Description
The bicycle lane on Miramar Road in both directions disappears approaching Clayton Drive, forcing bicyclists to share the lane with 45+ mph traffic.
The bicycle lane on Miramar Road in both directions disappears approaching Clayton Drive, forcing bicyclists to share the lane with 45+ mph traffic.
11 Comments
Suzanne Jacobs (Registered User)
Suzanne Jacobs (Registered User)
Alex Maitre (Registered User)
TSW Street Service (Guest)
Hello,
There is an existing service notification. The service notification number is 150000544728. Your additional comments have been added to the notification and your request has been forwarded to the Area Supervisor.
Thank you,
Street Division
619-527-7500
Alex Maitre (Registered User)
Thanks Street Division, we cyclists really, really appreciate it! I think (at least I hope) that it begins with a solid twice over in both directions with a street sweeper. That's about 50% of the problem there. Next, the wrinkles in the pavement - it's as if several trucks that were WAY over weight limit drove down the road on a hot day on the MCAS Miramar main gate side of the road and pushed all the pavement over and up...in the direction of travel which is esp. dangerous. I think if this route had a regulation bike path on it it would be a huge good thing and more specifically, a message/reminder to motorists that we are entitled to be there.
Again, we really appreciate it! I will try to get down there in the next week and take a picture of the damage I'm talking about...hopefully that would help you
Alex Maitre (Registered User)
This is an example of the width of the road and the condition of the shoulder - it is hard to see from this picture but it was too dangerous for me to park here so I had to make do taking the picture from my car seat. The pavement is wrinkled up and it pushing over onto the concrete and of course there is no white stripe delineating a bike lane here. As the originator (traal) stated, the bike lane:
1) inexplicably ends vicinity Camino Santa Fe (6625 Miramar Rd.)
2) begins again shortly after a set of train tracks (which cross the road obliquely (very dangerous) and have not been used in decades so why are they even still there? Can they be removed?)
3) inexplicably becomes a DASHED WHITE LINE for 200 yards across from 8710 Miramar Road, and ends.
4) Begins again just after the MCAS Miramar Main Gate on Mitscher Way and continues on to Padgett St., and ends again.
5) Begins again at Kearney Villa Rd and continues on until Miramar changes to Pomerado Rd, after that it is good to go.
The section between 8710 Miramar Rd and Kearney Villa Rd is the hairiest section. It's got no bike lane AND the road is horrible - pavement rolling up and uneven, etc.
Alex Maitre (Registered User)
City of San Diego Street Division (Guest)
Alex Maitre (Registered User)
City,
Request you contact the SeeClickFix Government Partnership Director, Mr. Jeff Mooney (jeffm@seeclickfix.com) or 203-254-0777. The City of San Diego signed up to use SCF and thus, from my standpoint, it is a perfectly acceptable method for citizens to report issues. Mr. Mooney would be able to tell you who made that decision - that gives you "top cover" to receive inputs via SCF, a method far faster and more convenient to the citizens of the city.
Your website is not user-friendly. Inputting jobs is manually-intensive and, because there is no ability to attach a photo, we have to type more words to explain the problem. Attaching a photo tells the story without requiring the citizen who is reporting the issue to 1) go home and log onto his computer (because we can't use your website unless we are sitting at a computer) 2) write a descriptive description of the problem when a photo tells the story far better. Without that photo you have to send a guy out to the site to even figure out what is going on.
More importantly, SCF is also more convenient to the citizen because it does not require him to determine who in the City he is supposed to contact ("for stomrwater issues call X, for road striping issues call y, for road repair call z". That is a non-user-friendly method, particularly when there are multiple problems in play. When that is the case the citizen should not be responsible for coordinating the response - that is a recipe for citizen disengagement and inefficiency. The CITY should handle the routing. That way the citizen just reports it in SCF and the CITY figures out (probably mostly based on the photo) who is going to fix it.
Bottom line, "traal" - the individual who initially reported this issue - and now me, cared enough about the city and his fellow citizens to take on the reporting himself. You need to embrace the method the citizen perfers to use to identify an issue, not steer us to your method, particularly when the city itsellf has emraced this method. Your method should be one of several acceptable methods.
Alex
Alex Maitre (Registered User)
Closed Tom Wellman (Registered User)