New Doyle Drive Will (Not?) Skip Bike Infrastructure
I’m not sure how long this Doyle Drive project has been cooking, but it’s sure been in the news lately. I guess it’s one of the roads that leads to the Golden Gate Bridge. They say it’s going to collapse in the next earthquake. As far as I can tell, there is no bicycle infrastructure planned for the road there does appear to be bike lanes planned. That’s good. I think bikes are overrated anyway.
…Looks like I somehow skipped right over this part:
The new Doyle Drive will also enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety, providing well-defined pedestrian routes, incorporating pedestrian safety zones and including well-delineated bicycle lanes.
Shows you what I think of ‘crappy little bike lanes.’ Not sure if physically-separated bike lanes were part of the EIR, etc. - will try to find out. That description doesn’t look too promising. Thanks C!
…From a reply to an email I sent:
As part of the Doyle Drive project, bike and pedestrian pathways will be created in accordance with the Presidio Trails and Bikeways Master Plan.
The trails will be created within the Presidio and in coordination with the National Park Service, Presidio Trust, and other interested parties.
That ‘Master Plan’ site is full of broken links - never a good sign. Guess we just need to keep up with them.
For the record, I’m not cool with trails and/or bikeways that go off-route or off-road or parallel-to or sorta-near or kinda-close-to Doyle Drive — they’re not good enough. We need full-on access to the absolute best resources that will allow us to get from Point A to Point B as quickly and easily as possible.
Many major highways take into account grade (hill steepness) when they are designed, and even go to great lengths to lessen the grade of hills along the route. Obviously, on the climb up to the Golden Gate Bridge, we bicyclists will be concerned about the grade, and making sure it is as small a grade as possible - something that is usually reserved for cars.
Leave comment (2)[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]
November 25th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Physically-Separated Bike Lanes were not part of the EIR– but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done post-injunction. It just means that the city was not allowed to have been planning projects including these during the injunction. Post-injunction, the city can plan and implement anything, regardless of what was included in that EIR.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Thanks for the info, mcas.
I meant to ask about that ‘prevention of planning for bike infrastructure’ thing, and now I’m curious about the details. If the injunction forbade, say, physically-separated bike lane planning - even in only an EIR, then what would have been the criteria to allow the judge to make that prohibition? Or was it just a matter of us/the City saying, “Ah, don’t worry about planning for real bike infrastructure because we can’t do it anyways.”?