Browsed by
Tag: ofo

Bayshore Bikeway Ribbon Cutting

Bayshore Bikeway Ribbon Cutting

Bicyclists, SANDAG and local government representatives celebrated the opening of another Bayshore Bikeway segment in National City yesterday.  I was surprised to learn that planning of this Bikeway began over 40 years ago.   32nd Street Naval Station Commander Roy Love noted that over 5,000 service members living across Harbor Dr. were driving the half mile to get to the base, but that under his command he has promoted transit alternatives that reduce congestion.  Safe bike infrastructure like the Bikeway is a critical part of that effort. 

Also on hand was a LimeBike representative and a whole lot of LimeBikes, including the very cool e-bikes shown below:   

We tried out an e-bike and were surprised to feel the power assist kick in on the first pedal push.  Electric, dockless bikeshare could be a game-changer in San Diego, as LimeBike and Ofo deployed their systems here last Thursday. The LimeBike rep noted the high usage of dockless bikes around transit stations, solving the last-mile problem.  And the e-bikes remove the “San Diego is too hilly for bikes” excuse often used by the parking lobby.

Unsurprisingly, there’s already been pushback from motorists and businesses who claim our public street space is exclusively for private car storage.  Already complaining on day 2 of the bike rollout: the Hillcrest Business Association, which recently spent another $20K to kill more bike lanes, and home to HBA board member/Grah Safe & Lock owner Glenn Younger, who recently called bike lanes “Spandex Welfare”:

HBA wants to restrict where dockless bikes can be parked in the neighborhood – essentially making them docked – despite previously opposing docked bike share on public streets.  Here’s a solution: follow San Diego’s legally-binding Climate Action Plan and convert 18% of auto parking to bike parking on every block.  And far more bikes can be stored in a parking space than one car.  

After the Bayshore Bikeway event, we rode the Bikeway (which features some really unique sights and nature experiences) down to the new Imperial Beach Bikeway Village, where we were presented with this amazing panoramic view of the bay:

At the Bikeway Village, Trident Coffee (shown below) had a wide variety of cold brew coffees and other beverages.  2 Wheels Cycling Boutique has a variety of bikes, gear and a full-service repair shop.  Coronado Brewing is set to open in the Village later this year with a restaurant and brewing operation. 

It was a great feeling to visit businesses that actually valued bicyclists as their customers.  Compare this to “tolerant, inclusive, and accepting of diversity” Hillcrest, where bicyclists are called “spandex welfare” recipients, and residents and businesses actively campaign against their safety!  I know where I’ll continue to (not) spend my money.  

From the Bikeway Village we biked up the Silver Strand into Coronado and ferried back to downtown:

The Bayshore Bikeway event comes against a backdrop of SANDAG “Early Action” bike projects that have recently been delayed, delayed yet again, and then delayed after that delay – after years of delays.  I was told by a SANDAG project manager in 2014 that the 4th and 5th Ave Bikeways were ready to start construction in 2015 (except for the then-planned Balboa Park Centennial Celebration); they’re now delayed to 2019 at least. 

Every transportation project has snags, but SANDAG hit a mere *1 out of 9* bikeway milestones in FY17 and 3 out of 17 so far – those are San Diego Padre-type batting averages:

I’m a big supporter of SANDAG staff that have worked tirelessly while being targeted for abuse by business associations, community planning groups and the Uptown Parking District.  It’s tough to make progress when your (former) executive director is hostile toward bike infrastructure, absurd public comments must be considered, and local electeds would often rather avoid conflict than assert leadership. 

One bright note: the Howard/Orange Ave Bikeway passed its CEQA exemption Friday (give your feedback on aesthetic elements here).  This bikeway was cited as a reason for the City of San Diego to not provide safe bike infrastructure on El Cajon Boulevard, yet its construction has also been pushed back to 2019.

The above is another example of the City failing to live up to its Vision Zero promises on pedestrian and bicyclist safety as deaths continue to mount.  As the City Council takes notice, the Mayor’s office seems opposed to spending any money on the problem or changing staff culture.  For example, the City’s Transportation and Engineering street designs encourage high speed driving, yet Deputy Director Linda Marabian declared motorists “will not be inconvenienced” for pedestrian/bicyclist safety.  If a city deputy director is fired over a homeless person being placed in a garbage truck, why is Marabian still employed as dozens of residents continue to be killed every year?

Despite daily news of reckless, often drunk drivers killing and maiming residents (a recent example is a red-light running SUV driver that seriously injured a bicyclist in City Heights), motorists take to Nextdoor to declare bicyclists as the bigger problem:

 

It’s encouraging to see Vision Zero working in other cities that have made serious efforts to fix the problem.  Unfortunately we still have a long way to go in San Diego – on multiple levels.

UC San Diego’s Bike Un-Share

UC San Diego’s Bike Un-Share

The post below appeared on BikeSD on 5/19.  Since then, UC San Diego presented its Long Range Development Plan.  Despite several claims of the university’s ‘sustainability’, the presentation graphics included no mention of a bike share system, nor its Climate Action Plan goals to reduce solo driver commuters beyond this year:

There were also no renderings of the multiple new parking garages approved for campus, nor the planned parking lot that will pave over a canyon behind Geisel Library.  


After racking up more than 1000 free rides per day, the new (but unauthorized) Ofo bike share system was removed by UC San Diego officials last month. Despite the obvious demand for bike share, and a four-year-old UCSD undergraduate report describing a bike sharing system for campus, officials pulled the plug on the program.

IMG 3502 1

Ofo’s “insurance policies did not meet campus requirements when reviewed by UCSD Risk Services”, according to UCSD Marketing and Communications Director Laura Margoni.  In addition, a UCSD police officer explained that no procedure for maintaining or repairing Ofo bikes existed.

Dumping 300 bikes on campus meant Ofo was using the same business model disruption method as Uber, Lyft and Airbnb.  Had these sharing economy companies waited for permission from officials – who were often unwilling or unable to comprehend the need for such services – they wouldn’t have succeeded.  Similarly, Ofo demonstrated the large demand for bike share at UCSD by bypassing campus rules set by administrators who disregarded years of requests for such a program.  After the bikes were removed, UCSD Transportation Services Marketing Manager Curt Lutz said:

“It is my understanding that the impression left by the OFO experience was that there is likely demand for a well implemented bike share program that has a sustainable funding model or to be piloted for trial of competitive models.”

Wasn’t this demand communicated to UCSD by the undergraduate report four years earlier, by multiple students and employees, and in employee parking and sustainability surveys?  And while most municipalities have worked out agreements with unauthorized sharing services, UCSD instead removed a bike share system that cost nothing to install, with no official communication about its replacement.  (Meanwhile every temporary parking lot closure is announced to campus.)  Mr. Lutz again:

“We have been working on a review (internally and with cooperation of SANDAG staff) of bike share vendors, technologies and programs for the past several months to evaluate moving forward with an RFP or RFI (Request for Proposal/Information). UC Riverside and UCLA are just launching programs with two of the prospective vendors offering different technologies.  At this time we believe that there is value in monitoring these implementations as part of our process. We are currently working with campus Procurement to scope options for bike share services including business models like OFO.”

Nearly 100 U.S. campuses had bike share systems in 2010, including UC Irvine.  UC Berkeley will implement Bay Area Bike Share shortly – without monitoring UCLA and UCR.  Yet UCSD still needs to monitor these programs before issuing a Request for Information?  Encouragingly, Margoni states that a bike share pilot will roll out at UCSD this fall.

A bike share program is important to UC San Diego for a number of reasons.  The freeway-like roads (or stroads) surrounding campus make conditions too dangerous for many off-campus residents to commute by bike:

  • Genesee Avenue on the north side of campus is 6+ lanes of 60 MPH+ traffic just inches from riders (here’s audio of a KPBS reporter attempting to bike it).  
  • The $105 million dollar Genesee Ave bridge being built over I-5 will be 10 car lanes wide, yet there wasn’t enough room for a protected bike lane.  
  • La Jolla Village Drive is also 6+ lanes of 50 MPH+ traffic, with pedestrians being hit and killed on its curving, high-speed I-5 on-ramps.  
  • Gilman Drive is 4+ lanes of 60 MPH+ traffic, with aggressive drivers often veering into the bike lane to cut into the I-5 south onramp queue.  

As a result of the above, many commuters use SDMTS bus routes that take them to the Gilman Transit Center, on the south side of campus.  This a 15-30 minute walk to many buildings on the vast UCSD campus, and bike share would address this first/last-mile problem of public transit.  UCSD does offer a useful shuttle system, but if you miss one it’s still faster to walk.

Some students do use the limited bike racks (two) on MTS buses, but they are vulnerable to the massive bike theft problem on campus.  Bike lockers would offer increased security but these do not exist at UCSD, despite my requests for installation several years ago.      

While biking could shorten the long walk times between buildings, it is actually against the rules to ride a bike on either of the main north-south campus routes, from 8:30 AM to 5 PM.  As a result, students frequently receive costly tickets simply for biking to class.  As this report from CirculateSD suggests, why not simply create dedicated bike lanes on these routes and elsewhere on campus?  BikeSD covered San Diego State’s new bike lanes back in 2011:

52049 1

Instead, the Grove Path bike lane was installed for a short segment between the two main north-south UCSD pedestrian-only routes. Pedestrians often use the bike-only Grove Path lane, and are not cited for doing so.

Since bike share helps solve the last-mile problem of public transit, UCSD’s removal of Ofo contradicts the university’s attempts to increase the number of commuters using alternative transportation to campus. Proclaiming “Sustainability is in our DNA”, UCSD’s 2008 Climate Action Plan seeks to decrease the number of solo-driver commuters from 49% to 39% by 2018, via increased biking, walking, and public transit usage.  Transportation is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in California, and San Diego faces severe coastal impacts from a predicted 10-foot sea level rise by the end of the century:

Screen Shot 2017 05 06 at 11.52.01 AM 1

However, since its Climate Action Plan was announced, UC San Diego has taken the following actions with respect to transit:

  • Terminated its free bus zone program for students and employees (employees can receive an EcoPass discount)
  • Removed a free bike share program
  • Endangered bicyclists on Expedition Way and Voight Drive, by adding street parking to these narrow, hilly roads
  • Supported the $6.5 billion dollar widening of I-5 in North County – which includes no bus routes servicing campus
  • Announced the construction of three new parking garages on campus, despite the Mid-Coast Trolley’s arrival in 2021

UCSD’s goal of reducing single occupancy commuters is shared by the UC Office of the President (UCOP), which publishes an annual report outlining mode share rates and reduction goals:

Screen Shot 2017 05 06 at 11.14.10 AM 1

However, UCSD’s mode share numbers above are for all commuters entering campus, including students – not employees, as the report indicates.  Since the university has no way to distinguish students from employees in its semi-annual counts, the employee single occupancy vehicle number shown above is incorrect (a commuter mode share survey was recently launched to address this misrepresentation), and skewed downward by the large number of students using public transit. Students voted overwhelmingly to pay a quarterly fee for discounted bus service after the free bus zone was killed, and the MTS 201/202 Super Loop has the highest ridership per revenue hour in San Diego’s bus system.  

It should be noted that UCSD has taken some positive steps regarding alternative transportation, including the well-intentioned Grove Path above, and planning for Class II (unprotected) bike lanes on a short segment of Gilman Drive and the new Voigt and Gilman bridges.  UCSD is contributing at least $1.2 million to the Gilman Drive bridge, which will provider a calmer east-side route to campus. UCSD also provided 1.6% of the funding for the Genesee/I-5 project, which will include a bike path connecting campus to the Sorrento Valley Amtrak station.  Yet many of the projects identified in the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study still have not begun, nor has funding been identified.

Further, UCSD’s alternative transportation spending is constrained by its limited sources, which are parking and ticket revenue.  (UCOP goals for increasing alternative transit usage aren’t backed by significant funding.)  And employee parking permit fees don’t come close to paying for the $100 million-plus cost of multiple new parking garages planned for campus (Torrey Pines North Living/Learning Neighborhood, Mesa Nuevos and Osler (UPDATE: and Voigt) Given the rapid rise of ride-sharing services like Uber/Lyft, does it make sense for the university to continue building costly parking garages?  As ride share systems test flat-fee pool programs, new and inexpensive options will exist for automobile commuters to skip vehicle storage on campus.    

If sustainability is truly in UC San Diego’s DNA, it should be leading state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.  Removing a free bike share system that complements public transit isn’t leadership, nor is it consistent with UCSD’s sustainability claims.