Showdown time for SF Bike Plan

By Steven T. Jones

Guardian photo by Keeney and Law Photography

Bicyclists enjoy strong support on the progressive-dominated San Francisco Board of Supervisors, so the real question about today’s long-awaited Bike Plan hearing is whether anti-bicyclist activist Rob Anderson and his attorney Mary Miles can throw enough legalistic dust into the air to delay a decision.

Indeed, Miles told the Guardian this morning that she didn’t have time to talk because she was busy preparing a lengthy written argument opposing the plan. And given that city officials will need to follow-up the plan’s approval by going into court to try to get a three-year-old injunction against bike projects lifted, supervisors will likely be advised to tread carefully.

But Anderson doesn’t think they will. “They’re going to pass it, of course. That’s a foregone conclusion, but the real battle will be in Judge [Peter] Busch’s court,” he told us. “The EIR is certainly inadequate.”

That Environmental Impact Report – which the city originally neglected, leading to the injunction after Anderson and Miles sued -- has been two years in the making and city officials are confident that it will pass legal muster. And San Francisco Bicycle Coalition director Leah Shahum told us, “We’re expecting good things today.”

Miles isn’t the only one appealing the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR and the Municipal Transportation Agency’s approval of the Bike Plan, for which the board is considering related amendments to the city’s General Plan to facilitate more bike lanes and other safety improvements and enforcement changes.

A South Beach neighborhood group is also appealing the plan because it doesn’t like the proposal for bike lanes along Second Street, a project that the MTA voted last month to delay. Group members say they like the bike lanes, but they prefer a design like that on Valencia Street, with a large center lane for cars, something planners say would make the bike lanes unacceptably narrow.

But nobody thinks the Bike Plan will face any major modifications or serious delays in a city that hasn’t seen so much as a new bike rack installed since 2006 because of the court injunction. Even though Anderson believes the plan creates unacceptable delays for Muni, he told us the board will surely approve it: “This is progressive land – bicycles are good and cars are bad.”

In fact, Anderson says that he doesn’t even plan to attend today’s hearing, which is scheduled for 4 p.m. in the Board Chambers at City Hall. He just doesn't like cavorting with a crowd he labels "bike nuts" and doesn't think the hearing matters. Instead, he said, “We’ll see them in court.”

Comments (6)

Rob Anderson:

Miles wasn't writing a document opposing the Bicycle Plan; she was writing a critique of the EIR on the Bicycle Plan that she has turned in to the Board of Supervisors as part of our appeal of the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR. The city is rightly confident that no one---except perhaps me and Miles---has actually read the massive EIR, so whatever Shahum or Thornley say will go uncontradicted in the media, except on my blog.

In fact the EIR confirms what we said more than four years ago: the Bicycle Plan is going to screw up traffic all over the city, including slowing down a bunch of Muni lines in our supposedly "transit first" city.

But the city is determined to implement the Plan anyhow, regardless of its effect on traffic by simply declaring that there are "overriding considerations" that justify screwing up city traffic for the overwhelming majority of city residents who don't ride bikes on behalf of a minority of cyclists. Whether that argument---and a number of other good legal arguments against the contents of the EIR---will pass legal muster in Judge Busch's court is the real question.

Posted by Rob Anderson | August 4, 2009 03:56 PM

marcos:

Showdown? More like a sympathy fuck after 4 years of teasing.

Rob and Mary get credit for forcing the CIty to evaluate impacts on Muni, delays to transit due to removing an auto lane for a bicycle lane. Unfortunately, there did not seem to be any sort of intelligent policy discussion which balanced delay for Muni with completing the bicycle network, only pandering.

The EIR stated that implementing certain segments would delay Muni. If a goal is to get more people onto transit, then we need to not be throwing dirt on Muni in its on-time hole by introducing more delay, delay which the system is being reconfigured to minimize. We can't have livable streets that are safe for cyclists without a robust, rapid and reliable transit system.

Given the history of complete error demonstrated by City staff and advocates on the approval of the bicycle plan since 2004, the only glimmer was Fell and Masonic, odds are that the City forgot to analyze something and Anderson and Miles will prevail in court irrespective of the higher bar. When you lose 8 and win one, odds are that you'll lose #10.

At the end of the day, how forward thinking can the bike plan be if Sean Elsbernd made the motion to reject the appeal, and that motion carried 11-0? With Alioto-:Pier and Chu in support of something, either its booby trapped or a dangerous illusion of progress.

-marc

Posted by marcos | August 5, 2009 07:25 AM

I know it pains Marc to say that, because he's a bike nut himself. It remains to be seen whether the changes to the Fell/Masonic intersection will be safer than how it was before. We'll need to see the accident figures before we can draw any conclusions.

The EIR is a mess that's legally deficient in a number of ways, but, as Marc points out, it does tell us that the Bicycle Plan is going to screw up traffic on a number of streets for Muni, not to mention "Death Machines," aka cars. Judge Busch will be doing the city and the bike people a favor if he rejects the EIR. That will let the city off the hook so that it won't be forced to screw up traffic all over the city for everyone but bike people, who I think are an unpopular minority even here in Progressive Land.

Yes, Marc is right to point out that Elsbernd was the lead lemming in introducing the motion to reject our appeal. The Murk passed, probably because he understands that he's already too closely identified with the SFBC, Critical Mass---which he endorses---and the bike people, which won't be helpful when he runs for mayor in a citywide election.

Posted by Rob Anderson | August 5, 2009 09:04 AM

Rob, the truth pains me only when the truth hurts. The truth hurts only when you're not prepared to deal with the truth.

The truth is that most all instances of removing auto lanes for bike lanes will not snarl traffic in a way that is proxied as a significant environmental impact under CEQA. Only a handful of segments in the bike lane network are problematic.

And the truth is that some folks can't grasp the concept of counterintuition, where their apparent best interests are actually not their best interests. Half the world is intuitive, the other half counterintuitive, intelligence is the ability to discern the difference. My take is that the more attractive Muni is, the more folks will give up their cars and the safer it will be to bike and walk and the faster Muni will be.

The truth is that most bike trips will take place off the network for the most part. If I had to make the choice between a bike lane on a few blocks of roadway and faster Muni and no bike lane, I'd take the latter in an instant.

Instead of putting Muni first, we get development that snarls transit, work orders that drain the Muni budget of dedicated resources, Muni fare increases slated for the duration and on top of all that, less than a handful of the bike lanes that snarl transit, and we wonder why there are so many private autos on the streets slowing Muni further. No mas.

That is a death spiral for transit, to which cyclists should assiduously avoid contributing if we want to make cycling safer.

Posted by marcos | August 5, 2009 09:29 AM

Fin:

Rob says: "Judge Busch will be doing the city and the bike people a favor if he rejects the EIR"

Can you explain how less dedicated bike lanes will be doing 'bike people' a favor? Seems a curious logical divergence.

Posted by Fin | August 5, 2009 02:35 PM

Posted by Fin | August 5, 2009 02:37 PM

Comments (6)

Post a comment