Why can't they just make a new bicycle lane? Even if it has to levitate to make space....then again, thats just a dream. This "share the road thing" isn't working out, especially in San Francisco.The City has almost no freeways running through it and most streets are narrow. We have to start rethinking this.

On a side note, Great Blog!!

Steve, your friendship with the principals to me indicates that you are so conflicted on this matter that you are unable to bring the critical eye to this problem that it demands.

Using photos of yourself and your friends in a post like this questions your journalistic professionalism and objectivity at best and enables the continued dysfunction related to bike planning at worst.

The consequences of this pattern of utter dysfunction at the advocacy, journalism and bureaucracy--The City Attorney, Planning's Office of Major Environmental Analysis and the MTA bicycle program--levels holds very real consequences for the safety of cycling in San Francisco--it is not academic.

Newsom's car free days is a confection, similar to Healthy Saturdays, that diverts scarce resources towards one-off feel good events while the bread and butter day to day realities of cycling are brutal.

That we allow Newsom to determine our advocacy priorities puts us in reaction mode rather than in a proactive stance.

The SFBC is incapable of organizing anything more sophisticated than a rally on city hall steps or an email campaign to get a new bicycle lane. They thrive on access to city staff which meters access based on obsequiousness.

The result has been an advocacy culture of group think, where friends spend more time ratifying kinship networks instead of setting and meeting policy goals and objectives.

It is time for the SFBC to seek new leadership, as the current leadership has proven itself incompetent, based on the empirical record, of rising to the challenges put in our way.

And, Tim, we need to take care to ensure that a modicum of journalistic standards of objectivity are put into place with regard to covering this mess. The last thing we need is to complete the cycle of groupthink with a pliant press that does not follow through for fear of offending friends.

There is no accountability for the serial failure of bicycle advocacy, and until there is, we can count on more and more failures. Again, this is neither personal nor academic.

The fact is that the culture of group think convinced advocates and staff that since their cause was just, that California law did not apply to them. It was this kind of ignorance of the totality of political reality that gave Rob Anderson a toehold in court.

Had the SFBC and city staff listened to members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee instead of attacking the infidels 6 years ago, we would be moving a bicycle agenda instead of playing catch up.

In most organizations, the executive director has the authority and responsibility for the conduct of the agency. At some point, the consequences of a serial failure to succeed must be made real to the individuals responsible for that failure. Absent this kind of negative feedback, there are no checks against failure and cyclists will continue to be put at risk.

What's more important, caring for Leah Shahum's feelings or the safety of cyclists?

-marc

Marc - I know you follow sf politics and practices closely. I know you see yourself as an engaged and proactive resident. But the haughty rant you just posted is similar in form if not content to all your other public rants - you place the failure of an entire system at the feet of a few individuals; those who are dedicating all of their time to the issue. you take a condescending and self righteous tone and offer nothing to the conversation. Not productive, not helpful, not even interesting to read. If you've got better ideas for SFBC actions - why don't you share them? that would be interesting to read. . . what's better than a city hall rally?

Biker, thanks for noticing the empty rhetoric behind Marc's continuing attacks on me and SFBC. Marc, as you know and other readers should, I sent you an e-mail asking whether you wanted to raise your criticism of SFBC in this context, which I would have dutifully reported. You didn't respond, and now you act as if I'm somehow parroting SFBC and refusing to seek other sides. That's just dishonest. Even in this post, I included the criticism of SFBC that I know is out there, but you're obviously too blinded by past personal slights to even read clearly printed words.
I know that you want me to join your little crusade against SFBC and to blame them for wrecking the city and refusing to see you as the ultimate authority on everything. Would that be the good journalism that you speak of? Get over yourself, Marc. The world isn't as you say it is simply because you say so.
The bottom line is I'm just about the only journalist in this town who rides a bike daily, knows the conditions out there, and writes regularly about this city's failure to facilitate safe bicycling. The SFBC is the only large organization doing bicycle advocacy in town. And you want us both to go away because we don't fit your rigid but largely incomprehensible orthodoxy. Yeah, you're a real bike hero, my friend.

Steven T. Jones

I put most of my thoughts in my article "Supervisors Buckle Up to Drive Over 'Sunday Streets' on my Rincon Hill Examiner page, but I do hope the DCCC Committee recognizes what a detriment it would be to the Democrats in the City and County of San Francisco to elect a bully like Peskin as Chair. His behavior is so similar to that of President George W. Bush it makes me want to gag. We need reasonable elected leaders who try to do the most good for the most number of people ... not ignore democracy and the will of constituents who should clearly get a preference to people who cannot drive their cars on van Ness or any other roadway to get over to the northern waterfront on a couple of Sunday mornings.

There is no crime in making mistakes and being wrong. There is a crime, however, in not learning from mistakes and repeating the same error over and again. And there is responsibility if you get paid to do this work and the successful outcomes are not happening.

How many years should we expect for paid professionals to scale a learning curve before they are held accountable for incompetence? I am one of the few who will say this in public, but other transportation geeks agree with me in private.

There is no orthodoxy about insisting that paid professionals who own a political space that impacts my life and limb learn from mistakes and adapting their approach, learning from those errors.

Empirically, irrespective of my rants, we are not getting the goods when it comes to bicycle advocacy. Conversely had advocates delivered the goods I'd have nothing to complain about.

It is one thing for a nonprofit to fuck shit up. It is another for a local journalistic outlet to put the friendships of a city editor before what is an objective assessment of a fucked up approach to advocacy, an approach that is verified as fucked up by the conditions on the ground.

Again, the extent that you all are whining about your precious egos being bruised is inconsequential when compared to the very real brusing and breaking of flesh and bones on the streets every day as a concrete result of poor activism and the compromised journalism that does not hold them accountable.

We are here because of YEARS of denial that have led to defeat on this issue. You all can try to push that back onto me, but I am not paid to do this work, the SFBC is.

Either the SFBC evolves, or San Francisco cyclists risk dying.

You want me to shut up? Then hold the SFBC accountable for their errors.

You want me to shut up? Then the SFBC needs to do what it takes to leverage their 9000 members and growing to bring political pressure to bear to move the bike agenda forward.

My crusade is for San Francisco to move forward on its bike policy. Unfortunately, the SFBC is a poster child of the City's inability to move forward because whenever they face an impediment, they try the same tactic over and again, absent any coherent strategy, and fail over and again.

Unfortunately, what we are left with is this:

http://sfist.com/2008/07/17/crackdown_on_valencia.php

and an MTA that can't get off a dime to get an EIR complete in anything approaching real time.

-marc

The SFBC may be feared (due to critical mass), but get little respect (also due to critical mass) around city hall. Fear gets a one-mile stretch of GG Park closed on Saturdays, but doesn't get more bike lanes added. The SFBC has lots of demands, but offer nothing in return. For example, we should have bike lanes on Page and Hayes Streets, , but if there were, would the SFBC suggest that bikes not be allowed on Oak or Fell? And constant denial of responsibility for bad apples at critical mass also hurts their credibility. SFBC saying "We can't control Critical Mass" may be true, but it doesn't help the cause (developing policies to make the streets safer).

It's not my job to belittle and berate well-meaning activists, whether they be with SFBC or THC or COH. I focus on those who are actually responsible for doing the people's work, the government workers and consultants who are dropping the ball on the bike plan, now and on an ongoing basis, and those looking to score political points with drivers and the business community by attacking an event that is a genuine part of an important international carfree movement. This has nothing to do with my relationships with the activists, which simply aren't as close as Marc portrays in his divisive, self-aggrandizing, and deceitful rants. Smart-ass "gotcha" blame games really don't help anything, but they can do consider damage to our ability to reach our common goals.
Now, everyone, hopefully we can disregard Marc's little ego trip and get back to discussing the substance of Sunday Streets and the best strategy for ending the injunction and getting bike projects going once again.
stj

watching a fight between marc and "scribe" is hilarious. one is a long winded lefty, the other a clueless one. or wait is it the other way around?

what passes for "the left" in this town is so pathetic and ineffective, it would be hilarious if not for the fact that running around like idiots is just making it easier for the Mayor and his allies to hand out lots of candies to a starving population.

Thanks, City Editor for covering City Hall so well. When Gavin Newsom puts forth a press release, we can count on the press to follow it like a dog to a bone. We lose once we allow our opponents to define the terms of our engagement in the process. The Bike Plan is in shambles, but let's get obsessive about Saturday GGP road closure...The streets are in dangerous disrepair...let's do what Newsom says and close the Embarcadero for two days!

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain--the great Oz has spoken.

Returning to the bone grinding reality that most cyclists face in SF due to the serial incompetence of those paid to do otherwise, here is a hearing at City Hall at the Land Use committee, 1PM, room 263, called by Gerardo Sandoval on the bike plan.

Interesting that the termed out Supervisor, who made the runoff for Superior Court Judge is calling this hearing, given that Gerardo's attentions have, to put it diplomatically, not been paid to the Bike Plan slo-mo train wreck. But now that he's in a tight spot, he's pandering to the nonprofit courtiers on a matter that just might come before him if he wins.

I don't anticipate the Supervisors actually supervising City Staff, even though the MTA budget is up before the Board right now and 7 votes could put Nat Ford's gonads in a vise over this if the Supervisors were so inclined.

Nor do I expect that the supervisors would ask where all of that money given to the SFBC went, whether or not it was a good investment in public funds. That money checked any SFBC criticism of the MTA, as Shahum's appointment to the MTA Board by Newsom effectively removed her from having any say over bike policy due to conflict of interest with her role as ED of the SFBC.

And the band played on...

-marc

Marc as I understand it, it was a city department that suggested an exemption was warranted for the Bike Plan EIR. Is that not true?

Now that we are in need of an EIR, what entity has the power to accelerate the process? Is it the SFBC staff? Or is it a city government project? Should the SFBC staff mobilize it's political muscle to influence the process? Of course. That's what we'd hope the members of the SFBC, so passionate about their cause, respond to on Monday at City Hall. You belittle this sort of action by saying the following...

"The SFBC is incapable of organizing anything more sophisticated than a rally on city hall steps or an email campaign to get a new bicycle lane."

What positive forward steps are you proposing? You propose new leadership. Beyond that, how would new leadership behave such that it would gain your support? What sophisticated actions are you proposing? How do you propose we unfuck ourselves with regard to waiting on an EIR other than holding elected officials responsible for expeditiously moving this good work forward?

If any measurable percentage of the 10,000 or so SFBC members showed up at City Hall on Monday, do you suppose our electeds would re-prioritize this work?

If people in the SFBC ranks or around them in the bike community care a great deal about accelerating the EIR, they will figure out a way to push for it. At that point they will take action. And either write (to politicians, newspapers, etc.) or organize an action of their own. Or (very possibly!), follow the SFBC's lead and do something as simple as attend the rally! We had a rally a while back about the bike plan and there were nowhere near 10,000 people (count of SFBC members) in front of City Hall. So anyone bitching that wants city government to take action, get out in the streets and do something yourself. Having lots of people willing to take action is what will empower the SFBC to achieve its goals. It's not the responsibility of professional staff alone. WE, concerned members of the biking community also share in the responsibility.

1)Ride your bike as much as you can. That increases the strength of the biking movement all by itself by making us more visible out in the world. On a daily basis. In a tangible way.

2) Show up at rallies so that politicians and media also see that it's a community/movement that will take action, is taking action and will follow through to achieve its goals. That creates credibility and makes politicians/government accountable.

3) Don't sit around bitching about professional staff when it's a shared responsibility for all of us. Each with an important and crucial role. I'll guarantee you that when we get to the point where thousands of people are milling around in front of City Hall upset about the lack of government action on the bike plan EIR, the government will take action and move forward. That is the point when the members will have enabled the professional staff to achieve the goals of the organization. The professional staff can only achieve what the members make possible with their individual voices and efforts.

If you are so passionate about advancing the bicycle as an alternative and legitimate form of transportation, why is is necessary to attack existing advocate structures? Have you considered pushing your viewpoint without trying to obscure or destroy the positive efforts of others?

You don't like the professional staff of the SFBC? Great, start another organization. Get funding. Get members and go get something done.

Great and nice step from City Editor.
Please keep on posting such nice and informative articles.

Addiction Recovery pennsylvania

Marc has a point. If the city had ordered an EIR on the Bicycle Plan---which is what the law requires---three years ago, instead of brushing off those of us who objected at the time, they would be implementing the Plan now. And it's hard to take complaints about the EIR process seriously from people who never believed environmental review was necessary in the first place! The people now working on the EIR seem to understand that they have to do a thorough job of it to make it appeal-proof. Otherwise we'll take the EIR's shortcomings to Judge Busch, and he will make the call. In fact, he's the one who ultimately will rule on the adequacy of the EIR and lift the injunction. My impression of Busch is that he's quite thorough and unlikely to look kindly on a half-assed EIR on the Bicycle Plan.

In order for the EIR to be appeal-proof, it only need disclose all environmental impacts and not conceal any.

The only reason why Anderson was able to prevail in court is that the test for challenging a general rule exclusion, used to waive an EIR for the Bike Plan, is a reasonable argument standard that impacts are not being disclosed to decision makers.

If even a minimal EIR were produced, then Busch would have a very difficult time legally were he to claim that it was insufficient, given that insufficiency is measured by not covering all potential impacts. If impacts are all covered, even if the methodology is thin, then the City is covered as legal appeals to an EIR must surmount a much higher barrier--hat the EIR conceals environmental impacts.

Therefore, the City could have written a lightweight EIR that stipulated to the maximum of all potential environmental impacts posed by the projects in the bike plan: LOS degradation along all segments and intersections, as well as stipulating that MUNI could be delayed.

The Planning Commission could then certify that EIR and adopt a statement of overriding significance, that the LOS impacts are deemed insignificant.

We could have done that 2 years ago and been on track now.

But staff loves consultants, and as such they are producing an exhaustive dissertation.

Of course each and every project that is now environmentally cleared will need to be approved politically, and that is where the rubber will hit the road on evaluating the real impacts of removing car lanes for bike lanes.

-marc

What? No Burning Man pix?

Marc:

You're not a lawyer and are assuming an expertise you don't have. I've read all the documents in this litigation, and my understanding is that you can't claim a general rule exemption from CEQA unless there's no possibility that the project will have an impact on the environment, which was clearly not the case with the ambitious Bicycle Plan. I think you're right that, had the city done even the sketchiest environmental review of the Plan, it would have made it harder to challenge in court.

Good point about the politics of implementing whatever is eventually passed. As the recent kerfuffle over closing the Embarcadero shows, people and neighborhoods in the city are touchy about screwing around with city streets. The city risks a shit storm of negative wherever the Bicycle Plan wants to take away traffic lanes and street parking to make bike lanes.