Letter to the Mayor re: Recommendations for Active Transportation Actions as COVID-19 Response
BikeSD sent the following letter to the Mayor and City Council of San Diego in coordination with several other advocacy & community organizations.
---
Dear Mayor Faulconer,
On behalf of the undersigned transportation and community-based organizations, we are writing with recommendations for how to address the public health crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic through addressing transportation needs. Our recommendations aim to aid essential travel needs for individuals and household units and relieve pressure from overcrowded sidewalks; in no way do we aim to encourage group activities with these recommendations.
Based on the need to allow for safe physical distancing of at least six feet to reduce the risk of transmission, we recommend the following immediate actions be taken:
- Modify Pedestrian Signal Activation - Most streets with pedestrian crossing buttons require that they be pushed to change the light and activate the walk sign. Some streets provide more time to cross the street safely when the pedestrian crosswalk button is activated. Yet no one should need to push a button – and risk spreading the virus – to cross the street safely during this pandemic.Pedestrian crosswalk buttons should be switched to automatically provide the walk sign to a pedestrian without having to press it, citywide.
- Prioritize Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safe Travel on Crowded Corridors - People are walking and cycling, either for essential travel needs or for their physical and mental health. At the same time, car travel and congestion has significantly declined. We recommend that you take action to provide appropriate safe space for people by widening walking space and opening streets where pedestrian overcrowding already is occurring and where people access essential needs such as grocery stores by walking, cycling, or accessing transit.Issues relating to enforcement in communities of concern remain and it will be vital for San Diego to implement these safe physical distancing measures equitably. We do not want these safe streets measures to result in additional enforcement in communities of concern. The city should not issue additional citations and no additional police presence should be allocated.
In no way do we desire to impede the travel needs for essential workers, many of whom are residents in underserved communities. Emergency vehicles and residents who live on those streets will still be able to access the roads by motor vehicle.We recommend opening the streets by removing one or more parking or travel lanes on the following three corridors immediately, followed by continued deployment of more corridors:
- 6th Avenue
- Mission Boulevard
- University Avenue
- More corridors and networks based on existing demand and planned networks which have already received community buy-inThese recommendations are a first step towards addressing transportation needs that must be implemented as soon as possible, with an eye towards scaling up. Next steps include analyzing additional corridors and connected routes to ensure safe travel in communities across the City of San Diego by using signage to close some streets to through traffic while still allowing necessary vehicular traffic. We are available to work collaboratively with the City to identify next phases of the transportation response to the COVID-19 crisis.
- Reduce Speeds to 20mph in Transit Priority Areas - Reducing speed of traffic to 20mph in Transit Priority Areas can improve safety for all essential trips. Likeliness of slight, serious, and fatal injuries increases exponentially for pedestrians when hit by a motorist travelling faster than 20mph. Reducing speed of car traffic will prevent serious injuries, which reduces the volume of people making emergency hospital visits that are not COVID-19 related.We recommend 15mph speed of traffic on corridors that may become partially opened.
- Community Engagement - We recognize that during this pandemic traditional community engagement must adapt to the shelter-in-place directive. We encourage the City to develop creative community engagement strategies in collaboration with community based organizations along the proposed routes. It is important that essential businesses along the proposed routes and essential workers not be negatively impacted. This is especially critical in communities identified in the City of San Diego’s Social Equity Index who have been historically excluded and who are disproportionately vulnerable to COVID-19 impacts.
We thank you for your strong leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge you to take the above actions to further flatten the curve and reduce unnecessary loss of life.
Signed,
Maya Rosas
Director of Policy
Circulate San Diego
Andy Hanshaw
Executive Director
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
Susie Murphy
Executive Director
San Diego Mountain Biking Association
Judi Tentor
Executive Director
BikeSD
Tara Hammond
Founder & CEO
Hammond Climate Solutions
Joyce Lane
Public Policy Team Co-Chair
SanDiego350
Randy Torres-Van Vleck
Senior PM, Transportation & Planning
City Heights CDC
Ginger Partyka
Rise North Park
Patrick Santana
Rise Up Town
Noah Harris
Transportation Policy Advocate
Climate Action Campaign
Marissa Tucker
President
YIMBY Dems of SD
Connor Franklin Rey
Partnerships Team Lead
Sunrise Movement San Diego
CC:
Council President Georgette Gómez
Council President Pro Tem Barbara Bry
Councilmember Jennifer Campbell
Councilmember Chris Ward
Councilmember Monica Montgomery
Councilmember Mark Kersey
Councilmember Chris Cate
Councilmember Scott Sherman
Councilmember Vivian Moreno
Letter to the Mayor re: Street Safety During COVID-19 Social Distancing
BikeSD sent the following letter to the Mayor of San Diego:
Dear Mayor Kevin Faulconer,
BikeSD would like to applaud your leadership and thank you for taking swift action to help flatten the curve here in SD. These are very challenging times for all, and everyday you are making decisions for the health of our residents, we thank you and want to offer our support.
We understand why parks, beaches and trails were closed. Trails are narrow and social distancing was difficult. People rely on walking and bicycling around their neighborhoods to stay active during the shelter-in-place order, yet typical space allocation for sidewalks and bicycles does not accommodate the minimum six feet of distance.
To support the safety of vulnerable road users, promote the health of our residents, and aid economic resiliency, BikeSD would like the City of San Diego to restrict vehicular traffic on selected streets to allow people to bike, walk and run safely on those streets. With fewer people driving to work, and others avoiding the cost of gasoline purchases, our streets are less crowded than normal, creating an opportunity to temporarily repurpose street space. By rapidly expanding our bicycle infrastructure we can provide/promote:
- A safe way for people to move about the city while maintaining proper distancing.
- An affordable means to access essential services for those most impacted by acute loss of income in the near to intermediate future
- Outdoor exercise to balance the physical and mental effects of sheltering in place.
New York City, Minneapolis, Denver, & Philadelphia, exemplify quick rollouts for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in adaptation to the COVID19 emergency (see here for larger discussion). We have the advantage of favorable geography, climate, and many existing streets with wide lanes with which to work towards a similar goal. With a decrease in vehicular traffic, traffic speeds are up, as noted in Los Angeles, and in San Diego, where the CHP reports freeway collisions now disproportionately require ambulance responses. At a time when our hospitals and emergency medicine responses are stretched thin, we can take proactive measures to reduce the likelihood of serious traffic injuries requiring those same scarce resources. New York experienced a 43% incident increase in bicycle collisions during the pandemic, while overall traffic collisions are down 33% relative to this time last year - motivating their emergency roll out of bike infrastructure.
Poorer neighborhoods are historically underserved by bicycle infrastructure, while often the most in need of affordable/free transportation in times of crisis. As our economy shifts for the uncertain, and MTS reduces its service due to lower ridership, bicycling becomes a more appealing economic imperative. For example, during the Great Recession, bicycle commuting in NYC shot up 26%. Conservative estimates of savings from foregoing a car and travelling by bike are 4,000-10,000 per year which is larger than the proposed $1,200 check being sent out to families. This savings is then spent in communities which will help stimulate local businesses.
Much of this could be accomplished by:
- Designating additional bicycle and pedestrian space for all SANDAG EAP projects (including Pac Hwy)
- Designating additional bicycle and pedestrian space for the entire network for the downtown mobility plan.
- The creation of a mechanism for communities to request opening additional streets to pedestrians/bicyclists so as to increase inclusivity of these measures.
We support the community, residents, and leadership to overcome the disruption that COVID19 is causing, and adapt to the changing needs. This is a critical moment where we can adopt a healthier, cleaner, and safer environment. We know you understand the joys of riding a bike and we want to support your team to create streets for people. We believe this will help SD residents adapt and build resiliency in our ever changing world.
Letter on new UCSD campus policy on micromobility devices
Dear Vice Chancellor Matthews,
We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on UCSD’s proposed campus policy on the use of micromobility devices, announced on November 5, 2019 [1]. The policy would establish several new rules and regulations regarding the operation of scooters, bicycles, and other small devices on UCSD campus. The need to create a safe environment for all members of the campus community and UCSD visitors is clear: with expected growth reaching 65,000-plus students, staff and faculty, getting into and around campus will be increasing complex. This policy represents an important opportunity to set expectations of campus users — through commonsense stipulations such as being able to operate safely under different conditions and yielding right of way to pedestrians — but could be expanded to help address many underlying issues that result in conflicts on a daily basis.
First, well-recognized principles of urban infrastructure design inform us that providing safe facilities where people want to walk and ride is vastly more effective and equitable than outlawing and diverting these modes [2]. Modern urban transportation plans thus aim to provide balance among the various uses of public roadways, and in particular separate traffic moving at vastly different speeds, such as through the use of off-street paths and protected bicycle lanes. Currently, UCSD campus facilities do not provide a level of ease of circulation for people regardless of whether they are walking, riding or biking. Most destinations are not connected by bike paths where riders can avoid mingling with pedestrians, and main desire lines either prohibit riding or are shared use without any signed or designated areas for riders. Construction activity throughout campus is not fully mitigated, leaving narrower and less convenient paths for everyone. We therefore urge the administration to adopt proactive infrastructural approaches to provide physical and/or marked separation between pedestrian and micromobility modes on campus, facilitating all desire lines.
Second, due to the sprawling footprint of campus, entry points via public transit are far from many campus destinations. While parking is a perennial complaint, it remains the case that most buildings have parking options within five minutes walk, while bus stops of high-volume routes can be 15 or more minutes away. As the growing community opts to take public transit, using micromobility to and from these entry points will be increasingly attractive, adding to the complexities with enforcing restrictions on their use. The trolley extension will only intensity this conflict: the nearest stop to The Village dormitory, Pepper Canyon, will be more than 25 minutes away. We propose that safe and convenient paths for micromobility are established from all existing and future transit entry points to all major campus destinations, taking advantage of both perimeter and throughcampus routes.
Finally, major roads surrounding campus for the most part lack adequate facilities for micromobility users. Genesee Ave, Gilman Drive, and N. Torrey Pines Road, among others, have dangerous, unprotected lanes next to fast-moving traffic. The UTC area, where a large fraction of off-campus students live, is only two miles from campus and yet lacks safe routes to get to class. In spite of these drawbacks, the University community sees rates of bicycle use over two times the city and county of San Diego [2]. This need must be met with sustained support and encouragement for people to leave their cars at home when commuting to campus. Best practice for roads with speeds regularly exceeding 25 mph and 6000 cars per day is to establish protected bicycle lanes with vertical barriers or raised elevation from motor vehicle traffic [3]. We urge UCSD to work with the City of San Diego and SANDAG to create safe, protected micromobility routes for all ages and abilities to all destinations within at least two miles of campus.
Let us reiterate that we strongly support ensuring the safety of all people traveling around campus. We believe this can be done in a non-punitive manner that creates and reinforces a welcoming environment for everyone to commute to and around campus via a range of alternative transportation modes. We look forward to working with you to achieve this vision.
Sincerely,
Michael Davidson, Assistant Professor, UC San Diego
Paul Jamason, IT Services, UC San Diego; Board Member, BikeSD
On behalf of BikeSD, an independent, non-governmental, nonprofit advocacy organization. Our mission: 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. https://bikesd.org/
References
[1]: “Proposed Addition to UC San Diego Policy and Procedure Manual (PPM).” November 2019. UC San Diego. http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/ppm/micromobility.html
[2]: Toole, Jennifer, & Bettina Zimny. “Transportation Planning Handbook, Ch. 16: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.” Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Transportation-Planning-Handbook-Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Facilities.pdf
[3]: University Community Plan Update: Existing Conditions Summary. April 2018. City of San Diego. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/final_university_cpu_ecr_report.pdf
[4]: Designing for All Ages & Abilities: Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities. December 2017. National Association of City Transportation Officials. https://nacto.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/NACTO_Designing-for-All-Ages-Abilities.pdf
Our Response to the Expectation That We Explain Bad Behavior On Our City Streets
Last weekend, I received an email from a University Heights resident voicing her displeasure over an incident she was party to. This is an example of a sort of email I have received far too often and echoes a sentiment that our board is often subjected to. I responded to the resident and have posted my response here with the hope that all of you can adopt the language employed and understand where we stand on this issue.
----
Thank you for contacting BikeSD and sharing your thoughts about the incident that happened last Tuesday on Park Boulevard.
BikeSD’s purpose is to work for the creation of bike infrastructure – infrastructure that invites all San Diegans to once again experience the sheer joy that comes from riding a bicycle, something you alluded to in your email.
With regard to your specific incident on Park Boulevard, the unfortunate reality is that there are bad apples in every barrel, and it sounds like you might have encountered one. While it is our mission to create infrastructure, it is not fair to ask us to account for, or defend, the action of a particular rider in a particular incident. We would not ask you to represent, defend, or speak for Dr. Christopher Thomas Thompson, Douglas Lane, Wendy Villegas, or Juliann Thomson – drivers whose (sometimes intentional) conduct resulted in the injury or death of our fellow residents.
I want to also address a few of the issues you raised in your email. It is not clear to me how some of your complaints and criticisms specifically apply to the incident you were involved in last week. On balance, I think your comments generally raised the specter of the “scofflaw cyclist,” an enduring trope in the media.
You noted that bicycle riders are subject to the rules of the road "especially when it comes to stopping at stop signs.” I urge you to please be fair in your criticism. I invite you to join me (or another one of our board members) at a controlled intersection in San Diego for 30 minutes. We have, in the past, engaged in this exercise. The truth is that more-drivers-than-not “roll” through stop signs – a truism known nationwide as the “California roll.” I also ask you to be fair in the conclusions you draw when you see a cyclist “roll” a stop sign (like most drivers do): for a cyclist, it is truly a zero-sum-game, in that the rider runs the risk of great bodily injury if he or she acts recklessly. After all, a cyclist is not ensconced in tons of steel, watching the scene play out through a windshield; rather, the cyclist is part of the scene, inches away from the concrete below.
I would venture to guess that, if you honestly assessed your fellow driver’s behavior, you would not single out cyclists for rebuke. I expect you have witnessed – likely on a daily basis – bad behavior by drivers (texting while driving; talking on the phone; speeding; etc.) but don’t consider singling that behavior out because it is truly ubiquitous. I do not encourage you to complain about all bad behavior you witness by drivers but I would like you to reconsider the behavior of cyclists in context.
You suggested that cyclists are required to ride single file and as far right as physically possible. Generally, this is not true. The law requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as is “practicable;” however, the law makes many exceptions to this rule, one that I believe applies on Park Boulevard. A condition that makes it unsafe to continue along the right is when bicycling in a “lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.” The requirement to ride as far right as practicable – not “as possible” – does not apply on any lane less than 14 feet wide, or 18 feet wide if it contains parking (which Park Boulevard does). In other words, if the travel lane is less than 14 feet wide (or 18 feet with parking), a cyclist can use the entire lane (because the lane is too narrow for a car and bike to safely share). Virtually every right lane in Southern California is less than 14 feet wide (or 18 feet wide if there is parking). The reason why cyclists are not required to stay as far to the right as practicable in these narrow lanes is because to do so invites unsafe close passes and is inherently dangerous.
While I don’t know exactly where you encountered this group of cyclists, Park Boulevard is also marked with “sharrows.” “Sharrows” are intended to indicate a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared by a bike and a car traveling side-by-side. “Sharrows” not only indicate that the lane is to be shared between bikes and cars, they also indicate to everyone concerned that the requirement to ride to the right does not apply on that street. And a cyclist is not required to clear the lane to permit faster moving vehicles to pass (at least on Park Boulevard) because it is a four-lane road (at least most of it is).
When people are frustrated by a group – in yesterday’s culture “hotrodders” – in today’s culture, the “scofflaw cyclist” – there is a great desire to find a member of that group who has actually broken the law and punish him or her to make an example to the rest. The truth is that any fair assessment of the relative risks and dangers on our streets would conclude that drivers are far more dangerous to the general public than the less than 1% of San Diegans who travel regularly by bike. And yet cyclists are the one who are tarred with the “scofflaw” meme.
In many instances, the conduct that you perceive as inconsiderate, rude, or improper is the result of inadequate infrastructure – something our group is working to remedy. Our City has for far too long failed to facilitate any mode of travel besides the automobile and we are playing catch –up. We are having a much-needed, and long-overdue, discussion about our most widely used public space – our streets. I fear that this lack of foresight leads to needless conflicts between groups of road users. Our mission is focused on building bicycle infrastructure to reduce conflict and to improve the quality of life for all San Diegans.
I am sorry for the negative encounter you had last week. I encourage you to please continue sharing your thoughts with us as we continue our work.
Sincerely,
Samantha Ollinger
