SF slowly pedals forward
By Steven T. Jones
City officials finally released the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Bicycle Plan, and while I'm still working my way through this 1,353-page tome, the pre-ordained conclusion seems painfully obvious: bicycling is good for the environment, and facilitating more bicycling is even better for the environment.
Why exactly did we need to spend two and a half years and over $1 million on this again? Oh yeah, because anti-bike zealot and occasional also-ran supervisorial candidate Rob Anderson sued the city for not adequately studying bicycling before proposing to complete the bicycle network and almost double the city's current 45 miles in lanes, leading the courts to impose an injunction against any new bike projects until we can get this EIR certified.
"So far, it's just a black hole for money, time, frustration... and cyclists are paying the price," Leah Shahum, executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told me.
But the good news is that by next year at this time, the city's burgeoning population of regular cyclists -- which an SFBC-commissioned study placed at about 16 percent of the city's population and growing rapidly -- could start seeing new lanes, bike racks, and safety markings known as "sharrows," assuming that Anderson and his ilk don't stall this process further after the public hearings for the DEIR begin in January.
Meanwhile, activists and city officials have been quietly working on reforming how the city analyzes traffic impacts (known as LOS reform, which I wrote about here and which we'll have another story on in our next issue), which could spare bicycle and pedestrians projects from this expensive, ridiculous EIR process. And I've heard from people inside both the Mayor's Office and Board of Supervisors that they're excited about moving it forward, so perhaps our creation of a more sustainable transportation system could soon move into high gear.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (11)
LOS was a well known problem in advance of the passage of the Bike Plan in 2005. Efforts to address it were pooh poohed by the SFBC and MTA in their rush to move forward. Proponents of the Bike Plan decided that their cause was legitimate to the extent that it voided requirements under the law to conform with CEQA.
This left the door open to Anderson's successful lawsuit.
It is one thing to claim that the hand you're dealt is bogus, but quite another to pretend that you've been dealt a better hand than the one you've got and to play your bogus hand accordingly. That's a pathological case of denial and not taking stock of that error, blaming The Other, will only lead to repeating that mistake in the future.
We're not out of the woods yet. There is still some 9 months of public process and administrative and legislative appeal venues, and, of course, after that, this can all be taken to court.
The same applies to the replacement standard, Auto Trip Generation, which has so many moving parts that any of them can serve as a toehold for a lawsuit challenging the validity of new metrics.
-marc
Posted by Marc Salomon | November 29, 2008 11:20 AM
Campers,
Two things. First, Anderson is a pathetic figure forever bitter because his older brother won a Pulitzer Prize running the Anderson Valley newspaper while he's been washing dishes in upscale restaurants.
Secondly, the City should have challenged this 'gentleman's' case and not allowed some right-wing Republican appointed Superior Court judge to allow the dangerous conditions that allowed bikers, unprotected by simple markings on the road, to get mowed down while Rob smiled over the pots and pans. Hey Dennis, why didn't you appeal the Superior Court decision? Bikers have been killed and maimed due to the delay of the implementation of the bike plan.
h.
Posted by h. brown | November 29, 2008 04:31 PM
Yo h.,
Bruce Anderson may have deserved a Pulitzer for his work on the Anderson Valley Advertiser, but as far as I know, he never actually won one.
Posted by tim redmond | November 30, 2008 09:26 PM
And of course this whole situation doesn't address the preferences in the EIR process geared toward use of the automobile... never mind the "environmental impact" of automobiles. SIGH.
Posted by GeneC | December 1, 2008 12:25 PM
As usual Harold Brown has his facts wrong about everything. I won't dignify the goofy comment about me and my brother with a response, except to say that he really shouldn't do any writing when he's drunk, which is most of the time.
But the city didn't appeal Judge Busch's decision---Busch is a Democrat, by the way---because they knew they had no basis for an appeal. Jones talks about the city not "adequately" doing environmental review of the Bicycle Plan, but the fact is they did no environmental review at all, which is why it was an easy decision for the judge to make. Nor are there a lot of "predetermined conclusions" in the DEIR. In fact, my first look showed that some of the proposed projects are going to have impacts on traffic and loading that can't be mitigated at all, which makes their implementation problematic.
The city and the bike people like to prattle about LOS "reform," which means they want to do away with LOS entirely. Once they do that, they figure they will be able to create bike lanes wherever they want regardless of the effect that will have on traffic. But CEQA is a state law and screwing up traffic and parking are considered significant impacts. If the city wants to do away with LOS, they will have to have something better than "auto trip generation" as a substitute. The idea behind that is that even if bike lanes screw up traffic for everyone else, they don't generate any "auto trips." Get it? Pretty lame and unlikely to pass muster with the courts.
Posted by Rob Anderson | December 4, 2008 11:49 AM
Hey John Anderson,
You said that you weren't going to dignify h. with a response and you went right ahead and responded. And stop trolling progressive websites because before you know it, the dirty plates will be piling over your head and it could cause an avalanche. Then where would you be? And I'm sure that the waiters what those plates fucking spotless -- like mirrors!
Posted by Matt Stewart (formerly expatriate) | December 4, 2008 03:02 PM
Typical that "progressive" Stewart gets my name wrong. I know some progressives hate it when those of us outside the faith chip in with countervailing opinions on their blogs, but the Guardian doesn't seem to mind.
Posted by Rob Anderson | December 5, 2008 10:23 AM
Some measure of responsibility for bicycle, and possibly pedestrian, accidents and fatalities, over the last few years can be attributed to the actions of this doofus. One of the many unfortunate aspects of our so-called democracy and free press is that myopic neanderthals share the same rights.
Patrick Monk.RN. Noe Valley.
Posted by Patrick Monk.RN. | December 6, 2008 12:15 PM
More name-calling by "progressive" Monk. But somehow he neglects to address any of the specifics of the issues being discussed here. And who cares if he's an RN? Is that supposed to lend him some credibility? Nothing else he writes does.
Posted by Rob Anderson | December 7, 2008 10:09 AM
I thought that nutjob Anderson was supported by some sort of disability stipend paid to his mom or some relative. I am kind of surprised that he actually holds down a real job washing dishes.
Posted by tde | December 11, 2008 03:01 PM
it is very unfortunate that the los issue has been resolved for some time in the los legislation and that the city attorney nor the eir seem to notice.......
it is also unfortunate that ped/bike non-profits in the city consistently fail to realistically address these issues while issuing more press releases about more studies about studying studies....
i hope if rob appeals it will not be successful but have little faith since the city attorney and the non-profits are not actually representing the rights of bicyclists
....but instead are adhering to outdated traffic engineering methodologies and whining and arguing against themselves
Posted by hayes | December 29, 2008 08:30 PM