John E

Coastal Orange County CA BF members, we need your help NOW. I am already sending an email to Mayor Anderson, pointing out how totally disingenuous her statement is:
"I also hope this [segregation] raises awareness of drivers," Mayor Lara Anderson said. "Everybody needs to share." Yeah, right ...



https://www.nbc4.tv/news/9728430/detail.html?taf=la



LOS ANGELES -- The Dana Point City Council voted unanimously Wednesday night to ban pedestrians and cyclists along part of Pacific Coast Highway.

The law will ban jogging and bicycling for more than a mile on the highway's inland side once a new pedestrian path is completed.

A path with a three-foot concrete wall to serve as a barrier from cars is under construction along the ocean side.

<<<>>>
https://ocregister.com/ocregister/hom...le_1253309.php

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Dana Point City Council passes restrictions for PCH
Dana Point passes restrictions for pedestrians and cyclists where accidents occurred.

By ANGELA POTTER and LAYLAN CONNELLY
The Orange County Register

DANA POINT

A narrow stretch of Pacific Coast Highway will soon be off-limits to joggers and cyclists, after the City Council on Wednesday night unanimously decided a beachside path set off from vehicles would be safer.

The law bans pedestrians and bicycles along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, where three accidents since April have left two people dead and two injured.

"I also hope this raises awareness of drivers," Mayor Lara Anderson said. "Everybody needs to share."

The new path will be better protected by a new 1.5-mile concrete barrier. The 10-foot-wide path is under construction and should be completed in September.

During construction, joggers and bicyclists are restricted from running or cycling in the area until construction is complete.

Those headed north on Pacific Coast Highway would reach the path by a new crosswalk at the traffic signal at Camino Capistrano.

Anderson said there will probably be signs erected that would direct people along the path once it is opened.

The 3-foot-high wall between the street and the path will stretch from Palisades Road to Camino Capistrano. The trail will connect with an existing path along a mile stretch at Doheny State Beach.

Fred Guttentag, who rides along Pacific Coast Highway a couple of times a week, said safety is a major concern when choosing his bike routes.

"There must be a bike lane and a low volume of traffic," he said.

Guttentag said he welcomes the barrier separating cyclists and cars. "Anything that increases safety is a good thing," he said. "I'm very aware of the possibility of an accident."

Although Guttentag said he doubted cyclists and pedestrians would always wait for the light at the new crosswalk, since he saw several people ignore a light Wednesday morning. "That's human nature," he said. "I try not to do that. I just don't want to get a ticket."

CONTACT US: 949-454-7377 or apotter@ocregister.com

tbdean

Actually, I think this is okay. The area does sound dangerous during construction. The affected route is very small. And it's not really a "don't ride here" so much as a "cars go this way, bikes and peds take this detour."

John E

Objection #1: The ban continues AFTER construction.

Objection #2: Northbound bicyclists are now going to be expected to wait through two very long traffic light cycles, one to enter the wrong-side-of-the-road path, the other to leave it to rejoin the main road.

Objection #3: Sharing a 10-foot-wide path with lots of dog walkers, joggers, and rollerbladers, not to mention contraflow bicyclists, is a recipe for disaster.

Objection #4: The only detour to the east, i.e., on the correct side of the road, is mountainous and circuitous.

Objection #5: This policy sets an arguably unconstitutional precedent toward forcing us off the road.

joejack951

Any information on the accidents that occurred that prompted this BS?

Keith99

John,

You look like you are truely local. I had been thinking the ban was reasonable, BUT I was thinking of soem sections of PCH where it is closer to freeway than normal Highway. After reading you post I thought of some other sections trhat are really more busy main streets.

Could you describe this section of PCH? At least to me it makes a difference what kind of street we are talking about here.

LittleBigMan

Question: is it legal in California for a local city council to pass any laws restricting cyclists or pedestrians from using a state highway?

tbdean

Sorry, I didn't realize. You are correct and I change my opinion.

genec

This reminds me of something I have been wanting to write for a few days but have not downloaded the pics yet for....

I just completed a bike/drive tour of Oregon and Northern California along hiway 101. This was similar in nature to the bike/drive tour I did back in July of Northern AZ and southern Utah.

It works like this... I get up early in the morning and start biking on a route that my wife is aware of... she sleeps in and later catches me... giving me time to do about 30 miles on the roads in the morning. We then drive on... This satisfies both our needs. (she sleeps in, I bike) we do about 300 miles a day this way.

The road this time was US101 along the Oregon coast and later a bit more inland along California's northern coast on Hiway 1.

First let me give kudos to Oregon for their bike awareness. Along most of US101 in Oregon there was a nice wide (8 foot) shoulder and regular placement of full size advisory signs (yellow diamonds) that indicated to motor traffic that bikes are on the road. Along with these there were also regular "Oregon Coast Bike Route" signs that indicated the route and were of the typical Bike Route size. The road was generally in good shape and rarely was there not enough shoulder to very comfortably ride. The speed limit was posted at 50MPH.

Entering California, I was presented with a very different picture. The shoulder was gone... in many places it was merely a foot wide or less; wider shoulders were the exception, not the rule. Sadly, US101 becomes a limited access freeway in California quite soon after entering the state (near Crescent city)… and a cyclist is forced to find other routes. The road quality is also shockingly poor… with the road having many patched areas and cracks and uneven surfaces. I would think that as a state, California would more easily have the funds to maintain roads than would Oregon… due to the differing tax structures of the two states.

Going further south it was evident that in California, US101 is not a great option for a cyclist… so we chose to detour to Hiway 1. Now the oddest thing was that Hiway 1 is a very narrow, windy, road, right along the coast, somewhat similar to 101 in Oregon… BUT, with no shoulders and marked at 55MPH except when going through town areas. US 101 in Oregon, on the other hand, with a nice wide shoulder was marked at 50MPH. Clearly California has different motivations regarding their roads. BTW trying to drive anywhere near 55MPH on hiway 1 was nearly impossible... so why the high posted speed?

The difference in roads was further marked by the fact that local surface streets and Hiway 1 were in some disrepair compared to the Hiways further south (101 where it was limited access and Hiway 5). California has a love affair with hiways and the auto, and it was quite evident. Oregon appeared to be a biking state with an auto problem, whereas California is obviously an auto state with a biking “problem.” Cyclists are clearly NOT the first priority (if of any priority) in California.

Now granted, the larger populations of California warrant wider roads… but to see this obvious a contrast right at the CA-OR border (where there is little difference in population) was shocking…

California also has a problem with road sign pollution… I had to shake my head at the confusion of road signs often clustered together along the roadways… from the signs “advertising” the vendors at the next off ramp/ turn off to the simple direction signs… it was as if no forethought had gone into the placement of the signs. At one point their were four green road advisory signs placed so close to each other as to make them unreadable… the sign in front covered the sign behind it. Oregon placed their signs well apart and used simple phrasing. “Bikes on road,” verses California “Hilly and windy road next 22 miles, watch for bikes.” Bit wordy, eh? And not very frequent either. Oregon advised motorists to watch for cyclists with one type of large sign, placed at regular intervals. California used everything from that “22 mile” sign to “Bike Route” to orange “watch for bikes” signs… placed at very random intervals. I think this latter example exemplifies California’s approach to cycling… patchwork and irregular.

Now lest you imagine that I am from Oregon and am bragging... that is hardly the case. I live and bike in Southern California.

Helmet Head

We don't believe so, but that's what makes this situation so critical... if they get away with it they will set a precedent.

There is a lot going on to fight this - CABO is leading the charge.

saharvey2

The OC Register article mentions two dead and two injured since April. Two joggers were seriously injured in April. Bicyclist Michael Thompson was killed in July. Bicyclist Viola Tucker was killed in May.
Currently, during construction, this is a narrow two lane road with no shoulder. The section is between Palisades Dr. and Camino Capistrano.

John E

I have never participated in a Critical Mass ride, but something like this just might prompt me to do so. Tomorrow, 26 August, would have been Tullio Campagnolo's 105th birthday -- a little memorial ride, anyone?

John E

For which the proper governmental response would be a temporary reduction in speed limit (25mph would make sense here), coupled with "share the road" signage.

If the bypass path is closed for construction, as is the road itself, just how are bicyclists to get from a southerly Point A to a northerly Point B?

nm+

HWY is the most expensive road in CA if not the country and the prority is keeping it from falling into the ocean. In many cases, there's just no where else to put road.
As a major bikeway, they should do something, but I'm not sure they can afford to. HWY 1 north of Bodega closes at least once a year due to a landslide that either buries and destroys the road or causes the road and ocean to become one. They're playing catch up.
Also, once you've driven the raod once, most of the road is quite drivable at 55mph. Given that this is the locals artery to civilization, the locals ahve driven it many times and know exactly what is safe. Those who havn't are at the bottom of the Pacific. Its much like Montana, the locals know that 75mph on two laneroad doesn't mean they should do it all the time. Why punish them because some tourists don't know how to drive the road.
Also note that the people who know the road also know to look for bikes and don't do anything stupid around blind coners or hills.

ken cummings

I know both areas.

The Dana Point section squeezes the 101 between the AT&SF railroad tracks and a crumbling 100 foot cliff. I biked thru there dozens of times when I rode with the Orange County Wheelmen. I was not bothered by the north-bound climb up Camino Capistrano, the nearly flat ride north to Palisades and the drop back to the 101. I would be happier with 5 foot lanes on each side. My peeve would be that it is likely that the MUP would not be kept clean enough.

The section of the Coast Highway north of Bodega Bay and Jenner is a scenic wonder and reasonable well paved for such an isolated road. South of Jenner the ocean has been eroding the cliff next to the road. Soon parts of the road will be rebuilt and possibly widened enough to make nervous cyclists happy. North of Jenner the road crosses the San Andreas Fault Zone for several miles and the ground is crumbled grey goo. Powerful cyclists can take a local road that runs along the first range of hills for 15-20 miles. If semi-skilled drivers in Winnebagos pulling boats on snakey narrow steep roads make them nervous make them nervous.
Making the road nice and wide for everyone would involve something like strip mining 10 miles of coast at $50,000,000 to $200,000,000 per mile. And we would still get landslides until the Big One completely destroys the road.

nm+

Thats Meyer's Grade Rd. Its a very nice road as its not busy unless the 1 is closed. Its hilly, but I'm not sure its that much worse than 1. Climbing loaded with cars on your ass is more stressful than a nice, empty climb. There's also a cool looking buddist temple up there.
You need to check maps to access it from the north though.
Parts of hwy 1 are scary in a car, nothing like some moron in a RV crossing the double yellow on a turn with nothing but cliff on either side.

Daily Commute

I rode on PCH last December in that area. It's perfectly fine for cyclists, but sometimes we do slow down car traffic in towns. That's probably the real reason for the ban.

Notice that the mayor can't cite to a single accident. Given the HUGE volume of cycling through the area, if it were dangerous, there would have been an accident by now.

Also, a lot of roadies use PCH, and it's exactly the kind of road they should be on when they want to sustain 20-35 mph. Is the bypass path going to be safe at that kind of speed? I doubt it.

Edited to correct typos.

LCI_Brian

There has been a couple of crashes this year, the mayor didn't cite them since it's common knowledge.

There's a website with pictures here: https://www.cabobike.org/pchban.htm

Original configuration is two lane road with bike lanes. Looks like they want to put a two way side path on the west side of the road. From the photos it's obvious that there's no extra right of way to do this, so they would have to narrow the roadway to do this. So the "solution" appears to be to force cyclists to use the new sidepath.

Bikepacker67

Evidently not.

genec

Yeah, I noticed the gate across the road just above Bodega bay. But what I found dismaying is the big trucks that rapidly snaked through the area. At their speed and width, there is little room for anything else on that road. Frankly, like many roads in California, this one could use a lower speed limit, and like it's counterpart in Oregon, a few more "watch for bikes" signs.

We did come upon at least a dozen cyclists on the road... at least three around blind corners.

As a bit of contrast... I was equally surprised to see about a half dozen "wrong way" cyclists along the Oregon corridor of US 101.

nm+

What they need is a dual speed limit. 55 for cars, 45-35 for vehicles over a certain weight (Hopefully inculding large SUVs )
Actually, what they need is a bigger back (main) road for commerical traffic that allows thes big vehicles to access the towns easier. Unfourtunatly that would be very expensive. Semi's and RVs should not be on certain strechs of 1.

DCCommuter

Around here (i.e. the A&S forum), we call that "segregationalist" thinking. Next thing you'll want to ban cars, buses and motorcycles, and the only thing allowed on the road will be cyclists, farm equipment and driven livestock .

nm+

Hey it works if done right.
they do it here in st paul.
No commerical traffic on summit, it all goes to Grand. Makes summit a better place to ride and drive.

Blue Order

The article says there have been three recent accidents, with two dead and two injured.

That's the problem I see. If I were a resident there, I wouldn't really mind the ban, if they created this segregated path next to the highway as a bicycle highway. On the other hand, if they create an MUP, which is what it sounds like they're creating, cyclists will be unable to ride the length of the MUP because pedestrians will inevitably occupy the width of the MUP. If they're creating an MUP, in effect the city is saying "walk your bikes here." As long as they're going to the expense of creating a bicycle/pedestrian path, they could and should create separate lanes for bikes and peds. The article is unclear as to whether they'll separate bikes from pedestrians, but somehow, i doubt it. Cyclists should be advocating for a solution that allows them to ride without conflict with pedestrians, just as the present solution is intended to prevent conflict between cars and bicycles.

bikingshearer 

I am almost certain it is not. There is case law in California involving at least one city (and I think two) trying to force bicycles to use the sidewalk on a busy street instead of using the roadway. The final court decision was that a city could not do that - only the State Legislature could make that determination (such as not bicyclists on freeways with a few posted exceptions). I don't remember the name of the case, but I think it was two cases consolidated into one and involved Pleasanton and Walnut Creek. I also do not recall off-hand if the final case came from teh California Supreme Court or a Court of Appeal, but it definitelhy was a published appellate case, which means it is in fact precedent that can be cited to any Superior (i.e., trial) court in the State. Assuming my memory is correct - and I'm pretty sure it is, but not 100% positive - then Dana Point's move sounds like it would not withstand a court challenge (unless the road in question is a controlled acces highway, i.e., a freeway).

John E

Thank you for a substantive contribution, Ken. If the Camino Cap. / Palisades bypass is in fact as reasonable as you claim, I might indeed CHOOSE to use it for northbound travel, but I should not be FORCED to. Also, if the CC/P link is that reasonable for northbound cyclists, then the MUP should be made one-way / southbound only, which would probably make it a bit safer.

The Dana Point City Council thinks it can blatantly violate state law (see article 21 of the California Vehicle Code), without even consulting with well-informed representatives of the bicycling community; this should send shivers down all of our spines.