Instead of tracking how many cars go through an intersection, the city could track the number of people including people on foot, people on bikes, and people in buses and made a determination that pedestrian and bike safety and the quality of the travel experience for noncar users is as important as the degree of auto traffic.
That simple change would render much of the Anderson suit moot: new bike lanes, for example, would no longer be a potentially adverse impact. The city could move forward with much of its bike plan, now.
CEQA doesn't require cities to accept public safety hazards and the law clearly creates exemptions for situations in which lives are at risk. Mirkarimi has proposed legislation to change the LOS system, but it has languished; the supervisors need to move on it if the city planners won't. You don't need an EIR to tear down a freeway that's about to collapse and you shouldn't need an environmental review to fix the most dangerous intersections in the city, including Fell and Masonic. City planners should simply define those hazardous sites as imminent dangers to public safety and immediately start changing the traffic lights, rerouting cars, and redefining bike lanes to put an end to the carnage, now.
Most Commented On
- Marcos and his point. - March 9, 2014
- No one needs to try and make progressives look bad - March 9, 2014
- I don't think SFBG has ever claimed to represent the majority - March 9, 2014
- Yep, population is what counts if the question is about - March 9, 2014
- You should ask that question if the Bay Guardian - March 9, 2014
- Think the poster meant - March 9, 2014
- I think Oakland's a little - March 9, 2014
- Reread the OP Greg. Her first - March 9, 2014
- Oakland is half the size of SF and so in theory could be - March 9, 2014
- C'mon. That's gotta be you - March 9, 2014