LJCPA Trustees 2/4/2021 Materials & Comments

The LJCPA Trustee meeting videoconference goes live at 5:30pm, so that participants can make sure their video and/or audio are working. The Chair calls the meeting to order at 6pm. Registration is necessary to attend the meeting: please visit https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-online-meeting-instructions/ for instructions.

This page contains links to the agenda for the meeting and materials applicants, their representatives, and interested parties submitted in connection with action items. There are no materials (beyond committee minutes) for Consent Agenda items.

If you have comments on these or other agenda items, you may submit them using the form at the foot of this page (following the list of recent comments).

Meeting Agenda

Elections

Minutes

Consent Agenda (unless pulled)

  • Can: 9044 La Jolla Shores Ln (667987, Trettin) see DPR 1/12/21
  • Cannot: 1228 Park Row (619886, Kivel) see DPR 1/12/21
  • Can: 7007 Country Club Dr (508125, Coston) see DPR 1/19/21
  • Cannot: 8561 El Paseo Grande (670093, Fortune) see PRC 1/18/21
  • (pulled) Can: 8405 Paseo del Ocaso (560839, Wilson) see PRC 1/18/21
  • Cannot: 8216 Caminito Maritimo (629762, Sammon) see PRC 1/18/21
  • Approve: MTS Route #140 bus line see T&T 1/20/2021

Action Items

(deferred) 7595 Hillside (522708, Gonzales)

(Process 3) Site Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a 7,091 sq ft 2-story over basement dwelling located at 7595 Hillside Dr. The 0.797-acre site is in the single family (SF) zone of the La Jolla Shores Planned District, Coastal (Non-appealable) overlay zone within the La Jolla Community Plan Area. Council District 1.

PRC 12/21/2020: PRC: Findings CANNOT be made 5-1-1
(height of structure and lack of drawings showing solid guardrail and metal fence at street)

416 Nautilus (669815, Marengo)

(Process 2) Coastal Development Permit to convert an existing 263 sf room over a 449 sf detached garage into a Companion Unit at 416 Nautilus St. The project includes adding 104 sf for a Companion Unit totaling 367 sf. The 0.072-acre site contains 2 detached residences on a single lot at 414 and 416 Nautilus Street. The site is in the RM-1-1 Zone, the Coastal (Non-App.-2) Overlay Zone, the Geo Hazard Zone 53, and the Transit Priority area within the La Jolla CPA, and CD 1.

DPR 12/8/2020: Findings CAN be made 5-2-1

La Jolla View Reservoir (331101, Oriqat)

Coastal Development and Site Development Permit Process CIP-2 (WBS# S-15027.02.06) for a proposed 3.11 million gallon circular concrete reservoir to replace the existing reservoir, replace the existing Muirlands Pipeline in County Club Drive with a larger 30″ PVC pipeline; and to demolish the existing La Jolla View Reservoir.Coastal Non App 1, Council District 1, Notice Cards 3. Notice of Final Decision to go to CCC. (Project previously reviewed by DPR & Trustees has not changed. CEQA-related Environmental Document has evolved from an MND to an EIR. Discussion will focus on potential project impacts and mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Draft LJCPA response to EIR to be discussed/ratified.)

DPR 1/19/2021: DPR: findings CANNOT be made 7-0-1
(EIR is inadequate: contractor oversight, evaluation of access alternatives, traffic management, pedestrian and other nearby resident safety, excavation soil handling, trail access and restoration, how and where species mitigation best benefits the community, revegetation, and handling of properties project will vacate. Comment period should be extended by at least 60 days for revision of the EIR in collaboration among relevant City and community organizations.)

Coastal Rail Trail (Gonzalez Nava)

This project creates a One-Way Cycle Track (Class IV) along both sides of Gilman Drive. The project proposes the following: protected North and South bound one-way cycle track (Class IV), continuous sidewalk along the west side, retains street parking, street lighting, traffic signal modifications, and new signal at La Jolla Village Drive. The project connects in the north to UCSD and the Genesee Avenue Class I Bikeway. The project connects in the south to the existing Class I bikeway under I-5 and SANDAG’s Class I Bikeway along Santa Fe Street.

T&T 1/20/2021: Approve 8-0-0
(Condition: Add sharrows in the southbound lane on Gilman)

Annual Report

PARC letter

STVR letter

Review or Submit Comments

If you submit comments below, please identify the agenda item to which they relate. Once the moderator approves them, comments will be displayed publicly, including the name you provide.

Please be as brief as possible. At a regular meeting, comments would be limited to 2 spoken minutes; that translates to between 200 and 300 written words. Please do not include URLs or links, since they may cause your comment to be flagged as spam. At her or his sole discretion, LJCPA’s moderator will reject comments that are unrelated to agenda items, or that are offensive, ad hominem, or otherwise inappropriate to reasoned discussion of the matters at hand.

Submitted Comments

15 thoughts on “LJCPA Trustees 2/4/2021 Materials & Comments

  1. Spencer

    Please build protected bike planes! We need more in this city so I can take my kids biking safely.

  2. Serge Issakov

    I’m a LJ resident, avid cyclist, bicyclist safety and rights advocate. and a LAB certified traffic cycling safety instructor. I have the following questions about Agenda Item 5.3 (Gilman):

    1.The stated $15+M project goal is climate action, particularly to increase numbers of bicyclists. What is the current bike usage on Gilman? What is the expected bike usage after project completion? Who exactly is expected to start bicycling on Gilman because of this project? Gilman residents going up to Trader Joes? UCSD students/staff to/from PB who are already not bike commuting? Who? How many more than currently? How do the expected increases (if any) in bike use warrant the financial and environmental costs of the project?

    2. Strava is an app that many cyclists use to track where they ride. One of the Strava segments, “UCSD to 5”, is a 1.4 mile stretch of Gilman starting just south of LJ Village Dr and ending just before I-5. Here is a link to it: https://www.strava.com/segments/8247128
    Here is some of the information we can glean from this segment:
    * Strava has records of 16,384 distinct individuals who have ridden this segment.
    * The fastest rider on this segment averaged 38.5 mph.
    * There are 555 riders who have averaged 30 mph or more on their fastest rides.
    * A vast majority, 13,592 out of the 16,384 (83%), averaged 20 mph or higher.
    * 20+ mph, or 30+ feet per second, is a very typical cycling speed on this road, and 30 mph, 44 feet per second, is not unusual.

    We also know that eBikes can travel up to 28 mph with battery assist.

    Is the bikeway designed for safety at these typical bike speeds?

    3. There are five uncontrolled intersections in the downhill/northbound direction:
    * Caminito Viva (LJ Shores Heights)
    * Driveway to 8660 Gilman (Congregation Beth El)
    * Driveway to 8288/8292 Gilman condo complex
    * Driveway to 8278 Gilman condo complex
    * Gilman Court (park n ride and another condo complex)
    How are right hook, left cross and drive out crash risks mitigated at these intersections given typical cyclist speeds of 20+ mph? Will the design naturally cause motorists to know to stop and look 200 feet (a 30 mph cyclist covers 200 feet in 4.5 seconds) up the bikeway before crossing to ensure they’re not in conflict? How?

    4. Standard bicycling traffic safety instruction from the League of American Bicyclists and Cycling Savvy teaches “destination positioning” when approaching points with crossing conflicts to mitigate crash risk. With time, bike commuters and sport cyclists learn to do this instinctively. It means moving away from the right edge when approaching an intersection where you’re not turning right to be more conspicuous, more predictable, and to have maneuvering/escape space. The concrete median, which is a crash hazard in and of itself, prevents people on bikes from employing this safety practice at the five uncontrolled intersections identified above. When parked cars are used as separation, it makes it practically impossible for motorists and cyclists to see each other. These project design features leave cyclists and turning drivers less likely to be aware of each other and the collision course they’re on.

    Gilman, with the current traditional Class II bike lane configuration, has an excellent bike safety record. The hazardous conditions introduced by this project are likely to change this. Is the City prepared to take on liability for injuries and potential fatalities emanating from crashes caused by the hazards introduced by this project?

  3. Ran Shenhar

    I’m with Serge on the bike concrete barrier.
    While it may or may not be helpful for family rides, it’s a risk for both commuters and sports focused cyclists, and eventually will cause folks to ride left of the barrier.
    Please reconsider the design to not only look good, but really help keeps cyclists safe.

    Thanks.

  4. Paul Jamason on behalf of BikeSD

    2/24/2021
    To: La Jolla Community Planning Association
    From: BikeSD
    Re: BikeSD Support of City of San Diego Coastal Rail Trail Proposal for Gilman Drive

    BikeSD would like to express its strong support for the City of San Diego’s bicycle project proposal for the Coastal Rail Trail’s Gilman Drive segment. Gilman Drive is a critical north/south corridor for bicyclists, and the main route for northbound riders to UC San Diego. The project’s protected bike lanes and additional features will improve safety for all travelers on this high-speed road, including the southbound I-5 on-ramp conflict.

    Safe facilities for riders of all ages and abilities are needed to achieve the City’s Climate Action Plan bike mode share and Vision Zero safety goals. Data from multiple studies, including one using 13 years of data across 12 cities (see below), show protected bike lanes are a proven method to increase ridership, while reducing injuries and fatalities.

    We are grateful that the City has responded to stakeholder input by adding signage and paint at intersections to reduce collision risk, and included slanted curbs inside of the protected bike lanes. The additional width of the bike lanes should also allow faster riders more room for passing. These features are all improvements over the protected lanes on Coast Highway.

    BikeSD would also like to note that the revised project is supported by UC San Diego, Councilmember LaCava’s office, and that it has received unanimous support from both the University Community Planning Group and La Jolla Traffic and Transportation Board (with a request for southbound sharrow symbols). Therefore we ask LJCPA to recommend the City’s Coastal Rail Trail/Gilman Drive bicycle project (agenda item #5.3).

    Sincerely,

    BikeSD Board of Directors
    BikeSD
    http://www.bikesd.org

    Protected bike lane study: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/05/29/protect-yourself-separated-bike-lanes-means-safer-streets-study-says/

    About BikeSD:
    BikeSD, is a San Diego local non-profit whose mission is to establish San Diego as a world-class bicycling city and create a more livable urban community by promoting everyday riding and advocating for bicycling infrastructure that works for people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds.

  5. Charles Sykes

    Please reconsider spending this amount of money on a project that will create dangerous turning conflicts with autos traveling at a high rate of speed. I have been riding on Gilman Drive since I was a student at UCSD in the mid to late 1970s and continue to ride on it on a weekly basis. I also drive it regularly, so I speak from the perspective of a driver as well. As a cyclist, I have never felt threatened by vehicles except at the I-5 interchange where turning vehicles have violated my right-of-way.

    Putting cyclist on the right side of parked cars puts them out of the view of drivers. Southbound bicycle speeds are much faster than on flat urban streets broken up with intersections every few hundred feet where many class IV cycle tracks have been installed. Most drivers do not realize how fast a cyclist will catch up with them as they slow to make a right turn, and if they do not see them as being part of the traffic flow, they may turn into as they slow to make their turn.

    As far as improved infrastructure for cycling, all I request is to have smooth pavement and a marked class II lane buffered on both sides. I would rather see the city spend funds to repave and re-stripe streets, than to build so called “protected” bike paths.

    Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion.

  6. Frank Lehnerz

    This comment is in regards to Agenda Item 5.3 – The Gilman Cycletrack/Separated Bikeway

    Dear LJCPA Trustees,

    Millions of taxpayers dollars are at stake here for this project and those behind it have still left may unanswered questions as well as yet shown us they are aware of the well-known issues associated with many separated bikeway designs. Within the past year we’ve seen no-skin-in-the-game politicians and public servants in a nearby city nearly ignore the advice put forth by dozens of skin-in-the-game cyclists, beach-goers, walkers, and runners many of whom were well aware of the safety hazards of some separated bikeway designs. That same city recently had a “right hook” collision which resulted in a death on a newly “converted” (and non-standard) separated bikeway. These crashes are sadly common on separated bikeways all over the US and Canada, yet they are ignored and downplayed by activists and bureaucrats.

    For the record, not all separated bikeways are safe for the intended users and this was highlighted yet often downplayed in a 2019 study by the IIHS. The primary study as of late that’s often cited for separated bikeways entitled, “Why Cities with High Bicycling Rates Are Safer for All Road Users,” was revealed to have some significant experimental and statistical errors which if it weren’t for the gatekeeping being done in academia masquerading as “science,” the study, as well as many others done by the same small group of researchers would have never passed peer review. (A good resource to learn more about this crisis in scientific integrity is the book “Science Fictions” by Stuart Ritchie, as well as the Grievance Studies affair.)

    The most common crash type between bicyclists and motorists occur at areas where the two parties may turn or cross each other’s paths. Or in other words: driveways and intersections. We know this from our state crash database systems and repeated attempts to mine these data still have not falsified this. Those behind this project, much like the ones in a neighboring North County city did not provide any objective data to the people to indicate that Gilman as it is today has a poor record of safety for cyclists. Instead the promoted subjective measures such as emotion.

    This design however, does a good job at mitigating these hazards at the actual signalized intersections – assuming of course all parties obey the traffic control devices. What the design however does not properly mitigate is the risk or a turning or crossing collision at the uncontrolled intersections and driveways and it creates an increased risk for all bikeway users inside the facility – especially in the downhill direction. It is not just the strawman “strong and fearless” cyclist who is in danger of this as the activists try to argue but anybody with any skill level even at lower speeds. Add the additional power of e-bikes and the risk of crashes inside these confined spaces as well as at crossing and turning conflict areas is elevated. To further add to the insanity, if such poor designs were accepted in say the aerospace industry or software industry, those responsible for the poor design would be held accountable. That is not the case when the designer is backed by the State and is protected by Design Immunity. Let’s not forget this city has a poor track record of keeping the existing bikeways clean from debris and properly maintained – this will be worse with confined space where access is limited. The overgrowth on Northbound Gilman in the existing bike lane is evidence of this basic failure in government services and probably contributes to the anxiety many bicyclists feel when riding in the area due to the need to operate closer to the travel lanes.

    The arguments for these designs do not take into account how human attention and information processing work nor allow the bicyclists any room or time (assuming “all ages and abilities” are even aware of the hazard to begin with) to escape dangerous situation should one occur. This also goes against the advice of most “defensive driving” lessons which insist that each person needs to have plenty of clear operating space and a way to escape a situation before it’s too late.

    Separated bikeways whether they be Class I bike paths (such as Rose Canyon) or Class IV Separated Bikeways (such as J-Street) have their place but when all the above-mentioned factors are properly accounted for in their design and when they’re installed in appropriate areas. While it’s very understandable to want to be separated from motor traffic on a road such as Gilman, this design has too many issues to make that a good tradeoff for all current users and future users regardless of age, ability, or whatever other identity factor is in vogue. If the people’s hard-earned money is to be spent on such a grand project and the people behind it are to be shielded by the immense privilege of Design Immunity, then they need to get this right.

    Let’s also consider the absurdity of the carbon output associated with expanding a road further into the undeveloped portion of the canyon for the purpose of accommodating what’s supposed to be an environmentally-friendly form of transportation. How many car trips will need to be replaced by bicycle trips along in this area to at least break even?

    Thank you for your time and consideration,

    F Lehnerz

  7. Andy Hanshaw

    Subject: Support for the Coastal Rail Trail/Gilman Bike Track (Agenda Item 5.3)

    Dear Board of Trustees:

    I am writing to express my strong support for the planned Class IV cycletrack and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure enhancements for the Coastal Rail Trail along Gilman Drive in La Jolla. In addition, I would support any additional safety improvements and efforts to educate riders on riding along this corridor.
    This project would construct and design critical improvements to infrastructure conditions and address safety along the Gilman Drive corridor by connecting two existing bikeways: the Genesee Avenue Class I bikeway to the north and the Class I bikeway under Interstate 5 connecting the Santa Fe Street bikeway to the south. Having a continuous connected and protected bikeway will encourage riders of all ages and abilities to use this corridor for both recreational riding and transportation needs.

    Gilman Drive is a critical link between the University of California, Interstate 5, and the rest of the San Diego region. Once completed, the project will improve access to existing bicycle infrastructure while providing essential safety infrastructure along the busy corridor. This improvement will promote connectivity and economic growth in the region.

    Again, I would like to express my strong support for this project. Thank you.

  8. Robert DeMaio

    With regard to agenda item 5.3, while well-intentioned, I think we have already learned in SD County that protected cycle tracks do NOT increase cyclist safety. The current section of road on Gilman Dr. is one of the safest sections that I ride in all of San Diego. PLEASE do not change this section of road. I, personally, will not ride in a cycle track on the roadway because it is more of a death-trap than riding in the regular lane with fast-moving vehicle traffic. Please reconsider.

  9. Karl Rudnick

    Regarding Agenda Item 5.3: The objective to get more people out on bicycles is great and aspects of this design is an improvement for all road users. I would like to offer comments for even further improvement.

    1. Given the budget allocated for this project, including expanding width through this corridor, a first rate Class I bikeway on the northbound side only may be a better choice to serve less experienced bike riders and/or those going to/fro UCSD for a truly protected bicycle facility. Note that the recent Class I adjacent to I-5 from Voigt, over Genesee, down to Roselle, is working fine and supports many cyclists of all experience levels. That I-5 bikeway has grades in areas even steeper than the max 4% grades you have at the north end of this Gilman section and is working without incident for 2-way bicycle travel. With a Class I on the northbound (east) side, an option would be to realign by removing new sidewalks on the southbound (west) side. Also, consider travel lane widths of 10′ throughout this corridor instead of 11′-12′, although the 11′ sections are an improvement. Since 2013, Solana Beach has uniformly restriped all travel lanes to 10′ – even when they reconfigured the major arterial Hwy 101 in 2013. This is an effective traffic calming measure and it has been a true success, despite skepticism before narrowing nearly every road in the city by restriping. Improved safety is always achieved with lower speeds. On the southbound side, you would also have room for a wider (than current) fantastic Class II bike lane with buffers to make up the remaining space. This would then easily accommodate the tens of thousands of cyclists who ride that stretch on the way to the Rose Canyon / Santa Fe bikeways. Since the majority of those cyclists are traveling at 20+ mph with some at 30+ mph occasionally, having no barriers on the left enables cyclists to move left to avoid any vehicle right turn conflicts and to easily move into position left of motorists turning right onto the I-5 onramp at the bottom of the hill. With a Class II bike lane, southbound motorists can also merge when clear into the bike lane to make a legal right hand turn into the 5 possible crossings. At those higher southbound cycling speeds, the left barriers also are a hazard when cyclists encounter any kind of obstacle in the bikeway, such as debris and slower cyclists. Your budget and road widths, including planned sidewalks, can easily accomplish such a design and would likely be somewhat less expensive with the first class (pun intended) bike infrastructure on only the northbound side.

    2. If you come to the conclusion that the only way to proceed is to have one way Class IV’s both northbound and southbound, you must make sure that you can safely accommodate the tens of thousands who now utilize this corridor. If the goal is to NOT decrease cyclist safety southbound, you must ensure there is proper signage to both ensure cyclists in the cycletrack should be riding slower (speed limits painted on the pavement would help) and that motorists turning across the conflict points (either right hook or left cross) should be warned that cyclists may be in their path. Right of way must be clear with properly placed signage and paint. Will the motorist or the cyclist have the right of way or must they negotiate using the universal “first come, first served” rule? This must be clear to avoid ambiguous fault assignment if a collision occurs between a car and bicycle. Experienced cyclists will no doubt completely avoid the southbound cycletrack entirely because of the reduced safety if they are to continue riding at their normal speed, which frankly is one of the attractions of riding this corridor to connect between North County Coastal and points south. A few of these cyclists will not know they have the legal right to do so, and in fact, can legally take the FULL lane because you need at least 14′-16′ of lane width before CVC 21202 applies forcing the cyclist to ride as far right as practicable. And the majority of motorists will likely not understand why a cyclist(s) may be taking up the entire lane in front of them when it looks like there is a usable bike “lane” to the right. Because Class IV’s are so rare in SD County, a southbound cycletrack design with 2 lanes adjacent MUST have shared lane marking (sharrows) on the road to acknowledge the cyclist’s legal rights. Not only is it legal, it will be by far the safest alternative for the tens of thousands who ride there now. Sharrows must be added adjacent to cycletracks like this in order to educate everyone and decrease harassment of legal bicycling.

  10. Renee Robinson

    I’m writing in regards to Agenda item 5.3. While adding safety measures along this road can help protect cyclists, the current plan of a barrier or using cars as barriers will only give cyclists the “perception” of being protected. With cyclists typically reaching speeds of 20+mph on the downhill section this leaves a high risk for cars making right turns at the 5 intersections they come across. First, cyclists will be hidden behind cars and not seen by motorists making right hand turns. Additionally, in areas where they may be visible, motorists often misjudge how fast the cyclist will be at the intersection during the time they are slowing their vehicle and then making the turn. This is a collision course in the making. A similar situation recently occurred on Leucadia Blvd where a cyclist was traveling downhill in a protected lane with bollards, in which a large truck made a right and struck the cyclist which ended in a fatality.
    Please consider a safer option that doesn’t set cyclists up for a collision course with right turning vehicles. Painted 3′ barriers and a door buffer area where cyclists are visible to traffic have been used effectively in a number of areas.

  11. Stephan Vance

    I am submitting comments regarding Item 5.3, the Gilman Drive cycle track. I come to this project with over 30 years of experience as a transportation planner with a focus on active transportation. In fact, I worked on the original project study report for the Coastal Rail Trail (CRT), though this Gilman Dr. segment was not a part of that original study. I also am an avid cyclist and have ridden up and down Gilman Dr. innumerable times. The CRT is an import regional bikeway corridor, and this project will make significant improvements to a segment of the CRT that connects Clairemont and the beach communities to UCSD and the employment sites on Torrey Pines mesa.

    There are over 600 cycle tracks in North America accounting for over 470 miles of bikeway in something like 130 cities. Our experience with these facilities is that do a great job of attracting more people to ride bikes, and they make streets safer, for everyone, not just people riding bikes. As Chair of the Bike Coalition
    Advocacy Committee, I’m well aware of the concerns raised by some cyclists about potential conflicts at turning points, but I think the design team has done a very good job a designing to mitigate that risk. In addition, by designing extra wide cycle lanes they have created a facility that will serve well every prudent bike rider who rides the corridor. I encourage you to support this project.

  12. Patricia Bazan

    I have lived in UTC for 18 years and have owned a home on Regents for the past 15 years. Every single day, as I look out the window, I see scores of cyclists ride by: commuters, member of cycling clubs, parents with their kids, triathletes, retirees, you name it. I am also one of those cyclists. I ride several times a week: before or after work, lunch time, weekends… On the weekends, I ride far north, far east or far south and I’m gone for many hours. But most of the time, especially during the week, my riding is limited by my busy work schedule so I ride nearby my home in my community. I ride Gilman several times a week. I don’t want a cycle trap built there. I don’t think it’s needed and I believe it would only further endanger cyclists. I don’t like what Encinitas did with the Cycle Trap they built there. I ride the coast and avoid the cycle trap there preferring to take the lane solo. A high number of accidents have occurred in the cycle trap in Encinitas as well as inside the cycle traps in other San Diego locations. I am concerned and opposed a cycle trap on Gillman.

    This is my community. I hope my thoughts are considered.

    Thank you

  13. Mike Burrows

    This project will NOT entice children to ride up a long hill.
    This project will NOT allow for the level of future expansion hoped for by BikeSD or the city’s Climate Action Plan.
    This project will NOT provide enough barrier to protect cyclists from errant motorists.

    This project WILL protect road debris & decay from routine maintenance.
    This project WILL be a higher than necessary carbon footprint exercise, contrary to Climate Action Plan objectives, with its extensive use of concrete curbing.
    This project WILL suck up bike infrastructure funds, that could be spread farther afield, when the goal could be met for the cost of paint striping.
    This project WILL guarantee that if bicycle traffic increases to hoped for levels the cost of expansion will be extravagant.

    The model for this project, and more, has already been realized on the uphill segment of coast highway at Torrey Pines. For much less time & money.

  14. Dan Goese

    ▶ Any time you hide cyclists behind parked cars—like in the proposed Gilman Drive meat grinder—icross-traffic and turning cars will hit and may kill cyclist. This is because drivers do not look carefully enough for cyclists.
    ▶ The City has not provided ample reason for their refusal to lower the speed limit. Just post the new lower limit (e.g. 35 mph), ticket speeders, and the word will get out, and drivers will slow down.
    ▶ PLEASE INCLUDE SHARROWS. The lack of sharrows help selfish drivers feel justified in honking at cyclists using the lane, which they are legally entitled to use. The City has used errant justification for their resistance to including sharrows in the right-most vehicular travel lane. Sharrows signage on the pavement and on signs will show cyclists and e-bike commuters that the City cares about bicycling for recreation, environmentally-sensitive commuting, and sensible transport given our temperate climate.
    ▶ I am not a “racer” or a “professional.” Ignorance of cycling is rampant in many of these meetings. I am just a 62-year-old cyclist who would rather not be killed by an inattentive driver. When I ride from La Jolla Village Drive to Villa La Jolla every Saturday morning via Gilman Drive, using the “trapped track” bike prison lane makes me stop 3 times where normally I don’t need to stop at all if the left-turn arrow is green at Villa La Jolla.
    Thank you.

  15. Noah Harris

    Good evening. This is Noah Harris, Transportation Policy Advocate with Climate Action Campaign, writing in support of class IV, physically protected cycle tracks on Gilman Drive.

    The most up-to-date climate science, including the landmark UN IPCC Special Report on Global Warming, states that we must eliminate carbon emissions as soon as possible to stave off the most devastating impacts of climate change.

    With over 40% of the region’s greenhouse gas emissions coming from transportation, we must prioritize infrastructure investments that will provide residents with the ability to choose sustainable modes of travel, like bikes.

    A connected network of physically protected bike facilities is the only way to make bike commuting safer and more accessible for San Diegans of all ages and abilities. This project will connect two existing class I facilities in the area, making it a strong project in service to our Climate Action Plan goals.

    Please support the Gilman Bike Tracks, as they will help reduce vehicle miles travelled and car pollution, while making biking safer for all. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *