In other stupid politcal moves, San Francisco’s Bicycle Plan is temporarily on hold thanks to an injunction approved by California Superior Court Judge Peter Busch (who I might add won his position because no one contested him). All this because some pipsqueak with the highly influential (sarcasm, again) Coalition for Adequate Review sued the city because it didn’t make sure that the plan conformed to the California Environmental Quality Act. You thinking what I’m thinking? Yeah, the Executive Director of the San Francisco Bike Coalition found this a tad ironic, too, given the environmentally-friendly nature of the bicycle. Admittedly, this is to make sure the building and planning projects do not tax the environment, and painting bike lanes might, maybe, do that.
Furthermore, the guilty party Rob Anderson claims that since only 1-2% of the city population bikes, the plan is “crazy.” He insists that cyclists are entrenched in idealogy and idealogy is not reality based. Ok, Rob, go tell that to the idealists that came up with the CEQA. Sheesh. Anyways, SFBC has a plan to fix this, including fixing the CEQA’s autocentricity. Happily, too, the mayor among other people are interested in going forward with this idealist vision, even if it means a small percentage of the city benefits (their goal is 10% of all commutes by bike by 2010) so I guess Rob thinks they’re crazy, too.
Anyways the end result of this is that no bicycle improvements will be made AND bicycles are not allowed on any Muni vehicles (note that the BART which crosses over the bay still has no problem with bicycles.. though is a little more inclined to help out those with folders). Probably the only way to get around this is to have a folding bike. Since you can now have a Bike Friday before Christmas time (but not for long), this might be a good way to avoid holiday traffic, by the way. Anyways, the good news out of this, I guess, is that the Bike Friday Club of America San Francisco chapter ought to be getting bigger..
Thanks to cyclelicio.us for the tip and for local SF activist and Bike Friday owner & super-referrer Katherine Roberts for talking to me more about.
November 14, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Your remarks on the the Bicycle Plan litigation are poorly informed, since you discuss neither Judge Busch’s decision nor CEQA—or the Bicycle Plan itself, for that matter. Which confirms my observation that the whole bike trip is really about “idealogy,”[sic] which I call BikeThink, a subset of GroupThink. According to BikeThink, Bikes are Good and Cars are Bad, so what else do you need to know? The term “ideology” doesn’t denote “idealism,” but rather it connotes an abstract philosophy imposed on reality, like Marxism, Freudianism, etc.
Instead of calling me names, you should inform yourself about the facts and the law in this case. Two judges—Warren and Busch—have now essentially agreed with us on the litigation. Are they both “stupid”? Your uninformed assumption is that “environment” means only air pollution, and, since bikes don’t burn fossil fuels, the Bicycle Plan cannot possibly have any effect on the environment. Your assumption is wrong. To give one example: One of the primary functions of CEQA is to gauge the traffic impacts of proposed projects, whether those projects originate with private developers or government agencies. The primary purpose of the Bicycle Plan is to create new bike lanes in the city by taking away traffic lanes and street parking on a number of streets. See the potential problem? If you take away traffic lanes in a city that has 452,813 registered motor vehicles—not to mention 1000 Muni buses, folks commuting into the city, tourists, etc.—you could make traffic worse in the city, thus causing more air pollution. Hence, among other things, the city has to do adequate traffic studies before they proceed with the Bicycle Plan.
I “claim” that only 1-2% of the city’s people commute by bicycle; that number doesn’t represent the total number of people who ride bikes in the city. I get that number from the 2000 Census and the SFCTA’s Countywide Transportation Plan. Do you have different numbers?
If we’re going to have a genuine discussion of these issues, you folks need to do a little homework first.
November 14, 2006 at 9:01 pm
One more important point: The SF Bicycle Coalition is not a city agency. It’s a private advocacy group. The SFBC’s participation in the Bicycle Plan process has thus been improper, since it has a stake in the outcome of the process. It’s the City of San Francisco that has to come up with a legal plan to fix this situation, not the SFBC.
November 14, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Rob, no need to be so defensive or repetitive for that matter. I couldn’t help but laugh when I read the beginning of your comment, which is actually a total repeat of a comment you left for someone else.
Anyways, YOU are poorly informed. For example, you tend to think you understand BikeThink and yet you don’t subscribe to it. That seems a little silly. All pro-cyclists are not anti-automobile. The whole problem with this is the fact that your position is so damn autocentric to the near exclusion of bicycles. You represent that attitude by pointing out these fractional numbers of cyclists (which I might point out again, are significant to the mayor among other people).
I do understand your point, but really why do you care? What do you think is really going to happen? Suddenly bike lanes are going to REPLACE traffic lanes? And of course, they’re going to be on all possible routes, right? Also, I don’t understand why you care for yourself considering you don’t even have a car. What is really your beef, Rob? I have a feeling you haven’t really come out with it yet. Stop reading your script and start talking.
November 14, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Rob does bring up legitimate concerns, but I think that the framing is disingenuous. The potential for worsening air pollution by removing car lanes is not an issue as long as it’s accompanied by a solid plan for improving public transit and getting people to make more trips by bike or mass transit. This has been the key focus of the City and the Bike Coalition.
The problem is, it’s not a question that’s easily answered. The Bike Coalition has done multiple studies that says people *want* to bike, but they’re afraid to do so in the city. The SF Bay Area has ideal conditions for alternative transportation in terms of weather. On the other hand, Californians, and Americans in general, have a love affair with cars that’s easy to understand and hard to break.
From where I stand, it looks as if San Francisco has been on a track to take environmental concerns seriously, and that certain monied interests are trying to cynically use the bureaucracy to block any changes from the status quo. So Rob, if you’re done with the name-calling, perhaps you could explain who you are working for, and what your goals really are. Where were you in the past few years when this plan was being developed and approved?
November 15, 2006 at 12:44 am
Bikes are allowed on all Muni buses – hence the bike racks on the front. Is that not a muni vehicle?
November 15, 2006 at 1:55 am
Bella,
What I think the “no bikes on Muni” thinkng means is no more ways to put bikes on Muni. That is, the light rail question won’t be solved. Note also that the injunction prevents new bike racks, as well.
November 15, 2006 at 10:01 pm
The census figures tell only part of the story on bicycle usage. According to the 2000 Census, 1.1% of commuters in the San Francisco MSA over 16 years of age used bicycles as their primary means of transportation; however, that did not include kids under 16 that rode their bikes to school or anyone that used a bike to commute to a lesser degree than some other form of transportation (they only commute by bike sometimes). If these other users are taken into account, the true percentage of people that used bicycles for utilitarian purposes (like getting to work, school or for running errands) could exceed 10%. In fact, according to a study* sponsored by the US Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics, over 27% of the US population over the age of 16 rode a bicycle at least once during the summer of 2002. Since bicycle usage in San Francisco is higher than in most places around the country, it’s reasonable to assume the actual figure for bicycle users is in excess of 30% or 1.2 million people in the San Francisco MSA.
* 2002 National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors
Respectfully,
Larry Lagarde
World-Class-Bike-Trails.blogspot.com
Urging bicycling for recreation, commuting, health and a better future.
November 15, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Thanks, Larry! I guess someone needs to tell the mayor to raise the bar.
November 19, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Nice try, Larry, but no cigar. The fact of the matter is that the 2000 Census tells us that 1.9% of the city’s population commutes by bike. Since that time we’ve experienced the dotcom bust and the post-9/11 recession, so that number may actually be smaller now. Joel writes darkly of “monied interests” blocking “changes,” but how does that relate to the Bicycle Plan? In fact, everyone was on board for the city’s blatantly illegal implementation of the Plan. The bike people in SF have just had bad leadership lately, with the BOS and the mayor agreeing to do an end-run around CEQA. Why didn’t the city just do the EIR on the Plan in the first place? My suspicion is that they just thought they could get away without doing an EIR that’s going to be complicated—all those traffic studies—and expensive.
There is in fact a danger of actually worsening air pollution when you take away traffic lanes. That’s what the whole LOS (Level of Service) issue is about. LOS is how long it takes traffic to move through intersections, aka traffic jams. If you take away traffic lanes without the proper/necessary traffic studies, you risk degrading the LOS. The Bicycle Plan recommends doing away with LOS. If the city doesn’t have to worry about creating traffic jams, then they can take away traffic lanes anywhere they want.
The problem with all these posts is that you folks don’t have any familiarity with CEQA, the Bicycle Plan, or the litigation that led to both the injunction and the recent court decision. What makes you all think you can just pull it out of your ass like this?
November 20, 2006 at 12:17 am
First off, I would like you guys to know, I am a District 5 citizen who does not personally know Rob Anderson or even own a car…
I do support the idea though of an EIR though, and find it ironic that you think your plan,( just because it involves yer pet cause, i.e bikes), that it is above such a basic concept.
None of the supporters of the “Bike Plan” idea on your website seem capable of understanding that maybe not evryone thinks this is an automatically grand idea. One writer implies that the plan should go through merely because he considers it a fact that people “WANT” to bike…but that they just don’t yet.
Why should a city have “your vision” railroaded down the throats of the citizenry without at least a fair hearing on it’s merits & effects?
Do you realize how you de-legitimize your causeby opposing a thorough and open process? If your plan is really that great, then you should be proud, and prove that you’ve taken into consideration all possible side effects of such a far reaching citywide decision.
I would support any group of citizens rights to protest a process that will result in physical implementation of such plan. I don’t care if it’s one to put microwave antennas over kid’s bedrooms, a new skyscraper or chain store, or the “Bike Plan”.
The people have a right to hear the effects, and a consideration of what will be potentially gained and lost…
Anyone who would oppose this is just a zealot.
December 15, 2007 at 1:02 pm
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
August 20, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I just read an article this morning in the WSJ regarding the bicycle lane review for the environment. I am total agreement with Mr. Anderson. Chico is a very bike friendly city, I myself, ride my bike to work any day I can not so much to save gas reduce fuel emissions but mainly for the exercise. I also agree that this country has gone way overboard with “polictical correctness”. Our office used to be on one of the main streets through Chico and each and every day, a bicyclist would blow through the stop sign on the corner in addition to running red lights. Not all, but many and I mean many, forget that a bicycle is just like a car when on a public street or highway, they must follow the same rules or be cited. I applaud every time I see one getting a ticket. We need to step back and take a look at the deicisons we are allowing the 2% of the population to make for the 98% of the rest of us. Be conservative, you bet but be responsible and stop thinking of ME, ME, ME.
August 20, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Uh, maybe you should re-read the above. I don’t ever remember defending any cyclist that breaks the law. Ignoring that point, I agree that it’s unacceptable that we allow 2% of the population (Mr. Anderson and his ilk) to make the decisions for the 98% of us that this decision may affect.
August 26, 2008 at 6:33 pm
it seems some folks are so comfortable with the destruction of public transit (the oil companies bought the coast train system and then removed it back in the day) that anything else is just wrong. Does this Rob Anderson fight for environmental reviews before new roads are built (he won’t answer that… guess that’ll have to be rhetorical) or is it just bicycle infrastructure? Is he against new trains and sidewalks too because they might impede the almighty car? His “logic” says that the same # of people who currently drive will still drive once they have other options. Can someone please send him a copy of Costner’s “field of dreams”… build it and they will come.
-S
August 26, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Here here! With transportation being one of my biggest concerns I would say of all the things I advocate (and I love bikes!), I think public transit is the thing that needs the most amount of advocacy as it is most likely to help people of all kinds– the bikers and the disabled and the plain old bread and butter folks alike. I have to be frank, though, that in light of people missing the broader picture (ahem, Mr. Anderson), a folding bike is a good solution that will allow you flexibility enough to transport yourself around despite the barriers.
June 8, 2012 at 4:35 pm
dub nutrition distributor…
[...]no bikes on MUNI.. except folders « foldable walter[...]…