Focus for the SDCBC in 2010: The Urban Core
Posted By Sam Ollinger on January 5, 2010
Kathy Keehan, Executive Director of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
To conclude 2009, the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition held a board retreat in order to decide the focus of the Coalition’s efforts in 2010. One of the conclusions that was reached at the retreat was to place more advocacy efforts on the ‘urban core’ in the city of San Diego.
Reasons for doing so were based on the growing numbers of young, energetic bicycle advocates who resided in the urban core. Kathy Keehan, Executive Director for the SDCBC, has been actively working with the bicycling community to promote bicycling in San Diego. The urban core has been loosely defined as being bordered by the 8 on the north, the 94 on the south, Harbor Drive on the west and 70th on the east.
The Urban Core
San Diego has a long way to go to become a vanguard in bicycling. What would you suggest are the biggest problems the urban core faces? Use this as an open thread to discuss:
Comments
9 Responses to “Focus for the SDCBC in 2010: The Urban Core”
Join in the discussion
I think the northern boundary should include Friars Rd. I don’t bike in the area, but I hear it’s difficult to get to and from the urban core through Mission Valley.
I agree with Derek. The most pressing issue in my experience is the lack of a safe and convenient way from the Uptown mesa down into Mission Valley and back. We were promised a Class I path parallel to 1-15 when the 40th St. route was taken for the freeway expansion. As with many promises made to the local cycling community, the City and CalTrans reneged on their pledge to build this connection. Both Texas St. and Fairmount Ave. put cyclists in conflict with speeding motor traffic whose drivers are invariably surprised to find themselves sharing high speed transitions and ramps with slow moving cyclists. Texas St. over I-8 is bad enough, but Mission Gorge/Fairmount/Montezuma/Aldine is even worse.
Good comments on expanding the area to include Mission Valley, but I’m afraid it would be biting off even a more gigantic bite than we’re already contemplating. The Coalition certainly won’t only be working on issues in the urban core, but we do want to have a focus there to get some improvements (parking, signage, events, ???) going visibly in 2010. Let’s get some momentum going in the core, so we can then spread out that energy to the rest of the county.
So what should we be doing? more parking? free bagels for bicyclists every Friday? Ciclovias? Bike light giveaways? Car-free Fridays?
Most bike facilities take way longer than one year to complete, so let’s think outside the bikelane. If you had to pick one thing to work on, that you/we could complete in 2010 to improve cycling in the core, what would it be?
PS – on the I-15 corridor, work is starting again after a bit of a break. Caltrans and the city have money to do the environmental analysis of the bike path connection from Adams to Camino del Rio South, and that work should be done this year.
dang it. When I said ‘work should be done this year’ I meant ‘work on the environmental document’ not ‘work on building the bike path’. Sorry if anyone got all excited thinking the path would be done this year.
Must learn to proofread before hitting ‘submit comment’.
As someone who lives “outside” the core, I initially thought it’d be a bummer NOT to be included. But 3/4s of my commuter is inside the core and it’s also the area I wish most for better cycling areas and ammentities. Great idea SDCBC! I’m looking forward to your efforts!
Absolutely, the urban core represents the best of what cycling can do for cities as a transportation mode.
Most of N. County is too sparse and has BL’s etc on the major high speed roads, and the others don’t connect.
But the core can host Tour De Fat’s and actually get people to ride there.
As someone who commutes over the Texas street overpass, I completely agree that it needs reworking. And the need for the Adams/Camino connection. A diverse network can appeal to many different riders.
As to the needs in the core, bike parking that takes up street spots and offers real priority for bikes would be great at numerous locations. Also true bike boulevards where through motor traffic is diverted away, but bikes go through would be great.
Sharrows, sharrows, sharrows.
Someone please let Todd Gloria know we are looking for big things in 2010.
What are the hurdles associated with making bike boulevards? I don’t pretend to imply they are small, by any means, but I’m interested in what we can do to make them a reality. Sharrows or designated Bike Boulevards seem like such an inexpensive and wholly satisfying solution to a huge majority of San Diego cyclists. What has to happen to get some paint on the road and some signs put up? I’m being overly simplistic, obviously, but Bike Boulevards should be way easier to sell than bike lanes or bicycle specific infrastructure investment, I’d think (By “Bike Boulevard” I mean a street designated by signage and painted markings as a preferential cycling route, just like the examples in Berkeley. Cars allowed, but it’s very clear that bicycles have precedence on those routes.)
[...] SD Bike Coalition Focus of 2010 SDCBC Focuses on Urban Core in 2010 [...]