[SDCBC] tabulating the results so far onSVRBridge/Undercrossing question

Thu Aug 30 18:48:28 EDT 2007

The event that triggered this poll is that I received a copy of a
feasibility study on the undercrossing and have been asked to comment on it.
The original study was done in April 2004, but the City has been getting a
lot of feedback from bicyclists and walkers in the area, along with the
Council office I think, to move this project forward. The City is revising
the study in light of the fact that the overpasses for SR56 and the
auxiliary lanes are complete so they can more easily see the configuration
of the existing structures. They're hoping to finalize the study so that the
City can begin looking for money to construct the project. 

I haven't heard of any connection between this project and the 56-I-5 north
connectors, and I don't believe they are connected in any way. 

I really just need to know if the bicycle community prefers an undercrossing
or a bridge if this project were to be built, so I can forward those
comments on this study to the City. (by next week) :-) I was going to tell
them that an undercrossing would work better, since I think many people will
not use the bridge and the undercrossing would be cheaper, but some of the
comments I have received have definitely illuminated my thinking. 

Kathy

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Pietsch [mailto:tony at tonypietsch.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:34 PM
To: 'Kathy Keehan'
Cc: 'Sdcbc'
Subject: RE: [SDCBC] tabulating the results so far onSVRBridge/Undercrossing
question

Kathy--

I'm curious as to what event triggered this poll?  

I've also been attending some of the Torrey Pines Community Planning Board
meetings and directly experienced the angst of neighbors who are concerned
about the addition of the two I-5 (to/from the North) to SR-56 "fly-over"
interconnects that Caltrans is driving to finish.  Is this related, and if
so is the money for bike/pedestrian access the typical 1%-3% of total cost
that the contractors can add on so long as this access is directly related
to the cost of the freeway fly-over construction?

If so, this whole discussion trigger may be a ruse to distract us and either
get more money or enlist the bicycling community's support for yet another
boondoggle in San Diego to support freeway construction. (I'm trying to
refrain from using stronger language here to keep things civil.)

I, too, would rather see money spent first on the rather simple upgrades to
pave the connections on both sides of El Camino Real to the SR-56 bike path
as a first step, and pave the remainder of the SV path to Class I standards
before any under/overpass of I-5 is considered.  If the money is sufficient
and of the general allocation sort, the rest of the SR-56 bike path sorely
needs "fixing" to meet the originally agreed upon (I think it was sometime
around 1994) standards at multiple points and intersections for the SR-56
bike path between I-5 and I-15.

Some clarity as to where this is coming from could help focus the
discussion.

Thanks,
Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org]
On Behalf Of Carol D. Carr
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:49 PM
To: 'Thomas Reynolds'; 'Kathy Keehan'
Cc: 'Sdcbc'
Subject: Re: [SDCBC] tabulating the results so far onSVRBridge/Undercrossing
question

I must agree with Thomas Reynolds. Unlike some grade-separated crossings
further east on the SR56 bikeway, this particular undercrossing would be
dark, low-ceilinged, sometimes wet, and inviting to the homeless. I would be
nervous passing through. Therefore, I vote for an overcrossing. 
Actually I think a higher priority should be FINISHING the 2 SR56 bikeway
access points from El Camino Real and the dirt/sand patch on the Sorrento
Valley bikeway near the north end. They've been an embarrassment for many
years, and a reminder of how little attention the city pays to bicyclists'
requests. I've asked repeatedly. 
Carol Carr

-----Original Message-----
From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org]
On Behalf Of Thomas Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:34 AM
To: Kathy Keehan
Cc: Sdcbc
Subject: Re: [SDCBC] tabulating the results so far on
SVRBridge/Undercrossing question

I vote for the undercrossing.

Having said that, I'd like to point out another problem with the
undercrossing.  Beside the water table it could also become a haven for
homeless people.  It is now.  Some cyclist, especially those who commute at
night, may not want to take the route if they don't feel safe.

Tom

On 8/30/07, Kathy Keehan <execdir at sdcbc.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> So far I've received 17 responses, with the following breakdown
>
> 9 for the bridge
>
> 3 'it depends'
>
> 5 for the undercrossing
>
>
>
> Several people have mentioned that the cost differential and the 
> flooding issues would be a major determination for them one way or the 
> other. I didn't want to bias the results just on costs, so I 
> deliberately held that info back. The estimates (keep in mind these 
> are estimates and to be taken with a grain of salt. they actual costs 
> will almost certainly be higher for either option) - $1.4 million for 
> the undercrossing, $7.9 million for the bridge overcrossing. Before 
> you start freaking out, keep in mind that the proposed managed lanes 
> for the I-5 corridor are estimated to cost $2.9 BILLION dollars, and 
> the managed lanes under construction along I-15 right now are about
> $1.3 BILLION dollars. $1.5 million is significant, but not huge. $8
million is a lot, but maybe be worth it for a signature project.
>
> The flooding issues are significant. The bike path surface will be 
> very close to the existing water table. I think that during wet years 
> there will be many times when the bike path will not be usable.
>
> Now that you know the other circumstances, anyone want to change their
vote?
>
> Kathy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Kathy Keehan
>
> Executive Director
>
> San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
>
> P.O. Box 34544
>
> San Diego, CA 92163
>
> 858.487.6063
>
> execdir at sdcbc.org
>
> www.sdcbc.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as 
> thomas.treynolds at gmail.com To unsubscribe or change mailing options, 
> go to http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc
> List privacy information is located at 
> http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup
> For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send 
> e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org
>
_______________________________________________

You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as caroldcarr at sbcglobal.net To
unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to
http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc
List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup
For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send e-mail to
postmaster at stickman-computing.org

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.10/977 - Release Date: 8/28/2007
4:29 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.10/977 - Release Date: 8/28/2007
4:29 PM

_______________________________________________

You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as tony at tonypietsch.com To
unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to
http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc
List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup
For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send e-mail to
postmaster at stickman-computing.org