Two recent reports out on San Diego’s bicycle network find troubling problems with the hundreds of miles of bike lanes, from difficult and dangerous corridors, gaps in the infrastructure and insufficient bike routes for school kids.
One report from San Diego State University — the “State of the Ride”– published in May, ” identifies corridors for improvement and highlights how biking could feel safer for more communities, as UT writer Maura Fox reported August 5. She wrote that “San Diego’s expansive bicycle network remains difficult and sometimes dangerous for cyclists to navigate and contains key gaps that prevent continuous riding.”
The report was done in conjunction with the group BikeSD, whose executive director quipped:
“It’s not the question of, how many miles did we build? It’s more like, can an average child or a 70-year-old woman actually ride there?”
The report highlighted these issues, looking at what it says is the nearly 700 miles of bike facilities :
- Only about 75% of the 2013 bike master plan’s goal for bike infrastructure has been implemented;
- The most common type of facility — which accounts for nearly 60% of the mileage — are class II bike lanes, which are designated specifically for cyclists.
- bike infrastructure is not distributed evenly across the city.
- Dense, urban areas in and around downtown have a higher concentration of bike facilities compared to more suburban areas in the northern and eastern parts of the city. Those areas are more reliant on bike lanes along major arterial roadways.
- Just over 80% of major streets and roads have some bike infrastructure — but only 8% of that is protected, and most corridors have disconnected segments.
- While 63% of the network is considered low-stress, over 30% of the network is considered high-stress.
Fox writes that “the report also pointed to the need for more low-stress biking options, such as designated bikeways or multi-use paths dedicated to cyclists and pedestrians — types of infrastructure where riders face less traffic stress.
And the study’s authors wrote:
“While a majority of the network is technically bikeable, a substantial portion consists of high stress segments that may discourage use, particularly among the ‘interested but concerned’ population.”
The other report is from a county watchdog panel that was published in June that criticized gaps in the city’s unfinished network, a lack of bike lanes in low-income areas, that the city has only one street sweeper capable of cleaning the city’s 59 miles of protected cycle tracks. The report by a county grand jury also urges the city to encourage more bicycle commuting by public school students.
UT reporter David Garrick wrote:
The lack of school children commuting by bike is a key concern raised by the report, which estimated that 10% to 14% of traffic on local streets is parents dropping off and picking up children at school. Based on a survey the grand jury conducted, only one in 20 schools in the San Diego Unified School District have an active “safe routes to school” program that encourages students to bike to campus.
The report also dissed the county’s regional planning agency, the San Diego Association of Governments, for their regional cycling maps contain errors and lack important detail.
Other details from the report:
- there are too many gaps in the network and many situations where bike lanes end without adequate warning to cyclists.
- the city has 1,900 miles of bike lanes compared to 6,600 miles of lanes for vehicles. (Where does the difference come from: 700 miles vs. 1900 miles?)
- only 260 of those 1,900 miles are either grade-separated bike paths or cycle tracks – which run parallel to roads with cars but are separated by barriers like bollards or raised curbs.
- other lanes include 1,224 miles of painted bike lanes on pavement where cars can travel and
- 395 miles of sharrows – lanes with paint designating them as shared spaces for bikes and cars.
- fear is the No. 1 reason people don’t consider cycling as a viable way to travel, contending that more protected and separated lanes are needed to reduce such fear.
- the city is too slow to address glaring gaps in its cycling network.
- one recommendation is for the city to “prioritize building continuous bike infrastructure now, particularly on routes with gaps, instead of waiting years for larger infrastructure projects to move forward.”
- another recommendation is for the city work with the Metropolitan Transit System to increase the size of bike racks on buses, which now have space for two bikes, and to install racks that don’t require bikes to be lifted several feet in the air by commuters.
- bike lockers at MTS facilities should be accessible with a smartphone app, criticizing the current system that requires people to mail in a payment before they can start using a locker.
- The report suggests that buying a second sweeper for guarded lanes should be a priority.
- many low-income neighborhoods are ripe for more cycling infrastructure based on their potential to help complete a citywide network and equity concerns. It cites in particular corridors east of 28th Street, Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Imperial Avenue and Ocean View Boulevard.
Obviously, based on these two reports, San Diego’s network of bike lanes are difficult and dangerous, and for school kids, insufficient. Yet, in the face of resident and business angry complaints of empty bike lanes and loss of valuable parking for merchants, it is a weak solution just to call for “more work” on the routes, corridors and lanes. The city has no money (unless there are some pots out there just for bike lanes) and needs to prioritize its funding targets.
How could anyone demand more for the bike lanes when half the public restrooms in Mission Valley are closed?
Geez, poor San Diego! When it tries to do something — like build bike lanes — it fails and when it tries not to do something — like fund restrooms — it also fails. Poor San Diego — so close to the ocean and Todd Gloria and so far from paradise.
Bike lanes, like streets, require maintenance, which requires a budget.
This is often overlooked in Todd Gloria’s mad rush to deploy them.
One example – the specialized street sweeper that is required:
“… the city has only one street sweeper capable of cleaning the city’s 59 miles of protected cycle tracks.”
“The report suggests that buying a second sweeper for guarded lanes should be a priority.”
How much did the first one cost ? Like any vehicle it will require maintenance and servicing. Is the cost of that allocated ? Does it require special training to operate, or specialized storage ?
Spend first, ask questions later is the modus operandi of the Gloria regime.
With few exceptions, all of us who live near or regularly pass protected bike lanes know they are almost always empty. That’s the issue these reports fail to address. And the SDSU report is biased; it’s done in conjunction with Bike SD, an advocacy group that never acknowledges the lack of use of these lanes. I live in Talmadge, and drive up and down Fairmount Ave at least once a day, sometimes multiple times. I can testify that in the year (or longer) since the city installed a pylon-protected bike lane on southbound Fairmount Ave, I have since no more that five cyclists using that lane… in the entire year! Plus, the bike lane removed the area along the shoulder of the right traffic lane, where, disabled vehicles could stop, which created a significant, potentially deadly hazard, because now disabled vehicles are stopped in a traffice lane, which increases the odds of rear-end collisions. I challenge Bike SD and otber advocacy groups to install bike counters on the bike paths. Let’s find out how many cyclists are using these paths/lanes, and made intelligent decisions about redesigning or removing them.
“ I have since no more that five cyclists using that lane… in the entire year!”
While it may be underutilized, what you described is simply not true. Not a good look for someone who makes their living as a reporter for KPBS.
But then this brings up the other issue. Under utilization does not automatically mean they shouldn’t be there. You folks are obsessed with “empty bike lanes” and how they have lowered your quality of life.
Chris –
You want to tell someone that what they observe first hand is not true, without providing any evidence or facts to contradict his observation ? Please.
I have virtually the same observations as Paul Krueger, only mine are focused on Clairemont Mesa area where I live.
“You folks are obsessed …” “You folks” ? Where have I heard that before ? And what makes someone one of “you folks” – anyone who dares observe the Emperor’s lack of clothes ?
Why do you bring his alleged place of employment into it ? He made no mention of it and it is not relevant to the discussion. Why don’t you provide the details of your employment so we can ask them if it’s a “good look ? What a cowardly and underhanded thing to do. Are you not ashamed ?
You said “Under utilization does not automatically mean they shouldn’t be there”, and again you seek to put words into other peoples mouths, no one apart from you mentions this.
What Mr Krueger said in closing is fair and equitable :
“Let’s find out how many cyclists are using these paths/lanes, and made intelligent decisions about redesigning or removing them.”
Chris – to set the record straight Paul does not work for KPBS. He had a long career writing for the San Diego Reader, in its hey, then at channel 39 as a news producer and is now retired.
You might be confusing him with Andrew Bowen (sorry Paul) who is a reporter for KPBS and is a big advocate for bike lanes and density no matter where or what it looks like. I agree with you that a reporter should not show their bias publically, especially on topics they are reporting on.
I encourage you to call or write to KPBS and let them know Bowen’s public advocacy and reporting on bike lanes and density is a bad look for thier organization.
If Paul does not work for and has never worked for KPBS, then I stand corrected. As for Andrew Bowen, I know who he as and support him. My criticism of Paul was the claim he’d only seen 5 cyclists in a year’s period of time on that stretch of Fairmont, not his bias. That part is to be expected.
Chris –
“As for Andrew Bowen, I know who he as and support him”
So if you agree with their position it’s all good, but if you disagree with them they should be doxed ?
“My criticism of Paul was the claim he’d only seen 5 cyclists ..”
Why should anyone value your opinion ahead of someone else’s direct observation ? Your utter disregard for truth is on full display, both in your original comment and in your lame response.
You incorrectly and inaccurately dox someone, and all you can offer is “I stand corrected” ?
You know what you are, Chris ?
Yeah, you know …
Balboa Avenue delineators have been replaced at least three times due to cars running them down.
The path itself is not maintained.
If a person had been in the path during the car mishaps, would the city even care ?
Of course, this is in Jennifer Campbell’s district, the very same district with multiple closed Mission Bay restrooms.
Neither situation inspires her to do anything.
Josh Coyne once worked there and he wonders why he got few votes ????
San Diego landscape has hills. It is not Belgium or Denmark where riding a bike to commute is prevalent. In Amsterdam some use two bikes to get to work. One to ride to their local train station and another waiting for them locked at their train’s destination using simple 3-speed bikes because it is so flat. The most absurd city bike route is Illion St. near St. Mary Magdalene Church. It has to be one of the steepest roads in San Diego. I challenge an average rider to ascend that hill without walking their bike. You don’t need a bike lane to ride a bike on the road. I use to commute to the Airport from Clairement 17 years ago on a daily basis. Never had a problem.