That is not even vaguely remotely true. A shoulder is not a bike lane. CVC 21208 ONLY applies if there is a bike lane and ONLY if that bike lane meets minimum standards in the CA-MUTCD for markings, signage and widths.

Currently, the bike lane on the south bound side opens a couple hundred feet or so south of Marchetta and extends all the way to W D Street with breaks at A St and Encinitas Blvd. Between Marchetta and A St there are many driveways, which are places where a right turn is authorized. Bicyclists are not required to ride in a bike lane when approaching a place where a right turn is authorized – CVC 21208(a)(4).

On the north bound side, the bike lane begins at D St and ends a little past A St where it splits off to a separated path which is not a bike lane since it is physically separated from the roadway (Streets and Highways Code 890.4). CVC 21208 only applies up until the point where it splits. There is currently no bike lane again until after La Costa. After the new changes go in, there will be one after Leucadia Blvd.

The new bike lane on the north bound side will exceed the minimum width from what I’m hearing and will no doubt comply with the signage and marking standards. CVC 21208 will apply there and bicyclists will not be able to use the traffic lane unless they are travelling at or above the normal speed of traffic at that time or there are hazards preventing them from safely using the bike lane or if they are preparing to make a left turn at Jasper, Diana, W Glaucus, Phoebe, W. Jason, Jupiter, Avocado, Grandview, Bishops Gate or whatever that big yellow building is that has a left turn lane to it near the north end. Approaching a place where a right turn is authorized won’t apply until they are near La Costa, since there are no cross streets on the right side along that stretch.

You need to work on your reading skills. It’s all there in the law.

The vehicle code which I quoted, WOULD APPLY to the proposed dedicated bicycle lane that would go in if one lane, northbound, is eliminated for motorists. Bicycles, going at the same speed as traffic, would legally be allowed to use NOT ONLY THE NEW DEDICATED BICYLE LANE, but ALSO the only remaining lane for northbound motorists, according to those conditions I listed. So this DOES apply. You are not reading closely, and you are the one mistaken.

Bicyclists where there is no dedicated bicycle lane, can legally use motorists lanes; this is why sharrows would be a good idea on both the east side, northbound and the west side, southbound, of Highway 101. The bicyclists who went before the Traffic Commission asked for Sharrows, NOT lane reduction on Historic State Highway 101. Also, the Sharrows, ONLY, went before the Environmental Commission.

So the Vehicle Code does apply, with respect to the proposed bicycle lane. Current law allows for bicyclists to share motorists’ lanes, providing they are traveling the same speed as traffic. If they are going slower, and there is no bicycle lane, I feel they voluntarily, “stay to the far right,” as I do, although I take one way northbound Neptune, when traveling North! You are trying to pick at my arguments, finding fault, not addressing the basic issues.

Forcing all northbound motorist traffic into only one lane would effectively “wall out” those attempting to turn left, from streets west of the highway, northbound onto North 101, would cause more traffic congestion, which lasts longer, more cut through traffic through our neighborhoods, and would slow already subpar response time by emergency vehicles!

The “lane-diet” concept does NOT balance the needs of the elderly and the disabled, residents adjacent to the North 101 Corridor, or local commuters and tourists, with the needs of a few bicycle enthusiasts. As I said, we, and others we’ve spoken with, who are bicyclists, favor Sharrows on BOTH sides of the highway, but NOT lane elimination!

As Judy pointed out, when the north bound section of the 101 between Leucadia Blvd and La Costa has been narrowed to one lane for construction, it has not been a problem for traffic. I think maybe you imagine that there’s a lot more traffic there than there actually is.

Cyclists don’t have the right or need to “share all motorist lanes, providing they are going the same speed as motor vehicle traffic.” It’s just the right lane, regardless of motor vehicle speeds, when there’s no bike lane.

Northbound bike lane is NOT a “connection to the sharrows.” The sharrows will be in the #2 southbound lane…a completely separate issue.

Re “bike path that now exists from A St. north to Marcheta” (Acually, it goes all the way to El Portal): It is not up to width standard for a bike path and it is mislabeled BIKE LANE.

Also, what should be considered relative to “operational characteristic adequacy,” for the future North 101 Streetscape Project is that with the Faux Roundabouts, several bus stops would be relocated or eliminated. Another bad idea for encouraging public transit and walkability and bicycle ride-ability.

Buses would have to go over the “Fake-about” curbs, as would fire trucks during an emergency. If one of the one lane “neighborhood traffic circles” became blocked due to an accident, traffic would become hopelessly gridlocked, and people would be trapped west of North Highway 101, unable to get out, to the highway, which also must serve as an emergency escape route should evacuation be ordered due to a melt down at San Onofre, for example!

For the City to try to phase in the lane diet before environmental review of the Streetscape Project as a whole has been completed is “sneaky,” and illegal!

Further the article was misleading, because there is little or no danger of bicyclists being “doored” along the east side of Highway North 101, going northbound.

Sharrows would be far better on both sides of the highway, for bicyclists and cars going northbound or southbound, than eliminating one lane, for motorists, going northbound, which would impede and negatively impact operational characteristic adequacy of a Major Roadway, primary circulation element, which is prohibited by State law, through CEQA.

This is another EXCELLENT viable alternative:
A better solution would be to work with the North County Transit District, while we do have some leverage, due to the upcoming plans for double tracking, to enhance our bicycle and pedestrian paths along the rail corridor, as has been done in San Clemente.

WE have so much wonderful FLAT land to the East of 101 that if we worked w/ NCTD and the Rail Trail we could get to make the biking and walking lanes truly beautiful, pleasant and safe for everyone!

FYI: EMC will not allow for a lane REMOVAl w/o a Resolution by the cc, but then the Resolution will need an amendment of the GP, LCP the N1010CSP before it can be APPROVED!
The council has approved lane-diet w/ the slurry project b/c they have been been mISINFORMED by staff of the legal issues of this step!

The proposed Round-Abouts, or FAKE-Abouts for this part of the 101 corridor, the flooding issue in particular in this area of 101, the retaining walls, the landscaping, walking path, the railroad track intersection at Leucadia Blvd. and 101, and the major road reconstruction of 101 so that it is all one level and safe to travel and walk on are all part of the Streetscape Plan that have to be put through the Neg Dec and EIR FIRST to ensure that the ROAD ELIMINATION along with all of the other steps of the
Streetscape Plan is safe for EVERYONE including you Judy! Of course after
that EIR step is approved and the necessary permits are obtained then the amendments to the GP, LCP, and N101CSP will need to be completed before the RAOD ELIMINATION can take place!
In the Streetscape Plan the road configuration from Leucadia Blvd. to La Costa Ave will be 10-8-5 ( car lane, bike lane and walk lane ) vs. in the slurry project the road configuration will be 15-8 ( car lane, bike lane..NO pedestrian walk lane ).
This very different 2 configuration between the two very different projects are due to the fact that there will not be enough room to make U-Turns to go North, and traffic will be stalled in the one car lane North so people can make a left to go to the beach, until the FAKE-Abouts via the
Streetscape Project are built.
FAKE-Abouts bc/none will meet the legal size to be called a Round About, w/ possibly the exception of the one at La Costa Ave. and 101.
Which will be so dangerous, that it will be crazy fun for you!:)