REGION: SANDAG to peddle a 500-mile bike network

Plan aims to make cycling a regional experience [--subhead locked for editing by Larry Wright; any changes you make will be discarded--]

By DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer | Thursday, October 16, 2008 5:29 PM PDT ∞

Construction workers perform survey work for the ongoing construction of the concrete pillars for the bike bridge over Lake Hodges in the Escondido/Rancho Bernardo area. (Photo by Don Boomer - Staff Photographer)
Construction workers perform survey work for the ongoing construction of the concrete pillars for the bike bridge over Lake Hodges.
(Photo by Don Boomer - Staff Photographer)

A proposed 500-mile regional bike network of continuous, connected paths would allow cyclists to ride all over San Diego County without stopping and in relative safety, away from much faster and bigger motor vehicles.

The preliminary proposal, drawn up by the San Diego Association of Governments, a regional planning agency, after meetings with cyclists over the last several months, will be rolled out at a pair of public workshops next week, including one in North County.

In North County, the plan calls for extending the bike path along the San Luis Rey River in Oceanside east to Interstate 15, completing the Coastal Rail Trail along the Coaster tracks, further developing the Inland Rail Trail along the Sprinter line and building a path south from San Marcos along Twin Oaks Valley Road, among other projects.

A bikeway in the I-15 corridor is planned, incorporating the lanes striped on Old Highway 395 and building bike paths in Rancho Bernardo and Poway that tie into the bicycle bridge under construction over Lake Hodges.

"People don't stop biking once they hit the city limit," said Kathy Keehan of Rancho Bernardo, executive director for the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition. "People are biking all over the county and they need to be able to connect all over the county."

The meetings are set for 6 to 8 p.m. Tuesday at the Carlsbad Senior Center, 799 Pine St., and for 6 to 8 p.m. Wednesday at the Hall of Champions Sports Museum in Balboa Park, near downtown San Diego.

After getting more feedback from the public and from elected officials, association planners expect to refine their proposed plan and take it to the agency board for adoption in March or April.

So far, the plan seems to be headed in the right direction, said Howard La Grange, chairman of the Oceanside bicycle committee.

"When you talk to cyclists on the road, one of their biggest concerns is safety," La Grange said. "They're always concerned about being hit from behind. And with the high gas prices, we've seen a lot more cyclists on the road."

But as the plan is rolled out, La Grange said, he hopes the association will push for completion of the North County system, particularly the crucial Oceanside portion of the Inland Rail Trail where a narrow right of way is making progress slow.

Chris Kluth, pedestrian and bicycle program manager for the agency, said the final plan will contain about 30 proposed bike path projects. He said was unclear how much those projects will cost or how the region will pay them, but that the $280 million set aside in the recent TransNet sales tax measure for cycling projects will be a primary source of funding.

The association has just completed a plan. Details are available at www.sandag.org/bicycleplan.

Keehan, who has been working with the agency on the strategy, said the region needs to close the numerous gaps in the existing system. Too often, she said, people ride for short stretches, only to have paths disappear abruptly.

"It's as if we built a couple miles of I-5 and then left a gap ---- and then started up again," Keehan said.

The association is proposing a variety of bicycle-travel facilities, including some unconventional ones.

About half of the facilities, totaling 265 miles, would be so-called Class I bike paths that are physically separated from motor vehicles by concrete barriers or strips of landscape. Those tend to be favored most by cyclists.

"But we can't do that everywhere," Kluth said. "There is not enough room."

So the agency also is proposing something called a "cycle track" and a "bicycle boulevard."

The cycle track, like the bike path, separates cars and bikes. But it incorporates the track into an existing roadway and does not require additional land. The idea is to have one-way tracks for bikes on either side of a street, and to separate those from vehicle traffic by raised concrete barriers.

Keehan is wary of the cycle track because, she said, it is not as safe as the bike path.

"While I think it's an interesting idea, and maybe something we want to experiment with, I'm not sure we want to do 74 miles of them in San Diego County," she said.

The association also is proposing 30 miles of bicycle boulevards. Those are residential streets shared by cars and bikes that rely on traffic circles, stop signs and narrow lanes to slow down vehicles.

The preliminary plan calls for about 135 miles of striped bike lanes on streets.

Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney@nctimes.com.

Next Previous

More Stories

Tags: Top NCT News Local Regional

Bookmark and Share

Ads by Yahoo!

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Derek wrote on Oct 16, 2008 6:23 PM:A bicycle in the hands of an experienced cyclist on a well-designed road isn't as unsafe as the article makes it out to be. Being hit from behind is actually pretty low on the list of accident statistics. And bike paths that aren't fully grade-separated (including intersections) aren't as safe as you think, because sometimes they'll dump you right into traffic.

We should be working to make *all* streets safe for bicyclists and not just create a network of bike paths and call it a day.

Cha Ching wrote on Oct 16, 2008 7:17 PM:"He said was unclear how much those projects will cost or how the region will pay them, but that the $280 million set aside in the recent TransNet sales tax measure for cycling projects will be a primary source of funding."

Yet another example of completely unnecessary projects to be funded by the tax payers. I do not recall ever voting for this it must have been hidden away with a bunch of other pork in some other worth while project that they knew voters would approve.

By the way 280,000,000 = $3,196.34 every hour for the next 10 years and apparently this isn't even the full price tag for this project.

Signed,
Cyclist with a conscience!

George wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:50 PM:When SANDAG put the TransNet tax before the voters, they said it was for congestion relief on our freeways (Details in "Reject the regional transportation plan", NCT November 19, 2007). To their way of thinking, bicycle lanes are a form of congestion relief so they can use TransNet money for this purpose. Also to their way of thinking, adding regular lanes to the freeways is not a form of congestion relief which is why we don't see any major effort from them along those lines.

Another waste wrote on Oct 17, 2008 6:30 AM:of taxpayer money. This should be funded by registering and licensing bicycles and using that money to build this. Tolls on bike paths would be good also. This $280 mill could go toward relieving traffic on 78 which the Sprinter hasn't done, surprise!

Walt wrote on Oct 17, 2008 6:32 AM:Perhaps there will be some numbers at the workshops? TransNet II in 2004 was promoted as congestion relief. What share of the $280 mil for bike paths will contribute? Is it legal use of these funds unless all is? In practice what share of commuter period trips where most congestion occurs are by bike? What is the cost per trip compared to adding roads as George suggests?

John E wrote on Oct 17, 2008 7:37 AM:Speaking as a transportation and recreational bicyclist with 100,000 miles of cumulative experience on the streets of southern California, I adamantly oppose cycle tracks anywhere there are driveway crossings or intersections.

Most collisions between bicyclists and motor vehicles occur at intersections, and forcing bicyclists up against the curb, to the right of right-turning motorists and out of the primary visual field and attention of oncoming left-turning motorists, is a recipe for disaster.

One of the most fundamental principles of safe bicycling in traffic is destination-appropriate lateral positioning. This is why properly-designed bike lanes break and then reappear on the LEFT side of right-turn-only lanes, and why properly drawn bike lane stripes become hashed or disappear entirely on intersection approaches without designated right turn lanes.

Jim wrote on Oct 17, 2008 7:41 AM:Seems like a sensible way to fund this is to tax all bicycle related items heavily and to require a bicycle registration much like a car. Maybe toll bicycle lanes?? Hunters, fisherman and ATV enthusiasts have been all taxed heavily to enjoy their respective endeavors. There is no reason the bicycling crowd is any different. C'mon California!! Heavily tax, heavily regulate and hit 'em in the wallet. We know you can do it !!!

Ask wrote on Oct 17, 2008 8:21 AM:Sandag, you finally listened to all 50 cyclists. Gee, thats only $5 million per.

Too bad you didnt listen when you built more carpool lanes instead of regular lanes.

I had hope you would have learned by now.... Another hope crushed.

got questions wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:09 AM:I have been cycling in traffic in this county since I was 10 (thats more than a few years), and while I see the bike paths as a nice idea, I think the $$ would be more prudently spent on fixing potholes (which force bikes into traffic) and remarking the bike lanes where they have dissappeared, and teaching bicycle saftey to schools. And I am not opposed to paying a reasonable license fee, but toll lanes are another thing all together.
If people actually knew how drive on the road, we wouldn't have a need for bike paths -- sorry but the truth hurts, more people should be called in for their driver;s test more often.

Stephen wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:10 AM:Trust me - SANDAG is unaccountable and does what it wants. Let's spend tons of money for a bike system that hardly anyone uses! Makes sense...SANDAG sense that is. Let's waste taxpayer money of bike maps... It's all about shifting funds and hiding money - a shell game. It's time for Keehan to come back to the real world and stop hitting the secret sauce.

bibo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:40 AM:a good start however we need much more money to put into cycling related causes! more bike lanes, dedicated bike traffic signals, bike storage garages, covered bike lanes etc

Jim wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:36 PM:Denmark, Holland and other European countries prove that if you build the infrastructure it will be used.

Open HOV Lanes to all wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:33 PM:Sandag: If you looking to ease traffic, open up the HOV lanes! It is ridiculous that our tax money pays for so many extra lanes for so little traffic yet the regular lanes continue to be clogged with cars. Obviously trying to force people to carpool is not working because who has the same schedule? You are spending too much on the bike lanes and I bike!

Mumford wrote on Oct 17, 2008 5:14 PM:We don't need congestion relief. If you sit in gridlock on a regular basis, you obviously don't mind it enough to find a way to avoid it. But it's fun complaining, isn't it?

TYF wrote on Oct 17, 2008 7:22 PM:The problem with bikers around San Diego County is they refuse to pay even a share of their own way; with relation to the cost of road signs, bike lanes and specific bike routes for
bikers, the bikers themselves
are bad bums...
For every one bike that a person can see on a road anywhere near here: 99.999% of the bikes have no bike
registration...
Around here (La Jolla) many of the bikers are actually criminal beyond no bike registration: sidewalk biking into or at pedestrians is aggravated assault and battery. Riding a bike into or at a moving vehicle (I've seen it happen at least once a week for while now: as unbelievable as it may seem...) or
a pedestrian on the road or even the bike lane is assault and battery.
Most bikers don't behave well enough to even be allowed to ride bikes around SD County or anywhere else... Seemingly, it would benefit the City of SD to completely banish the bikes.
The best bit of all the biker's attempts at bashing (why so many "think" they are riding a
bike to hurt a man or woman):
biking is bad...
It causes vast muscular constriction which eliminates a biker's ability to properly hydrate (dehydration of the muscle and organ mass from the extreme deficit of the blood circulation), which only contributes to heart failure, lung tissue damage, dyfunctional development of the skeletal/muscular mass and/or
deformity; biking is "exercise"
IF ONE IS TRAINING TO BE A MONKEY.

Monkey wrote on Oct 17, 2008 7:44 PM:"The problem with bikers around San Diego County is they refuse to pay even a share of their own way..."

What are you talking about? The TransNet sales tax, which even bicyclists pay, is paying for this.

Spanky wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:04 AM:These comments have little or no value because they are anonymous. We can't even entertain the idea of considering these opinions because they're probably written by children but I'm going to make it a priority to give the advertisers up the right column some of my money. I'm outta here!

Cyclist wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:46 PM:While most motorists might not be cyclists, most cyclist are motorists. So if I pay a tax on my car to use the roads, and I opt to use a bicycle instead it would seem to me that I have that right, so why should cyclists pay more to use the roads? Let my car tax go to bike paths because I rarely use my car. Furthermore, since I am not using my car, I am not polluting your air, or clogging your freeways, or using gas and helping to keep prices high....what are you doing for me?

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos