"Road Diets" in Coastal North County

User Forum Topic
Submitted by Happs on February 13, 2013 - 2:57pm

Why are coastal cities like Solana Beach and Encinitas going backwards and reducing lanes on 101 and city streets instead of widening them and timing traffic lights better? It's difficult to get around the congested costal cities with their pot hole ridden and bumpy streets and numerous poorly timed traffic lights. Unless you have a hybrid, your fuel economy is low due to long idle times and you are outputting more emissions. Why not alleviate this by adding traffic lanes/widening streets? Not everyone has a hybrid vehicle or a bicycle. It's ironic that city leaders tout big brother like environmental responsibility when more residents of coastal North County voted for the Libertarian candidate for President than the Green party candidate.

http://www.delmartimes.net/2013/02/12/so...

Submitted by spdrun on February 13, 2013 - 3:29pm.

Because they don't want people who live in Ramona and work in SD using the coast road as a commuter route alternative to the 5? Secondly, one doesn't want 50-60 mph traffic in the beach cities, since you have a lot of people (and kids) walking and crossing the road.

It's unofficially called US 101, but it was de-designated as a national route south of L.A., so the towns can do what they like with the county's permission. I think slower traffic in towns plus a 55 mph limit on the less built-up parts is a good compromise.

Also, from what I've seen, the choke point isn't the road through those towns. It's the fact that several bridges are under construction.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 13, 2013 - 4:03pm.

Happs, it is actually SR-1 that runs through these coastal towns. (US-101 ends at I-10 in West LA.)

It is common in the 48 states when going thru state hwys or "State Routes" as we call them in Cali to slow down and stop in towns and small cities and proceed at 25 mph until out of the town. Those small cities that you mentioned were never set up to accomodate the amount of people going thru them now. That is why I-5 runs through there. There have always been businesses on both sides of this hwy and I don't see that changing. Widening this route would destroy some of the these businesses and the "charm" that these towns are known for.

In decades past, these towns ended well west of I-5. Since so much has been approved to be built up there since about 1980, almost all of it east of I-5, these small cities have annexed that county land on the east side and grown exponentially in population. What your esteemed leaders at the time wanted to do was increase their tax base. So now the "gridlock" you are seeing on north-south roads, which used to only happen in July and August (prime beach season) is prevalent all year around due to way too many people living there :=0

That's exactly what your elected officials wanted and so that is what they got.

Submitted by spdrun on February 13, 2013 - 4:09pm.

Actually, SR-1 ends in San Juan Capistrano, north of Pendleton. The coast highway is local road S21 south of Oceanside :)

Said road is already 4-6 lanes in many places. It's a lot faster than the equivalent road in my neck of the woods, which is generally two lanes with speed limits 40 mph max and a yield sign/crosswalk every block in some towns. Unlike in CA, the NJ beach towns get deserted after mid-September, so it's only bad driving in summer.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 13, 2013 - 4:13pm.

spdrun wrote:
Actually, SR-1 ends in San Juan Capistrano, north of Pendleton. The coast highway is local road S21 south of Oceanside :)

Said road is already 4-6 lanes in many places. It's a lot faster than the equivalent road in my neck of the woods, which is generally two lanes with speed limits 40 mph max and a yield sign/crosswalk every block in some towns. Unlike in CA, the NJ beach towns get deserted after mid-September, so it's only bad driving in summer.

I'm sorry, you are correct, spdrun. S21 is SD's "tributary spinoff" of the scenic coast hwy 1 thru Laguna Beach and points south.

This is all the more reason why it won't be widened.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 13, 2013 - 4:17pm.

spdrun wrote:
. . . Unlike in CA, the NJ beach towns get deserted after mid-September, so it's only bad driving in summer.

This is because your elected officials at the time had the good sense NOT to approve several hundred thousand units of construction within ~4 miles of said `bucolic' beaches.

Submitted by spdrun on February 13, 2013 - 4:21pm.

It also won't be widened because an inland collector route for local traffic already exists and is pretty wide. El Camino Real.

As far as the NJ towns, the area is actually pretty built up, but the houses have tended to not turn over as much as in CA, so they stay in families that have homes either in NY or further north. There are some retirees and recent immigrants who live year around, but the population ratio summer to winter is something like 5:1 or higher.

The "nicer" part of the shore is also not nearly as convenient to get to from NYC as North County is from San Diego.

Submitted by KSMountain on February 13, 2013 - 9:03pm.

Omg, three lanes per side through Leucadia would suck so bad. It would be heartbreaking.

What - turn it into Torrance? Cut down what few Eucalyptus are left to make room. All to save a few minutes for commuters. How horrible.

That said - has anyone seen the "bikes may use full lane" on 101N? Pretty unusual...

Submitted by CA renter on February 14, 2013 - 3:29am.

KSMountain wrote:
Omg, three lanes per side through Leucadia would suck so bad. It would be heartbreaking.

What - turn it into Torrance? Cut down what few Eucalyptus are left to make room. All to save a few minutes for commuters. How horrible.

That said - has anyone seen the "bikes may use full lane" on 101N? Pretty unusual...

KSM,

I just noticed the bike "lanes" on the street the other day. They've taken a two-lane (in each direction) street and effectively made it one lane because we all know the bikes don't travel anywhere near as fast as the cars or posted speed limits. That is insane! On top of it, there's a perfectly nice bike path just a few feet away. What the heck is that all about???

Submitted by spdrun on February 14, 2013 - 5:22am.

Bikes are traffic. Bikes are allowed to take the lane regardless of signage. Cagers who whinge about it can fork themselves: that's the law.

Submitted by all on February 14, 2013 - 10:22am.

spdrun wrote:
Bikes are traffic. Bikes are allowed to take the lane regardless of signage. Cagers who whinge about it can fork themselves: that's the law.

Assuming they are moving with the traffic.

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situation:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc2...

Submitted by lookingagain on February 14, 2013 - 12:20pm.

you left out

3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Which means that a bicycle can use the entire lane anytime they feel that they need to. With the exception of the "bicycle rights advocates" that want to ride in the middle of the street just to piss motorists off, most cyclists will stay to the right as long as it is safe for them to do so.

Submitted by CA renter on February 15, 2013 - 3:18am.

spdrun wrote:
Bikes are traffic. Bikes are allowed to take the lane regardless of signage. Cagers who whinge about it can fork themselves: that's the law.

spdrun, FYI, a number of bicyclists have been hit and killed around here because they keep insisting that "cagers fork themselves." It doesn't matter what the law says, if you're doing something so stupid that would obviously lead to serious injury or death (like riding in the middle of lanes designed for 45+ MPH traffic, especially when there are narrow roads and/or blind curves), it may well be your "right," but don't whine about it when you get hit.

I've seen bicyclists cross 4-5 lanes of 50+ MPH traffic just so they could get into the left turn lane instead of simply crossing the street (on their green, no less!) and crossing again with the light and crosswalk. Nope, they're going to show everyone that they are more important than the tens or hundreds of pissed-off people now lined up behind them in heavy traffic.

Submitted by desmond on February 15, 2013 - 8:28am.

spdrun wrote:
Because they don't want people who live in Ramona and work in SD using the coast road as a commuter route alternative to the 5?

I think the last person to use that route from Ramona was Kit Carson.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.