After doing this research and looking at San Diego’s bicycle network as a whole, what is the one thing you think city officials, advocates and residents most misunderstand about the current state of bicycling in San Diego?
The most insidious assumption I see being made about the state of San Diego’s bike system is assuming that infrastructure is equal to safety. There is much reporting on the mileage of bike facilities the city has, and emphasis on promoting bike lanes in highly trafficked, key corridors; however, if you look at the behavior and car centric infrastructure that facilitates dangerous driver and high conflict areas- infrastructure alone isn’t enough to promote biking as a feasible alternative for all types of road users. Given that class I bikeways are rarely feasible, fiscally or physically, in highly traffic, well connected areas, class 4 bikeways are only effective and welcoming as the traffic is around them. Plastic bollards can only do so much, dozens of conflict points due to lane changes and driveways increase the potential for collisions, and simply it is not comfortable biking next to cars going 35+ mph (“which is the speed at which a collision with a vehicle carries an approximately 85% risk of fatality for a bicyclist). If we are to tangibly increase accessibility to biking as a mode shift to reduce greenhouse gasses, promote neighborhood health, increase safe routes to schools for children, and improve active transportation connections to key destinations, then we need to focus on implementing corridors that look to shift driver behavior through methods such as traffic priority signals, road diets, bulbouts, etc., while also protecting vulnerable road users such as bicyclists.
One of the report’s themes is the difference between having bicycle infrastructure and having a bicycle network. How much of San Diego’s existing infrastructure would you describe as genuinely useful for everyday transportation, rather than primarily serving experienced cyclists?
Looking at the data, and assuming the efficacy of a bike lane to fit the needs of users of all ages and abilities, only about 8% of the bike network on our local roads has protected infrastructure (Class I or IV). Now this doesn’t take into account collision density in these areas, posted speed limit, urban form, or connectivity. Drawing upon my own biking experience, taking my newbie friends out throughout the city, and interviewing experienced cyclists and their considerations for their family, many potential bicyclists are deterred from exploring areas not completely protected. I myself warn people new to biking to reconsider biking to new destinations without an experienced cyclist, urging them to connect with public transit instead as if you are not completely aware of your surroundings, chances are a distracted driver will easily bull over the “protected” infrastructure in place
- The report finds that San Diego has built nearly 700 miles of bicycle infrastructure, yet much of the network remains high-stress or disconnected. What does that tell us about the limitations of measuring progress by miles of bike infrastructure alone?
- Can you give an example of a high-stress corridor that would not just benefit from improvements but provide benefits for riders throughout the network?
- It’s nothing new but the data support, and the people have been shouting from the rooftops, that Pacific Highway is the one of the most critical corridors in need of updated bicycle and road infrastructure. This segment has a level of traffic stress score of 3.75 with almost 90% of the corridor lacking bicycle protection. What is abhorrent is that within 5 years there have been 23 fatal or severe-injury bicycle collisions. Not only does this point to the severity of safety conditions within this area but shows how critical of a connector this corridor is to the key destination. This corridor can provide a crucial north and south link to within the city, these corridors connect the new age urbanites, San Diego families, and coastal lovers to the beauty and community San Diego is known for.
- To provide an answer that is not always touched on, Mira Mesa Boulevard is RIPE for a street redesign. The rapid sprouting of apartments, concentrations of schools, and wide array of groceries, stores, and eateries positions Mira Mesa to be retrofitted for easy biking. I won’t pretend its walkable due to its expanse, but if that audacious “local freeway” could be converted into a calmed, two way roadway with protected infrastructure, enforced speed limits, intelligent transportation technology for safety, then we could begin the transformation of an area emblematic of car-centric urban sprawl into a multimodal network- showcasing how ridiculous parking lots are, how isolating driving is, and how freeing active mobility can be.
- If there’s something else you’d like me to quote you saying that doesn’t fit into the questions, let me know and I’ll include them. Thanks!
- Answer: The one thing I want to add is that it seems like the narrative around bike infrastructure and cycling as a whole is isolated from any other transportation options. It’s either you’re a cycling fanatic or a cyber truck driver. But if we really want to provide mode shift, start to connect our communities and foster communal living, integration and collaboration with our neighbors and our local environment, we need to use all thread available to weave a reimagined tapestry of urban living. Public transit expansion, microtransit and carsharing pilots, bike sharing, bike locking, promoting affordable and middle income housing near key destinations and employment, allowing remote work and providing free access to green space, this is all necessary to not only expand safe biking for everyone, but for the vitality of all of our San Diego neighborhoods.