what I said or meant. The business owners are a tiny minority of the people in these communities, yet they’re always the ones given a camera and microphone and their voices are disproportionately amplified. The community planning groups use community input to design their plan for the area — a handful of pissed off restaurant owners don’t get to override this democratic process. Their voices should count, but not any more than the other community members.
“The community planning groups use community input to design their plan for the area.” No, the city tells the residents what the new plans will look like. It may be interesting to talk to some people who were involved in the plan in 2020. Were you one of them?
That’s literally just not the process for these plans. Community planning boards are not city agencies and are not accountable to the city. My previous landlord was on our local community planning board, and they did not describe any top-down involvement from the city at all.
This is precisely the problem with San Diego media — they report on issues like this but their writers have no understanding of how government works (or deliberately ignore the facts) and choose to recklessly peddle conspiracy theories or stoke anger to generate more readership. If you’re curious how community planning boards work, feel free to read their charters.
I was on the Peninsula Community Planning Board twice and was chair twice. My involvement goes back to 2006. For the past several years, I have reported on the Ocean Beach, Midway, and Peninsula community boards here in The OB Rag. I don’t think I need any education about community planning boards.
You, however, seem to have obtained what you know from your landlord who told you that the planning group “did not describe any top-down involvement from the city at all.” That’s it?
Trevor H., I’m afraid you are sadly misinformed about the community planning process in San Diego. I am very familiar with the process, having attended meetings of nearly every planning board in my professional capacity and as a citizen observer. I am also serving in my third (non-consecutive) term as an elected member of the Peninsula community planning board, so my knowledge comes from something other than talking to your landlord.
The community “involvement” that the City talks about has, in recent years, been a very top down approach. The professionals devise several options, which, rather famously, are widely opposed by the residents. The City then allows the public to chose between two or three entirely objectionable alternatives. When the local planning board or other public advocacy groups object and offer alternatives, the are ignored. But the City says the community concerns were considered and the community was involved in the plan.
An anecdote: some years ago, a planner from the City attended the peninsula board’s monthly meeting and announced in a very boastful way that our community plan had been amended to allow a development that had caused a great deal off controversy and concern in our community. This was NEVER brought to the planning board for our input, but was passed without so much as a courtesy notice. Our bad for not scouring every city council agenda and finding this was docketed, but, come on, the city owes the community members who volunteer and give their time and energy the duty to keep us informed, not drop bombshells on us.
I actually think his feelings were hurt because we did not thank him for making this change to our adopted plan.
Trevor, like Geoff and Paul, I’ve been involved in local planning boards. I was a member of the OB Community Planning Group, the forerunner of the current OB Planning Board, and worked on its creation and initial election way back in 1976. Since then I have been on it twice for a total of 3 years, one as chair. I’ve attended countless meetings, plus I was deeply involved in the community plan update process in 2014. And like Geoff and Paul, I know how community planning boards work.
Further, with respect to this specific community plan, I did talk in a professional capacity with representatives of the team that designed it and the process they described was entirely community driven.
I really have a hard time believing this is true. This all reeks of the arrogant bike “lobby.”
You’re right, much more likely that the shadowy cabal of all-powerful recreational bicyclists is responsible for any proposed bike infrastructure rather than the normal, constant process of community plan updates that has existed for decades in San Diego and has called for increased bike lanes in most communities for the past twenty years. Your thing sounds much more likely.
Thank you, Trevor H, for adding some context and perspective to this discussion.
Sure, it’s time to stand up for the biking advocates who have their own agenda and have Todd’s ear. Let’s not wait for any community discussion on the issue of bike lanes, let’s not try to build a consensus. We know what’s good for people and the planet, and if the residents and businesses of the Convoy area aren’t down for it, then are they in for a surprise.
I had to laugh at your “the normal, constant process of community plan updates that has existed for decades” statement. Just after mocking the general assertion that there are certain bike advocates who have Mayor Todd’s ear, you make this claim. First, a group like Circulate San Diego – which tries to come off as a biking advocacy group — has been of late denigrating community planning groups in general and actually pushing for them to be disbanded. (And BTW, some of those plan updates take decades.)
Trevor, it’s about democracy and consensus decision-making. Let’s support bike lanes chosen by the communities, instead of having them imposed from above by Gloria – and his biking advocates.
The community plan updates have nothing to do with what has been happening like this all over the city. They tried to sneak in an advisory lane in Point Loma at the same time as the Gold Coast fiasco and the Peninsula Community Plan hasn’t been updated since 1987.
How do you explain this recent explosion of effort to put bike lanes on major corridors like this all just in the last couple of years?
So what does that mean, “in a professional capacity?” What representatives of what team are you talking about.
I reviewed the plan with coworkers when I was an intern at SANDAG as part of a project where we created an inventory of transportation policies included in local community plans. In other words, SANDAG was taking their cues FROM these plans — not forcing anything into them.
Well, I guess that’s nice, but the community plan process is driven by the City’s staff, not SANDAG. Apples and oranges.
“… The business owners are a tiny minority of the people in these communities…”.
This comment may not be correct. Seems the business folks are a large part of this area.
“… San Diego’s Convoy District, a bustling neighborhood famous for its diverse array of Pan-Asian restaurants and locally owned shops, is currently lacking the most important ingredient needed to make it a thriving community: housing… the area has only two residential communities, an RV park, and a small single-family neighborhood that abuts Interstate 805.” (Amy Gordon July 10, 2022)
Yea, that quote caught my attention too, Vern. One new building, a trailer park, and a little neighborhood way on the east side. Bikes lanes for this small population of residents now? Makes no sense. This is being done for reasons other than serving a thriving residential population in the Convoy area.
It’s astounding how much I keep having to explain about how these plans work.
You’ll note that they’re describing only Convoy District when they say there is little residential development — not Kearny Mesa, which is a larger area that includes Convoy…
Geoff, I already explained to you that this is being done to prepare for the multiple thousands of anticipated apartment units being built on Convoy in the next couple years. How in the world are you still smelling conspiracy when this is precisely the kind of infrastructure critics such as yourself demand be built prior to new density??
“… The majority of the Kearny Mesa area is commercial and industrial. Local businesses include auto sales, restaurants (primarily American and Asian), supermarkets (American and Asian), national chain stores, and small businesses. Montgomery Field is a local municipal airport (business) in Kearny Mesa. The community is adjacent to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (business). The former General Dynamics site is now a mixed-use development known as Spectrum. There are several residential developments in the Kearny Mesa community, among them Stonecrest, Kearny Lodge, and Royal Highlands. Adjacent communities include Serra Mesa, Clairemont and Tierrasanta. Montgomery Field is a local municipal airport (business) in Kearny Mesa. Kearny Mesa is adjacent to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (business). – wikipedia
It’s astounding how much you think you need keep explaining anything. I don’t know what your bona fides are, all I’ve seen so far is an internship at SANDAG. The people commenting here carry way more sand at this point.
Also astounding, is that bicyclists would even want to ride on congested and busy roads. If I were a cyclist, I’d want to ride on the secondary streets that run parallel to where I was going. This notion that there have to be protected lanes on the busiest roads in the city is just preposterous! The only logical thing to do is to ride where it is safer. Anybody who grew up riding bikes anywhere outside California will tell you the same thing. It’s just common sense to stay away from things that will kill you! Why does everything have to be so over thought? Why does this only happen in California?
Good point, Sam. But the “ride where it’s safe” notion has been alive and well here in California for decades, too! I grew up in Orange County. In elementary school, we rode the safest ways to school (no bike paths). In high school, the same, though bike commuting was lessened due to extracurricular activities and sports. Public transit was helpful in high school, as well. College years were split between auto & cycling. Again, finding the safest ways to navigate the grid was not difficult. We also had the Santa Ana River Trail which had branches to most of the OC, useful for commuting and recreational cycling. I also commuted to jobs about 20 – 50% of the time on my bike(s). Fast forward a few years and I rode the safest routes in Albuquerque with my infant child in her children’s bike seat up to the time when she was around one year old. Again fast forward, even recently visiting family and friends up in Long Beach, recreationally riding from the Wrigley District over to Seal Beach and back (drove up to the LBC with bike on car rack). Some of the ride on bike trails, the rest on the safest streets I could find.
While bike lanes were available here and there, it is, to me, typically more fun to explore cities by taking different routes.
Truthfully, someone could ride safely through San Diego’s Kearny Mesa area, and even through Convoy District without additional painted bikes lanes.
Very well put, Sam, my sentiments exactly.
We did the same thing, Sam, in Mission Beach. Rode bikes to MB School and never rode down Mission Blvd. which was quite dangerous. Used the Boardwalk or Bayside Lane, sometimes the alleys. Same thing in later years to get to PB Jr. High from MB taking the beach route all the way up to Diamond St. and then cut across Mission Blvd. and go east. Or cut across PB Drive to Oliver St. from Bayside or on one of the other streets going east. We never rode bikes on Grand Ave. or Garnet, or even n/s ones like up Cass or to Ingraham(sp?) for that matter. We weren’t stupid, avoiding the car corridors made a lot more sense to us.
Not so much now I guess since it seems that bike riders want to ride right next to a thick moving wall of poison gas-spewing 3000 pound metal boxes that can crush you in an instant. Do this mean we were more intelligent at 11 yrs old in 1967 than these ‘adult’ bike riders are now?
Gives one pause it does!
sealintheSelkirks
This doesn’t only happen in California.
“There must be some kind of ‘agenda'” … yeah, it’s the adopted Bicycle Master Plan: https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/transportation/mobility/bicycleplan
The “master plan” you linked to shows a Class III bike lane not a protected Class I lane.
And the updated community plan shows a Class II bike lane.
I thought this might fit in here. If only, eh? Can you imagine how the wealthy and biz-ness people would howl?
It’s Time to Democratize City Budgets
“Ordinary citizens” are perfectly capable of allocating public money wisely. They should be given the power to do so.
https://inthesetimes.com/article/participatory-budget-local-city-spending-pb
sealintheSelkirks
Just wondering, what are all the bike riders doing when it’s pouring rain or 100 degrees….get in their car, uber/lyft or sit home and wait for better days?
They drive. Most cyclists DO own vehicles. I think you know this already.
This is why on rainy days I drive in the bike lane.
Or I guess you can say, any and/or all of the above depending on the circumstances.