From rob_leone at earthlink.net Tue Apr 1 00:01:58 2008 From: rob_leone at earthlink.net (Robert Leone) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:01:58 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Bogota vs. San Diego In-Reply-To: <47F1A1BC.2050304@wolfenet.org> References: <47F1A1BC.2050304@wolfenet.org> Message-ID: <47F1B3B6.9080006@earthlink.net> Dear Mark: I have seen a cyclist or two ride the SR-52 onramp heading to Santee from Kearny Villa Road. It's not "legal," though, and I imagine the interchange at Santos is messy navigating. Robert Leone markw wrote: > I'd love to be able to at least get to KVR on the 52. Right now you > have to go about a mile south to go north. :( > > Mark > > Steve McNeil wrote: > >>No. This trail does not cross the RR track anywhere. It comes pretty close >>to it when you go under Regents and Genessee but so would a vehicle, fire >>engine or otherwise. As for attaching a bike/ped bridge to the 52 bridge, I >>can visualize a 180-270 degree loop on the north side to get high enough >>over the tracks But I think that is less practical. And you are talking >>about going into San Clemente Canyon. What I am suggesting is a trail on >>the north side of Rose Canyon and has far more gentle incline. You might >>have to contend with objections from the RR and the La Jolla Colony >>Homeowner Association. >> >>I am not sure where it could go beyond Genessee. You will have to avoid >>Miramar. You might turn north to go on Nobel Drive or go under 805 to get >>to Clairemont Mesa (or both). Maybe we can loop around to get back to San >>Clemente Canyon. I think there are some possibilities here. >> >>--Steve McNeil > > _______________________________________________ > > You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as rob_leone at earthlink.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 > Opinions expressed here are those of the individual poster and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the SDCBC or it's Board. > For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org > From rob_leone at earthlink.net Tue Apr 1 00:09:25 2008 From: rob_leone at earthlink.net (Robert Leone) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:09:25 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Whatever happened to that bike lane on La Costa? Message-ID: <47F1B575.9040801@earthlink.net> Dear SDCBCers: Hello! On Saturday's ride I got honked at, big time, on La Costa. The road is bike-laned northbound from Rancho Santa Fe to the Coast Highway, EXCEPT for a section where the "Bike Lane" turns into an on-street parking shoulder! So there we are, riding along, keeping away from parked cars and their suddenly-opening doors just as the Department of Motor Vehicles' bike riding tips web page advises and we must have shocked some poor snook in a big pickup (with, I might add, a fair amount of plywood and costruction-tool stuff in the bed!), so much he actually pulled in to an open spot along the shoulder for a few seconds before driving off. I almost regret not having the chance for some dialog. Still, while some of the senior SDCBCers are in a reminiscing mood, I would like to ask what is the story with La Costa? Would I be ride in my cynical suspicioun the perfectly good bike lane was appropriated to give more parking spaces for that developer? Robert Leone From j.eldon at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 1 00:43:08 2008 From: j.eldon at sbcglobal.net (John Eldon) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:43:08 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Whatever happened to that bike lane on La Costa? In-Reply-To: <47F1B575.9040801@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hello Rob, La Costa Av is a total MESS. It has a posted 45mph speed limit and the general look and feel of a prime arterial, except that it also has driveway cuts and/or on-street parking in some segments. No one would build a road in that manner today -- it violates too many design principles. (My neighbor almost got killed, and totalled his James Dean era Porsche, almost 30 years ago, when some clown turned left across his path.) In the early 1980s there were bike lanes on both sides of the road essentially from the street's entire length, but the segments east of El Camino Real were removed to provide on-street parking on the north side of the street. You did precisely the right thing in taking the right lane -- the only other sensible option is to switch over to Levante, the next parallel street to the south, which I find far more pleasant than La Costa Av., and which I use when traffic is heavy or when I might be worried about motorists being blinded by the setting sun. Thanks for posting, John -----Original Message----- From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org]On Behalf Of Robert Leone Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 8:09 PM To: Sdcbc Subject: [SDCBC] Whatever happened to that bike lane on La Costa? Dear SDCBCers: Hello! On Saturday's ride I got honked at, big time, on La Costa. The road is bike-laned northbound from Rancho Santa Fe to the Coast Highway, EXCEPT for a section where the "Bike Lane" turns into an on-street parking shoulder! So there we are, riding along, keeping away from parked cars and their suddenly-opening doors just as the Department of Motor Vehicles' bike riding tips web page advises and we must have shocked some poor snook in a big pickup (with, I might add, a fair amount of plywood and costruction-tool stuff in the bed!), so much he actually pulled in to an open spot along the shoulder for a few seconds before driving off. I almost regret not having the chance for some dialog. Still, while some of the senior SDCBCers are in a reminiscing mood, I would like to ask what is the story with La Costa? Would I be ride in my cynical suspicioun the perfectly good bike lane was appropriated to give more parking spaces for that developer? Robert Leone From stephanvance at cox.net Tue Apr 1 02:00:30 2008 From: stephanvance at cox.net (Stephan Vance) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:00:30 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] Bogota vs. San Diego In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101c893bd$b10f96b0$b9cd6544@D9CXGJ41> The City of San Diego is in the early stages of developing a bike path on this utility easement as part of the Coastal Rail Trail. They are also planning a bike path that would connect University City to Sorrento Valley on another utility easement in Roselle Canyon. Ultimately, the Coastal Rail Trail is planned to follow the Amtrak/Coaster right of way north to Oceanside (except at the lagoon crossings and a few other constrained points along the way). There are, however, many hurdles to overcome and a great deal of funding to identify before this project will be fully realized. Stephan Vance _____ From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org] On Behalf Of Steve McNeil Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 7:33 PM To: John Eldon; JonIsaacs at aol.com; sdcbc at bikesandiego.org Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Bogota vs. San Diego I hope you all realize that I was NOT talking about Marion Bear park or San Clemente Canyon. I was referring to the next canyon north, Rose Canyon. The trail is already in place on the north side the RR tracks. I rode it all the way to Genessee and beyond. Strictly speaking, it is not even inside the Rose Canyon reserve. All it would need is to have the trail paved and deal with that "deep dip" that I mentioned. To get to this trail from the north end of current bike path, you turn right on La Jolla Colony Drive, go about 200 feet. There is an opening in the hedges. You ride down the entrance (with a mountain bike) and you can see two or three trails that parallel each other eastward. You do not cross the RR track anywhere. A short path will have to be added to connect it to the current Rose Creek bike path. --Steve McNeil -----Original Message----- From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org]On Behalf Of John Eldon Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 5:59 AM To: JonIsaacs at aol.com; sdcbc at bikesandiego.org Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Bogota vs. San Diego I am with Jon on this one -- we should not be sacrificing our nature preserves. The same statement would apply to Los Penasquitos Reserve. -----Original Message----- From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org]On Behalf Of JonIsaacs at aol.com As a nearby resident, I like the Marion Bear park as it is, a bit of wilderness in the midst of an otherwise chaotic, hectic city. It's home for wildlife and a place for casual walks and casual bike rides. A great effort was made to put 52 on the side of the canyon rather than down the middle of it, IMHO paving any of it is a mistake, even if it is for a bike path that could make my commute a bit easier. I don't want to see anymore squashed lizards and runover rabbits and squirrils as nor do I want to see cyclists riding as if they were racing down a two lane bicycle path though the wilderness. Jon Isaacs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080401/95af1525/attachment-0001.html From econver at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 02:26:19 2008 From: econver at yahoo.com (Eric Converse) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [SDCBC] Bogota vs. San Diego Message-ID: <232580.65948.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Jim, Steve mentioned a way to avoid the majority ofthe Marion Bear Preserve on a 52 path, do you think this would help move thediscussion along further with Marion Bear Preserve board? Can and how do we get official sanction from theSDCBC to support such a proposal? Stephan, is there anything members can do to help with the projects you spoke of? Do we need to raise more money, increase volunteer efforts, show up at planning meetings? I've been hearing about the rail trail for some time, but what do you think will be required to jump the hurdles you spoke of? It sounds like there are a lot of things we can do. Now I'm wondering what the best thing to do next is and how we/I can help? By the way, Kathy, Silke and I can volunteer for the Velodrome on the 6th. Eric The City of San Diego is in the early stages of developing a bike path on this utility easement as part of the Coastal Rail Trail. They are also planning a bike path that would connect University City to Sorrento Valley on another utility easement in Roselle Canyon . Ultimately, the Coastal Rail Trail is planned to follow the Amtrak/Coaster right of way north to Oceanside (except at the lagoon crossings and a few other constrained points along the way). There are, however, many hurdles to overcome and a great deal of funding to identify before this project will be fully realized. Stephan Vance The major impediment was the reticence of the advisory board for MarionBear Preserve to allow for a paved Bike Path through their canyonpreserve. Change their minds and those of the adjacent advisory bodieswould likely go along. You do know that there are several Bike Paths along freeways andarterials already in the region, right? Jim (been there, tried that, Ok to try again) Baross -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080401/1b8a2f53/attachment.html From JimBaross at cox.net Tue Apr 1 01:56:53 2008 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross, Jr.) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:56:53 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] "Official Bike Routes?" was Re: Bogota vs. San Diego In-Reply-To: <4319778d0803311009q546b10c0ne0dfd6133855a54c@mail.gmail.co m> References: <175642.2923.qm@web56905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080330105548.0036f830@cox.net> <20080330213310.OSQM13750.cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com@ppg1.san.rr.com> <4319778d0803311009q546b10c0ne0dfd6133855a54c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080331225225.04076db0@cox.net> Derek: Have you seen the Regional Bike Map? Not all, certainly, but some bike routes are marked with destination signs already, right? We could do better of course. There are State approved signs for numbering bike routes - San Francisco has some. Getting around town on comfortable routes for bicycling can be very challenging... without a guide. Maybe you or someone would like a project to work out a good route that could use signing/naming? and put together a proposal that the Coalition might persuade the City, County or ? to fund? At 10:09 AM 3/31/2008, you wrote: >As a short-term, possibly cheaper alternative to building new fully >separated bike paths along freeways, how about creating "official" >bike routes that roughly parallel freeways, using existing streets >and new signs pointing the way? For example, the SR-52 bike route >could use Clairemont Mesa Boulevard for one leg of the route. > >On 3/30/08, Gene Carman ><gcarman at san.rr.com> wrote: >Actually a bikepath "hiway" along the same routes of the existing >freeways would probably serve the largest population in the area due >to population growth that tends to occur along freeways. Cyclists >want to go to the same locations as drivers. >In many cases, there is a wider amount of land dedicated to the >freeway right of way then is actually used for freeway... a single >bikepath can be created in less space then 2 new lanes on a freeway, >and along the same right of way. Adding a 10 foot wide bikepath >can reduce the traffic load on a freeway more then adding two 10 >foot wide lanes to a Freeway can reduce congestion. >Funding should come from the same agencies that fund >Freeways... bike transportation facilities are simply another form >of public transportation. >OK, I've answered all the questions... when do we get started? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080401/dd6452d3/attachment.html From JimBaross at cox.net Tue Apr 1 02:22:05 2008 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross, Jr.) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:22:05 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] Rose Creek Canyon routing, was Re: Bogota vs. San Diego In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080331231947.0363bdd8@cox.net> I've ridden this. It's a nice ride but what would it connect other than circuitously?... other than the two canyons unless there's a legal way to cross the tracks? At 07:33 PM 3/31/2008, Steve McNeil wrote: >I hope you all realize that I was NOT talking about Marion Bear park >or San Clemente Canyon. I was referring to the next canyon north, >Rose Canyon. The trail is already in place on the north side the RR >tracks. I rode it all the way to Genessee and beyond. Strictly >speaking, it is not even inside the Rose Canyon reserve. All it >would need is to have the trail paved and deal with that "deep dip" >that I mentioned. To get to this trail from the north end of >current bike path, you turn right on La Jolla Colony Drive, go about >200 feet. There is an opening in the hedges. You ride down the >entrance (with a mountain bike) and you can see two or three trails >that parallel each other eastward. You do not cross the RR track >anywhere. A short path will have to be added to connect it to the >current Rose Creek bike path. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080401/4ccb4dbe/attachment.html From JimBaross at cox.net Tue Apr 1 02:18:51 2008 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross, Jr.) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:18:51 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] Rose Creek Canyon, was RE: Bogota vs. San Diego In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080330231157.03eeca98@cox.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080331231445.0704fd20@cox.net> Steve: Find a map - googleEarth? - and chart a course connecting lots of people to lots of destinations. That corridor may be what's being considered for part of the Coastal Rail Trail... I'm not sure. My interest was for east-west connectivity - Clairmont area, Governor Drive neighborhoods and University Town Center to Pacific/Mission Beach and Bay. At 07:15 PM 3/31/2008, Steve McNeil wrote: >No. This trail does not cross the RR track anywhere. It comes >pretty close to it when you go under Regents and Genessee but so >would a vehicle, fire engine or otherwise. As for attaching a >bike/ped bridge to the 52 bridge, I can visualize a 180-270 degree >loop on the north side to get high enough over the tracks But I >think that is less practical. And you are talking about going into >San Clemente Canyon. What I am suggesting is a trail on the north >side of Rose Canyon and has far more gentle incline. You might have >to contend with objections from the RR and the La Jolla Colony >Homeowner Association. > >I am not sure where it could go beyond Genessee. You will have to >avoid Miramar. You might turn north to go on Nobel Drive or go >under 805 to get to Clairemont Mesa (or both). Maybe we can loop >around to get back to San Clemente Canyon. I think there are some >possibilities here. > >--Steve McNeil >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Baross, Jr. [mailto:JimBaross at cox.net] >Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 11:15 PM >To: Steve McNeil; Gene Carman; SDCBC >Subject: RE: [SDCBC] Bogota vs. San Diego > >To connect to either of those canyon trails from the west, isn't it >necessary to cross the RR tracks? >There was a proposal at one time to attach a bike/ped crossing onto >the 52 bridge over the tracks. >At 06:53 PM 3/30/2008, Steve McNeil wrote: >>Highway 52 is in San Clemente Canyon. Rose Canyon is the next one >>north. The Rose Canyon Bike Path ends there. There is a good, >>well graded dirt road going east from there and parallels the >>railroad track. I rode my mountain bike on it. It goes east from >>near the bike path, goes underneath Regents Road and underneath >>Genesee Avenue and beyond. That kind of continuity is not possible >>in San Clemente Canyon as both Genesee and Regents go all the way >>to the canyon floor there. It also has access to both sides of each >>of these streets. It has one deep dip that can be easily >>circumvented. I can just visualize it being paved as an extension >>of the current Rose Canyon Bike Path, >> >>It would also solve the problem of accessing the bike path for >>those who come down La Jolla Colony Drive and get to the bike >>path. They could get to the bike path via this extension. >> >>I thought this road is a fire access road but I am not sure. It >>has that deep dip that I can't imagine a fire truck getting through. >> >>--Steve McNeil. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [ >>mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org]On Behalf Of Jim Baross, Jr. >>Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 5:18 PM >>To: Gene Carman; SDCBC >>Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Bogota vs. San Diego >> >>Which one(s) first? >>My recommendation - Hwy 52, to/from Hwy 5 as far east as >>possible/reasonable. >>We've tried several times. This canyon non-route is probably one of >>the reasons SDCBC got started; a controversy w/the Sierra Club when >>15 went in. >>Maybe there are other sites? >>At 02:05 PM 3/30/2008, Gene Carman wrote: >> >>>Actually a bikepath "hiway" along the same routes of the existing >>>freeways would probably serve the largest population in the area >>>due to population growth that tends to occur along >>>freeways. Cyclists want to go to the same locations as drivers. >>>In many cases, there is a wider amount of land dedicated to the >>>freeway right of way then is actually used for freeway... a >>>single bikepath can be created in less space then 2 new lanes on a >>>freeway, and along the same right of way. Adding a 10 foot wide >>>bikepath can reduce the traffic load on a freeway more then adding >>>two 10 foot wide lanes to a Freeway can reduce congestion. >>>Funding should come from the same agencies that fund >>>Freeways... bike transportation facilities are simply another >>>form of public transportation. >>>OK, I've answered all the questions... when do we get started? >>> >>>At 10:13 AM 3/30/2008, Jim Baross, Jr. wrote: >>>>I'm happy and supportive of Eric's inspirations! Speaking in >>>>generalities, this sounds and could be wonderful... though you >>>>are likely to read responses about how it couldn't or shouldn't be done. :-( >>>>To seriously act on the inspiration - one that isn't BTW new to >>>>many of us - something besides dreaming and typing needs doing, right? >>>>Now, a few task suggestions. Figure out exactly where you think >>>>such a proposal would work in the San Diego area; a Bike Path or >>>>maybe a Bicycle Boulevard or ? .. connecting what and following >>>>or creating what route... then maybe think about/research an >>>>estimate of costs 'cause besides location, cost matters big time! >>>>You might be ready then with a proposal that SDCBC, an >>>>individual, or ? would propose to the site-owning agency for >>>>funding. Sound exciting? Good, then do it. >>>>It's sort of useless to debate the generalities between facility >>>>types when it's the specific site and uses that make for bigger >>>>differences, IMHO. Let's get specific. >>>>* Ban all but bikes, transit and delivery vehicles in a downtown >>>>area?... or impose single-occupancy vehicle use taxes for >>>>downtown like London has? >>>>* Create a Bike Path/MUP/Bike Boulevard linking Mid City or >>>>UCSD/SDSU or ? to Downtown or University Town Center/La Mesa or ? >>>>* what? >>>>Jim (likes dreams, lives reality) Baross >>>>At 01:52 AM 3/30/2008, Eric Converse wrote: >>>>>I've been inspired. These recent discussions on bicycle paths >>>>>have led me to create the following blog entry: >>>>>San Diego and Bogota Columbia (a bicyle path comparison): >>>>>www.ativsolutions.com/cblog >>>>>In short, you'll notice that Bogota (serving a much larger, and >>>>>poorer, population) does a couple of things we don't do >>>>>here. Their bicycle paths are contiguous and are routed through >>>>>major population centers. While many of our bicycle paths, >>>>>while pretty (riding next to the water mainly),are often >>>>>fragmented with huge gaps between them. What we need are long >>>>>continuous paths (much like our freeway system) that provide a >>>>>backbone for this city's bicycle transportation >>>>>network. Needless to say we won't always be on a bicycle path >>>>>no matter how good we make the system, but we can provide a >>>>>network that links the city together and serves vastly more people. >>>>>Can't we do at least as good as a poor city in a third world country? >>>>>Eric >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as gcarman at san.rr.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080401/9d129aa9/attachment-0001.html From JimBaross at cox.net Tue Apr 1 02:13:57 2008 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross, Jr.) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:13:57 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] Just keep rolling, was Re: Bogota vs. San Diego In-Reply-To: <20080401014236.ENKI9908.cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com@ppg1.san .rr.com> References: <175642.2923.qm@web56905.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080330105548.0036f830@cox.net> <20080330213310.OSQM13750.cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com@ppg1.san.rr.com> <4319778d0803311009q546b10c0ne0dfd6133855a54c@mail.gmail.com> <20080401014236.ENKI9908.cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com@ppg1.san.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080331230303.07061e28@cox.net> But having to stop offers opportunities to "put the pedal to the ...." well, to get some practice at accelerating, right? More seriously, have you discovered the concept/practice of Bike or Bicycle Boulevards? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Bicycle Boulevards) A bicycle boulevard is a shared roadway which has been optimized for bicycle traffic. In contrast with other shared roadways, bicycle boulevards discourage cut-through motor vehicle traffic, but typically allow local motor vehicle traffic. They are designed to give priority to cyclists as through-going traffic. Bicycle boulevards cater to would-be, inexperienced, and young riders. As such, bicycle boulevards can be considered "stepping stone" facilities that help recreational riders (for example) move from bicycle paths and trails onto shared roadways. Bicycle boulevards use a variety of traffic calming elements to achieve a safe environment. For instance, diverters with bicycle cut-outs at mid-block allow motorists to enter the block in order to park or otherwise access a property, and allow cyclists to continue to the next block as well, but do not allow motorists to continue. Typically, these modifications are thought to calm traffic and improve pedestrian safety as well as encouraging bicycling. The purpose of a bicycle boulevard is to improve bicycle safety and circulation by having or creating one or more of the following conditions: * low traffic volumes (or bike lanes where traffic volumes are medium); * discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic; * free-flow travel for bikes by assigning the right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard at intersections wherever possible; * traffic control to help bicycles cross major arterial roads; and * a distinctive look and/or ambiance such that cyclists become aware of the existence of the bike boulevard and motorists are alerted that the roadway is a priority route for bicyclists. >>>> These seem to certainly be cheaper to develop than Bike Paths, provide more comfortable riding conditions without requiring or encouraging non-vehicular movements for bicyclists, etc. I could see bicycling on Meade Ave benefited by this treatment through Mid-City. Where else? Jim (bikes anywhere it's legal) Baross At 06:17 PM 3/31/2008, Gene Carman wrote: >The biggest problem with the "bike route" idea is still the energy >wasted by the cyclist while having to stop for each and every >traffic control... that is the advantage of a bicycle >hiway... preserving inertia... you maintain your pace for the >whole distance. Imagine a route free of stoplights... Well such a >thing exists if you are a motorist... but cyclists have no such a >thing. (this is one reason some cyclists "jump" lights) > >A nice wide bike path, similar to the path that exists along 56, >along each of our local main freeways would offer interconnectivity >and inertia savings that would make it far easier to persons wanting >to cycle vice drive. Why should cyclists be burdened with the >traffic control system set up for motorists? > >How many of us go out into the country for nice long rides... only >to come into the city and have to deal with congested roadways and >traffic control geared for motorized traffic? > > > >At 09:09 AM 3/31/2008, Derek Hofmann wrote: >>As a short-term, possibly cheaper alternative to building new fully >>separated bike paths along freeways, how about creating "official" >>bike routes that roughly parallel freeways, using existing streets >>and new signs pointing the way? For example, the SR-52 bike route >>could use Clairemont Mesa Boulevard for one leg of the route. >> >>On 3/30/08, Gene Carman >><gcarman at san.rr.com> wrote: >>Actually a bikepath "hiway" along the same routes of the existing >>freeways would probably serve the largest population in the area >>due to population growth that tends to occur along >>freeways. Cyclists want to go to the same locations as drivers. >>In many cases, there is a wider amount of land dedicated to the >>freeway right of way then is actually used for freeway... a single >>bikepath can be created in less space then 2 new lanes on a >>freeway, and along the same right of way. Adding a 10 foot wide >>bikepath can reduce the traffic load on a freeway more then adding >>two 10 foot wide lanes to a Freeway can reduce congestion. >>Funding should come from the same agencies that fund >>Freeways... bike transportation facilities are simply another form >>of public transportation. >>OK, I've answered all the questions... when do we get started? >> >>At 10:13 AM 3/30/2008, Jim Baross, Jr. wrote: >>>I'm happy and supportive of Eric's inspirations! Speaking in >>>generalities, this sounds and could be wonderful... though you are >>>likely to read responses about how it couldn't or shouldn't be done. :-( >>>To seriously act on the inspiration - one that isn't BTW new to >>>many of us - something besides dreaming and typing needs doing, right? >>>Now, a few task suggestions. Figure out exactly where you think >>>such a proposal would work in the San Diego area; a Bike Path or >>>maybe a Bicycle Boulevard or ? ... connecting what and following >>>or creating what route... then maybe think about/research an >>>estimate of costs 'cause besides location, cost matters big time! >>>You might be ready then with a proposal that SDCBC, an individual, >>>or ? would propose to the site-owning agency for funding. Sound >>>exciting? Good, then do it. >>>It's sort of useless to debate the generalities between facility >>>types when it's the specific site and uses that make for bigger >>>differences, IMHO. Let's get specific. >>>* Ban all but bikes, transit and delivery vehicles in a downtown >>>area?... or impose single-occupancy vehicle use taxes for downtown >>>like London has? >>>* Create a Bike Path/MUP/Bike Boulevard linking Mid City or >>>UCSD/SDSU or ? to Downtown or University Town Center/La Mesa or ? >>>* what? >>>Jim (likes dreams, lives reality) Baross >>>At 01:52 AM 3/30/2008, Eric Converse wrote: >>>>I've been inspired. These recent discussions on bicycle paths >>>>have led me to create the following blog entry: >>>>San Diego and Bogota Columbia (a bicyle path comparison): >>>>www.ativsolutions.com/cblog >>>>In short, you'll notice that Bogota (serving a much larger, and >>>>poorer, population) does a couple of things we don't do >>>>here. Their bicycle paths are contiguous and are routed through >>>>major population centers. While many of our bicycle paths, while >>>>pretty (riding next to the water mainly),are often fragmented >>>>with huge gaps between them. What we need are long continuous >>>>paths (much like our freeway system) that provide a backbone for >>>>this city's bicycle transportation network. Needless to say we >>>>won't always be on a bicycle path no matter how good we make the >>>>system, but we can provide a network that links the city together >>>>and serves vastly more people. >>>>Can't we do at least as good as a poor city in a third world country? >>>>Eric >>>_______________________________________________ >>>You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as >>>gcarman at san.rr.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 >>derek.hofmann 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 >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Thanks, >> >>Derek Hofmann >>derek.hofmann at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080401/08317fce/attachment.html From j.eldon at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 1 09:27:19 2008 From: j.eldon at sbcglobal.net (John Eldon) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 06:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [SDCBC] Bogota vs. San Diego In-Reply-To: <002101c893bd$b10f96b0$b9cd6544@D9CXGJ41> Message-ID: <135096.8986.qm@web52512.mail.re2.yahoo.com> That is an extremely valuable link. I have jogged or mountain biked it many times (always during the dry season) to get from the Coaster station to Campus Point, UTC, or UCSD. Stephan Vance wrote: v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } The City of San Diego is ... also planning a bike path that would connect University City to Sorrento Valley on another utility easement in Roselle Canyon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080401/42048cfb/attachment.html From jwstump at cox.net Tue Apr 1 09:30:18 2008 From: jwstump at cox.net (jwstump at cox.net) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 9:30:18 -0400 Subject: [SDCBC] El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080331230303.07061e28@cox.net> Message-ID: <20080401093018.7CVJP.186539.imail@fed1rmwml18> Jim & All, What do you think of a El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard It seems to have everything going for it: Excess East West road way (Commercial area declining for 40 years) Parallel to two East West Freeways (I-8, SR-15) Crossed by two Freeways (I-805. SR-15) Major current Bus Route Connects major urban populations from La Mesa to Hillcrest (SR-163) Adjacent residents correct Bicycle demographics High School Bus Ridership Routes Connects to City Heights Transit Plazas above SR-15 Connects to Balboa Park & Downtown cultural centers What do you think? All the best John Stump ---- "Jim Baross wrote: ============= But having to stop offers opportunities to "put the pedal to the ...." well, to get some practice at accelerating, right? More seriously, have you discovered the concept/practice of Bike or Bicycle Boulevards? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Bicycle Boulevards) A bicycle boulevard is a shared roadway which has been optimized for bicycle traffic. In contrast with other shared roadways, bicycle boulevards discourage cut-through motor vehicle traffic, but typically allow local motor vehicle traffic. They are designed to give priority to cyclists as through-going traffic. Bicycle boulevards cater to would-be, inexperienced, and young riders. As such, bicycle boulevards can be considered "stepping stone" facilities that help recreational riders (for example) move from bicycle paths and trails onto shared roadways. Bicycle boulevards use a variety of traffic calming elements to achieve a safe environment. For instance, diverters with bicycle cut-outs at mid-block allow motorists to enter the block in order to park or otherwise access a property, and allow cyclists to continue to the next block as well, but do not allow motorists to continue. Typically, these modifications are thought to calm traffic and improve pedestrian safety as well as encouraging bicycling. The purpose of a bicycle boulevard is to improve bicycle safety and circulation by having or creating one or more of the following conditions: * low traffic volumes (or bike lanes where traffic volumes are medium); * discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic; * free-flow travel for bikes by assigning the right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard at intersections wherever possible; * traffic control to help bicycles cross major arterial roads; and * a distinctive look and/or ambiance such that cyclists become aware of the existence of the bike boulevard and motorists are alerted that the roadway is a priority route for bicyclists. >>>> These seem to certainly be cheaper to develop than Bike Paths, provide more comfortable riding conditions without requiring or encouraging non-vehicular movements for bicyclists, etc. I could see bicycling on Meade Ave benefited by this treatment through Mid-City. Where else? Jim (bikes anywhere it's legal) Baross At 06:17 PM 3/31/2008, Gene Carman wrote: >The biggest problem with the "bike route" idea is still the energy >wasted by the cyclist while having to stop for each and every >traffic control... that is the advantage of a bicycle >hiway... preserving inertia... you maintain your pace for the >whole distance. Imagine a route free of stoplights... Well such a >thing exists if you are a motorist... but cyclists have no such a >thing. (this is one reason some cyclists "jump" lights) > >A nice wide bike path, similar to the path that exists along 56, >along each of our local main freeways would offer interconnectivity >and inertia savings that would make it far easier to persons wanting >to cycle vice drive. Why should cyclists be burdened with the >traffic control system set up for motorists? > >How many of us go out into the country for nice long rides... only >to come into the city and have to deal with congested roadways and >traffic control geared for motorized traffic? > > > >At 09:09 AM 3/31/2008, Derek Hofmann wrote: >>As a short-term, possibly cheaper alternative to building new fully >>separated bike paths along freeways, how about creating "official" >>bike routes that roughly parallel freeways, using existing streets >>and new signs pointing the way? For example, the SR-52 bike route >>could use Clairemont Mesa Boulevard for one leg of the route. >> >>On 3/30/08, Gene Carman >><gcarman at san.rr.com> wrote: >>Actually a bikepath "hiway" along the same routes of the existing >>freeways would probably serve the largest population in the area >>due to population growth that tends to occur along >>freeways. Cyclists want to go to the same locations as drivers. >>In many cases, there is a wider amount of land dedicated to the >>freeway right of way then is actually used for freeway... a single >>bikepath can be created in less space then 2 new lanes on a >>freeway, and along the same right of way. Adding a 10 foot wide >>bikepath can reduce the traffic load on a freeway more then adding >>two 10 foot wide lanes to a Freeway can reduce congestion. >>Funding should come from the same agencies that fund >>Freeways... bike transportation facilities are simply another form >>of public transportation. >>OK, I've answered all the questions... when do we get started? >> >>At 10:13 AM 3/30/2008, Jim Baross, Jr. wrote: >>>I'm happy and supportive of Eric's inspirations! Speaking in >>>generalities, this sounds and could be wonderful... though you are >>>likely to read responses about how it couldn't or shouldn't be done. :-( >>>To seriously act on the inspiration - one that isn't BTW new to >>>many of us - something besides dreaming and typing needs doing, right? >>>Now, a few task suggestions. Figure out exactly where you think >>>such a proposal would work in the San Diego area; a Bike Path or >>>maybe a Bicycle Boulevard or ? ... connecting what and following >>>or creating what route... then maybe think about/research an >>>estimate of costs 'cause besides location, cost matters big time! >>>You might be ready then with a proposal that SDCBC, an individual, >>>or ? would propose to the site-owning agency for funding. Sound >>>exciting? Good, then do it. >>>It's sort of useless to debate the generalities between facility >>>types when it's the specific site and uses that make for bigger >>>differences, IMHO. Let's get specific. >>>* Ban all but bikes, transit and delivery vehicles in a downtown >>>area?... or impose single-occupancy vehicle use taxes for downtown >>>like London has? >>>* Create a Bike Path/MUP/Bike Boulevard linking Mid City or >>>UCSD/SDSU or ? to Downtown or University Town Center/La Mesa or ? >>>* what? >>>Jim (likes dreams, lives reality) Baross >>>At 01:52 AM 3/30/2008, Eric Converse wrote: >>>>I've been inspired. These recent discussions on bicycle paths >>>>have led me to create the following blog entry: >>>>San Diego and Bogota Columbia (a bicyle path comparison): >>>>www.ativsolutions.com/cblog >>>>In short, you'll notice that Bogota (serving a much larger, and >>>>poorer, population) does a couple of things we don't do >>>>here. Their bicycle paths are contiguous and are routed through >>>>major population centers. While many of our bicycle paths, while >>>>pretty (riding next to the water mainly),are often fragmented >>>>with huge gaps between them. What we need are long continuous >>>>paths (much like our freeway system) that provide a backbone for >>>>this city's bicycle transportation network. Needless to say we >>>>won't always be on a bicycle path no matter how good we make the >>>>system, but we can provide a network that links the city together >>>>and serves vastly more people. >>>>Can't we do at least as good as a poor city in a third world country? >>>>Eric >>>_______________________________________________ >>>You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as >>>gcarman at san.rr.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 >>derek.hofmann 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 >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Thanks, >> >>Derek Hofmann >>derek.hofmann at gmail.com From jwstump at cox.net Tue Apr 1 09:39:18 2008 From: jwstump at cox.net (jwstump at cox.net) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 9:39:18 -0400 Subject: [SDCBC] : El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard Message-ID: <20080401093918.54M5G.186588.imail@fed1rmwml18> Jim & All, What do you think of a El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard It seems to have everything going for it: Excess East West road way (Commercial area declining for 40 years) Parallel to two East West Freeways (I-8, SR-15) Crossed by two Freeways (I-805. SR-15) Major current Bus Route Connects major urban populations from La Mesa to Hillcrest (SR-163) Adjacent residents correct Bicycle demographics High School Bus Ridership Routes Connects to City Heights Transit Plazas above SR-15 Connects to Balboa Park & Downtown cultural centers What do you think? All the best John Stump ---- "Jim Baross wrote: ============= But having to stop offers opportunities to "put the pedal to the ...." well, to get some practice at accelerating, right? More seriously, have you discovered the concept/practice of Bike or Bicycle Boulevards? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Bicycle Boulevards) A bicycle boulevard is a shared roadway which has been optimized for bicycle traffic. In contrast with other shared roadways, bicycle boulevards discourage cut-through motor vehicle traffic, but typically allow local motor vehicle traffic. They are designed to give priority to cyclists as through-going traffic. Bicycle boulevards cater to would-be, inexperienced, and young riders. As such, bicycle boulevards can be considered "stepping stone" facilities that help recreational riders (for example) move from bicycle paths and trails onto shared roadways. Bicycle boulevards use a variety of traffic calming elements to achieve a safe environment. For instance, diverters with bicycle cut-outs at mid-block allow motorists to enter the block in order to park or otherwise access a property, and allow cyclists to continue to the next block as well, but do not allow motorists to continue. Typically, these modifications are thought to calm traffic and improve pedestrian safety as well as encouraging bicycling. The purpose of a bicycle boulevard is to improve bicycle safety and circulation by having or creating one or more of the following conditions: * low traffic volumes (or bike lanes where traffic volumes are medium); * discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic; * free-flow travel for bikes by assigning the right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard at intersections wherever possible; * traffic control to help bicycles cross major arterial roads; and * a distinctive look and/or ambiance such that cyclists become aware of the existence of the bike boulevard and motorists are alerted that the roadway is a priority route for bicyclists. >>>> These seem to certainly be cheaper to develop than Bike Paths, provide more comfortable riding conditions without requiring or encouraging non-vehicular movements for bicyclists, etc. I could see bicycling on Meade Ave benefited by this treatment through Mid-City. Where else? Jim (bikes anywhere it's legal) Baross At 06:17 PM 3/31/2008, Gene Carman wrote: >The biggest problem with the "bike route" idea is still the energy >wasted by the cyclist while having to stop for each and every >traffic control... that is the advantage of a bicycle >hiway... preserving inertia... you maintain your pace for the >whole distance. Imagine a route free of stoplights... Well such a >thing exists if you are a motorist... but cyclists have no such a >thing. (this is one reason some cyclists "jump" lights) > >A nice wide bike path, similar to the path that exists along 56, >along each of our local main freeways would offer interconnectivity >and inertia savings that would make it far easier to persons wanting >to cycle vice drive. Why should cyclists be burdened with the >traffic control system set up for motorists? > >How many of us go out into the country for nice long rides... only >to come into the city and have to deal with congested roadways and >traffic control geared for motorized traffic? > > > >At 09:09 AM 3/31/2008, Derek Hofmann wrote: >>As a short-term, possibly cheaper alternative to building new fully >>separated bike paths along freeways, how about creating "official" >>bike routes that roughly parallel freeways, using existing streets >>and new signs pointing the way? For example, the SR-52 bike route >>could use Clairemont Mesa Boulevard for one leg of the route. >> >>On 3/30/08, Gene Carman >><gcarman at san.rr.com> wrote: >>Actually a bikepath "hiway" along the same routes of the existing >>freeways would probably serve the largest population in the area >>due to population growth that tends to occur along >>freeways. Cyclists want to go to the same locations as drivers. >>In many cases, there is a wider amount of land dedicated to the >>freeway right of way then is actually used for freeway... a single >>bikepath can be created in less space then 2 new lanes on a >>freeway, and along the same right of way. Adding a 10 foot wide >>bikepath can reduce the traffic load on a freeway more then adding >>two 10 foot wide lanes to a Freeway can reduce congestion. >>Funding should come from the same agencies that fund >>Freeways... bike transportation facilities are simply another form >>of public transportation. >>OK, I've answered all the questions... when do we get started? >> >>At 10:13 AM 3/30/2008, Jim Baross, Jr. wrote: >>>I'm happy and supportive of Eric's inspirations! Speaking in >>>generalities, this sounds and could be wonderful... though you are >>>likely to read responses about how it couldn't or shouldn't be done. :-( >>>To seriously act on the inspiration - one that isn't BTW new to >>>many of us - something besides dreaming and typing needs doing, right? >>>Now, a few task suggestions. Figure out exactly where you think >>>such a proposal would work in the San Diego area; a Bike Path or >>>maybe a Bicycle Boulevard or ? ... connecting what and following >>>or creating what route... then maybe think about/research an >>>estimate of costs 'cause besides location, cost matters big time! >>>You might be ready then with a proposal that SDCBC, an individual, >>>or ? would propose to the site-owning agency for funding. Sound >>>exciting? Good, then do it. >>>It's sort of useless to debate the generalities between facility >>>types when it's the specific site and uses that make for bigger >>>differences, IMHO. Let's get specific. >>>* Ban all but bikes, transit and delivery vehicles in a downtown >>>area?... or impose single-occupancy vehicle use taxes for downtown >>>like London has? >>>* Create a Bike Path/MUP/Bike Boulevard linking Mid City or >>>UCSD/SDSU or ? to Downtown or University Town Center/La Mesa or ? >>>* what? >>>Jim (likes dreams, lives reality) Baross >>>At 01:52 AM 3/30/2008, Eric Converse wrote: >>>>I've been inspired. These recent discussions on bicycle paths >>>>have led me to create the following blog entry: >>>>San Diego and Bogota Columbia (a bicyle path comparison): >>>>www.ativsolutions.com/cblog >>>>In short, you'll notice that Bogota (serving a much larger, and >>>>poorer, population) does a couple of things we don't do >>>>here. Their bicycle paths are contiguous and are routed through >>>>major population centers. While many of our bicycle paths, while >>>>pretty (riding next to the water mainly),are often fragmented >>>>with huge gaps between them. What we need are long continuous >>>>paths (much like our freeway system) that provide a backbone for >>>>this city's bicycle transportation network. Needless to say we >>>>won't always be on a bicycle path no matter how good we make the >>>>system, but we can provide a network that links the city together >>>>and serves vastly more people. >>>>Can't we do at least as good as a poor city in a third world country? >>>>Eric >>>_______________________________________________ >>>You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as >>>gcarman at san.rr.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 >>derek.hofmann 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 >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Thanks, >> >>Derek Hofmann >>derek.hofmann at gmail.com============= From tony at tonypietsch.com Tue Apr 1 11:51:54 2008 From: tony at tonypietsch.com (Tony Pietsch) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 08:51:54 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] YouTube, etc. In-Reply-To: <001d01c892d8$23a423d0$6aec6b70$@att.net> References: <923976.97485.qm@web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <47EFC67D.7070804@johnforester.com> <001e01c89290$60edeb10$b9cd6544@D9CXGJ41><47F01013.7090007@johnforester.com> <001d01c892d8$23a423d0$6aec6b70$@att.net> Message-ID: <018201c89410$4ff20db0$6501a8c0@tonyvaio> Adding just a little perspective on what a small change in income can make on traffic, I have an excellent example from relatively recent travel to Vietnam and understand from others that China is going through much the same process. Sarah and I toured the length of Vietnam from Hanoi to Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City, but no one there calls it that) in 2000-2001. We had heard such great things at the time about the cycling from other eco-tourists in the early '90s about how bicycle oriented the country was, and although still 3rd world and communist had a strong capitalist wave that was making the country prosperous and friendly. Indeed, we encountered a great deal of hope for the future and tolerance from the Vietnamese for the "slow" pace of improvement, but nearly everyone benefited from the change in economic policy; the government was either helpful or ignored. We saw that along Route 1 (the only paved roadway running the full length north to south) that nearly every building had electricity including some mud hovels with satellite dishes. To our dismay, the small average increase in disposable income nearly always went to converting the family mode of transportation from a bicycle to a noisy, polluting name-brand knock-off motorcycle/moped -- no, not what we think of here, but basically a bicycle with an underpowered gas engine on it that was loaded with up to a family of five. In major cities, a large number of these recent "motorists" were wearing cloth masks to keep out the thickest of the unburnt hydrocarbons. Even between villages in the country it was impossible to get away from these nuisances since everyone wanted to pull up alongside and converse with us. What had been a fairly egalitarian (except for cars) society had split into the new middle class on mopeds and those hoping to get a moped next year. The air was hard to breath whenever congestion arose, and the traffic signs, signals and striping were regarded (as near as we could tell) as "suggestions", with even red lights being routinely run if the driver thought that they could get away with it without getting killed. We were stunned at the transformation from a bicycle-centric society of fairly uniform pace to one of "free-for-all" traffic and pollution so far out of control in as little as five years! Hardly bicycle friendly as we nearly got hit cycling on the far right of the road by a car making an sudden "illegal" pass from the opposite direction just because the driver thought we would make yet more room -- over a cliff. We won't be back. But the lesson remains -- at the first opportunity this country of nearly 80 million opted for just a minor increase in transport speed and ease, even at a huge cost to their environment and personal health. The irony here is that their newfound "freedom" of powered transportation had actually DECREASED the average speed on the road because of the increased congestion, and they were dealing with it by getting ever more aggressive with the expected result that we saw and heard a large number of accidents and deaths. For us this was a shock -- but thinking of the "acceptable" number of motorist deaths (not to mention bicycle and pedestrian) that we have become inured to in this country (US society), one has to wonder whether this has become an inevitable phase resulting from greater wealth and isolation from one's neighbors? I very much wish that more people believed in "road karma", both here and abroad, but don't hold out much hope unless we become true communities again, knowing our neighbors individually and personally (not necessarily liking all of them, but at least knowing their beliefs and trying to find common desires) and working toward what's in the best interest of our society instead of the "where's my immediate gratification" that seems to be fairly universal whenever income and power become paramount. I'm beginning to feel like an old fuddy-duddy and at the same time returning to my roots in the '60s and '70s with "give peace a chance" and "what if they gave a war and nobody came?" Anybody else out there "getting the same vibes?" Tony -----Original Message----- From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Magee Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 7:37 PM To: 'John Forester'; 'sdcbc' Subject: Re: [SDCBC] YouTube - SoCal Arterials and Lane Splitting videos ".... Furthermore, the American bikeway program has been running for thirty years, with very little switch from motoring to bicycling. I don't hold out much reason to hope for a different outcome within the planning horizon." -- John Forester, MS, PE And this is due in large part to the commercial media promoting automobiles -- fast, luxury, hot styling, you take your pick. It's a big part of our American culture, especially here in CA. Who is there that will give John Q. Public, his neighbors and friends -- and everybody else -- the encouragement to ride a bike in the first place? My belief is that, in the short term, we continue bicycling by good example, while making every effort to appear in the media to explain why America needs to change the culture -- for a multitude of reasons. It begins with you and me. From mary.e.winn at gmail.com Tue Apr 1 14:23:14 2008 From: mary.e.winn at gmail.com (Mary Winn) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 11:23:14 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] YouTube, etc. In-Reply-To: <018201c89410$4ff20db0$6501a8c0@tonyvaio> References: <923976.97485.qm@web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <47EFC67D.7070804@johnforester.com> <001e01c89290$60edeb10$b9cd6544@D9CXGJ41><47F01013.7090007@johnforester.com> <001d01c892d8$23a423d0$6aec6b70$@att.net> <018201c89410$4ff20db0$6501a8c0@tonyvaio> Message-ID: <2E1981C2-EEFE-41FC-8F63-B21ACCB45419@gmail.com> Hi! I am fairly new to San Diego and new to the SDBC e-mail group. I am a big supporter of developing the use of alternative transportation such as the bicycle and I couldn't help but put in my two cents about the best way to increase bicycle use in SD. I don't know about the history of bicycle transportation in the area but after living here for just over 6 months, I can tell you that it is not always a fun and enjoyable experience. I recently moved from Ann Arbor, MI where I road my bike or took the bus from my home to work almost everyday. It wasn't a long trip, only 4 or 5 miles, and it was fairly safe. I moved to SD in September with the intention of doing the same thing, bike or bus to work everyday. However, it wasn't quite so simple. I am a graduate student at UCSD but for personal reasons I chose not to live in UTC or the surrounding La Jolla area. Instead, I chose to live in North Park. My options to get to campus are a.) bike the ~15 miles to campus involving many dangerous intersections, busy arterials, and steep inclines with a heavy backpack, b.) bike the 3 miles to the UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center and take the shuttle from there, c.) drive (expensive) or d.) take the bus system (an extremely long trip). I went with option b as my primary choice with a. and c. as alternative options. (I must mention that I commute with a rider fairly new to cycling as a form of transportation so we are taking baby steps in hopes to make option a. our primary choice). Though the 3 mile bike from North Park to Hillcrest is neither long nor extremely difficult in terms of terrain, I am limited in options and traffic can be dangerous with University and El Cajon being the only direct options (all side streets are not direct and involve numerous intersections where traffic does not stop on the cross street making them more dangerous in my opinion than either University or El Cajon). I am a fairly "aggressive" rider in that I'll take the lane if there is no bike lane but I'm safe, using hand signals when possible, slowing down when necessary, always aware, and willing to get off my bike and walk. To make a long story short, as a new resident of San Diego, I find the two biggest limitations to using a bicycle as a form of transportation are distance and terrain. The third limitation is safety. Even with a safe system in place for bicyclists, I think it will be difficult to overcome the primary limitations. I agree with Tony, in order for bicycles to become a popular form a transportation, there will need to be major social change with an emphasis on community and working close to home (less than 5-10 miles). As an avid cyclist, I would love to see a better, more bicycle friendly infrastructure so I can get from North Park to the UCSD campus or any other surrounding area safely by bicycle but there are few people like those in this e-mail group willing to bike 10+ miles especially when you had a few steep hills. I have no solution but based on the limitations I see thus far, I think a system which integrates multiple forms of alternative transportation methods in a safe and effective manor is a good start. Better ways to transport bikes on public buses. Increased trolley lines. More frequent and more express bus services. And simple things like bike racks (or more of them) at shuttle stops. I enjoy reading the debates about bicycle use in San Diego and I hope to become more active in SDBC soon! In the mean time, I am continuing to lead by example, using alternative forms of transportation on a daily basis. Mary On Apr 1, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Tony Pietsch wrote: > Adding just a little perspective on what a small change in income > can make > on traffic, I have an excellent example from relatively recent > travel to > Vietnam and understand from others that China is going through much > the same > process. Sarah and I toured the length of Vietnam from Hanoi to > Saigon (Ho > Chi Minh City, but no one there calls it that) in 2000-2001. We had > heard > such great things at the time about the cycling from other eco- > tourists in > the early '90s about how bicycle oriented the country was, and > although > still 3rd world and communist had a strong capitalist wave that was > making > the country prosperous and friendly. > > Indeed, we encountered a great deal of hope for the future and > tolerance > from the Vietnamese for the "slow" pace of improvement, but nearly > everyone > benefited from the change in economic policy; the government was > either > helpful or ignored. We saw that along Route 1 (the only paved roadway > running the full length north to south) that nearly every building had > electricity including some mud hovels with satellite dishes. > > To our dismay, the small average increase in disposable income > nearly always > went to converting the family mode of transportation from a bicycle > to a > noisy, polluting name-brand knock-off motorcycle/moped -- no, not > what we > think of here, but basically a bicycle with an underpowered gas > engine on it > that was loaded with up to a family of five. In major cities, a large > number of these recent "motorists" were wearing cloth masks to keep > out the > thickest of the unburnt hydrocarbons. Even between villages in the > country > it was impossible to get away from these nuisances since everyone > wanted to > pull up alongside and converse with us. What had been a fairly > egalitarian > (except for cars) society had split into the new middle class on > mopeds and > those hoping to get a moped next year. > > The air was hard to breath whenever congestion arose, and the > traffic signs, > signals and striping were regarded (as near as we could tell) as > "suggestions", with even red lights being routinely run if the driver > thought that they could get away with it without getting killed. > > We were stunned at the transformation from a bicycle-centric society > of > fairly uniform pace to one of "free-for-all" traffic and pollution > so far > out of control in as little as five years! Hardly bicycle friendly > as we > nearly got hit cycling on the far right of the road by a car making an > sudden "illegal" pass from the opposite direction just because the > driver > thought we would make yet more room -- over a cliff. We won't be > back. > > But the lesson remains -- at the first opportunity this country of > nearly 80 > million opted for just a minor increase in transport speed and ease, > even at > a huge cost to their environment and personal health. The irony > here is > that their newfound "freedom" of powered transportation had actually > DECREASED the average speed on the road because of the increased > congestion, > and they were dealing with it by getting ever more aggressive with the > expected result that we saw and heard a large number of accidents and > deaths. For us this was a shock -- but thinking of the "acceptable" > number > of motorist deaths (not to mention bicycle and pedestrian) that we > have > become inured to in this country (US society), one has to wonder > whether > this has become an inevitable phase resulting from greater wealth and > isolation from one's neighbors? > > I very much wish that more people believed in "road karma", both > here and > abroad, but don't hold out much hope unless we become true communities > again, knowing our neighbors individually and personally (not > necessarily > liking all of them, but at least knowing their beliefs and trying to > find > common desires) and working toward what's in the best interest of our > society instead of the "where's my immediate gratification" that > seems to be > fairly universal whenever income and power become paramount. > > I'm beginning to feel like an old fuddy-duddy and at the same time > returning > to my roots in the '60s and '70s with "give peace a chance" and > "what if > they gave a war and nobody came?" > > Anybody else out there "getting the same vibes?" > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org > ] > On Behalf Of Thomas Magee > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 7:37 PM > To: 'John Forester'; 'sdcbc' > Subject: Re: [SDCBC] YouTube - SoCal Arterials and Lane Splitting > videos > > > ".... Furthermore, the American bikeway program has been running for > thirty > years, with very little switch from motoring to bicycling. I don't > hold out > much reason to hope for a different outcome within the planning > horizon." > > -- > John Forester, MS, PE > > And this is due in large part to the commercial media promoting > automobiles > -- fast, luxury, hot styling, you take your pick. It's a big part > of our > American culture, especially here in CA. > > Who is there that will give John Q. Public, his neighbors and > friends -- and > everybody else -- the encouragement to ride a bike in the first place? > > My belief is that, in the short term, we continue bicycling by good > example, > while making every effort to appear in the media to explain why > America > needs to change the culture -- for a multitude of reasons. It > begins with > you and me. > > > _______________________________________________ > > You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as mary.e.winn 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 > Opinions expressed here are those of the individual poster and do > not necessarily reflect the positions of the SDCBC or it's Board. > For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send e- > mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org From JimBaross at cox.net Tue Apr 1 16:41:03 2008 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross, Jr.) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:41:03 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] Marion Bear, Funding and Velodrome volunteering, was Re: Bogota vs. San Diego In-Reply-To: <232580.65948.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <232580.65948.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080401133444.06673568@cox.net> At 11:26 PM 3/31/2008, Eric Converse wrote: >Jim, Steve mentioned a way to avoid the majority of the Marion Bear >Preserve on a 52 path, do you think this would help move the >discussion along further with Marion Bear Preserve board? Can and >how do we get official sanction from the SDCBC to support such a proposal? It didn't help before. SDCBC has been in support of this. City may still have drawings/plans... though general. MBP folks didn't want ANY impact. Sorry to note that unrestrained bicycling has impacted the preserve already. Offering official/better routes migh reduce the amount of inappropriate users. >Stephan, is there anything members can do to help with the projects >you spoke of? Do we need to raise more money, increase volunteer >efforts, show up at planning meetings? I've been hearing about the >rail trail for some time, but what do you think will be required to >jump the hurdles you spoke of? Stephan can respond better. He's closer to the funding decision makers, but most all of the important decision makers are elected officials. One of their major concerns is being, continuing to be elected. Voters matter. Bicyclists vote. >It sounds like there are a lot of things we can do. Now I'm >wondering what the best thing to do next is and how we/I can help? "Join the club" There are more ideas than resources. >By the way, Kathy, Silke and I can volunteer for the Velodrome on the 6th. Great! >Eric > > >The City of San Diego is in the early stages of developing a bike >path on this utility easement as part of the Coastal Rail Trail. >They are also planning a bike path that would connect University >City to Sorrento Valley on another utility easement in Roselle >Canyon . Ultimately, the Coastal Rail Trail is planned to follow the >Amtrak/Coaster right of way north to Oceanside (except at the lagoon >crossings and a few other constrained points along the way). There >are, however, many hurdles to overcome and a great deal of funding >to identify before this project will be fully realized. > > > >Stephan Vance > >---------- > > >The major impediment was the reticence of the advisory board for >Marion Bear Preserve to allow for a paved Bike Path through their >canyon preserve. Change their minds and those of the adjacent >advisory bodies would likely go along. > >You do know that there are several Bike Paths along freeways and >arterials already in the region, right? > >Jim (been there, tried that, Ok to try again) Baross -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080401/a00f77b3/attachment.html From trevorspoke at cox.net Tue Apr 1 16:55:28 2008 From: trevorspoke at cox.net (trevorspoke at cox.net) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:55:28 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] YouTube, etc. In-Reply-To: <2E1981C2-EEFE-41FC-8F63-B21ACCB45419@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080401165528.1EYQL.100704.imail@fed1rmwml41> Mary, Welcome to the county and the community. I'm cheered by your can-do attitude about transportation choices, one should always lay out the options and pick the one that makes sense for today. I'm impressed that you've chosen a multi-modal approach (bike+shuttle) as your starting proposition. Plenty of riders in the county do the same on the Coaster, by the way. I do hope you realize you haven't quite sorted out your priorities yet. You can't have a 5-mile commute in San Diego if you choose for "personal" reasons to live remotely. A perfect place for you (level east-west route) would be UTC or Scripps Ranch, and even Mira Mesa would only involve one hill to climb. You've got to look at the topology, too. I've got a 15-mile trip, but it's mostly level from Poway to Sorrento Mesa. If you really love biking in San Diego, you have to learn to like short steep hills, since we have plenty of canyons. Come ride with the SDBC (San Diego Bicycle Club) on the weekend, you'll get trained up on Torrey Pines. For even more great training in traffic cycling skills and techniques, check out the bike coalition's web pages at sdcbc.org. Please remember that "danger" is a factual type of word, which is intended to convey that statistics do/would prove actual risk of harm. Intimidating, frustrating, or scary are more accurate words for most bicyclists to use. A semi passing close at 70mph is dangerous, you could be pulled under the truck. A motorist driving a small car past you in the same way is just inconsiderate, inattentive, or rude. Don't let yourself get too worked up by things that happen, instead treat them as learning experiences. Eventually you will become accustomed to and less affected by the small incidents and be able to distinguish the rest as being actually dangerous, then you can focus on how to mitigate or avoid those situations. -- Trevor From JimBaross at cox.net Tue Apr 1 17:47:59 2008 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross, Jr.) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:47:59 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] Great News if you advocate bicycling in San Diego! Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080401144540.0671f198@cox.net> Mayor Sanders has agreed to bicycle to bike to work on Bike to Work Day AND he has offered to have use his regular route, from Kensington via Highway 15 to 94 and 94 into down town. Should be a great event! Especially if it was held on April 1st. :-) From serge at issakov.org Tue Apr 1 18:09:13 2008 From: serge at issakov.org (Serge Issakov) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:09:13 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] Fwd: Now playing on YouTube - The Rights and Duties of Cyclists In-Reply-To: <8CA62554493A644-130C-F10@webmail-md12.sysops.aol.com> References: <002c01c89426$3a87de30$9c01a8c0@XPS400> <8CA62554493A644-130C-F10@webmail-md12.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <69ec985b0804011509h146f091cg2b16de79652aa59b@mail.gmail.com> Dan Gutierrez's recent posting of their videos on youtubehave ignited an interesting discussion that I'm CCed on. The latest video is entitled The Rights and Duties of Cyclists. I think it's the first one Dan has posted on youtube in which he has dubbed commentary. Again, it's worth a look. Messages discussing these videos keep getting forwarded between this ad hoc list and the list of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycling Professionals (APBP). I think this started when someone posted a link to the youtube videos on the apbp list, to which someone responded, that was forwarded to Dan, and Dan CCed a bunch of us when he responded to that. This particular message from John Schubert is particularly good, I think, so I'm forwarding it. Many of you should recognize his name as he is a fairly well known and obviously talented and knowledgable bicycling writer, and is the technical editor of Adventure Cyclist magazine. Though it's out of context from the rest of the discussion, Mr. Schubert is providing context with each point, and there is an earlier message attached as well. But he touches on many of the fundamental issues that we discuss and debate on our San Diego list, succinctly and clearly. If I was to pick the highlights, I wouldn't know what to exclude. I hope at least some of you enjoy it as well. Serge ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Schubert Date: Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM Subject: Re: Now playing on YouTube - The Rights and Duties of Cyclists To: [email addresses deleted] Robert Shanteau/John Allen, Could you please forward this reply to the APBP list? Thanks. -- John Schubert Dear APBP list: Your recent debate has spread far and wide beyond your list members. A few quick comments, forwarded to the list by a friend: -- I roundly dispute the notion that slow cyclists can't ride in a vehicular manner. I do it myself all the time. Anne Lusk (quoted below) has inferred from the riders' equipment that they were riding at high speed. Dan Gutierrez has directly responded that they were not. I live on a hill with a 13 percent grade, and often position myself for a left turn while climbing that grade at walking speed in a 25-inch gear. One look at all the fat old men and women who are vehicular cyclists really should put to rest the notion that this is for athletes. -- If humble equipment is a litmus test for political correctness, I also note that many people, myself included, ride in a vehicular manner when wearing street clothes, riding slowly, on very ordinary bikes. I used to do so in downtown Washington DC traffic (before they had their door zone bike lanes) and found Washington a very easy city to ride in by bike (a three-speed that I brought home from the dump) when I lived there. -- If videos of people using humble equipment are necessary to prove the point, this is a public relations question, not one of operational effectiveness. When I'm driving and I encounter cyclists, I don't divert my attention by looking at their clothing. I have no quarrel with using female cyclists in such a video, but then again, this is a matter of public relations, not proving the validity of the concept. -- Earlier, Steve Faust raised an interesting (but unproven) notion: that vehicular cycling "doesn't work" when the bicycle modal share gets too high. I guess that might be true if your top priority is to allow motorists to accelerate to top speed between stop lights. But what if that's not your priority? Then what's the problem? -- In a lifetime of cycling, I have no experience delaying an overtaking motorist from safe overtaking by more than about 15 seconds. Very few motorists don't already have this level of patience. I don't think it matters much to the overtaking motorist whether a cyclist is going eight mph or 16 mph. This is the difference between a slow utility cyclist and an athlete -- it's a big difference for the cyclist -- but I just don't believe it matters to the overtaking motorist. (It takes less road space to safely overtake a slower vehicle than a larger vehicle, so this teeny difference would actually cut in favor of the slower cyclist, in terms of the overtaking motorist's convenience.) -- One thing that none of us can change is as follows: the distances in the U.S. are usually greater than in older European cities. Few Europeans ride as far as four kilometers; most of their bike trips are one to three kilometers. For me (I live outside of a small town), the grocery store is six km away. My own experience has been that Europeans ride at jogging speed (six to nine mph). Because longer trips have longer trip times, and people the world over are sensitive to trip time, for cycling to be attractive to potential U.S. riders, higher speed (if you call 12-14 mph "higher") is a benefit. But I repeat: the great thing about vehicular cycling is that it works at any speed. Look at all the delivery bikes riding at slow speed, claiming the lanes on the main streets in New York. No one told those riders to be afraid, so they just ride. -- The exercise benefit of cycling at 6 mph (it barely makes your pulse flicker) isn't so wonderful that we should abandon all concern over intersection accidents to encourage cycling at 6 mph. We don't have an established base of millions of 6 mph cyclists; what we do have is an established base of millions of people who ride at higher speeds than that. Note that two of the three cyclists killed in bikelane accidents in Seattle and Portland last year were riding at speed. Those riders _are_ our constituents. -- The incoming anecdotal and statistical evidence keep me very focused on the need to base public policy on _not_ designing collisions into our roads and special facilities. This includes some traditional "malign neglect" issues such as sewer grates and slippery steel grating. It also includes putting bicyclists in the blind spot of turning motorists, the door zone, and other sad consequences of taking marginal road space and calling it "exclusive" for bicyclists. Note that Copenhagen reported a 30 percent increase in the accident rate from their cycle tracks; Berlin reported a sharp uptick in accidents when they installed sidepaths; Toronto has documented a large percentage of dooring accidents. -- What these facility-based accidents have in common is that the individual cyclist who obeys the traffic control devices (lane lines, signs, whatever) is the one who will have the accident. I can't think of any non-bicycle-specific traffic control device that has a similar safety problem. I don't believe society can get all motorists to look at their five o'clock bearing for an ant-size cyclist zooming downhill on their right at 25 mph, just as the motorist is making a right turn. Even if they did look, not all would see. I've spent enough time in large commercial trucks, and studied human visual perception enough, to know a bit about the visibility limitations. It so happens that Dan Gutierrez, whose video started this discussion, once parked his car, looked behind himself, opened his door. . . and almost doored a cyclist who had popped out of a driveway into the door zone at just the wrong time. -- The very notion of "separated" is a myth except in the case of rural rail trails and other park-like settings. Certainly for any urban transportation function, bicyclists and motorists will always be in the same corridor, and not very far apart. Pursuing the illusion of separation, with the consequence of making intersections more complex, does not have a good track record. -- Traffic cycling, vehicular cycling, integrated cycling, whatever you want to call it, suffers in popularity in large part because its traditional spokesman, John Forester, is such a wretched salesman. (I've said this to John to his face many times.) This is a hidden agenda behind many of these discussions: people don't want to be thought of as "Forester-like." But the viability of a thought exists apart from the person who had the thought. I consider Forester to be a good friend, and I somehow manage to disagree with him, politely, in many areas. I grant that not everyone has the same experience. But that should't be the basis for policy decisions. -- Roads of the coming century will accommodate an increasingly strange mix of vehicles. I'm waiting for small-displacement motorcycles to come back; they're extremely widely used in many other countries. Electric versions of same become more and more practical every year. The Twike (side-by-side human/electric powered faired recumbent) and similar machines are waiting in the wings. Every month, Popular Science seems to have a story about another machine that's somewhere in the continuum between roller skates and the traditional car. Many of these devices are closer in speed to a bicycle than to a regular car. Are we going to build special lanes for all of these categories of conveyance? No, and I sure hope we don't even try. From the standpoint of making viable public policy to accommodate all these conveyances safely, I believe we already have a superb plan in place: one set of rules, with speed positioning and destination positioning by individual need. -- I dispute the notion that "motorist wrath" is exacerbated by people wearing ordinary clothing when riding, for several reasons. This notion doesn't fit my personal experience; it requires more atttention spent looking at the bicyclists' "kit" than I think most people devote; and the public comments I see from non-cyclists tend to focus more on ridiculing spandex cycling clothing. -- Ian Walker's study purporting to show more space given to unhelmeted bicyclists is unworthy of serious consideration. The difference he measured was a few inches, an utterly insignificant finding because the average space given was around five feet. He chopped the Y axis on his graph to make this difference look more dramatic than it really was. This small difference most certainly was not operationally significant. But if you want to stick up for that study, you have to live with the fact that it purports to show greater motorist courtesy given to people who didn't look like athletes on their bikes, which runs counter to the assertion that such cyclists are magnets for "motorist wrath." To summarize: vehicular cycling works fine at any speed, with any equipment. I think it would be a great idea to have videos that show this, and I'm glad that Dan said he's working on that. I think Dan deserves some praise for insisting on professional quality production standards. Nice clothing on good-looking cyclists is part of Dan's passion for perfection, not automatic evidence that riders get harassed for riding in street clothes. John Schubert Secretary, Pennsylvania Pedalcycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Member, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bicycle Technical Committee Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness Freelance writer & author of two cycling books Coopersburg, PA -----Original Message----- ___________________________________ Dear All, In studying the video, I noted the quick release pedals and cleats. The riders were on touring bicycles and, especially with cleats, better able to maintain the faster speeds of the cars. They were not using old slick black rubber pedals, riding heavy bikes, or carrying children and groceries. Mighk Wilson nicely suggested that the video should include female cyclists. In the U.S., there are many experienced female cyclists who easily ride a touring bike, wear lycra, and use cleats. Thus, if this video just included females riding the touring bike, wearing cleats, and riding quickly, it still would be a singular vehicular bicyclist able to ride at fast speeds. These women might wear regular clothing but, to maintain the speeds, they still might want to be on a lean bike and wear cleats (or at least have toe clips). The slow speed bicycling and the very different non-vehicular-riding "look", as discussed by Andrew, causes frustration on the part of the car drivers or the driver just doesn't know what to make of a bicyclist that looks like this (a study suggested that a wider distance is given by car drivers to helmet-less bike riders). Perhaps with the U.S. push by John Forester in the 1970's to have vehicular cycling as the singular mode, we have created an iconic image in the U.S. of the solo high speed bicyclists who can bicycle effectively in traffic. A car driver will see this singular bicyclist, know they can behave properly as a vehicular cyclist, and give them their due. When the bicyclist does not look like that iconic solo vehicular cyclist and they are traveling at much slower speeds, that can bring on the wrath of the car driver (as experienced by the skilled bicyclist Andrew). Thus, a slower bicyclist without even toe clips, on a heavy bike, not wearing lycra, sitting upright, and perhaps carrying groceries, could be subjected to even "more" wrath from some car drivers than the vehicular cyclists, causing them to be doubly stressed riding in traffic. This bicyclist, as Andrew has commented, will doubt if he or she wants to continue bicycling if their only choice is vehicular riding. The model that we have built in the U.S. for bicyclists as vehicular riders is to have males or females riding solo, at a relatively high speed, on fast bike, and with gear that makes them "look" like a vehicular cyclist. The car drivers know and respect these bicyclists. Even if we change the perception of the car drivers and tell them that all bicyclists now can behave effectively as car drivers but they just don't look like the iconic vehicular cyclists (old rubber pedals, heavy bike, groceries, girls bar with some females wearing skirts), we still will have the slow speed issue. Bicyclists on these bikes can't ride any faster. It will be hard to tell the car drivers that they have to adjust their behavior and drive at 10 MPH (the comfortable speed for the laden bikes) behind these bicyclists. It will also be hard to tell the car drivers that they have to follow behind many bicyclists going 10 MPH. John Forester was an effective champion for the solo fast vehicular cyclist who didn't want to pick up groceries (Steve's comment). The model for this vehicular icon should continue because they ride effectively in the road and are respected by the car drivers (yes, there are exceptions). We should probably not, based on Andrew's experience, expect many more people to ride heavier bikes and become regular riders in car traffic, especially because when they ride slowly in their shoes with their clothing on their heavy and laden bike, they receive more wrath from the car drivers than a touring bicyclist. For these people, we might need other models, especially if we want to encourage them to bike. Anne Anne Lusk, Ph.D. Harvard School of Public Health 665 Huntington Ave Bld II Rm 314 Boston, MA 02115 AnneLusk at hsph.harvard.edu 617-432-7076 work 617-872-9201 cell 617-432-2435 fax -- NOTE: Any opinions expressed above are mine and not necessarily shared by any organization in which I am involved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080401/6106247b/attachment-0001.html From j.eldon at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 1 18:36:58 2008 From: j.eldon at sbcglobal.net (John Eldon) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [SDCBC] Fwd: Now playing on YouTube - The Rights and Duties of Cyclists In-Reply-To: <69ec985b0804011509h146f091cg2b16de79652aa59b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <323489.78642.qm@web52510.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Thanks for forwarding Schubert's message, Serge. The first paragraph below should be required reading in Portland OR, while the final paragraph further reinforces my own call for general traffic calming and speed limit reduction on prime arterials, because the current crop of neiborhood electric vehicles is restricted to streets with posted speed limits of 35mph or less, rendering them pretty useless in most of San Diego County. Serge Issakov wrote:[from John Schubert] ... Note that Copenhagen reported a 30 percent increase in the accident rate from their cycle tracks; Berlin reported a sharp uptick in accidents when they installed sidepaths; Toronto has documented a large percentage of dooring accidents. ... -- Roads of the coming century will accommodate an increasingly strange mix of vehicles. I'm waiting for small-displacement motorcycles to come back; they're extremely widely used in many other countries. Electric versions of same become more and more practical every year. The Twike (side-by-side human/electric powered faired recumbent) and similar machines are waiting in the wings. Every month, Popular Science seems to have a story about another machine that's somewhere in the continuum between roller skates and the traditional car. Many of these devices are closer in speed to a bicycle than to a regular car. Are we going to build special lanes for all of these categories of conveyance? No, and I sure hope we don't even try. From the standpoint of making viable public policy to accommodate all these conveyances safely, I believe we already have a superb plan in place: one set of rules, with speed positioning and destination positioning by individual need. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080401/da291c5d/attachment.html From JimBaross at cox.net Tue Apr 1 19:12:23 2008 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross, Jr.) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:12:23 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard In-Reply-To: <20080401093018.7CVJP.186539.imail@fed1rmwml18> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080331230303.07061e28@cox.net> <20080401093018.7CVJP.186539.imail@fed1rmwml18> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080401155709.03a7d630@cox.net> At 06:30 AM 4/1/2008, jwstump at cox.net wrote: >Jim & All, > >What do you think of a El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard > >It seems to have everything going for it: > >Excess East West road way (Commercial area declining for 40 years) >Parallel to two East West Freeways (I-8, SR-15) >Crossed by two Freeways (I-805. SR-15) >Major current Bus Route >Connects major urban populations from La Mesa to Hillcrest (SR-163) >Adjacent residents correct Bicycle demographics >High School Bus Ridership Routes >Connects to City Heights Transit Plazas above SR-15 >Connects to Balboa Park & Downtown cultural centers > >What do you think? As a potential Bike Boulevard? Not much. It's a useful corridor but not especially suited for bicycling other than providing a direct connection. It'd make a good BRT route though.... especially if the busses would carry significant number of bikes. One of the most hilly east-west routes across Mid-City Many many cross-streets, driveways and intersection conflicts Many signalized intersections - I'd rather keep rolling; maybe timing them for 10 to 15 mph traffic? Not a "comfortable" mileau - busy, lots going on, etc. Relatively high ADT - numbers of motor vehicles Lots of on-street vehicle parking Major bus route - bicyclists must negotiate for the same space Freeway on/off ramps encourage oblivious entry/exit by motorists. Though not serving the same full length of El Cajon Blvd. how about Upas, Meade and/or Orange. And, John, have you heard about the City Height CDC organizing a Candidate Forum re: Mid City Mobility. Call me is you'd want to get involved... >All the best >John Stump > >---- "Jim Baross wrote: > >============= >But having to stop offers opportunities to "put the pedal to the >...." well, to get some practice at accelerating, right? > >More seriously, have you discovered the concept/practice of Bike or >Bicycle Boulevards? > > > > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > >(Redirected from >Bicycle > >Boulevards) > >A bicycle boulevard is a shared roadway which has been optimized for >bicycle traffic. In contrast with other shared roadways, bicycle >boulevards discourage cut-through motor vehicle traffic, but >typically allow local motor vehicle traffic. They are designed to >give priority to cyclists as through-going traffic. > >Bicycle boulevards cater to would-be, inexperienced, and young >riders. As such, bicycle boulevards can be considered "stepping >stone" facilities that help recreational riders (for example) move >from bicycle paths and >trails onto shared roadways. > >Bicycle boulevards use a variety of traffic calming elements to >achieve a safe environment. For instance, diverters with bicycle >cut-outs at mid-block allow motorists to enter the block in order to >park or otherwise access a property, and allow cyclists to continue >to the next block as well, but do not allow motorists to continue. >Typically, these modifications are thought to calm traffic and >improve pedestrian safety as well as encouraging bicycling. > >The purpose of a bicycle boulevard is to improve >bicycle safety and >circulation by having or creating one or more of the following conditions: > * low traffic volumes (or >bike lanes where traffic volumes are medium); > * discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic; > * free-flow travel for bikes by assigning the >right-of-way to >the bicycle boulevard at >intersections >wherever possible; > * traffic control to >help bicycles cross major >arterial roads; and > * a distinctive look and/or ambiance such that cyclists become >aware of the existence of the bike boulevard and motorists are >alerted that the roadway is a priority route for bicyclists. > >>>> >These seem to certainly be cheaper to develop than Bike Paths, >provide more comfortable riding conditions without requiring or >encouraging non-vehicular movements for bicyclists, etc. I could see >bicycling on Meade Ave benefited by this treatment through Mid-City. >Where else? > >Jim (bikes anywhere it's legal) Baross > >At 06:17 PM 3/31/2008, Gene Carman wrote: > > >The biggest problem with the "bike route" idea is still the energy > >wasted by the cyclist while having to stop for each and every > >traffic control... that is the advantage of a bicycle > >hiway... preserving inertia... you maintain your pace for the > >whole distance. Imagine a route free of stoplights... Well such a > >thing exists if you are a motorist... but cyclists have no such a > >thing. (this is one reason some cyclists "jump" lights) > > > >A nice wide bike path, similar to the path that exists along 56, > >along each of our local main freeways would offer interconnectivity > >and inertia savings that would make it far easier to persons wanting > >to cycle vice drive. Why should cyclists be burdened with the > >traffic control system set up for motorists? > > > >How many of us go out into the country for nice long rides... only > >to come into the city and have to deal with congested roadways and > >traffic control geared for motorized traffic? > > > > > > > >At 09:09 AM 3/31/2008, Derek Hofmann wrote: > >>As a short-term, possibly cheaper alternative to building new fully > >>separated bike paths along freeways, how about creating "official" > >>bike routes that roughly parallel freeways, using existing streets > >>and new signs pointing the way? For example, the SR-52 bike route > >>could use Clairemont Mesa Boulevard for one leg of the route. > >> > >>On 3/30/08, Gene Carman > >><gcarman at san.rr.com> wrote: > >>Actually a bikepath "hiway" along the same routes of the existing > >>freeways would probably serve the largest population in the area > >>due to population growth that tends to occur along > >>freeways. Cyclists want to go to the same locations as drivers. > >>In many cases, there is a wider amount of land dedicated to the > >>freeway right of way then is actually used for freeway... a single > >>bikepath can be created in less space then 2 new lanes on a > >>freeway, and along the same right of way. Adding a 10 foot wide > >>bikepath can reduce the traffic load on a freeway more then adding > >>two 10 foot wide lanes to a Freeway can reduce congestion. > >>Funding should come from the same agencies that fund > >>Freeways... bike transportation facilities are simply another form > >>of public transportation. > >>OK, I've answered all the questions... when do we get started? > >> > >>At 10:13 AM 3/30/2008, Jim Baross, Jr. wrote: > >>>I'm happy and supportive of Eric's inspirations! Speaking in > >>>generalities, this sounds and could be wonderful... though you are > >>>likely to read responses about how it couldn't or shouldn't be done. :-( > >>>To seriously act on the inspiration - one that isn't BTW new to > >>>many of us - something besides dreaming and typing needs doing, right? > >>>Now, a few task suggestions. Figure out exactly where you think > >>>such a proposal would work in the San Diego area; a Bike Path or > >>>maybe a Bicycle Boulevard or ? ... connecting what and following > >>>or creating what route... then maybe think about/research an > >>>estimate of costs 'cause besides location, cost matters big time! > >>>You might be ready then with a proposal that SDCBC, an individual, > >>>or ? would propose to the site-owning agency for funding. Sound > >>>exciting? Good, then do it. > >>>It's sort of useless to debate the generalities between facility > >>>types when it's the specific site and uses that make for bigger > >>>differences, IMHO. Let's get specific. > >>>* Ban all but bikes, transit and delivery vehicles in a downtown > >>>area?... or impose single-occupancy vehicle use taxes for downtown > >>>like London has? > >>>* Create a Bike Path/MUP/Bike Boulevard linking Mid City or > >>>UCSD/SDSU or ? to Downtown or University Town Center/La Mesa or ? > >>>* what? > >>>Jim (likes dreams, lives reality) Baross > >>>At 01:52 AM 3/30/2008, Eric Converse wrote: > >>>>I've been inspired. These recent discussions on bicycle paths > >>>>have led me to create the following blog entry: > >>>>San Diego and Bogota Columbia (a bicyle path comparison): > >>>>www.ativsolutions.com/cblog > >>>>In short, you'll notice that Bogota (serving a much larger, and > >>>>poorer, population) does a couple of things we don't do > >>>>here. Their bicycle paths are contiguous and are routed through > >>>>major population centers. While many of our bicycle paths, while > >>>>pretty (riding next to the water mainly),are often fragmented > >>>>with huge gaps between them. What we need are long continuous > >>>>paths (much like our freeway system) that provide a backbone for > >>>>this city's bicycle transportation network. Needless to say we > >>>>won't always be on a bicycle path no matter how good we make the > >>>>system, but we can provide a network that links the city together > >>>>and serves vastly more people. > >>>>Can't we do at least as good as a poor city in a third world country? > >>>>Eric > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as > >>>gcarman at san.rr.com > >>>To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to > >>>http://www.bi > kesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc > >>> > >>>List privacy information is located at > >>>http://www.stickman-comput > ing.org/aup > >>>For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send > >>>e-mail to > >>>postmaster at stickman-com > puting.org > >>_______________________________________________ > >>You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as > >>derek.hofmann at gmail.com > >>To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to > >>http://www.bik > esandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc > >> > >>List privacy information is located at > >>http://www.stickman-computi > ng.org/aup > >>For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send > >>e-mail to > >>postmaster at stickman-computing.org > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>Thanks, > >> > >>Derek Hofmann > >>derek.hofmann at gmail.com >_______________________________________________ > >You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as jimbaross at cox.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 >Opinions expressed here are those of the individual poster and do >not necessarily reflect the positions of the SDCBC or it's Board. >For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send >e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org From execdir at sdcbc.org Tue Apr 1 19:24:21 2008 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:24:21 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080401155709.03a7d630@cox.net> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080331230303.07061e28@cox.net> <20080401093018.7CVJP.186539.imail@fed1rmwml18> <7.0.1.0.2.20080401155709.03a7d630@cox.net> Message-ID: <006a01c8944f$843f5750$8cbe05f0$@org> I vote for Orange/Howard - it's relatively flat, has few stop signs, and not too much traffic. It's strategically placed between University and El Cajon with good connectivity to both. It also has great freeway crossings for both 805 and 15. I think we could traffic calm it the length of the street (from 54th to Park) and have a wonderful east west connector. Not that I have a definite opinion or anything... ;-) Kathy -----Original Message----- From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org] On Behalf Of Jim Baross, Jr. Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:12 PM To: jwstump at cox.net; Derek Hofmann Cc: SDCBC Subject: Re: [SDCBC] El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard At 06:30 AM 4/1/2008, jwstump at cox.net wrote: >Jim & All, > >What do you think of a El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard > >It seems to have everything going for it: > >Excess East West road way (Commercial area declining for 40 years) >Parallel to two East West Freeways (I-8, SR-15) >Crossed by two Freeways (I-805. SR-15) >Major current Bus Route >Connects major urban populations from La Mesa to Hillcrest (SR-163) >Adjacent residents correct Bicycle demographics >High School Bus Ridership Routes >Connects to City Heights Transit Plazas above SR-15 >Connects to Balboa Park & Downtown cultural centers > >What do you think? As a potential Bike Boulevard? Not much. It's a useful corridor but not especially suited for bicycling other than providing a direct connection. It'd make a good BRT route though.... especially if the busses would carry significant number of bikes. One of the most hilly east-west routes across Mid-City Many many cross-streets, driveways and intersection conflicts Many signalized intersections - I'd rather keep rolling; maybe timing them for 10 to 15 mph traffic? Not a "comfortable" mileau - busy, lots going on, etc. Relatively high ADT - numbers of motor vehicles Lots of on-street vehicle parking Major bus route - bicyclists must negotiate for the same space Freeway on/off ramps encourage oblivious entry/exit by motorists. Though not serving the same full length of El Cajon Blvd. how about Upas, Meade and/or Orange. And, John, have you heard about the City Height CDC organizing a Candidate Forum re: Mid City Mobility. Call me is you'd want to get involved... >All the best >John Stump > >---- "Jim Baross wrote: > >============= >But having to stop offers opportunities to "put the pedal to the >...." well, to get some practice at accelerating, right? > >More seriously, have you discovered the concept/practice of Bike or >Bicycle Boulevards? > > > > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > >(Redirected from >B icycle > >Boulevards) > >A bicycle boulevard is a shared roadway which has been optimized for >bicycle traffic. In contrast with other shared roadways, bicycle >boulevards discourage cut-through motor vehicle traffic, but >typically allow local motor vehicle traffic. They are designed to >give priority to cyclists as through-going traffic. > >Bicycle boulevards cater to would-be, inexperienced, and young >riders. As such, bicycle boulevards can be considered "stepping >stone" facilities that help recreational riders (for example) move >from bicycle paths and >trails onto shared roadways. > >Bicycle boulevards use a variety of traffic calming elements to >achieve a safe environment. For instance, diverters with bicycle >cut-outs at mid-block allow motorists to enter the block in order to >park or otherwise access a property, and allow cyclists to continue >to the next block as well, but do not allow motorists to continue. >Typically, these modifications are thought to calm traffic and >improve pedestrian safety as well as encouraging bicycling. > >The purpose of a bicycle boulevard is to improve >bicycle safety and >circulation by having or creating one or more of the following conditions: > * low traffic volumes (or >bike lanes where traffic volumes are medium); > * discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic; > * free-flow travel for bikes by assigning the >right-of-way to >the bicycle boulevard at >intersections >wherever possible; > * traffic control to >help bicycles cross major >arterial roads; and > * a distinctive look and/or ambiance such that cyclists become >aware of the existence of the bike boulevard and motorists are >alerted that the roadway is a priority route for bicyclists. > >>>> >These seem to certainly be cheaper to develop than Bike Paths, >provide more comfortable riding conditions without requiring or >encouraging non-vehicular movements for bicyclists, etc. I could see >bicycling on Meade Ave benefited by this treatment through Mid-City. >Where else? > >Jim (bikes anywhere it's legal) Baross > >At 06:17 PM 3/31/2008, Gene Carman wrote: > > >The biggest problem with the "bike route" idea is still the energy > >wasted by the cyclist while having to stop for each and every > >traffic control... that is the advantage of a bicycle > >hiway... preserving inertia... you maintain your pace for the > >whole distance. Imagine a route free of stoplights... Well such a > >thing exists if you are a motorist... but cyclists have no such a > >thing. (this is one reason some cyclists "jump" lights) > > > >A nice wide bike path, similar to the path that exists along 56, > >along each of our local main freeways would offer interconnectivity > >and inertia savings that would make it far easier to persons wanting > >to cycle vice drive. Why should cyclists be burdened with the > >traffic control system set up for motorists? > > > >How many of us go out into the country for nice long rides... only > >to come into the city and have to deal with congested roadways and > >traffic control geared for motorized traffic? > > > > > > > >At 09:09 AM 3/31/2008, Derek Hofmann wrote: > >>As a short-term, possibly cheaper alternative to building new fully > >>separated bike paths along freeways, how about creating "official" > >>bike routes that roughly parallel freeways, using existing streets > >>and new signs pointing the way? For example, the SR-52 bike route > >>could use Clairemont Mesa Boulevard for one leg of the route. > >> > >>On 3/30/08, Gene Carman > >><gcarman at san.rr.com> wrote: > >>Actually a bikepath "hiway" along the same routes of the existing > >>freeways would probably serve the largest population in the area > >>due to population growth that tends to occur along > >>freeways. Cyclists want to go to the same locations as drivers. > >>In many cases, there is a wider amount of land dedicated to the > >>freeway right of way then is actually used for freeway... a single > >>bikepath can be created in less space then 2 new lanes on a > >>freeway, and along the same right of way. Adding a 10 foot wide > >>bikepath can reduce the traffic load on a freeway more then adding > >>two 10 foot wide lanes to a Freeway can reduce congestion. > >>Funding should come from the same agencies that fund > >>Freeways... bike transportation facilities are simply another form > >>of public transportation. > >>OK, I've answered all the questions... when do we get started? > >> > >>At 10:13 AM 3/30/2008, Jim Baross, Jr. wrote: > >>>I'm happy and supportive of Eric's inspirations! Speaking in > >>>generalities, this sounds and could be wonderful... though you are > >>>likely to read responses about how it couldn't or shouldn't be done. :-( > >>>To seriously act on the inspiration - one that isn't BTW new to > >>>many of us - something besides dreaming and typing needs doing, right? > >>>Now, a few task suggestions. Figure out exactly where you think > >>>such a proposal would work in the San Diego area; a Bike Path or > >>>maybe a Bicycle Boulevard or ? ... connecting what and following > >>>or creating what route... then maybe think about/research an > >>>estimate of costs 'cause besides location, cost matters big time! > >>>You might be ready then with a proposal that SDCBC, an individual, > >>>or ? would propose to the site-owning agency for funding. Sound > >>>exciting? Good, then do it. > >>>It's sort of useless to debate the generalities between facility > >>>types when it's the specific site and uses that make for bigger > >>>differences, IMHO. Let's get specific. > >>>* Ban all but bikes, transit and delivery vehicles in a downtown > >>>area?... or impose single-occupancy vehicle use taxes for downtown > >>>like London has? > >>>* Create a Bike Path/MUP/Bike Boulevard linking Mid City or > >>>UCSD/SDSU or ? to Downtown or University Town Center/La Mesa or ? > >>>* what? > >>>Jim (likes dreams, lives reality) Baross > >>>At 01:52 AM 3/30/2008, Eric Converse wrote: > >>>>I've been inspired. These recent discussions on bicycle paths > >>>>have led me to create the following blog entry: > >>>>San Diego and Bogota Columbia (a bicyle path comparison): > >>>>www.ativsolutions.com/cblog > >>>>In short, you'll notice that Bogota (serving a much larger, and > >>>>poorer, population) does a couple of things we don't do > >>>>here. Their bicycle paths are contiguous and are routed through > >>>>major population centers. While many of our bicycle paths, while > >>>>pretty (riding next to the water mainly),are often fragmented > >>>>with huge gaps between them. What we need are long continuous > >>>>paths (much like our freeway system) that provide a backbone for > >>>>this city's bicycle transportation network. Needless to say we > >>>>won't always be on a bicycle path no matter how good we make the > >>>>system, but we can provide a network that links the city together > >>>>and serves vastly more people. > >>>>Can't we do at least as good as a poor city in a third world country? > >>>>Eric > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as > >>>gcarman at san.rr.com > >>>To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to > >>>http://www.bi > kesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc > >>> > >>>List privacy information is located at > >>>http://www.stickman-comput > ing.org/aup > >>>For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send > >>>e-mail to > >>>postmaster at stickman-com > puting.org > >>_______________________________________________ > >>You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as > >>derek.hofmann at gmail.com > >>To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to > >>http://www.bik > esandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc > >> > >>List privacy information is located at > >>http://www.stickman-computi > ng.org/aup > >>For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send > >>e-mail to > >>postmaster at stickman-computing.or g > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>Thanks, > >> > >>Derek Hofmann > >>derek.hofmann at gmail.com >_______________________________________________ > >You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as jimbaross at cox.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 >Opinions expressed here are those of the individual poster and do >not necessarily reflect the positions of the SDCBC or it's Board. >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 execdir at sdcbc.org 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 Opinions expressed here are those of the individual poster and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the SDCBC or it's Board. For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org From thomas.treynolds at gmail.com Tue Apr 1 19:58:14 2008 From: thomas.treynolds at gmail.com (Thomas Reynolds) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:58:14 -0700 Subject: [SDCBC] El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard In-Reply-To: <006a01c8944f$843f5750$8cbe05f0$@org> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080331230303.07061e28@cox.net> <20080401093018.7CVJP.186539.imail@fed1rmwml18> <7.0.1.0.2.20080401155709.03a7d630@cox.net> <006a01c8944f$843f5750$8cbe05f0$@org> Message-ID: <998c822f0804011658t114c3747j6e8fe45928cf5e6e@mail.gmail.com> For what its worth, 25 years ago I lived and cycled in the area between University and El Cajon. Orange/Howard was generally the east/west route I would take, for all the reasons Kathy enumerated, plus the fact that it's lanes are relatively wide through most of its length. Tom thomas.treynolds at gmail.com On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Kathy Keehan wrote: > I vote for Orange/Howard - it's relatively flat, has few stop signs, and not > too much traffic. It's strategically placed between University and El Cajon > with good connectivity to both. It also has great freeway crossings for both > 805 and 15. I think we could traffic calm it the length of the street (from > 54th to Park) and have a wonderful east west connector. > Not that I have a definite opinion or anything... ;-) > Kathy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org] > On Behalf Of Jim Baross, Jr. > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:12 PM > To: jwstump at cox.net; Derek Hofmann > Cc: SDCBC > Subject: Re: [SDCBC] El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard > > At 06:30 AM 4/1/2008, jwstump at cox.net wrote: > >Jim & All, > > > >What do you think of a El Cajon Bicycle Boulevard > > > >It seems to have everything going for it: > > > >Excess East West road way (Commercial area declining for 40 years) > >Parallel to two East West Freeways (I-8, SR-15) > >Crossed by two Freeways (I-805. SR-15) > >Major current Bus Route > >Connects major urban populations from La Mesa to Hillcrest (SR-163) > >Adjacent residents correct Bicycle demographics > >High School Bus Ridership Routes > >Connects to City Heights Transit Plazas above SR-15 > >Connects to Balboa Park & Downtown cultural centers > > > >What do you think? > > As a potential Bike Boulevard? Not much. It's a useful corridor but > not especially suited for bicycling other than providing a direct > connection. It'd make a good BRT route though.... especially if the > busses would carry significant number of bikes. > > One of the most hilly east-west routes across Mid-City > Many many cross-streets, driveways and intersection conflicts > Many signalized intersections - I'd rather keep rolling; maybe timing > them for 10 to 15 mph traffic? > Not a "comfortable" mileau - busy, lots going on, etc. > Relatively high ADT - numbers of motor vehicles > Lots of on-street vehicle parking > Major bus route - bicyclists must negotiate for the same space > Freeway on/off ramps encourage oblivious entry/exit by motorists. > > Though not serving the same full length of El Cajon Blvd. how about > Upas, Meade and/or Orange. > > And, John, have you heard about the City Height CDC organizing a > Candidate Forum re: Mid City Mobility. Call me is you'd want to get > involved... > > > >All the best > >John Stump > > > >---- "Jim Baross wrote: > > > >============= > >But having to stop offers opportunities to "put the pedal to the > >...." well, to get some practice at accelerating, right? > > > >More seriously, have you discovered the concept/practice of Bike or > >Bicycle Boulevards? > > > > > > > > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > > > >(Redirected from > >B > icycle > > > >Boulevards) > > > >A bicycle boulevard is a shared roadway which has been optimized for > >bicycle traffic. In contrast with other shared roadways, bicycle > >boulevards discourage cut-through motor vehicle traffic, but > >typically allow local motor vehicle traffic. They are designed to > >give priority to cyclists as through-going traffic. > > > >Bicycle boulevards cater to would-be, inexperienced, and young > >riders. As such, bicycle boulevards can be considered "stepping > >stone" facilities that help recreational riders (for example) move > >from bicycle paths and > >trails onto shared roadways. > > > >Bicycle boulevards use a variety of traffic calming elements to > >achieve a safe environment. For instance, diverters with bicycle > >cut-outs at mid-block allow motorists to enter the block in order to > >park or otherwise access a property, and allow cyclists to continue > >to the next block as well, but do not allow motorists to continue. > >Typically, these modifications are thought to calm traffic and > >improve pedestrian safety as well as encouraging bicycling. > > > >The purpose of a bicycle boulevard is to improve > >bicycle safety and > >circulation by having or creating one or more of the following conditions: > > * low traffic volumes (or > >bike lanes where traffic volumes are medium); > > * discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic; > > * free-flow travel for bikes by assigning the > >right-of-way to > >the bicycle boulevard at > >intersections > >wherever possible; > > * traffic control to > >help bicycles cross major > >arterial roads; and > > * a distinctive look and/or ambiance such that cyclists become > >aware of the existence of the bike boulevard and motorists are > >alerted that the roadway is a priority route for bicyclists. > > >>>> > >These seem to certainly be cheaper to develop than Bike Paths, > >provide more comfortable riding conditions without requiring or > >encouraging non-vehicular movements for bicyclists, etc. I could see > >bicycling on Meade Ave benefited by this treatment through Mid-City. > >Where else? > > > >Jim (bikes anywhere it's legal) Baross > > > >At 06:17 PM 3/31/2008, Gene Carman wrote: > > > > >The biggest problem with the "bike route" idea is still the energy > > >wasted by the cyclist while having to stop for each and every > > >traffic control... that is the advantage of a bicycle > > >hiway... preserving inertia... you maintain your pace for the > > >whole distance. Imagine a route free of stoplights... Well such a > > >thing exists if you are a motorist... but cyclists have no such a > > >thing. (this is one reason some cyclists "jump" lights) > > > > > >A nice wide bike path, similar to the path that exists along 56, > > >along each of our local main freeways would offer interconnectivity > > >and inertia savings that would make it far easier to persons wanting > > >to cycle vice drive. Why should cyclists be burdened with the > > >traffic control system set up for motorists? > > > > > >How many of us go out into the country for nice long rides... only > > >to come into the city and have to deal with congested roadways and > > >traffic control geared for motorized traffic? > > > > > > > > > > > >At 09:09 AM 3/31/2008, Derek Hofmann wrote: > > >>As a short-term, possibly cheaper alternative to building new fully > > >>separated bike paths along freeways, how about creating "official" > > >>bike routes that roughly parallel freeways, using existing streets > > >>and new signs pointing the way? For example, the SR-52 bike route > > >>could use Clairemont Mesa Boulevard for one leg of the route. > > >> > > >>On 3/30/08, Gene Carman > > >><gcarman at san.rr.com> wrote: > > >>Actually a bikepath "hiway" along the same routes of the existing > > >>freeways would probably serve the largest population in the area > > >>due to population growth that tends to occur along > > >>freeways. Cyclists want to go to the same locations as drivers. > > >>In many cases, there is a wider amount of land dedicated to the > > >>freeway right of way then is actually used for freeway... a single > > >>bikepath can be created in less space then 2 new lanes on a > > >>freeway, and along the same right of way. Adding a 10 foot wide > > >>bikepath can reduce the traffic load on a freeway more then adding > > >>two 10 foot wide lanes to a Freeway can reduce congestion. > > >>Funding should come from the same agencies that fund > > >>Freeways... bike transportation facilities are simply another form > > >>of public transportation. > > >>OK, I've answered all the questions... when do we get started? > > >> > > >>At 10:13 AM 3/30/2008, Jim Baross, Jr. wrote: > > >>>I'm happy and supportive of Eric's inspirations! Speaking in > > >>>generalities, this sounds and could be wonderful... though you are > > >>>likely to read responses about how it couldn't or shouldn't be done. > :-( > > >>>To seriously act on the inspiration - one that isn't BTW new to > > >>>many of us - something besides dreaming and typing needs doing, right? > > >>>Now, a few task suggestions. Figure out exactly where you think > > >>>such a proposal would work in the San Diego area; a Bike Path or > > >>>maybe a Bicycle Boulevard or ? ... connecting what and following > > >>>or creating what route... then maybe think about/research an > > >>>estimate of costs 'cause besides location, cost matters big time! > > >>>You might be ready then with a proposal that SDCBC, an individual, > > >>>or ? would propose to the site-owning agency for funding. Sound > > >>>exciting? Good, then do it. > > >>>It's sort of useless to debate the generalities between facility > > >>>types when it's the specific site and uses that make for bigger > > >>>differences, IMHO. Let's get specific. > > >>>* Ban all but bikes, transit and delivery vehicles in a downtown > > >>>area?... or impose single-occupancy vehicle use taxes for downtown > > >>>like London has? > > >>>* Create a Bike Path/MUP/Bike Boulevard linking Mid City or > > >>>UCSD/SDSU or ? to Downtown or U