Coastal Commission will decide fate of new bike lane

Coastal Commission will decide fate of new bike lane
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

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.

 

Share

Filed Under: Featured

Tags:

RSSComments (56)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. “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 says:

      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 says:

        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!

        • 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 says:

      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 says:

      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.

      • 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.

        • 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 says:

      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.

      • 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?

  2. Al Ein says:

    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 says:

      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 says:

        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 says:

          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.

      • 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 says:

          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.

          • “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.

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

    • Al Ein says:

      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.

  3. Diana Wennerstrom says:

    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 says:

      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 says:

      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.

  4. Ryan Cady says:

    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.

  5. Debbie says:

    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 says:

      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.

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

        • Concerned Citizen says:

          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.

  6. Opinions are not facts says:

    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.

  7. Bob Raibert says:

    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.

  8. I'm pissed off about reduced lanes! says:

    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 says:

      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

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.