San Diego County Grand Jury • 2025-2026

Shifting Gears: San Diego Peddles Bicycle Mobility Through a City Dominated By Cars

Published: February 05, 2026 33 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 8 findings

F1
The lack of a connected, well maintained bike infrastructure discourages many people from bicycling as a viable commuting option. ‑ Fact: San Diego’s buses have racks for only two bikes, which require cyclists to lift their bikes about shoulder height. Fact: The City expects cyclists to use buses to close gaps on their bike commutes.
F2
More cyclists using buses means more people will be waiting longer to access buses with available bike racks. Fact: Increasing bicycle storage is one of the “Supporting Actions” in the City’s CAP. Fact: City lockers allow cyclists to safely store bikes. Fact: Gaining access to a City-provided bike locker requires cyclists to first send a deposit check by mail to SANDAG. Fact: Cyclists lack a mobile app to gain immediate bike locker access.
F3
The absence of a mobile bike locker app forces riders to use work arounds like less secure, open bike racks or to roll their bikes onto the trolley, undermining one of CAP’s Supporting Actions for safe bicycle storage. ‑ Fact: City streets have an overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score of 63, which equates to a “fair” rating. Fact: Thirty-four percent of City streets have a rating of poor, very poor, serious or failed rating.
F4
The City’s poor pavement conditions increase risk to bicyclists. Fact: Bicycle Class IV Tracks are too narrow for standard city streets sweepers. Fact: The City has only one operable street sweeper configured for Class IV Bicycle Tracks. Fact: The City does not set a schedule for bike infrastructure maintenance.
F5
The lack of a bike infrastructure maintenance schedule means residents must file bike route maintenance requests through the Get It Done app. Fact: Maps help riders navigate San Diego’s bikeways. Fact: SANDAG’s printed map of the City’s bike network lacks interactive features, including a “Trip Planner” available in other City apps such as Pronto. Fact: The printed bike network map is out of date.
F6
An updated, interactive map would help new and seasoned riders navigate San Diego’s bike network. Fact: CAP defines San Diego’s “Communities of Concern” as communities that historically have had very low access to opportunity. Fact: Many Communities of Concern lack complete bicycle infrastructure. Fact: The Bike Master Plan Update rates many roadways in “Communities of Concern” as “High Connectivity” and “Low Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)” Fact: High connectivity is a road segment containing destinations like schools, parks, transit stops, libraries, shopping areas, or places of employment. Fact: Low LTS is a road segment where riders feel “safe and comfortable.”
F7
Despite having road segments with High Connectivity/ Low LTS, too many Communities of Concern have limited bicycle mobility options. Fact: The Bicycle Master Plan Update includes Safe Routes to School—a program that encourages parents to lead students to school safely by foot or bike. Fact: One in 20 schools surveyed in the San Diego Unified School District have an active Safe Routes to School Program. Fact: Driving children to school accounts for 10–14 percent of morning rush-hour traffic.
F8
Many parents feel the only safe option is to personally drive their children to school. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or

Recommendations 8