[SDCBC] SR56-Sorrento Valley Road connector

[Trevor Bourget]

At 02:02 PM 8/29/2007, Kathy Keehan wrote:
>We’ve been asked to provide comments for a 
>feasibility study for the connection between the 
>west end of the 56 bike path and Sorrento Valley 
>Road. As many of you know, there’s a giant 
>freeway in the way there, and the City and 
>Caltrans are looking for ways to get bicyclists across.

In the past, I have suggested a slingshot / 
catapult kind of approach with a net/parachute assisted landing.

Up the feasibility scale is an aerial tramway. 
Each bike would use a suspended platform with 
surrounding railing, with cyclist standing next 
to bike while traveling over the mile-wide freeway megachange.

>  There are a couple of options, basically one 
> over the freeway and one under it. Which do you like better?

We have agreed that this bicycling facility 
should be the nationwide prototype "bicycle 
freeway". A clearly visible and distinctly 
human-powered bridge over the worst freeway 
conditions in California will make a daily point 
to motorized but motionless commuters. I think 
it's worth the money to put fly-over (Caltrans 
term, not like mine above :-)) bridge. Perhaps it 
will help us finish the other broken aspects of 
the sr56 bikeway design. You know, in for a million, in for a bill'.

Why have Caltrans not suggested a crosswalk with 
pushbuttons? The safety islands as we travel 
across (can't afford to stop all 35 lanes at 
once) could be decorated like a tropical island 
chain, perhaps with coffee+juice bars. The staff 
at the islands could double as toll both 
collectors if Caltrans really wants to reduce freeway traffic.

>The bridge would be your typical 12 foot wide 
>bike/ped bridge over the freeway. It would be 
>about 17 feet above the traffic at a minimum, 
>and would have 6.5% and 7.7% grades for the 
>approaches (200 to 400 feet long depending on 
>the design), and 90 degree turns at each end of the bridge.

The turns at the ends of the bridge will have to 
be carefully reviewed by us (who ride).

>Bridge – less potential maintenance, open even 
>in wet weather, uphill both ways, over noisy auto traffic/fumes
>Undercrossing – downhill both ways, quieter, 
>more potential maintenance, potential to be closed in wet weather

Nothing which has a routine potential to be 
closed can seriously be considered a transportation facility.
Undercrossing also has lost touch with reality: 
nothing is downhill both ways. Any human-powered 
facility is always uphill both ways. In fact, 
there should be fans at both ends to keep the 
bridge clean and ensure that we ride into a headwind as well as uphill.

-- Trevor