A new bike lane north of Leucadia Boulevard on Coast Highway 101. The bike lane could be removed, depending on what the state Coastal Commission rules. Photo by Jared Whitlock
Featured

Coastal Commission will decide fate of new bike lane

ENCINITAS — Bicyclists aren’t out of the woods yet. 

The California Coastal Commission will rule if a new bike lane can remain on Coast Highway 101 during a public hearing, likely to be held in several months. So far, two residents and two state coastal commissioners have filed appeals against the project, triggering the hearing.

Recently, a traffic lane north of Leucadia Boulevard was eliminated to make way for an 8-foot bike lane, despite objections from the Coastal Commission.

A month ago, the Coastal Commission urged the city to hold off on the bike lane, arguing the project requires a Coastal Development permit, as well as an amendment to the city’s local coastal program, because it significantly impacts the road.

In response, city staff said the bike lane is exempt from the permit and amendment, stating it’s a minor project. Council agreed, voting unanimously three weeks ago to move forward with the longstanding plan for the bike lane.

But Council’s approval risked penalties from the Coastal Commission, an agency that oversees land use and beach access throughout the state. The penalties range from a cease-and-desist order to fining a city $6,000 a day for projects that aren’t in compliance with its standards. But according to Eric Stevens, an analyst with the Coastal Commission, financial penalties aren’t on the table.

“At this point, there’s no talk of financial penalties,” Stevens said.

However, the Coastal Commission could order the city to undo the bike lane and restore the road to how it was before with a majority vote from its 12-member body at the hearing. Also, the city installed “sharrows” — lane markings that remind cyclists and motorists to share the road — at the same time as the bike lane. Stevens said that sharrows from Grandview Street to La Costa Avenue could also be subject to an appeal and removed, but the Coastal Commission hasn’t made that determination yet.

The Coastal Commission conducts hearings on a variety of issues during its monthly meetings throughout the state. Stevens said the bike lane appeal will go before the Coastal Commission when the agency has its next meeting in Southern California, either in June, July or October — at which point the Coastal Commission will be in San Diego.

At the meeting, the Coastal Commission has the option of requesting no changes to the bike lane, forcing the city to remove it, asking the city to make small changes to the bike lane or requesting a study of the bike lane to gauge its impact.

Stevens said there are potential concerns with how the bike lane affects coastal access and safety.

“We haven’t weighed the pros and cons of the project,” Stevens said. “We weren’t aware of it until recently.”

Ed Deane, senior civil engineer with the city, said the Coastal Commission wasn’t notified several months ago that city staff determined that the bike lane is exempt from the state permit and local amendment. The city hasn’t provided a notice of exemption for quite some time, he said.

“We haven’t done that since 1995,” Deane said.

Deane said a meeting with the Coastal Commission after the Council meeting was “productive.”

And he said he’s encouraged that financial penalties aren’t being pursued.

“That doesn’t seem to be a path they want to go down,” Deane said.

 

Related posts

5K Paw Walk brings dogs to the botanic garden

Promise Yee

Spring festival at La Colonia Park in Solana Beach on April 4

admin

The Coast News turns 30

Aaron Burgin

Sock it to ’em

admin

‘Defend Planned Parenthood’ rally draws thousands to Encinitas

Rebecca Sykes

Leucadia singer-songwriter appreciates her ‘restrung’ life

Jared Whitlock

56 comments

Concerned Leucadian February 22, 2013 at 2:30 pm

It appears disingenuous of Encinitas staff to keep insisting a bike lane is exempt and that exemptions haven’t had to be filed with the Coastal Commission since 1995. First of all, it is the lane elimination for MOTORISTS on North Highway 101 that “kicks in” the City’s requirements to amend our General Plan, our N101 Specific Plan and our Local Coastal Program, in conjunction with completing the Coastal Development Permit and Design Review process, which permits were applied for on March 15, 2010 as Case No 10-035 DR/CDP. Case No. 10-036 GPA/LCPA/N101SPA) was also filed on March 15, 2010 given the “proposed three lane configuration.” These permit application numbers are straight out of the 6/27/12 City Staff report. No exemptions were filed because the CDP and LCP amendment is still being processed!

The City of Encinitas has known since its Staff reports of 1/13/10 and 12/15/10, that reducing a four lane Major Roadway, main arterial, a primary circulation element, to a 3 lane configuration is what requires proper process. Trying to claim that this is simply re-striping, or adding a bicycle lane, which could be exempt, WERE THIS NOT A MAJOR ROADWAY, PRIMARY CIRCULATION ELEMENT WHERE A LANE IS BEING ELIMINATED FOR MOTORISTS, then we could understand Council and staff’s “reasoning.” As it is, they are making lame excuses for not following the rules, not giving citizens due process.

The reason this is of concern is because adjacent residents and local commuters know that eliminating a lane for motorists has and will severely impact the road through intensification of traffic during peak periods, when it already is often backed up. During the summer season, during rush hour, or when there is slowing or blockage on I-5, it will create longer periods of cars being backed up, at gridlock. There will be more traffic cutting through neighborhoods, including on Vulcan, a school zone, as we saw on Wednesday night, during the crisis of two policemen being shot at, and the shooter then taking his own life, in Leucadia, near I-5 , just south of Leucadia Bl vd., on Del Rios.

Also, there would be more cut through traffic going onto streets west of Highway 101. Because the City has not filed for exemptions in the past, does not make that right. To us, this is very serious, as backed up traffic and cut through traffic also affect residents’ health and safety. Subpar emergency response times will be further lowered when longer periods of gridlock happen . . .

The City can and should use the railway corridor to maintain and extend the pre-existing bike lane, “on the books,” since before 2005, so that the northbound bike lane extends all the way north to La Costa. This could be done, now, rather than taking away an entire lane for motorists going northbound.

In Cardiff, where a lane was eliminated, going southbound, there are no businesses or residents (except for two homes) along Highway 101, so it is an entirely different scenario. Here, we have thousands of residents living west of North Highway 101 who will have greater and greater challenges attempting to turn left onto the highway, going northbound, especially during peak periods, including in the summer!

If our City thinks it can break Coastal Act law and our own Local Coastal Program, certified by the Coastal Commission, with impunity, without any consequence of fines and no order to cease and desist, then that is setting a terrible precedent. If the City of Encinitas doesn’t have to follow the rules, because “we’ve not done in that way since 95” then why should any city?

Our new Council made a big mistake in pandering to emotional, non verified testimony, much of it by bicyclists who are not Encinitas citizens, and who originally were only asking for share the road markings, Sharrows, which most people, including those who filed the appeal to the Coastal Commission, do support. Bicyclists are being used as pawns by commercial and development interests, who know, and who openly admit that lane elimination is the initial phasing in of Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association’s Streetscape plan, which would disproportionately benefit special interests at the expense of the general public.

Judy February 26, 2013 at 12:54 am

This is one of the most used corridors by cyclists locally, in the state, in the country and in the world. It was also one of the most dangerous. The Bike community asked for bike lanes from the start so your statement is false. The death also occured on northbound 101 north of Leucadia Blvd. Lynn dear, get a life.

Concerned encinitas commuter February 26, 2013 at 4:09 pm

I am concerned. I have been injured by drivers while commuting to and from work on my bicycle. Even though bicycles are allowed in traffic lanes, drivers do not pay attention and/or are blind. Would you believe it, most driver think bicycles belong on the sidewalk (even though sidewalks don’t exist in most places). But the law prohibits riding a bicycle on sidewalks.
The bike lane makes drivers more aware that bicycles are present and can save a life.
So show some concern for life and support the bike lane.

It appears that the coastal commission thinks politics are more important that safety.

If I may quote one of my heroes “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Fred Caldwell February 22, 2013 at 6:22 pm

If you want to see a significant negative impact to 101, it will be IF the Coastal Commission demands that the city erases the new bike lanes returning them to their non-existant state. If you’d like to join a small group of people who would like to see the city fined $300K for making vastly safer bike lanes on 101 (that include lower speed limits here), it’s your own thing, Jim.

vaterfair February 23, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Now that it’s done, let’s sit back and watch. Is there a “peak period” compromise for the north bound stretch if there is an issue? as far as the sharrows, motorists had to share anyway based on CVC. How much does a web-cam cost for monitoring this?

Concerned Leucadian February 23, 2013 at 4:24 pm

The staff report for the 7/18/12 Council Meeting where the Sharrows were voted on, and then as bifurcated, the lane elimination for motorists, there was an alternative considered, for the phasing in of the North 101 Streetscape. Instead of lane elimination, stop signs were considered. The ACTUAL statistics show that stretch of highway on North 101, has FEWER ACCIDENTS, fewer collisions of any kind, than on similar intersections in other cities in California, over a ten year period. There is absolutely NO evidence that as Fred falsely alleges that the LANE ELIMINATION FOR MOTORISTS results in “making vastly safer bike lanes on 101.” That is conjecture and speculation, not backed up by verified statistics.

Although a web cam sounds good, what is being ignored is that the City had ALREADY BEGUN THE MANDATED PROCESS of measuring traffic impacts. If Encinitas is allowed to short cut the process, then why should ANY city in California have to follow any STATE LAW, much less Coastal Act Law. Encinitas had already applied for a Coastal Development Permit, had already, as of the 6/27/12 Council Meeting, paid an additional $75,000 to Peltz & Associates, who subcontracted part of that out to Linscott and Greenspan to do further traffic analysis after having received “complex” questions about lane elimination for motorists from CALTRANS and the City of Carlsbad.

Because bicycle clubs and Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association “rally” at City Hall with testimony about accidents unrelated to that particular stretch of highway where lane elimination for motorists has been forced on us, does not mean that the City should blithely disregard State Law and our own Encinitas Municipal Code, as well as local precedent about premature phasing in of a particular portion of a redevelopment project, such as what happened at the Hall Property, where premature demolition took place, with a “negative impact declaration.” The City was successfully sued by the Citizens for Quality of Life. Parts of any project, including a major public works project, cannot be “piecemealed” so as to avoid environmental review of the project as a whole.

Traffic impact analysis is a major component of environmental review. For the City to shortcut that because it wants to cater to a particular audience of special interests, not balancing the needs of the entire community, is a violation of the public trust.

Councilmember Tony Kranz asked that staff and Council could have a public hearing, to look at procedure, “to see if we’re doing the correct thing.” After the 1/30 Council Meeting he said, “I asked for clarity, and we didn’t get it.” The emotional testimony, which was bullying to those who raised concerns about cut through traffic and residents adjacent to the North 101 Corridor, had NOTHING to do with examining CORRECT PROCEDURE.

Judy February 26, 2013 at 12:57 am

The new bike lane has no effect on traffic in the area. The travel lane is now wider so the cars actually can move through it faster without having to slow for cyclists. Get a grip you people..

Nick Hodgson February 23, 2013 at 5:54 pm

As a 12 year leucadia resident west of 101 I am dismayed at the changes proposed and done. I have asked several locals what the chevron bike signs on the 101 meant and everyone didnt know. Such rare signs need a sign to explain what they are please.!!!
Also to remove a lane going north seems insane while the city is allowing increased density of development which allows more cars ongoing. Its much more dangerous to enter 101 from Jupitor going north now . I am a huge supporter of roundabouts . America needs probably a hundred thousand more of them but only if they are big enough to allow for safe mobility. I am not sure they can be large enough on 101 unless they edge over onto the rail siding verge. I disdain any business along 101 wanting lanes removed to increase parking as this is not in the interests of the great majority of residents and drivers. I disdain special interest groups promoting the massive changes to the 101. All I want is a two lane road that does not get choked up before the lights. And a road that is easy to access both north and south that is not made more slow by over-planning . The Jupiter north entrance on 101 is now that much more tricky and hence more likely for an accident. Even the near invisible raised curb at Jupiter /101 has smashed more than a few wheel housings and is an act of municipal vandalism. Please don’t keep spending money on making things worse , I am not against the bike lane just wanted to know what it actually meant.. but a lot of the other plans don’t follow logic.

Fred Caldwell February 24, 2013 at 2:28 pm

Hi Nick,

“Such rare signs need a sign to explain what they are please.!!!”

I agree. Bike lane chevrons are well known elsewhere, so it would be helpful to add that image to the signs posted that now give people the heads-up about bikes sharing the slow lane with cars. (Sharing that lane is really nothing new, but does raise conciousness about it with the new stripping.)

“…to remove a lane going north seems insane..”

That seemed insane to me too, until I learned what traffic calming measures achieve in other cities. Such as our roundabouts that will remove 20 of our current mandatory stops. When you do that, cars get through town in LESS time than they used to, even at a slower speed! A hard pill for some to swallow at first, but the evidence in other cities supports that. Jupiter St. will have it’s own roundabout and be far safer making a left turn onto the highway at that point, yeilding to one lane of traffic in the roundabout instead of 3 lanes now.

“I am not sure they can be large enough on 101 unless they edge over onto the rail siding verge. I disdain any business along 101 wanting lanes removed to increase parking as this is not in the interests of the great majority of residents and drivers”

The roundabouts we are getting are genuine, not “smaller Traffic Circles” as you may have been told. In fact, Traffic Circles are far larger than roundabouts and less safe.
You’ll be happy to learn in fact the railroad is working with the city to encroach on their property some for the roundabouts AND their improved bus stops (as can already be seen).
With changes proposed for Streetscape, parking for customers on 101 unfortunately will NOT be increased. And that’s my only problem with the streetscape and it’s a minor one because I think it could be solved later on. So I think your fear and distain of “special interest groups” robbing a lane for the sake of parking is from someone giving you false information.

Judy February 26, 2013 at 12:58 am

The removal of the northbound traffic lane where there are no cross intersections or stop signs has had no effect on traffic.

Isolde February 24, 2013 at 12:09 pm

Nick, This is a ‘smoke and mirrors’ initial step planned and organized by BIG MONEY to develop the 101 Corridor in Leucadia.

WE wont be able to make lots of changes to their plans, since change is a coming and in many respects it is WELCOMED..But.. many of us that are starting to get it have drawn a line since ALL of OUR LANDMARK EUCALYPTUS TREES WILL BE KILLED to make way for the
moving of the median East into the N 101 roadway!

For the the people that have lived or enjoyed Leucadia
for the past 40-50 years, and it’s beautiful canopy of these 100 year old giants gracing 101, SHAME ON YOU for allowing this to happen!

At the root of this lane-diet, lies the real reason for it, not the group of pro-bicyclist that want to use this piece of the road for their personal cycle training track, but to prepare the community for the removal of all the eucalyptus trees so that the MEDIAN can be moved East into N 101. This step will give 8 feet of the needed footage for angled parking and wider sidewalks to the West side of 101.
Just drive over, to Solana Beach, and see it for your self. Look closely at their median. That is what is coming to Leucadia..the only thing stopping them are the remaining beautiful giants Eucalyptus trees that still grace 101, since they have already KILLED and REMOVED many of the TREEs w/ the ” sic excuse ‘ that they were dying. How convenient!

Fred Caldwell February 24, 2013 at 4:03 pm

Isolde said:
“Nick, This is a ‘smoke and mirrors’ initial step planned and organized by BIG MONEY to develop the 101 Corridor in Leucadia”.

No. Unlike the BIG MONEY that sought to change zoning for both sides of Quail Gardens Drive a few years back to create a new commercial corridor through town, our existing ONE sided business district’s on 101 is inherently different than the clean slate on QGD. L-101 board members not only encourage property owners here to restore and enhance what we have, we know there just isn’t room for 3 to 5 story businesses on 101. Developers who do put 3 story buildings here on N. Coast Hwy 101 are learning the hard way that they go bankrupt. A busy business fares far better and buildings far higher than one that will ALWAYS be a one sided district (save for the Rhino Art biz and a very few others of course). That’s why chain stores like Subway, Papa John’s, Laviccio’s, Right Stop, and others fail here. Board members on L-101 promote enhancing our existing buildings with and without the city encouraged “facade grant program”.

“This step” was not planned by BIG MOENY (as twice before Redevelopment Agencies had schemed to conquer and divide with), but local residents and business owners. These plans have being polished with decades with local pubic input from locals who want better infrastructure, more beautification and safety along 101. Not MdMega businesses.
When NCTD did their improvements at Leucadia Roadside Park and RR crossing with beautiful classic style street lamps; new sidewalks; natural rail fencing; gorgeous landscaping and better ADA access, someone from the fear of Streetscape camp put a large sign on the fence saying “Send This Junk To Disneyland!”. I think I’m one of most who d04on’t share that sentiment and the sky is not falling.

Removing all the Eucalyptus trees is certainly not part of the Streetscape but a scare tactic.

Judy February 26, 2013 at 1:00 am

There is no smoke and mirrors. It is a great change for the safety of cyclist and has had no effect on traffic. It improves quality of life in Encinitas. It’s not all about cars.. it’s about life.

Fred Caldwell February 24, 2013 at 1:36 pm

“There is absolutely NO evidence that as Fred falsely alleges that the LANE ELIMINATION FOR MOTORISTS results in “making vastly safer bike lanes on 101.” That is conjecture and speculation, not backed up by verified statistics”

You’re right. I did not supply any evidence. I’m just relying on the silly whim I call common sense which works everywhere else – that slower speed limits and marked bike lanes (where there were none) make for a safer traveling experience for all. But we can always raise the speed limit, keep the highway dark at night and remove bike lanes if you can sell enough of that Kool-Aid.

“…bicycle clubs and Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association “rally” at City Hall with testimony about accidents unrelated to that particular stretch of highway…”

Yes, we certainly do rally at City Hall on important issues like safety. But “accidents are unrelated to our stretch of highway”? You’re WAY off. You surely don’t have a front row seat to 101 like I and many other do. Numerous cyclists have been severely injured doing chandelles over car doors when abruptly being slam stopped by careless people not looking when they exit their cars. Why? Because there were no bike lanes and cyclists had to hug all parked cars as close as possible they went past. I do have pictures of the aftermath of two of these mis-haps just on just the 1200 block if you’d like to have a look at the ambulance picking up cyclists with broken bones. Hopefully they survived, but many if not most people with such injuries suffer in ways for the rest of their lives. And it wasn’t JUST “bike clubs” that rallied for a safer highway here, but actual cyclists who miraculously survived horrific car caused injuries from poorly lit and or unmarked bike lanes.

If taking the initiative to make a road safer by placing a lower speed limit, filling pot holes and making a safer highway is against Coastal Commision law, you’ll make sure we find out soon enough.

Lastly, Tony Kranz is happy with what’s been done so far.

Concerned Leucadian February 25, 2013 at 9:10 am

The unfortunate fact that there have been injuries on the west side of the highway, for bicyclists going southbound, due to cyclists’ being doored, has NOTHING to do with a lane being eliminated on the east side, for motorists driving northbound. So the RELEVANT stretch of highway is the east side. Fred’s logic is once more sadly lacking. Again, he resorts to emotionalism and anecdotal evidence where he supplies NO SPECIFICS, such as when the accident occurred, exactly where, or when, or the bicyclists’ names. Bicycling on a highway is dangerous. The Sharrows are a good idea, in most people’s opinions. Eliminating a lane going northbound has nothing to do with these unspecified, unverified accidents.

The staff report referred to above, from 7/18/12, shows there are LESS accidents on “that stretch of highway, North 101, than at similar intersections. So please don’t try to confuse the issue, again, with irrelevant hyperbole about permanent injuries and broken bones. We could ban driving motor vehicles altogether, to prevent any bicyclist from ever getting doored again! But that isn’t going to happen.

The City of Encinitas is being a complete hypocrite. Citizens are required to follow Encinitas rules re getting permits, going through the process. In fact, fees for minor redevelopment have been raised substantially to help prop up the General Fund and because “back-up costs” such as high pensions, are included in the “formula,” which is inappropriate. Building permit fees should only reflect the actual cost of inspection, according to the State.

But the City is not following its own rules regarding required amendments to our General Plan, our N101 Corridor Specific Plan, our Local Coastal Program GIVEN THE LANE ELIMINATION ON A PRIMARY CIRCULATION ELEMENT. The policy and required process can be verified through the City’s staff reports for the Council Meetings of 1/13/10, 12/15/10, 6/27/12 and 7/18/12. The Staff reports repeatedly discuss the lane elimination or “lane diet” as being an early phasing of L101MA’s (NOT adjacent residents’) plans for the North 101 Sreetscape.

Fred, you don’t address the fact that the 1/30 Council Meeting was to be to look at proper procedure with respect to the Leucadia 101 Streetscape and the lane elimination. It wasn’t set up to be a bicycle rally with a lot of emotional cyclists from outside of town talking about accidents that took place elsewhere, and were NOT related to the northbound lane elimination. No one was objecting to the Sharrows, which have been installed on the west side, going south, and going north, south of Leucadia Blvd. There is NO NEXUS between the lane elimination on that particular NORTHBOUND STRETCH OF HIGHWAY!

Judy February 25, 2013 at 10:55 am

The fatality happened on the north bound side

Judy February 26, 2013 at 1:04 am

The lanes are the same narrow size in both directions. In both directions we need bike lanes. Lets just get bike lanes throughtout the whole town. Luckily in this section the added bike lane has no effect on traffic at all.

Dave February 27, 2013 at 12:08 pm

“NO SPECIFICS, such as when the accident occurred, exactly where, or when, or the bicyclists’ names.”

Maybe you should ask Jim Swarman, my friend about that…oh wait you can’t he’s dead.

James Steven Swarzman, 47, of Encino, was hit by a late model, blue Ford F-150 at about 1 a.m on the 1200 block of North Coast Highway, Encinitas

Source: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Bicyclist-Killed-in-Leucadia-Hit-and-Run-119566974.html#ixzz2M8ExhQty

Concerned Leucadian February 25, 2013 at 9:46 am

Nick, thanks for your comments. It seems to many of us adjacent residents that this is a case of “the Emperor has no clothes!” The City is the emperor. The Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Ass. and the Bicyclist Clubs (many individual bicyclists, including myself, appreciate the Sharrows, but don’t hold with the City breaking the rules re lane elimination before the traffic analysis that has been paid for has come back for a public hearing.) are the obsequious sycophants, praising the Emperor’s fine garbs, so “fine” that they are invisible.

Individuals, who really want little or nothing to do with City Hall, who want to keep Leucadia funky, to preserve and enhance what’s left of our old growth canopy, are like the innocent child who says, “What? I can’t SEE what you claim to be true? It doesn’t make sense!”

The 7/18/12 Staff Report, which was for the Council Meeting when Sharrows were okayed, after they went to the Traffic Commission on 6/11/12, and to the Environmental Commission, after that, stated quite clearly that the so-called “lane diet” was to be part of the early phasing in of the North 101 Streetscape. When questions were raised about the fact that traffic analysis for that project was still being conducted, that a Coastal Development and Design Review Permit were still being processed, it was later said, by staff, that the lane elimination was not “specifically part of the North 101 Streetscape! Staff and Council want to believe that if it’s only “re-striping,” then the lane elimination is exempt from environmental review with respect to traffic impact projection. That is UNTRUE! It is lane elimination that mandates all the amendments, including the amendment to our LCP, which is appealable to the Coastal Commission, as part of a major public works project, within the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction, no matter WHAT project of which the lane elimination is a part. Fred can you grasp this?

Lane elimination was “tacked on” to the Sharrows agenda item, WITHOUT that ever having gone before the Traffic Commission, the Environmental Commission or the Planning Commission, as it should have, for more public input and more VERIFIED analysis.

Might doesn’t make right. The ends don’t justify the means. The City of Encinitas is being a total hypocrite. The 7/18/12 staff report stated the actual roundabouts are at least seven years out from completion. The U.S. Dept. of Transportation recommends AGAINST roundabouts near a railway corridor, OR where cross street traffic is significantly less than that of the main thoroughfare. This would be the case for four out of five roundabouts which have three way intersections, only, due to the railroad right of way.

The City should work on the plan for the railway corridor, already on the books, for bicyclists to have a Class One bicycle lane. The Bicycle Masterplan Update was supposed to be heard at this coming Wednesday’s Council Meeting. It was already approved by the Planning Commission, but it was mysteriously “cancelled,” taken off the Agenda for Feb. 27. The BMP Update talks about the 101 Rail Trail bicycle lane, which has been on the books since 2005, or before. The existing bicycle lane from A Street to Marchetta going northbound should be maintained and extended all the way to La Costa. Eliminating a lane for motorists does cause more problems for adjacent residents attempting to turn left on to the highway, from West of N101. Lane elimination will cause longer periods of back-up and gridlock during peak periods, such as when there is significant slowing or blockage on I-5, or during the summer, during racetrack and the fair, for example.

Whether one calls them neighborhood traffic circles or roundabouts is also a red herring. The roundabouts recommended by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation have WIDER DIAMETERS and MORE SAFETY FEATURES. What is important is the safety features, which are better for cyclists and pedestrians too, which WIDER roundabouts would have, NOT what the circles are called. In fact, it’s fine with adjacent residents that they are being called roundabouts because ROUNDABOUTS are NOT recommended along railway corridors for the reasons already detailed. If there is room in the railway corridor, it absolutely must go to a dedicated, Class One Bicycle Lane, there, which would be separated from the roadway by dirt. The thorn bearing plants, which give bicyclists flats, should also be removed by the city, NOT a lane for northbound motorists.

I have never seen ANY verification that the stop sign at Marchetta would be removed, or that there are 20 stop signs to be removed! What Peltz and Associates gave the City and people who attended the biased workshops where marketers lobbied for roundabouts, were CARTOON DRAWINGS, not engineered plans. Fred is counting Marchetta as five stop signs! And there is no verification from the City that stop sign would ever be removed. It is a long involved process to remove a stop sign. Wishful thinking on Fred’s part doesn’t make it so! Some of the stop signs that Fred is referring to are those for people attempting to turn onto the highway from points west. Even though that stop sign might be removed, people approaching any planned roundabout would have to come to a complete stop if there is traffic in the one lane roundabout, which is to serve both northbound and southbound traffic.

Leucadians and local commuters are being sold a “pipe dream” based on wishful thinking, emotionalism and conjecture. What has been done is against State Law, as it violates the Coastal Act. It’s also against the City’s own rules, against the Staff recommendation in its report of 1/30/12, and against the best interests of the majority of residents and local commuters. Lane elimination does not balance all of our needs, and does not take into account our concerns about increased cut through traffic, increased back-ups on the highway, more difficulty egressing from streets west of North 101, including Neptune, a “first street” primary beach access.

Judy February 26, 2013 at 1:07 am

The entire project was approved unanimously by the traffic commission and by city council.

Judy February 26, 2013 at 1:08 am

There is no gridlock.. why don’t you go ride your bike and see. This has nothing to do with Streetscape. It has to do with saving lives and allowing all users the safe use of the roads.

Isolde February 25, 2013 at 10:26 am

I am working on a comparative analysis w/ an engineered survey
of the entire 101 corridor.

A consultation w/ an arborist is necessary, to determine if the proximity of the demolition and construction due to any movement of the median, 8 feet by my measurements of the streets in the lane-diet, will have deleterious effects on all of the trees, not just our beautiful, historic giants!

Judy February 26, 2013 at 1:05 am

There is no demolition of trees.. there was just paint on the asphalt.

Opinions are not facts March 1, 2013 at 1:24 pm

Judy, Isolde is speaking about the FACT that the lane elimination for motorists is a preliminary phasing in of the Leucadia 101 Streetscape, which would include 5 roundabouts and lane elimination in ADDITION to moving the median and cutting down many more old growth trees.

Judy February 26, 2013 at 1:06 am

There was no movement of the median.. why don’t you get in your car or on a bike and go look. The road is exactly the same as it always was.. It just has new paint.

Fred Caldwell February 25, 2013 at 12:08 pm

“Again, (Fred) resorts to emotionalism and anecdotal evidence where he supplies NO SPECIFICS, such as when the accident occurred, exactly where, or when, or the bicyclists’ names.”

If you don’t think it was emotional to see a cyclist die right in front of you and his friends after being hit by a truck on an unmarked highway, you’ve been watching too many video games. The cyclist’s name was James Swarzman. It happened in April of 2011. I’ll take a picture for you of the next cycling fatality if you succeed in your campaign having the Coastal Commission paint out the new bike lanes. I do have pics of two people being doored when the got broken bones and concussions. I don’t go looking for these tragic things, they and several others come to my door at 1234 N. Coast Hwy 101 in Leucadia. There’s nothing hyperbolic about acting on measures to reduce suffering and death, especially when so far it only takes paint.

“We could ban driving motor vehicles altogether, to prevent any bicyclist from ever getting doored again! But that isn’t going to happen.”

It would if you were in charge. You’ve already suggested banning all trucks from 101.

“I have never seen ANY verification that the stop sign at Marchetta would be removed, or that there are 20 stop signs to be removed!”

You should have paid closer attention at Streetscape meetings and workshops if you attended any.

“What? I can’t SEE what you claim to be true? It doesn’t make sense!”

It’s pretty simple. Do your research online for roundabouts. You can start with Wikipedia. But anywhere you look where studies have been done, they vastly reduce collisions, injuries and fatalities. Not to mention improve traffic flow (even at slower speeds – by the elimination of mandatory stops) and they also improve aesthetics by looking better, creating less air pollution and costing less than intersections. In some cities they collectively save over 300,000 hours annually where people used to have to stop, idle and wait. THAT adds up. But if you look for just the bad news about roundabouts of course you’ll find some but your selections greatly diminish. At the top you will find Chevy Chase in a Vacation movie in England who doesn’t know how to navigate a roundabout there and keeps going in circles until after dark. The few following that, will be disgruntled letters to the editor from people who don’t like change for the better and cite how they FEEL about roundabouts instead of their proven attributes.

“Fred is counting Marchetta as five stop signs!”

You are right, I was wrong. When recounting all mandatory stops being eliminated at the Marcheta St. intersection, I now count 8. (So you can put an extra exclamation mark next time when you quote me). But I’m sure I’ll have to explain how there could be so many, so here goes.

2 full stops going south
2 full stops going north
1 full stop going right onto Marcheta (for southbounders)
1 full stop going left onto Marcheta (for northbouners)
1 U-turn stop going south
1 U-turn stop going north
————————–
8 total valid stops (and if you don’t think they all count, get behind one making a turn and don’t stop to see what happens.)

ALL of the vehicles going the directions above currently HAVE to stop at the Marcheta intersection before proceeding. When the stops are removed cars don’t have to stop when it’s clear to make turns. So you better be nice to me or I’ll recount the mandatory stops that will be removed at La Costa Ave. Naw, I’ll let anyone else.

Absolutely, L-101 and cyclists everywhere (not just a club) promote safety, circulation, beautification, trees etc. for N. 101. But it is the majority of informed and involved residents of Old Encinitas and Leucadia who do as well.

what exaggeration March 1, 2013 at 12:12 pm

Go ahead and count the stop sign at Leucadia as 8 stops. But people who live around here and drive here don’t. There is only one stop sign for people turning right and left, only one stop sign, in each direction going north and south. Common usage is to count each intersection with a stop sign as one stop signed intersection, but you can skew the numbers any way you want to.

Opinions are not facts March 1, 2013 at 1:28 pm

I meant go ahead and cout the stop sign at Marchetta and Highway 101 in old Encinitas, NOT in Leucadia, as 8 stops. But I don’t know of ANYONE else who does!

Fred Caldwell March 4, 2013 at 6:47 pm

You know what, you’re right. No one should count the removal of 4 N/S stop signs at Marcheta St. as removing 8 stops. We should all agree they remove THOUSANDS of stops per day. No exaggeration.

what exaggeration March 1, 2013 at 12:38 pm

You have shown no evidence whatsoever that the stop sign at Marchetta would be eliminated.

Wikipedia is notorious for having skewed facts, because anyone can “edit” and add to the facts, without verifications.

Plus, we are not talking about eliminating stop signs, anyway, except for those at the intersections where people are trying to turn right or left going onto the highway, from west of North 101. People would still have to stop there when there is any northbound, southbound traffic in the proposed roundabouts, in order to merge . . . The only stop sign on the highway is NOT in Leucadia, but is south, at Marchetta, and 101, where word of mouth is that a nun was struck many years ago, as she was crossing to where St. John’s Church used to be . . .

No matter March 3, 2013 at 12:18 pm

Wow, Fred Caldwell sure likes to exaggerate the number of stop signs. Yes, he is counting the stop sign by Juanita’s at Marchetta and 101 as five stop signs; that’s not how the public counts the stop signs, Fred. And that stop sign and the stop light at Leucadia ARE NOT SCHEDULED TO BE REMOVED WITH THE N101 Streetscape plan.

So Mr. Caldwell not only skews the numbers trying to make it look like Leucadia is Del Mar, with all its many stop signs, the City where citizens VOTED NO on roundabouts and lane elimination along Coast Highway, when they were allowed to vote, he also keeps stating, without ANY EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP, that the stop sign at Marchetta would be eliminated!

Most of the stop signs Fred is talking about are duplications, counting each stop signed intersection up to eight times! Also most of the intersections in question, only have stop signs on the west side of the highway, for people attempting to turn left, northbound, or right, southbound, onto the highway. Were roundabouts there, instead, motorists and bicyclists, pedestrians, would STILL HAVE TO STOP, to make sure there’s a break in traffic in the one lane roundabouts accommodating both northbound and southbound traffic, on North 101.

Fred Caldwell March 3, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Wow, Fred Caldwell sure likes to exaggerate the number of stop signs.”

Wow, I never said “number of stop signs” were 8. That’s your exaggeration.
I’m counting the number of stops that are now mandatory on 101 at Marcheta St. whether it’s northbound, southbound or turning vehicles BECAUSE of the 4 stop signs.
Who told you you didn’t have to stop when you’re north or southbound at that intersection and you want to make a turn? I hope you didn’t believe them.

The absence of the 4 stop signs there will remove 8 current mandatory stops for cars. That is no exaggeration. If we still disagree, one or more of us has a math problem.

Fred Caldwell March 4, 2013 at 3:18 pm

Granted, the turns at the intersection that also require stopping at the stop N/S signs number far less, but by the same token it could rightfully be said the elimination of the 4 stop signs will eliminate THOUSANDS of stops per day. Neither is that an exaggeration.

Al Ein March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm

If the accident was “right in front of you,” Fred, then it wasn’t across the highway, on the East side? It was probably at least 100 feet away.

It is emotionalism when the same accident is repeated by at least four or five people, and when it was caused by a drunk hit and run driver who drifted over to lane two, at 1 in the morning. We are all terribly sorry for the tragic loss of life, two years ago; but it has nothing to do with lane elimination for motorists on North 101, on the east side of the highway.

Rather than taking away a lane for motorists, to give it to bicyclists, who could still legally share the only remaining lane for motorists, if they’re passing, or to go around an obstacle (like a puddle), a Class One (lane elimination for motorists is for a Class Two lane, connected directly to the highway) Bicycle Lane. The Class One Railway Corridor bicycle laneWOULD BE SEPARATED from the highway by dirt. The thorn bearing plants should be removed, NOT a lane for motorists, which “lane diet” negatively impacts Coastal Resources, causing longer periods of traffic delay, more stop and go, as people try to merge, and more air pollution, in the process, more challenges to public health and safety caused by more cut through traffic, delayed emergency response times, and more challenges leaving the beach, trying to turn left onto the highway, for local commuters.

fred caldwell March 6, 2013 at 3:18 pm

Lane 2 of North bound 101 is also in front of my shop (as opposed to behind it) and in full view. Next time I refer to the Swarzman incident I’ll specify exactly how far in front of my shop if you think I deliberately shortened the length to exaggerate reality.

The driver was convicted of a hit and run – NOT drunk driving. And I don’t know where you heard the rest about him drifting between lanes. Lane 2 had an alleged “bike lane” 2′ wide at that point (100 feet across from my shop)- barely wide enough for one bike, let alone 6 in formation. My best friend who was watching my place at the time, heard the impact, the screaming, and went out to discover the horrible scene. And like I said before, it wasn’t the only cyclist killed here on 101, just the most recent. The two cyclists who were doored were 10′ from the front of my shop both got broken bones. I assume they survived, but nonetheless, broken bones can be a lot more than a temporary inconvenience. They each were taken away in an ambulance. If talking about real carnage caused by inadequate bike lanes “emotionalism” so be it. I imagine you’ve had an emotional reaction if you ever grabbed onto 110 Volts before. Makes you not want to do it again.

And to address what someone else said earlier about an official report saying “roundabouts not recommended next to railroads”, of course we won’t have a roundabout at Leucadia Blvd interacting with trains. Ideally though, bikes should be on the railroad right of way, tracks should be buried, and then another roundabout should be placed at Leucadia Blvd. I timed how long I had to stop there yesterday. 2 min. the same time it took to cruise 30 – 35 MPH from there to Roberto’s. Almost a mile. What a waste of time, gas, money and air, huh?

Al Ein February 26, 2013 at 8:54 pm

Concerned Leucadian is no Leucadian- Only a sad L-word. Always the same old rant with all the fact wrong. Don’t waste your time on her comments. She has no ears in that thick skull and can’t understand logic anyway.

The fact of the matter is the City was re-acting to knowing they had a safety issue on their street that they needed to address. The point was highlighted by the fatality in 2012.

The road is not a road diet, it still has 4 travel lanes. Its just one of the four lanes is used exclusively by Bikes now. Its that simple.

what exaggeration March 1, 2013 at 12:22 pm

The fatality was in 2011. It involved a drunk driver, a hit and run, drifting over at 1 in the morning and striking a bicyclist. This same tragedy was repeated over and over at the 1/30/13 Council Meeting. It would NOT have been prevented by lane elimination.

What is “simple” is that lane elimination for motorists is an early phasing in of the Leucadia 101 Streetscape. The first roundabout is to be at El Portal, which is not in Leucadia. Leucadia 101 Mainstreet’s headquarters is not in Leucadia.

What is simple is that the staff report for the 7/18/12 Council Meeting, where the “lane diet” was voted in, bifurcated from Sharrows, was that intersections on North Highway 101 are SAFER than those at other similar intersections based on a 10 year comparison of statistics, NOT unverified testimony from bicycle club members, not identifying the names of those they claimed (at the 1/30 Council Meeting) were in accidents involving cars, not sharing when or exactly where the accidents happened, and not revealing that many of them were repeating the same tragic fatality, over and over and over again.

The lane elimination for motorists is about phasing in the first step of the L101 Streetscape, NOT about safety. Bicyclists safety would be enhanced by going along with the Bicycle Masterplan Update and maintaining and extending the rail trail corridor Class One Bicycle Lane North from Marchetta, all the way to La Costa, as has been approved and on the books since 2005. Bicyclists safety will be enhanced by the Sharrows, which most people do support. Most of the accidents and near accidents have happened on the West side of the highway, due to the parallel parking there, by bicyclists going south. There was no lane elimination for motorists there, only installation of Sharrows. So there is NO NEXUS between safety and lane elimination on the east side of the highway that has been demonstrated by traffic analysis or verified testimony.

Cyrus Kamada March 1, 2013 at 7:43 pm

Alas, if I hear the word “bifurcated” uttered again from the lips of Concerned Leucadian, Gus Vina, or Mark Muir, I will garrot myself in protest. What’s wrong with “separated” or “distinguished from”? – terms us lowly knaves can comprehend without feeling a nagging sense of intellectual inferiority? Ever count the number of times Mark Muir says “as it relates to” when he is speaking? – when “concerning” or “about” would make us knaves feel we were actually worthy of his wisdom? We knaves resent the royals using high language instead of the coarse utterings we are capable of.

No matter March 3, 2013 at 12:10 pm

I think Concerned Leucadian used the term bifurcated, because that’s what Council used. Bifurcating the issue, in this case, means that when a public speaker objected on 7/18/12, that the Sharrows had gone before the Traffic Commission, but that the lane elimination, northbound on N101, the “lane diet” hadn’t been before ANY commission, and which was spoken about at that Council Meeting, and on the Agenda as being an early phasing of the N101 Streetscape Project, with five roundabouts, Council simply SEPARATED OUT the two issues, and voted on them separately, but one right after another, first voting for the Sharrows, then voting for the lane elimination, the later NOT completing the Coastal Development and Design Review process which the City initiated on 3/15/10 for the N101 Streetscape.

Fred Caldwell March 3, 2013 at 8:35 pm

Just WHO told you the driver was drunk? And WHO told you he drifted over the bike lane? No one. 3 cyclists in formation cannot fit in a two foot bike lane. There were 4 or 5 in formation that morning. Other elements contributing to Jim’s death was being on the darkest stretch of hwy here on a dark night with no street lights; a dip in the road caused by an old storm drain (not making that up). Of course the Rail Trail plan would be an ideal alternative to bike lanes closer to cars. And the current bike lanes are not in stone, their in paint (and by far safer than before). However, seeking to have them painted out BEFORE the installation of a Rail Trail would be to return them to their insane history. And that goes for both sides of the street. Jim Swarzman was not the only cyclist killed on N. 101, only the most recent. And yes I do believe his chances of living, marrying and going to France to compete would be far better now than ever before, specifically because of our safer designated bike lanes.
Portraying 101 business and property owners as only caring about our bottom line and not about the welfare of all is completely misleading, as are the many misrepresentations of Streetscape you endorse.

Vehicles are heavy, legal, lethal weapons. Add that to “nobody’s perfect” and you get the dangerous world we live in. Safety is not expendable, so buckle up, drive defensively, stay in your bike lane and focus your energy on a Rail Trail. But for crying out loud, don’t obstruct and promote the removal of safer bike lanes prior to getting a tangible Rail Trail.

Al Ein March 9, 2013 at 9:34 pm

Tony Kranz provided a link to the story in the Coast News, from 2011, and anyone can Google to see that the driver admitted he drifted into lane two; it wasn’t a matter of making a conscious decision to change lanes. As I said, he came forward later; but at the time, it was hit and run.

The tragedy of the person going northbound at 1 a.m. in the morning was very sad. Why a wide formation like that at 1 a.m. in the morning, especially if that section is dark? Having that lane a dedicated bicycle lane wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy. If the tragedy was partially caused by lighting, then the bicyclists should have advocated for better lighting, not taking away a lane from motorists 24/7, during all seasons, all peak periods.

If there were other bicycle deaths on 101, those should have been verified with statistics as to the side of the highway they occurred on, what portion of 101, the date they happened, the name of those involved. Instead, everything was very vague. No one confirmed the accidents were on northbound N101, except for the single accident, two years ago, that was repeated over and over, at least 4 or 5 times, according to Tony Kranz, but without letting Council and the public audience know that the same accident was being repeated. The impression that was given, intentionally, was that MANY accidents occurred northbound on N101, to justify lane elimination for motorists. Where most of the accidents or near accidents actually occurred, on west side, southbound, there are Sharrows. They should have been put on both sides of the highway. N101, on the east side, shouldn’t have been singled out for a trial run, experimental lane elimination for motorists, as part of the 101 Streetscape, which extends from A St. to La Costa, so is decidedly south of Leucadia and N101.

fred caldwell March 10, 2013 at 3:01 pm

“Having that lane a dedicated bicycle lane wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy.”

Of course neither one of us can prove or disprove such a statement. But I’d damn sure prefer an 8′ bike lane and a slower speed limit than what we had there before: a 2′ bike lane and two lanes of 40 MPH traffic.

fred caldwell March 10, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Just as I thought, no one said the man was drunk.

Al Ein March 3, 2013 at 12:25 pm

But it doesn’t matter where anyone lives. All local commuters and Encinitas residents are concerned about the lane’s being taken away, Northbound, without the traffic studies being completed. The Coastal Commission knows that a lane was eliminated; that’s why it was called a “lane diet.” And if a lane for bicyclists was added, then that is also an intensification of use.

Have you noticed the “pun” on my name? I am a sad “ALIEN.” I get a lot of pleasure out of trolling blogs and singling people out, targeting certain posters, or a particular poster, with whom I am obsessed, with nonsensical accusations and arguments that have nothing to do with logic or common courtesy. You will find me anywhere I can post under some name that is not my own, and call out others, who are attempting to speak to the topic with my mean-spirited comments.

Diana Wennerstrom February 27, 2013 at 11:09 am

Re: Safety and the Encinitas Lane Diet on Highway 101 Dear Ms Lee:

In conjunction with discussion on the re-striping of the lanes on Highway 101, the City of Encinitas has made available to the public copies of your letter to Mr Edward Dean regarding this issue.

Through thorough traffic studies and analysis, Mr Dean has extensively examined this issue and has ample evidence to dispute your contention that “it changes the intensity of use of the road.” Nor does the proposed project change the “designed use of the highway,” since it has always been intended for use by bicycles and pedestrians in addition to motor vehicles.

However, my purpose for writing this letter is not to argue over the legal verbiage in the City’s LCP, or §30625 or any other ordinance.

Rather, I am asking you to abide by your charter:

Protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.

There is no question that the proposed lane diet will enhance the appeal of Highway 101 to bicycles and pedestrians, with little impact on vehicular traffic (peak hour traffic 860 vehicles/hour, lane capacity 1800 vehicles/hour). Increased bike and pedestrian traffic is unequivocally better for the environmental resources of the California coast and ocean. And environmental sustainability will be conserved.

But more importantly, road safety will be greatly increased. With its current sub-standard lanes, this highway is just plain dangerous for bicycles: there have been many many accidents. It is one of the most popular bike routes, not just in California, but in the nation.

Because Encinitas has recently repaved the road, they have a cost-effective and prudent opportunity to amend this liability. But each day that the Commission withholds permission to implement this fix increases the probability of another serious or fatal injury.

Please don’t let this happen!

Thank you
Diana Wennerstrom

what exaggeration March 1, 2013 at 12:32 pm

Mr. Dean hasn’t been with the City of Encinitas all that long.

When the City of Encinitas officially applied for a Coastal Development Permit on 3/15/10, was Ed Deane on staff at that time? Whether he was or not, that was when the City began the process of getting a CDP and Design Review Permit, through Case No. 10-035CDP/DR and also the MANDATED amendments to our General and N101 Specific Plans and our Local Coastal Program through Case No. 10-036 GPA/N101SPA/LCPA.

On 6/27/12, staff came back asking for, and being granted an additional $75,000 for further traffic analysis, specifically to answer complex questions posed by CALTRANS and the City of Carlsbad re traffic impact related to lane elimination for motorists on a primary circulation element, 4 lane roadway. By eliminating a lane for motorists, the roadway now has a three lane configuration, without following the required process, including being GRANTED the CDP applied for on 3/15/10. The traffic analysis funding was contracted to Peltz and Associates, who subcontracted it out to Linscott, Laww and Greenspan . . .

Northbound there IS an existing bicycle lane from A street to Marchetta, in the Railroad right of way, which should be extended to La Costa. There is no bicycle lane at all going southbound, on the west side of North Highway 101, and that is why Sharrows are welcome.

Opinions are not facts March 1, 2013 at 1:11 pm

Ed Deane’s opinion that there would be no “intensification” of road usage or any poster’s opinion that changing a four lane major roadway, primary circulation element, to a three lane doesn’t change the design of the roadway is simply that: UNVERIFIED OPINION.

Eliminating a lane for motorists does change the configuration to a 3 lane motorists, and does change the design, does change the intensification of use in causing more prolonged periods of back up when I-5 is blocked or significantly slowed, or during other peak periods, including during summer fair and racetrack seasons.

Also to be considered is the relocation or elimination of bus stops that would be required. The City contracted for more traffic studies, because more analysis is required for it to process the Coastal Development Permit it applied for almost three years ago, now.

Moreover, most citizens of Encinitas are very grateful that the Coastal Commission is following its mandate to protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations, by insisting that the City should follow its own permitting and design review process, its own General Plan, North 101 Specific Plan and its own Local Coastal Program in obtaining the required amendments BEFORE jumping ahead based on emotional, unverified anecdotal evidence, to take away a lane for motorists, NOT balancing the needs of adjacent residents, local commuters, BEACHGOERS, and the elderly and disabled with those recognized needs of bicyclists.

The Coastal Commission cannot selectively allow Encinitas to disregard our certified Local Coastal Progam or Coastal Act Law, tweaking it to fit the demands of bicyclist clubs that were originally ONLY asking for Sharrows, at the Traffic Commission on 6/11/12. Development interests have been pushing for the lane elimination for motorists on the east side of the highway as an early phasing in of the North 101 Streetscape Project. That it is an early phasing has been freely admitted by the Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association and Encinitas staff.

Ryan Cady February 27, 2013 at 4:04 pm

The new bike lane and striping changes in Leucadia are amazing and long overdue. The short stretch of 101 in Leucadia used to be the worst on the coast and considering the amount of cycling traffic inexcusable. Now it is probably the best and most bike friendly. These are the kind of projects that the community should be supporting not trying to repeal. Cycling is a healthy, community friendly way to get around town and to get to our local businesses. The old traffic configuration put cyclists between doors and cars southbound and northbound there was no bike lane at all and the road was so bad on the side that you had to ride in the right lane anyway. Now, cyclists have the traffic controls to have confidence to ride their bikes safely through this section of 101 and the community will only benefit from this.

Debbie February 27, 2013 at 11:05 pm

This is a great new beginning for north county. The bike lane slows down traffic and is safer for all, and the cyclists! Fun, good exercise, Stop pollution and ride your bike!

what exaggeration March 1, 2013 at 12:34 pm

It’s not a great new beginning for Encinitas officials who have failed to follow Coastal Act Law or to abide by the City’s own rules. The bicyclists are being used as pawns for development interests.

fred caldwell March 9, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Exactly how do bike lanes, slower speed limits or even roundabouts encourage developers to build here?

Concerned Citizen May 15, 2013 at 11:57 pm

Fred, because developers who want to build three story, high-density, mixed use projects along the N101 corridor, can use roundabouts as alleged “traffic calming” devices, although they would further choke traffic, and would have the opposite effect. But a new development would require either an environmental impact report, or a Mitigated Negative Impact declaration. So the roundabouts will be used by developers to procure the latter, Mitigated Neg Impact decs, opening the way for more and more “monster” projects along Highway 101.

Opinions are not facts March 1, 2013 at 1:26 pm

The road is not smooth. The slurry seal was done unevenly. Local commuters and residents have complained to the city.

The PAINT prematurely and illegally removed a lane for motorists, giving it to bicyclists without a proper balancing through a needs assessment and without adhering to the Coastal Act and our certified Local Coastal Program, appealable to the Coastal Commission.

Bob Raibert March 11, 2013 at 8:44 am

I rode my bike today to work, you should try it, a fantastic start to the day. With this I helped improve traffic as I am one less car on the road and this helps decrease traffic for the cars.

I'm pissed off about reduced lanes! March 20, 2013 at 7:21 pm

Why couldn’t the city extend the existing separate lane next to the tracks? Similar to the beautiful path in Solana Beach?
I’m concerned that with the summer congestion that people will avoid our area and mom and pop shops lose out.

sdbcruise April 18, 2013 at 2:06 pm

I’m exactly that person that will now avoid Encinitas and all the businesses I used to frequent. I tried driving down the 101 on a saturday afternoon with out of town guests enroute to one of our favorite dining venues in downtown Encinitas. It was a catastrophe! the traffic was ridiculous and no left turn lanes?? really???…what was the city council thinking???? I’m one consumer who will no longer be bringing my business to Encinitas as the stress of navigating this lovely town is not worth it. VERY disappointing decision and will very much hurt businesses in Encinitas and Leucadia

Comments are closed.