Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Print Edition
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Life Events
Cannabis
May 1, 2024
April 24, 2024
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
Close
May 1, 2024
April 24, 2024
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
May 1, 2024
April 24, 2024
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Free cell phones here
If you hate bicycle riders who ride in traffic lanes, then why do you oppose creating separate bike lanes for them? You said, "NO MORE EFFING BIKE LANES!!!" here: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/nov/04/co… Let me get this straight: people on bikes shouldn't ride in the street (which they do when there is no bike lane). And despite the fact that everyone pays SANDAG TransNet sales taxes, there should be no bike lanes for them to ride in either - because you've decided driving is the only mode of transportation. Wow.— November 10, 2015 9:08 a.m.
The car must know something
The professional traffic engineers are partly to blame here, by placing the crosswalk around the edge of a high-speed off-ramp type road. Like most roads in San Diego, it's designed around driver safety and comfort, which encourages higher speeds. Speed limits are largely ignored, yet even these are based on the 85th percentile of driver speed, with zero consideration for pedestrian safety. Considering all of this, you trust the traffic engineers to fix the problem? I've met San Diego traffic engineers. One, an avid bicyclist, told me people on bikes don't deserve safe infrastructure! Another is doing her best to prevent a bike lane and widened sidewalk near SDSU, because that's her job. Meanwhile a large biking and walking population of students remains unsafe on the streets there. It's long past time for traffic engineers to stop designing our public spaces and consider all users, not just drivers.— March 19, 2015 2:42 p.m.
Oh, those troublesome bike lanes
Thanks for your reply Dennis. I've never heard that response to the bridge analogy. What "bridge" would we be removing in this case? There are no safe bike facilities to remove that would somehow increase the number of people on bikes. And the metaphorical river (our current roads) is too unsafe to swim across. So I'm completely lost on the point you were trying to make. More housing near campus and shuttles to get them there (or bikes!) is definitely a good thing, versus the distant commuters you mentioned.— March 3, 2015 4:03 p.m.
Oh, those troublesome bike lanes
Hi Dennis, Paul Jamason here - when I met with Bob Schulz, VP of Real Estate at SDSU, I did ask him about parking permits. He said when the trolley went in, the number of permits decreased by 6,000, and it is decreasing every year. Perhaps part of the reason you don't see people on bikes off-campus is because the roads are unsafe to ride on. Every city that has installed safe bike lanes has seen huge increases in riders (http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/everywhe…), potentially reducing the traffic congestion you're concerned about. Why not give people in the College area another safe way to get around? Using current ridership numbers to argue against bike lanes is like saying we shouldn't build a bridge because no one swims across a river.— March 1, 2015 12:33 p.m.
Grossmont Center History 101
Parking, gridlock, congestion. What about the region's housing crisis? Guess it's not a crisis if you already have a home and have shut the door to anyone else. This project will provide badly-needed housing near public transit. Mr. Clarke would prefer Grossmont Center remain trapped in the car-obsessed 1960's, just as he appears to be.— February 11, 2015 11:39 p.m.
Plan for a Grantville population boom
SANDAG estimates San Diego needs 330,000 new housing units by 2050, much of it for people who already live with their parents here. As usual, the Reader and its commenters offer only complaints, and no solutions to our city's housing crisis. Where would you build new housing instead? Their answer is "no new housing!", and young people will continue to leave San Diego due to un-affordability. The companies that need a skilled workforce will follow. Building housing near transit results in "more greenhouse gas emissions", but pushing it to Murrietta instead results in less? I'm curious how 60-mile commutes reduce greenhouse gas emissions.— January 9, 2015 9:27 a.m.
Blame the geeks
Initially the rapid bus was supposed to have its own dedicated lane on El Cajon Boulevard. This was killed by ECB business owners who put their private claim to public on-street parking (and objections to "bus people") over rapid public transit. Now folks like yourself complain about wasting money. If you want to blame someone, blame the business owners, not rapid transit. http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/17/new-bus-lin… So $44 million for bus rapid transit is a boondoggle, but $1 billion for widening I-405 in LA for longer(!) travel times is money well spent? http://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/6994159/traffic-roa…— December 23, 2014 4:30 p.m.
Blame the geeks
Dennis, when I ride the 235 during rush hour, it's full. Ridership has been at or above expectations: "Williamson reported that ridership on the SuperLoop has surpassed expectations, while the newer Rapid 215 line last week showed 6,600 daily weekday boardings after just two months of operations compared to the range of 7,000-9,000 boardings projected for it after a full year. On the Rapid 235 route, projected for 3,000-5,000 weekday boardings after a year of operation, MTS achieved an average of 4,900 daily weekday riders last week." http://www.sddt.com/news/article.cfm?SourceCode=2…— December 23, 2014 4:23 p.m.
The parking problem again
I think increased density is great and improves the vibrancy of the neighborhood. Why would you live one block from the business district (as you do) and then complain about parking as North Park has turned into a nationally-recognized urban neighborhood? Your street doesn't exist just to provide you alone with free on-street parking, despite your entitled beliefs to the contrary. We need 330,000 housing units in San Diego by 2050. North Park is well-served by transit and is an ideal place to put some of them. It's sad that your perceived right to on-street parking is more important than addressing our city's housing crisis. But then you've got your house, what do you care if no one else can afford to live here?— November 20, 2014 12:29 p.m.
The parking problem again
I'd like to see more parking district funds go toward neighborhood beautification and improvement. Pasadena is a successful example of this policy: http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/02/local/me-…— November 20, 2014 12:25 p.m.