Bike Lanes on 30th Street Are a Good Start for San Diego
Here’s the big picture. As far as climate change is concerned, the bad news for San Diego is our local average temperature (1895-2018) has already increased by 1.9 degrees Celsius. We are just shy of the 2 degrees Celsius increase (by 2100!) the 2015 Paris accord says the world should act urgently to avoid.
What should be an all-hands-on-deck moment is distorted by localities/individuals fighting to maintain the status quo. The naysayers hide behind blame, fear, and veneration of the technology responsible for our environmental challenges. Pressed to offer alternatives, they have excuses rather than visions.
This speaks to the intense debate in neighborhoods bordering the 30th Street corridor over a plan to rethink traffic patterns through North and South Park. Some 420 parking spaces would be eliminated, a center turning lane would be extended, and protected bike/scooter lanes would be installed.
The Next Door app has been chock full of complaints, conspiracy theories, and competing claims for months now. I tried (once) to counter some the worst cowcaca with facts and was promptly buried in bluster.
Debate over the impact of bike lanes parallels the arguments over climate change. While not as many studies exist, most point to positive experiences, including an increase in sales for most affected small businesses.
Arguments against rely on anecdotal accounts and are rife with whataboutisms. Pressed to address the larger question of climate change, we hear about how it’s somebody else’s problem, i.e., more transit must be built, China is still polluting, etcetera, etcetera.
There have been competing protests.
Factually challenged yellow signs decrying the plan were placed in some businesses windows, and an online petition gathered more than 2000 signatures.
The anti-people stood on the street with a handful of supporters waving signs mostly (I think) for the benefit of TV station KUSI, whose inflammatory coverage has prompted complaints, including a suggestion about a reporter who may have enjoyed some adult beverages prior to interviewing some people.
Pro-bike lane people have worked to persuade 18 local businesses to speak out in favor of the plan, and staged bike riding events attracting hundreds of people.
A lawsuit was filed this week by Save 30th Street Parking claiming the city's public outreach on the bike lanes failed to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
My take on the legal action is that it’s weak sauce, especially since state lawmakers voted in 2013 to amend CEQA, declaring slower automobile traffic and parking loss were no longer "significant" impacts and could not be used to challenge a project's approval under the law.
Mostly, the argument against adding bike lanes amounts to people believing it came out of nowhere and was drafted in secret.
From KPBS:
The idea for adding some type of bike lane to 30th Street has been discussed for several years. It became a higher priority in the fall of 2018 as cyclists urged the city to add bike lanes after the street is resurfaced following a pipeline replacement project.
In January, city traffic engineers decided bike lanes were feasible on 30th Street, but that they would require the removal of on-street parking. Officials then presented design options at 11 meetings of community groups in March, April and May.
The volunteer North Park Planning Committee voted to support a design that would remove all on-street parking on 30th Street and replace it with a bike lane separated from traffic by a buffer zone and plastic poles. The bike lane would be wide enough to accommodate slower cyclists and allow passing.
North Park Main Street, a group that represents neighborhood businesses, voted to support a second option, which would retain some on-street parking, eliminate a center turn lane and create a narrower bike lane protected by a line of parked cars.
Mayor Kevin Faulconer ultimately directed staff to implement the first option, saying in a memo: "Reducing our reliance on cars by bringing new mobility choices into our neighborhoods is critical to meeting the city's Climate Action Plan and Vision Zero goals."
Back to the bigger picture.
A recent Washington Post article dove into the numbers tracking average daily temperatures and illustrated the fact that global warming is happening faster in some places than others.
A Washington Post analysis of more than a century of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration temperature data across the Lower 48 states and 3,107 counties has found that major areas are nearing or have already crossed the 2-degree Celsius mark.
— Today, more than 1 in 10 Americans — 34 million people — are living in rapidly heating regions, including New York City and Los Angeles. Seventy-one counties have already hit the 2-degree Celsius mark.
The future is now when it comes to climate change. Despite all the challenges, from the Trump administration’s obstructions to the NIMBYism of North Park, IF we want change, it’s up to us to act. The more people standing up and acting, the more others will join in.
And all the boo-hooing over access to “retail” ignores the reality that selling goods and services is already undergoing a massive upheaval. That does NOT mean small businesses have no future. (mid-priced and strip malls, not so much.) I would argue the densification of urban neighborhoods will stoke demand for many goods and services.
We can have a future with less reliance on cars. Cities in Europe are already figuring it out, as an article in The Economist (not exactly a tree hugging outfit) explains.
As is true with those who speak in opposition to the New Green Deal (which is merely a resolution to act, not a specific set of laws, by the way), my response is the same: show me your plan and provide at least some basis for its impact or move aside. And the answer is always the same: crickets.
Doing nothing, or putting action off to some undefined point in the future is not an option. Since an expected response to this sort of essay will be ad hominem attacks, let me add a few facts to the mix.
I have lived in North Park since 2008. I am a property owner. I own a car. I do not ride a bike, due to a disability. I am not a spring chicken, so if you want to call me old and ugly, that's okay.
And, yes, for those of you prone to complain about “bias,” I have a point of view. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses, and I happen to own this little bit of virtual media.
Finally, here’s Seth Combs at City Beat calling out the hypocrisy of this current round of NIMBYism.
There has never been a Trump sign in my neighborhood. Hell, I’ve been there long enough to where I remember Gore/Lieberman signs. And the inconvenient truth is that most of my neighbors, and a good chunk of North Park residents in general, love the idea of doing something about climate change but want others to do it for them. If it inconveniences them or it means personally sacrificing something, that just won’t do. Chad and Kelly have a Bernie Sanders 2016 sticker on their Prius, but they’re the same couple that complains if they have to park a block away and walk (oh, the humanity!) to get to their front door.
And people are falling for it. There are literally hundreds of available parking spaces on 30th-adjacent side streets like Grim Avenue and Dale Street, but that won’t stop homeowners from complaining that they don’t want people parking there either. And despite the countless information and studies out there that points to protected bike lanes being good for local businesses and helping to combat congestion and climate change, opponents will continue to point out their well-meaning intentions as they litter your street with flyers.
Hey folks! Be sure to like/follow Words & Deeds on Facebook. If you’d like to have each post emailed to you check out the simple subscription form on the right side of the front page.
Email me at DougPorter@WordsAndDeedsBlog.com
Lead photo by Pixabay