Waiting to hear from Herr Anderson.

Still waiting to hear from Herr Anderson on this absolutely appalling development. I think we should use some of the stimulus money to set up a committee to investigate who is really behind this. I suspect the orders are coming from Fidel's finca and it is part of a broader conspiracy to overthrow capitalism and establish a socialist worker's state

Chiu, a regular bike rider

I think that may be 'formerly a regular bike rider'. I heard he doesn't ride anymore because he "can't get sweaty" going to all his meetings.

"inadequacies with the supporting environment documents"? Steve, you folks should stop using this formulation. There was in fact no environmental study of the Bicycle Plan at all. Nothing, nada, zilch.

"Still waiting to hear from Herr Anderson on this absolutely appalling development. I think we should use some of the stimulus money to set up a committee to investigate who is really behind this."

Good think Monk tells us he's an RN every time he makes a comment. It sure gives him a little gravitas and more credibility. Time for him to change the bedpan on the issue. What "development" is he talking about? Yesterday's meeting was nothing but a mini-pep rally for the EIR on the Bicycle Plan. There was nothing new or interesting to report there. What's "really behind this" injunction? CEQA, the most important environmental law in California, which requires environmental review of any project that might have a negative effect on the environment. And---surprise!---that law applies even to the bike people, who are only trying to save the planet, for chrissake! What an injustice!

Rob, despite what you and others (even within the bike community) have said, it wasn't completely irrational to put forward the notion that the Bike Plan should have been exempt from detailed, two-year environmental review. There's no doubt that facilitating safe bicycling improves the environment, and there's nothing in CEQA that gives priority to automobiles. A judge didn't agree that the EIR could be waived, deciding to broaden the reach of CEQA to include bike plans for the first time, but the EIR has now supported the city's original assumption. After all these long and expensive legal and bureaucratic delays, we're essentially where we were three years ago, albeit with environmental documents that should allow us to move faster than we were able to then. All your lawsuit accomplished, Rob, was to delay the plan and force taxpayers to spend millions of dollars more on it than they otherwise would have.

You are a very lonely man, Rob Anderson. If you aren't careful, you will die that way.

Where in other US cities the ongoing bike revolution has brought new infrastructure, here--thanks to anti-cycling activist Rob Anderson--it has brought thousands of new cyclists nothing but obstruction, antagonism and the total failure to address our pressing needs.

As a result, the ever-growing armada of SF cyclists have been left with no alternative but to create a de facto "DIY" bike plan--seize lanes and parking spaces wherever and however we can from an unresponsive government and from antagonistic, planet-wrecking motorists.

Bad habits die hard. With thousands of new cyclists in SF knowing only the DIY approach to riding and parking, it looks like Anderson's pointless delay has forever cemented anarchy into the new bike culture's DNA.

"Rob, despite what you and others (even within the bike community) have said, it wasn't completely irrational to put forward the notion that the Bike Plan should have been exempt from detailed, two-year environmental review."

It was in fact a deliberate attempt by the city to skirt the law, which is very clear: if a project even might have a negative impact on the environment, you have to do some kind of environmental review. Traffic and parking are clearly issues under CEQA. The city did no review on the Bicycle Plan, because they assumed no one would challenge them here in Progressive Land.

"There's no doubt that facilitating safe bicycling improves the environment, and there's nothing in CEQA that gives priority to automobiles."

There may be no doubt in your mind, but screwing up city traffic on behalf of a tiny minority of cylclists surely did require environmental review. As I say, traffic and parking are CEQA issues, as anyone familiar with the case law knows.

"A judge didn't agree that the EIR could be waived, deciding to broaden the reach of CEQA to include bike plans for the first time, but the EIR has now supported the city's original assumption."

Wrong on both counts. Since the law is clear, Judge Warren and Judge Busch were in no position to "waive" the very essence of CEQA, which is all about environmental review. The EIR does not in fact support "the city's original assumption." Its findings support our assumption, since it shows that taking a traffic lane away on Masonic Ave, for just one example, will have a "significant unavoidable impact" on traffic, including the Muni #43 line. Ditto for Second Street, Fifth Street, and Cesar Chavez.

"You are a very lonely man, Rob Anderson. If you aren't careful, you will die that way."

Since we've never met, your comment is impertinent and irrelevant---and untrue. Having trouble dealing with the facts on the issue, Matt?

"With thousands of new cyclists in SF knowing only the DIY approach to riding and parking, it looks like Anderson's pointless delay has forever cemented anarchy into the new bike culture's DNA."

Anarchy was in the bike culture's DNA long before our successful litigation. I don't think you folks understand how unpopular you are in SF and how annoying your antics on city streets are to a lot of people.

Rob, there's nothing wrong with "significant unavoidable impacts," which CEQA allows to be waived with a "statement of overriding considerations," that being the right of a city to create safe conditions for bicyclists. Most people understand and accept that trade-off, Rob, and don't share your blinding hatred for bicyclists or your strange view that we're some kind of hated fringe group. Bicyclists come from all classes, races, and walks of life, and our numbers are only going to keep growing. That's a fact of life that you're going to have to get used to now that your 15 minutes in the spotlight are almost up.

"Rob, there's nothing wrong with 'significant unavoidable impacts,' which CEQA allows to be waived with a 'statement of overriding considerations,' that being the right of a city to create safe conditions for bicyclists."

That the Bicycle Plan would have such impacts was exactly what we were saying years ago when we urged the BOS to do an EIR on the Plan. The city can proceed with screwing up city traffic on behalf of your small minority---safety for cyclists should trump everything else?---but there are political risks to doing so.

"Most people understand and accept that trade-off, Rob, and don't share your blinding hatred for bicyclists or your strange view that we're some kind of hated fringe group."

Whether "most people" in SF accept allowing the city to screw up traffic on behalf of this small minority remains to be seen. I don't hate anyone, but I certainly have lost a lot of respect for cyclists based on the ignorance and stupidity so many cyclists have displayed in their many ugly, ill-informed comments to my blog. I'm not saying that city voters "hate" cyclists; I'm just saying that you aren't particularly popular. I'd still like to see you folks put the Bicycle Plan on the ballot, even as an advisory measure, but that will never happen, will it?

"Bicyclists come from all classes, races, and walks of life, and our numbers are only going to keep growing. That's a fact of life that you're going to have to get used to now that your 15 minutes in the spotlight are almost up."

More silliness. I have no problem with cyclists on the streets of the city. I just object to redesigning city streets and screwing up traffic---including Muni---on behalf of your arrogant, smug, self-righteous minority.

tim,

No one mentioned that during a time of exponential increase in bicycle traffic, safety infrastructure was denied that community. And, many have been injured as a result and several killed.

All to provide therapy for one deeply ill and bitter old man.

Perhaps there's hope for me too.

h.

Rob, since we have never met I find your snide remark above, and previous such utterances, to be impertinent and irrelevant, but considering the source it is about what I would expect, and as my old man used to say, "Son, suffer fools gladly".

Rob,
Do you really think you'd fare well in a popularity contest against me and anyone from the bicycle community? Most of San Francisco just doesn't share your delusions, and that's shown by the near universal support for bicycle improvements among city elected officials (a rare feat in this divisive town). Most cyclists in this city are remarkably well-informed, which is why they criticize you and your regressive belief system. But I do commend your willingness to engage publicly on these issues, Rob. You are a man of principle. And even if I disagree with your principles, I'm glad that you're willing to debate them in forums like this.

Rob,

You are right. I'll keep the personal attacks to a minimum.

"Do you really think you'd fare well in a popularity contest against me and anyone from the bicycle community? Most of San Francisco just doesn't share your delusions, and that's shown by the near universal support for bicycle improvements among city elected officials (a rare feat in this divisive town)."

Of course it's not a matter of my popularity against yours, Steve, though I doubt that many in the city agree with your "true city living" ideas that include accepting people pissing in their doorways. My point about you bike people: you're not as popular as you seem to think you are. One way to test that proposition is to put the Bicycle Plan on the ballot or put Critical Mass on the ballot. Our "elected officials" will soon be severely tested if they insist on implementing a plan that screws up traffic on busy city streets. Until now they haven't had to make many hard choices on the bike fantasy. It's going to be very interesting later this year when the rubber meets the road, so to speak.

My "delusions"? My assumption about the illegality of how the city was proceeding with the Bicycle Plan was tested in court, and my sense of reality was confirmed by two judges.

"Most cyclists in this city are remarkably well-informed, which is why they criticize you and your regressive belief system. But I do commend your willingness to engage publicly on these issues, Rob. You are a man of principle. And even if I disagree with your principles, I'm glad that you're willing to debate them in forums like this."

My experience on my blog with comments from city bike people has shown that they almost always know nothing about either the Bicycle Plan or the litigation. All they know is that Bikes are Good and Cars are Bad. My "repressive belief system" and my "principles"? Not sure what that means. But I do believe that the city and the bike people were legally and morally wrong to try to push the Bicycle Plan through the process without any environmental review of that attempt to redesign our streets for your small minority.

"And, many have been injured as a result and several killed.All to provide therapy for one deeply ill and bitter old man.Perhaps there's hope for me too."

No, there's no hope for you, Harold. You'll always be a phony incapable of making a fact-based argument. I'd like to see some evidence that anyone has been injured because the Bicycle Plan was foiled, but I know you don't do evidence. Hate to disappoint you, but I'm in excellent health, and, though I may be old, I'm not at all bitter. By the way, is Warren Hellman still out to get you?

Rob,

"Bikes Are Good, and Cars Are Bad."

Well put.

People using bicycles in lieu of cars is less harmful to the environment. This is what we call an unassailable, self-evident truth.

Producing zero emissions and occupying significantly less physical space on the public roadways incurs a smaller effect on the environment than large vehicles which employ combustion engines, spewing toxic gas and noise into the shared city space. The simplicity of this concept is analogous to 2+2=4. That's not being self-righteous, Rob. It's like saying that the sky is blue or that water is wet.

Your irrational refusal (or inability) to see the simple nature of the assertion reminds me of the Flat Earthers. Furthermore, the byzantine machinations, courtroom gambits, and intricate knowledge of legal code do not afford you an elevated, extraordinarily valid opinion on the matter. You've wasted taxpayer dollars on a fool's errand. I believe that the "majority" which you clearly believe yourself to represent would agree. Why not use your mind for the powers of Good? Why cultivate villainy? Is your crusade against bicyclists really a noble, worthwhile application of your faculties?

And yes, I ride a bicycle, up and down Market Street, every single day, rain or shine. It doesn't make me a "Bike Person" or an anarchist. It's simply the most sensible, healthy, speedy, and inexpensive way for me to get to work and back: I'll not abide any other label than "Responsible Citizen."

Good article, thank you
If you are interesting 2012 year, by the way, welcome to us :)
http://2012earth.net