VOTE for your preferred Proposal

Please Vote!**

**The original  3 Alternatives poll was two versions of 3 lanes (alternatives A & B) and one version of 2 lanes (alternative C).  After some community requests to add a “No Change” alternative, the city agreed, and we revised the poll to include it.

 

***The new poll (below) will remain open until the EIR is completed by the city planning department. View the planning process and timeline chart here:Process & Timeline Chart

 

In addition  to the active comments below, comments from the previous poll (now closed) can be viewed here: Prior Pollster’s Comments

Please create or reply to a previous post below:

 

78 comments on “VOTE for your preferred Proposal”

  1. Susan Mournian Reply

    There should be an Alternative D which is maintaining the status quo.
    The Linda Vista Planning Group is leaning in this direction.
    The documents with the A,B, C plans were not shared with the general public in any format except on a video screen.
    Nothing in print was offered to meeting attendees by city staff.
    The reason given was that the city has just designed a new website ($650,000) for easier community access. The information would be available at the later date.
    Apparently, Bay Park/ Clairemont’s access to the potential reconfiguration of the Morena Corridor was not available for all interested parties to review unless they were on the subcommittee or happened to view the Build A Boardwalk site.
    I don’t believe this is the correct way to get honest community input.
    I prefer the status quo for the Morena Corridor.
    No price tag on the proposed reconfiguration was provided by city staff.
    Landscaping the medians in the time of drought where park watering is restricted seems counter productive. This is also part of the reconfiguration. Someone should check out the dying jacarandas on Morena Blvd which the city has neglected for years.
    How is this landscaping even justified ? I don’t see people recreating in the medians. Water the parks, fix the potholes, and leave our community alone.

    • Nancy Price Reply

      Thank you for having a voice of reason. Build and improve the community, but do a better job of involving the community, like getting out and inviting the community to give their input, and then hiring someone from the community to draw up the plans, give us a way to view it, before decisions are made get input. Spend our money in a wise manner please.

    • Paul and Katherine Malchiodi Reply

      We agree with Susan Mournian’s comment. Paul and Katherine Malchiodi

    • Anonymous Reply

      I agree with Susan’s comment… The only addition or change here that sounds appealing or smart — and it wasn’t suggested by this website content, only the comment section — is the pedestrian/bike bridge to Mission Bay. Leave the happy community alone. Fix the potholes, thanks. – Carrie

    • Anonymous Reply

      I agree with Susan and why would anyone want to take on the parking problems of Little Italy

    • Ted Reply

      I agree with Susan. The proposals seem poorly thought out and are being pushed by people who do not live here.

  2. Dee Reply

    Is 8 ‘ sufficient to allow for angled parking? I noticed that street cross-section diagram shows 8 feet for parallel parking for A plan and also for B & C plans where angled parking on west side in front of businesses. Make it easier to get in and out without backing into traffice while maximizing parking for restaurants & local businesses. It should more look like India Street parking in the block north of El Indio, right?

  3. Anonymous Reply

    Alternative C
    Best plan to create a safe balance between people, bicycle, and auto traffic. Best potential to create more community atmosphere along the Morena Corridor.
    Single auto lanes will slow down vehicle traffic speeds along Morena. Look how much safer Clairemont hill is now with single lane traffic.
    The angle parking should be back-in angle parking style just like what was recently created on E. Mission Bay Dr.
    Do we want to live in a community or do we want to live alongside a thoroughfare?

  4. dsmith Reply

    Alternative C
    Best plan to create a safe balance between people, bicycle, and auto traffic. Best potential to create more community atmosphere along the Morena Corridor.
    Single auto lanes will slow down vehicle traffic speeds along Morena. Look how much safer Clairemont hill is now with single lane traffic.
    The angle parking should be back-in angle parking style just like what was recently created on E. Mission Bay Dr.
    Do we want to live in a community or do we want to live alongside a thoroughfare?

  5. Anonymous Reply

    The status quo is ugly, dirty, dangerous and noisy and is long overdue an update. Everyone I know and meet in our community welcomes redevelopment of the Morena corridor. I5 bypass is not a justification and should be considered.

  6. Anonymous Reply

    Just a thought on “C” which appears to be ahead as I write this – single lane north bound as people will look for parking will mean traffic jams and frustration, especially as the boardwalk adds businesses with the trolley folks. It was bad enough they took our double lanes away from Clairemont without asking us, but I would not encourage more frustration as people try to park. Think of Garnet on PB. Thanks.

  7. KT Reply

    Looks like C is ahead, but I want to draw your attention to the fact that having only the one NB lane will increase traffic frustration. People will be trying to park as the businesses grow around the trolley station, and this becomes a destination point. It’s bad enough they took our two-lanes away on Clairemont without asking locals. Think constant line of cars as on Garnet in PB, and that is what Morena will be like, and no way for local traffic to opt out without that second NB lane.. Thanks.

  8. Anonymous Reply

    Serious cyclists will not use the cycle path so angle in parking is very dangerous.

    • Blake Reply

      Believe the bike lanes are on the West side, not the east side where the angled parking is.

      • Anonymous Reply

        As I said, serious cyclists will not use the cycle path. They go too fast and will not want to be dodging other bikes.

    • Lewis Reply

      Serious cyclists need to share the road like automobiles are supposed to. It’s a 2-way street.

  9. Leigh Reply

    Morena IS a main thoroughfare… cutting down to one lane will greatly increase traffic congestion.
    I live off of Clairemont Drive… bringing down to one lane may have decreased speeds a little bit, but it has greatly increased traffic congestion. During morning or evening it can take me 5-10 minutes just to turn on to Clairemont Dr.
    They are looking to bring Morena down to one lane, and yet increase density with building hundreds more condos?!?! The traffic will be terrible!!!!

  10. Anonymous Reply

    These pdfs are confusing. TWO listings of the street layouts (top left and bottom right)??? Which is the one that’ll be used in each plan? How can I vote based on this?

    • Jake Reply

      It’s both listings. The shorter length is from City Chevrolet to Northbound. The longer one is from City Chevrolet to Southbound.

  11. Anonymous Reply

    Please add a pedestrian/bike bridge from Ashton to Mission Bay Park to either A,B,C.

  12. Blake Reply

    Please add a pedestrian/bike bridge from Ashton to Mission Bay Park. Crossing on Clairemont Drive to Bay Park is a life threatening event each time. The pedestrian bridge would bring more foot traffic to businesses … key words ‘foot traffic’ from the bay; buyers without cars.

    • Robert Parkinson Reply

      I’d vote on an alternative if it included a pedestrian/bike bridge from Ashton to Mission Bay Park. Cyclists in that area wouldn’t need to take the long way riding to Clairemont Dr or Tecolote Rd to get to MBP.

    • Tara Reply

      YES! ADD A PEDESTRIAN/BIKE BRIDGE!!!!
      Couldn’t agree more! I love riding over to the bay but each time I have to wonder if someone is going to exit off the freeway without looking and hit my husband and I, even on the red light because they don’t pay attention!! It’s so frustrating. We live so close and should be able to easily and safely get over and enjoy the bay, but the current situation is dangerous! And for some reason so many people are against a pedestrian bridge! We have such a nice community but yet it seems like the majority are happy with cars speeding through/by and not wanting to improve it at all! Yeah because trailer parks, light bulb stores and car repair shops really says “community” to me.

  13. Anonymous Reply

    One more in agreement with Susan Mournian’s comment. Judith O’Connor

  14. Anonymous Reply

    Two lanes each direction like we have now is best and the most safe for cars. A single lane each direction (plan C) would be the worst. I drive Morena and I cycle Morena. A separate double bike lane would be safer, but is not necessary in my opinion. Plan C single lane would be dangerous for cars because it would stop traffic when cars are parking and un-parking. I predict increased accidents and congestion. These models concentrated on making things look “pretty” instead of safe and efficient for cars.

    • Scott Weaver Reply

      There seems to be a conclusion that would make most happy by combining multiple aspects of the plan.

      I present to you, Option D (that does not exist):

      Keep the same aspects of option C, but limit the bike portion to 1 lane versus 2. Then decrease the buffer on the west side of the street. This would allow a boardwalk, bike lane, 2 buffers, and 3 lanes. Honestly, a “bike track” will see limited use and even biking enthusiasts seem to agree.

      Anyone agree?

  15. Emily Reply

    I am wondering what is the idea behind keeping the existing sidewalk on the westside of the street?

  16. Tara Reply

    YES! ADD A PEDESTRIAN/BIKE BRIDGE!!!!
    Couldn’t agree more! I love riding over to the bay but each time I have to wonder if someone is going to exit off the freeway without looking and hit my husband and I, even on the red light because they don’t pay attention!! It’s so frustrating. We live so close and should be able to easily and safely get over and enjoy the bay, but the current situation is dangerous! And for some reason so many people are against a pedestrian bridge! We have such a nice community but yet it seems like the majority are happy with cars speeding through/by and not wanting to improve it at all! Yeah because trailer parks, light bulb stores and car repair shops really says “community” to me.

  17. Steve Rawlinson Reply

    Alternative C is about as popular as Donald Trump. I could take either A or B, but I prefer A.

  18. Margie Sawyer Reply

    Morena Blvd. should be 2 lanes in each direction. Why spend unnecessary dollars for a boardwalk? Totally unnecessary. Bicycle riders do not need 6 feet in each direction. The buffer zone between bicycles and cars do not need 12 feet. The community needs their input as well as businesses which should be given a higher priority on the vote. Parking is always been a problem on Napier. More parking should be added somewhere within walking distance. Our pothole streets should have priority over this project where I see is a lot of unnecessary spending. Spend our tax payer and city money in a wiser fashion. We are in a desert area and in a drought situation. We do not have the water resources for landscaping.

  19. Andy Van Pelt Reply

    Of the three choices presented, I prefer B:
    C takes away the second Northbound lane, which I think is a bad idea
    A splits the buffer, B gives a wider buffer between the cars and the bike path. I like B slightly better.

    I would prefer an option D (or E):
    Eliminate the sidewalk on West side of street (no one ever uses it)
    Remove buffers as necessary to restore second south-bound lane

  20. Anonymous Reply

    Apparently nobody who has voted has had to deal with Clairemont Dr, between Chicago, & Burgener or from Balboa to Clairemont Mesa. Trying o turn left from Clmnt Dr going down the hill is a nightmare. I have been stuck behind slow
    20 to 20 mph drivers north of Balboa several times.
    Although I do remember when Morena was 3 lanes, one north, one south, and the center lane was for passing.

  21. Steve Reply

    Thanks so much for sharing these 3 plans and giving us an opportunity to comment. I am a relatively new resident living in Bay Park. I am in favor of redeveloping Morena (similar efforts have led to very positive results, but also greatly increased congestion, in several places I’ve lived previously, e.g. Glendale and Santa Monica, CA).

    I have lots of questions:

    1. The sketches provided only show the area between Littlefield and Milton, but I see other discussions about redevelopment of the “Morena corridor”. What is the entire length of Morena that this vote applies to – Clairemont Drive to Tecolate Road, or….?

    2. EXACTLY how many angle-in spaces does plan A or plan C create over the entire length of the redevelopment? My count on the existing sketches is 28, which seems an exceedingly small number to gain in terms of trade-offs that others have mentioned (reduction in vehicle lanes). What is the parking capacity currently on both sides of Morena in the redevelopment zone, and what is the net increase in parking capacity as a result of the various plans?

    3. If/as new businesses are developed on Morena Blvd. in this area over time (which is questionable as some others have noted), what onsite parking does current zoning require them to provide, if any?

    4. Were any alternatives to angle-in or existing parallel parking considered, and if so, what?

    5. Have there been any studies of current traffic flow on Morena Blvd?

    6. Aside from the planned trolley stations, are there any commitments to a destination along this corridor other than small businesses (for example, like the Del Mar Plaza complex with many restaurant options, enclosed parking, and open air 3rd floor with view, at the corner of Camino del Mar and 15th Street in Del Mar? Without some sort of destination that makes the view available, as others have noted, any new businesses are most likely to vie for spots next to the trolley stations, not because of 28 angle-in parking spaces which would be inadequate to support a business with any substantial volume. This is why parking alternatives that the city provides on Morena via this plan need to be considered in a broader context, in my view. Creation of a destination will draw people and traffic, which will change the character of the neighborhood, but if done well can also greatly increase local homeowners’ property values. It is a trade-off.

    7. If more land can be purchased from SANDAG, how would it be used? To preserve 4 vehicle lanes on Morena, or….?

    8. I agree with others about prioritizing easier access to MB Park as part of the plan. Planning the location of any potential pedestrian bridge and bikeway would need to be integrated into the Boardwalk theme and take into consideration at least 4 different groups of stakeholders:
    a. Local residents
    b. Local businesses who would like to attract people from MB Park for lunch, coffee, supplies, etc.
    c. MB Park goers, to have services within an easy walk
    d. People from other parts of the city who take the Trolley to go to MB Park. Does the city currently plan to just have a bridge from the Clairemont Drive park ‘n ride to the trolley stop? What about those who take the trolley to get to MB Park for recreation – will the foot and cycle traffic on the Clairemont Drive overpass increase substantially on warm weekend days, and how will that impact likelihood of accidents?

    9. What is the cost of the plan, and what are the benefits? I am strongly in favor of aesthetically pleasing, environmentally designed, functional spaces that contribute to the value of urban communities. However, as I think about the current plans critically, it seems that the costs outweigh the benefits overall – too little gain in parking capacity, risk in terms of lack of new business commitment to the area, dangerous slowing of traffic to accommodate parking for a small number of people so that they don’t have to walk, that if new businesses do develop and attract people, drivers will WAIT in the traffic lane for a someone to pull out, and thereby slow or stop traffic (witness human behavior in any crowded commercial parking lot – e.g. Costco) rather than park a block away and walk, and thus greater risks of accidents and potential diversion of traffic to local streets as others have noted.

    10. How is the dedicated double bike lane intended to be used/promoted? If it is an isolated section, cyclists will be less inclined to use it, especially if they have to cross Morena to get to and/or from it.

    Even if the two north bound lanes are retained, traffic will still slow when someone is waiting for a driver to get into his/her car and pull out, and drivers in that lane will try to get around him/her by pulling into the left lane, all of this slowing traffic for the wrong reasons and increasing the potential for accidents during peak hours (e.g. weekend nights for restaurants). Is all of this worth the relatively limited number of angle-in parking spaces, and double, dedicated bike lane?

    • Steve Reply

      P.S. I like the idea of the boardwalk; I really do, but raise these questions and concerns to hopefully improve the planning.

    • Steve Reply

      Ideally the boardwalk plan should extend beyond the Clairemont Drive bridge over Morena to at least the corner of Gesner Street to connect the apartment complexes on both sides of Gesner and also the Bay Park streets that terminate at Gesner to access the trolley station, Trader Joe’s (or other market), cafes, and boardwalk without having to walk or bike several blocks up to Denver and around. Designing that attractively and intentionally will help connect the neighborhoods.

    • Brad Reply

      Very thoughtful response. I agree with Steve, especially the pedestrian bridge or improved safety for crossing to and from Mission Bay. It is such a great asset for our neighborhood, but I have to drive my kids and their bikes there, as I would not trust them getting across either the Clairemont or SeaWorld drive bridges safely.

      Also, the bay gets pretty crowded with hungry and thirsty people. It would likely add additional business for the local restaurants, shops, and bars.

      I imagine the cost for a pedestrian bridge is high, but I think it would add more value to the community than any of the proposed improvements.

  22. Nate D Reply

    The bottom line is that anyone with a vested interest in the NEIGHBORHOOD will want to slow things down regarding traffic. We all know that Morena Blvd has essentially become a second Interstate 5 and drivers who do not live in our neighborhood use it as such. It is not uncommon to see a caravan of cars cruising at 55+mph through our neighborhood of Bay Park via Morena Blvd.

    By creating 2 lanes total and thus slowing things down a bit, the masses that use our neighborhood as a freeway thoroughfare will simply decide to remain on Interstate 5, as they should. We will then regain our rightful neighborhood feel. Property values will increase. We will see that really there was no need to have anything more than simply 2 lanes, as fewer cars will choose to use Morena Blvd.

    Right now, Morena Blvd serves as means to link south to north for many bicycle clubs. If the bike lane is created, please make it wide enough to be attractive to elite level cyclists. If not, they will remain on the road, and as someone mentioned, will be an issue if diagonal parking is introduced.

    Beautification of a neighborhood is a huge plus, and the introduction of low level trees (that will not block bay views) vs shrubs for the divider is a huge plus. Again, increased property values…

    On a final note, please include a safe passage over interstate 5 for both pedestrians and cyclists. Some sort of a walking bridge would be great. Right now, it is the Clairemont bridge or nothing. We are forced to mix with drivers and that is never an inviting prospect.

  23. Eric Reply

    I think option A is by far the best and most balanced across the key considerations. This will slow down traffic some but not to much to cause congestion. Maintaining two northbound lanes will help keep cars moving and allow people to park or pull out from parking safer and without slowing traffic. This also expands the boardwalk on the east side of the street where people will walk and utilize the business more, and very importantly – increase the community interaction and making it a more desirable place to spend time. Slowing the traffic on Morena a little will also help with that. And this plan provides safer bike lines on the west, away from people exiting and entering Morena. I think A will be a great benefit to our community.

  24. Anonymous Reply

    I like Alt “B” plan. Would like to see the landscape and bike lanes moved to North side, near the sidewalk and restaurants. It seems to me that this would allow less pollution from car traffic so that the restaurants would be more apt. to having outdoor dinning.
    Plan “C” seems very dangerous with angled parking trying to maneuver into a single lane of traffic going 40MPH. Also serious cyclist would not use the bike path and would also be in the mix of cars backing out. Thanks for this tremendous effort to help our community, Leslie

  25. George Reply

    I think the elaborate two-way bicycle track will serve long-distance cyclists more than the neighborhood. Nothing against the athletes who race bicycles, just observing that pelotons will race through Bay Park, and it may become hazardous for pedestrians to cross their raceway. Expect neighbors on beach cruisers and tricycles to ride on the boardwalk, sidewalk and parking areas.
    I’d like to see the bicycle track on the Mission Bay side of the railroad. Preserve Morena Boulevard as a 2-lane parkway with lots of trees and shady spots for pedestrians, families with strollers, and casual cyclists who are not in a hurry. Widen the roadway in specific areas to for bus stops and parking zones.

  26. Carol Reid Reply

    For me it was between A and C. In version A, I liked that there were 2 northbound lanes and that would be my first choice. I also like having angled parking in front of businesses. But we lose the parking on the west side of Morena and we don’t get the bus pull-out which improves traffic flow. So I voted for version C, even though there is only 1 northbound and 1 southbound lane, and I vote to keep parking on the west side, even expand it further south if possible. In version C, I like having angled parking because it provides more parking spaces and it includes the bus pull-out to keep traffic flowing better. I’m willing to give up the extra northbound lane because in the end, it’s not going to make a big time difference in how soon I get to where I’m going.

  27. Peggy Lieb Reply

    We need 2 lanes of vehicular traffic for both northbound & southbound on Morena. If they add businesses & residents, it will be bumper to bumper like Little Italy. The double bike lane only serves long distance bikers not using the businesses on Morena. (it’s even on the side with no businesses.) Need pedestrian/cycle bridge over to Bay. Getting over I-5 to the Bay on Clairemont Dr and Tecolote is extremely dangerous with people getting on & off the freeway.

  28. Terry Reply

    Add a pedestrian bridge to Mission Bay and just widen the existing side walk on the east side. Does anyone use the west sidewalk?

  29. Mrs. Cliff Smith Reply

    First, thanks to all who attended the meetings and helped plan the alternatives. Unfortunately, I couldn’t attend. Nevertheless, I have tried to keep up with the main points of this “infill.” But I can’t vote because the plans don’t make sense to me.

    That said, I have some concerns.

    1. Congestion. The number of new residences and businesses that would come to this area, and the number of people who would live here, along with their cars, SUVs and pickups. There’s hardly room to breathe now if one leaves home to head in any direction for a daily commute or errands.

    2. Crime and what will be done to keep it from creeping into the settled parts of Bay Park and elsewhere as younger, or simply less responsible people decide to call the areas around Morena Boulevard home.

    3. Water. Where will the water come from to accommodate what sounds like it could be hundreds or a few thousand more people into San Diego County?

    4. Parking. Will there be enough of it so that our neighborhoods will not have to face the overflow on settled neighborhood residential streets.

    5. The trailer park at Knoxville and Morena. Twenty-nine condominiums per acre is such a ridiculous number that it’s difficult even to conceive of the masses who would live there. And what happens to those who need to call the park their home now? Just displace them and hope they find somewhere else to live? I think that’s cruel.

    6. Morena Boulevard traffic. If more people are going to use the road, how can it be left as it is, as, even now, an unrealistically narrow road between Tecolote Road and Knoxville Street, for one, where traffic is already so thick, and made worse by cyclists and pedestrians. Imagine 29 condos per acre and the gridlock more cars will cause. Also, there are plenty of semis and buses that also use this stretch.

    7. Parking. City planners can hope that more people will use the trolley than their cars, but do they know this for a fact? Cars still are the main means of transportation in our city. So include landscaped parking areas that don’t interfere with traffic flow.

    8. Landscaping. Will the developers of new residences and businesses be required to plant more than an itty bitty tree on site so that this wide area between Bay Park, Overlook and Clairemont Drive will look more like a village than a mass of ugly architecture that can’t be hidden?

    9. Police. Will more cops patrol these areas, particularly because of the bars and restaurants that serve liquor that are making this area feel more like Little Italy all the time. I think we’ll need more patrols.

    10. Will there be architectural standards to be met so that every condo or apartment complex looks inviting to see and pass by?

    11. The nursery and pet store. Will we lose them?

    To summarize, less development, plenty of parking, outstanding architecture, much, much more landscaping — and possibly a walkway to the bay.

  30. Anonymous Reply

    Keep maximum/ existing traffic flow, vote A, good to have bike paths on both sides all along Morena Blvd to and from all trolley stations…(These plans are such limited conceptions) pedestrian bridges or redesign freeway bridges for safest passage to mission bay, less “landscaping” and “urban design”, more safe passage for people, bikes and traffic flow to connect us to our Bay and our other communities….

  31. Martin Reply

    I think 1 lane in each direction will become a traffic nightmare as more people move into the new housing that will be built, and more people come to eat at our great restaurants. I am leaning towards option B but make the buffer the same size as option A. There’s no reason it needs to be so big. This way you can get some boardwalk area on the east side as some folks want. One thing that is mandatory is a bike path and walkway over I-5 so people can get to Mission Bay safely. If you put it near the Hilton you will get more customers from the hotel spending there money in our community AND they won’t have to drive over to get here.

    • Joel Morrison Reply

      I voted for A but would like 4 lanes for traffic and still include the boardwalk and bike lanes. I’ve pushed hard with city staff that’s it imperative that we have a safe bike / pedestrian access to mission bay. Access at Sea World Drive and Clairemont Drive is extremely dangerous for bikers due to narrow lanes and very high speeds, and all of the car turning movements to and from the freeway. I ride across several times a week and encounter conflicts often. Most people I talk with will not cross the freeway due to the safety concerns. Seriously someone is going to get hurt or worst crossing the freeway. Please consider the many comments posted regarding safe passage to mission bay for our families.

  32. Daylene Reply

    I’m choosing A because I think it is important to still have two Northbound lanes so there is one thru lane not having to deal with the parking lane. SANDAG needs to give us land so that we can truly accomplish the “boardwalk” and parking we want. And it would also allow for the ‘bus bay’ off the southbound lane which is a must. We can’t have the bus block the only southbound lane. Would also allow for a bit of parallel parking on the west side, especially in the busy areas. Love the 5ft bike buffer and that the bike lane is on the West side avoiding all the driveways! Myself and other neighbors I’ve talked to would finally feel safe riding on Morena and get our bikes out of the garage. I expect the bike lane will extend from Balboa Ave to San Diego River Path/Old Town.
    Tecolote Creek needs to become a safe path from the Tennis Racquet club to the bay with no car interaction (access points at racquet club, Morena, W Morena)

  33. Ira Reply

    Being adjacent to i5, Morena Blvd will always be a secondary thoroughfare. The boardwalk concept will not bring Pacific Beach boardwalk feel or activity to this area – What may, is a bridge. And where is the joy in biking adjacent to i5’s roar? – Best benefit of this planned expansion (invasion) to our neighborhood is a bridge connecting our neighborhood & Mission Bay for bikers and walkers that seek refreshments etc. at the Ashton area – and most important to give BP residents a comfortable easy walk and bike access to our park.
    I’ve biked for pleasure over 25 years in Bay Park and have never considered biking Morena Blvd, never, ever (our side streets are far more comfortable & enjoyable than biking Morena).
    Besides, in 20 years people will move via self driving electric commuter pods, and the trolley will be a rusting bust the tax payer continues to pay for….
    Get a life, Demand a bridge to one of San Diego’s crown jewels.

  34. Joe Neighbor Reply

    board·walk- noun
    a wooden walkway across sand or marshy ground.
    a promenade along a beach or waterfront, typically made of wood.

    Not nit picking but making a sidewalk wider does not make a boardwalk. So call it what it is and is it needed on Morena? The proposed options suck. 4 lanes of traffic is a must. Just because you build a bike path doesn’t mean anyone is going to use it. Everyone who does bike knows how to get around now. Enhance the bike lane on street and “share the road” effort. A pedestrian only bridge to the park is the best idea put out there. Angled parking is smart. Landscaping should be drought tolerant. What about ROUNDABOUTS? One lane flows thru, the other lane for turning or U turns. It would slow things down a bit, yet still have flow. They did it in La Jolla and it seems to work. How many people are walking up and down Morena? Are we foolishly anchored around this concept because it is out there? What are the construction timelines and disruption for each Option? There has got to be more than 3 ways to make Morena better.

    Forgive me if any of these ideas have been discussed already. I’m a little late to the party, but I still care what happens.

    • Anonymous Reply

      Morena Blvd is not PB nor do we want it to become a PB. Some extended parking would be nice but not to jeopardize the 4 lanes of traffic. I agree that the the “share the road” concept would be much better, less expenseive and less invasive.
      Born and raised in Bay Park, we’ve seen the growth but we sure don’t need the big city, east coast, high density, zero lot line mentality. Leave well enough alone.

    • Anonymous Reply

      Leave well enough alone!!!. Born and raised here in Bay Park has been just fine for 50 years and the “Share the Road” concept works just fine. Expand on the “share the road” and keep all four lanes of traffic. Don’t turn Bay Park into a Pacific Beach. We don’t want it, We dont’ need it. Quit hyping it up to be something it isn’t. Why do we need to to expand the sidewalk? Keep it Quaint and take the big city mentality back downtown.

      Thanks.

  35. Lewis Lefler Reply

    Having driven buses for MTS in the not too distant past, I’d like to point something out. Any plan for Morena Blvd NEEDS to have a turn out space or lane for buses that does not impede traffic. One lane in each direction with spaces for buses to pull into will have far less impact on traffic than two lanes in a particular direction with no turn outs for buses. Buses experience many delays along a route. Wheel chair or walker and bicycle loading and unloading are just a couple of examples. Vehicles driving on Morena Blvd will be impacted by this far more than by the number of lanes in each direction.
    While driving in your car, follow a bus on any street where buses have to stop in a traffic lane and see how you like it.

  36. i Reply

    Is no one reading that cars are going away??? — Probably 15 years & gone – replaced by shareable self driving pods that are stored in mass – hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested now
    Why are we planning for a dying technology?

    be unique – plan for the real future

    Build a foot / bike bridge to Mission Bay —
    Really enhance quality of life in Bay Park for residents.

    Everyone has a little commercial business zone & sign – We may be the last neighborhood to get a sign… at lease have something special to place it on – a bridge.

    • Citizen Reply

      Leave the 4 lane for cars. There is very little bike riders on Morena anyway given all other comments. Widen the street but we should not widen street if they can build a bridge to bike or walk over to mission bay. Therefore keep 4 lanes for autos and build a bridge. Can we have. 4th alternative with that option

      • Daily driver on Morena Reply

        I totally agree. I’d rather see Morena Blvd keep 4 lanes for cars. The population is increasing which means more cars. There is NOT enough bike traffic to necessitate 2 bike lanes, 1 going each way. Nor do we need a wide or “expanded” buffer. Doesn’t it make more sense to have a landscaped boardwalk/sidewalk ( it does lack trees, vegetation, etc on most of morena),1 bike lane for both north and south bike traffic, and 4 lanes for cars?

        • Resident Reply

          Agreed, there are plans for more residences eventually = more need for cars. Very small minority will ride bikes regularly, they don’t need to get rid of ANY LANES for cars.

  37. Citizen Reply

    The 3 options all take a auto lane which we need. Can we please have an alternative 4 leave the auto lanes and build a bridge that bikes and people can walk over. There are many comments asking for this please listen to those folks who have requested it and put such an alternative on the list to vote

  38. Rebecca Delson Reply

    I wouldn’t vote for any of those options. Take away a traffic lane? What?!? Why not just fix the potholes, build a pedestrian bridge, and leave the rest alone? Morena Blvd. is already a viable I-5 alternative and a successful neighborhood thoroughfare. Long time residents in the area don’t want that to go away. You are proposing slowed traffic and more people. It’s a disaster in the making. This isn’t NYC. It’s laid back San Diego and people love their cars. They just do. Stop trying to make Bay Park into some trendy urban hub and just leave well enough alone.

    • ec Reply

      Your statement says it all, “Morena Blvd. is a viable I-5 alternative”. That’s what I DON’T want! We are not a quick access to hwy.5! I am a long time resident of Bay Park and I do not want more people using Morena Blvd. via WAZI or any other app. that gives alternate routes. YAY for slower traffic where people can actual enjoy the neighborhood. I love my car too but I don’t need to speed down Morena Blvd. to get where I want to go. If we are laid back that means we slow down and enjoy not grind our teeth rushing to get to the next on ramp. I vote for 1 lane south and 2 lanes north so that we can have angled parking. Wider sidewalks so we can bring our families down and walk “The Boardwalk”.

    • Shelly Reply

      I agree with Rebecca. I am a long time resident and I moved back to this area 4 years ago specifically because of the small hometown feeling that Bay Park has. I do not want it to become a trendy urban hub with an increase in people nor renters.

    • Resident Reply

      Option one has two lanes in each direction = no change as to loosing a traffic lane. I’m for two lanes north and two lanes south, as it is now

  39. Anonymous Reply

    I agree with Susan as well. Want 4 lanes instead of a boardwalk that will not be used.

  40. bc Reply

    What happened to the angled parking alternative? I thought that was a choice.

  41. Anonymous Reply

    2 lanes each direction is mandatory on Morena. Bicycles can share one of 2 lanes in EACH direction as they do all over San Diego with a bicycle icon stamped in the right lane of each direction, this way we do not need separate bike lanes. I don’t have a problem with a bridge being built if it isn’t too expensive but I think that the overpasses at Sean World and Clairemont Dr can be improved for pedestrians and bicyclers. Businesses should be required to have off street parking to an extent. Angled parking is not necessary. Improved landscaping would add a lot to the area. If locals are concerned with speed of traffic, speed limit can be reduced somewhat. Thank you.

  42. ira Reply

    UCSD Med is paying $1.6mil for naming rights to the 3 stations in OUR neighborhood – Let’s use those $ to build the footbridge to mission bay…

  43. Anonymous Reply

    Comfortable foot/bike access to Mission Bay. It is currently too scary and difficult to cross 5.

    If you want less traffic, people would bike/walk more if it felt safe and pleasant to do so.

  44. Lisa Fredsti Reply

    Anything that increases walkability along Morena would get my vote. It is absurd that in a city with the beautiful weather we have, in an area right next to the bay and all the recreation it offers, that you are literally taking your life in your hands to walk in this area.

    I voted for the three lane option because it would seem to offer the best option of walkability and keeping traffic moving.

  45. Shelly Reply

    We must have two lanes of traffic going both ways. This is an alternative to the freeway for many long term residents who are also retired and senior drivers who do not like navigating the freeway. If they remove the median they could have more room to add for a bike path in some sections of Morena Blvd if they repaint all of the line. Increased bike traffic in the area is a problem. However, you are making this all too complicated and at the expense of the long term residents you have paid their dues by buying into this area several years ago and paying the property taxes here. These improvements will only serve to increase the property taxes to cover the improvement costs and force many seniors out of their long term investments. Don’t make something that drives increase renter traffic and people to the neighborhood that haven’t paid their dues. This is our neighborhood and our community that we all worked hard to pay for. Leave well enough alone! Stop trying to make it a trendy urban city area. Some landscaping along the area and upgrades for the current residents to enjoy would be nice. This is all about $$$ and driving new traffic to the area.

    • Anonymous Reply

      Respectfully, Shelly, I don’t agree. First, because people use Morena as an alternative to the freeway, cars are driving at unreasonable speeds. Just yesterday, I watched someone change lanes multiple times at what I believe was 70-80mph. I own in this area and have for some time, and will for several years into the future. Morena as it stands today is unsafe, and should be improved. Making cars slow down and increasing restaurants and more businesses to venture in this area will only help your home’s value. Something to think about.

  46. Scott M Reply

    I live in Bay park and i think the two lanes with angled parking is the best option. Check out the research and studies of renowned urbanists Jane Jacobs, and Jan Gehl. Wider sidewalks and fewer lanes are safer, more comfortable, better for business, and increase home property values.

  47. Helen Reply

    I’m new to this topic and seldom drive on Morena Blvd., so my input is basically from the hip. I viewed all of the three proposals and chose the A since I didn’t know there was an option D. From what little driving I’ve done on Morena Blvd., it’s been smooth driving and I guess I felt in voting, why fix something that’s not broken. A sidewalk seems to be a main thrust, but at the cost of probably millions it just doesn’t seem rational. Also, I guess I kind of need a little more information about this to properly make an informed decision. Some $$ figures related to these proposed changes should be included and how the $$ figures would impact San Diego. So, even tho I voted for A, I’m with Susan as well for option D.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Web Design BangladeshBangladesh Online Market