S.F. Activist has jammed a stick in bike plan's spokes

He actually may, in all his zeal and weirdness, have a point, about idling and traffic.... never thought of that... of course, the idea is that with more bike friendly lanes, etc. more people will ride bikes...and reduce traffic, but an interesting point nonetheless.

 

That's not funny, it's sick.

 

He sounds...special.

 

1) Is there a problem? Isn't this why environmental reviews were mandated?

2) If it is a problem, is the problem with Anderson, or a with a system that allows one individual to disrupt the work of many others?

These are honest questions on my part. I really would like some thought out opinions.

 

1) I don't see why an environmental review would not be indicated. The point about idling and traffic, is frankly, despite the apparent 'quackdom factor' a valid one (of course, more traffic, more bike riding, so hard to measure the eventual plus and minuses, but in the short term, I think it would likely increase fuel consumption. (Note, I am FOR the bike lanes; at minimum for reasons of safety and fairness).

2) It is not 1 individual holding up the system, he went through the proper process--the courts. I don't think we can view the courts as 'holding up the system'. They are the system.

 

It's like a troll that all the other trolls can look up to and admire.
:flame:

 

Many cities the world over have installed bike facilities to encourage low impact transportation. Why is an environmental review necessary only in San Francisco?

Anderson's reasoning seems to be that anything in the way of cars causes more pollution, and that reducing the space available for cars is not good for the environment. This is absurd. Why not just pave the whole city and be done with it? All those parks, trees, and houses are in the way. How about an environmental review of Golden Gate Park? Or the Presidio? All those tourists are no doubt a traffic hazard, too, and the slow, cutesie cable cars simply have to go.

Bicycle facilities are NOT an "attempt by the anti-car fanatics to screw up our traffic..." They are a necessary part of a healthy and healthful urban landscape, designed to encourage fitness and reduce our transportation footprint. According to Scientific American, 'a man on a bicycle is more efficient at turning energy into motion than any other machine or animal.'

Building more roads hasn't seemed to speed the traffic much, anyway. It just encourages more cars, so maybe we should be performing environmental impact assessments on all new road construction and repair. On a good day, I can get around town faster on a bicycle than I can by car or so-called rapid transit. "Build it and they will come" seems to have worked for cars. Let's see if we can take a miniscule percentage of the transportation budget and do the same for bicycles.

 

On a purely Black and White level the wack-job may be technically correct, IF, the new bike lanes were carved out of existing drive lanes. It is fun from a "righties" perspective when lefties get skewered by their own.

When I was studying urban design one of the considerations was traffic and how it intertwined with public transit. The conclusions we came to were; one, you need a critical mass of people per square mile to support public transit, and two one way to get people into high density housing was to actually CAUSE traffic congestion! The rational was it was more people friendly because traffic wasn't moving so fast and that people would move to avoid the traffic. So in the long run, more traffic may lead to more people taking alternative transport or moving closer to work.

 

Hyosilver I don't think you adhered to this suggestion! I, too, would like some thought out opinions to a stimulating point, not extending logic to absurd conclusions. No one is paving all of SF for the sake of cars. The question is, do bicycle lanes increase idling traffic and therefore fuel consumption. How do you KNOW it doesn't. A bicyclist reduces his or her fuel consumption, that's all. The messenger way be unpalatable, but the question remains valid (it also doesn't mean bicycle lanes shouldn't be built for other reasons). HOV lanes were also 'no brainers' but cause more problems than solve them in some locales.

Owning a Prius, by definition, is not that environmentally friendly.

 

Let me give an example why Anderson may have helped bikers instead of hurting them.

Here in Pinellas County, a lot of the bike lanes are completely seperated from the roads. As a result, bike trail overpasses are built over busy roads that make everything better for both the traffic and bikers. If a review were to conclude that the present bike paths should be improved like above, then maybe the system is better off being reviewed.

Obviously this is speculation, but the vetting system being used could have a result like this. The larger point is that even environmentally good intents can be executed destructively, and review boards could stop bad plans.

 

Well, I was trying to argue that the conclusion already reached was itself absurd, and gave examples to illustrate the point. No, I don't really expect the entire city to be paved, nor do I expect anyone to argue that somebody's house is in the way of a straighter road, causing motorists to burn more fuel, and therefore we should have an environmental review. Yet, that seems to be what the narrowly defined legal sticking point is.

Sure, it's entirely possible Anderson's actions may have unintended good consequences. Separated rights of way with overpasses would indeed be a better solution for all concerned. Buuuut then, the motorists are bound to scream that more money for cycling infrastructure means less for roads, which would cause congestion, and more pollution, which is bad for the environment....

Sorry, I don't think this puzzle will be solved by considering only the car-centric point of view.

One more cyclist is one less car. More cyclists; more room on the roads.

 

I thought of a scenario to illustrate the 'bikes in the way' fallacy.

Say a company has 100 employees, with a parking lot just big enough for each of them to park their car. Say ten of them want to ride their bikes to work, but there's no safe place to park. So, they agree to build bike lockers in the parking lot on two of the ten empty stalls. (Empty because those ten employees are leaving their cars at home and commuting by bicycle) Then, the company hires ten more employees, but there's only parking for eight. One of them says 'Hey, if you get rid of those bikes in the way, we'll have room for two more cars.'

Which perspective do you identify with? Are these bikes taking up two stalls, or are they really freeing up eight more?

Next time you're lamenting a cyclist 'in your way', just be glad they're not driving their car and taking up even more space.

 

Who is lamenting about cyclist 'in your way'? Did not see anyone opposed to good bike access on this thread. If I could bike safely, I would. Right now I cannot and would prefer a few really high quality bike trails rather than just make every other road have a 'bike lane' jammed next to traffic.

 

My 'in the way' comments address what I understood from the original article, that cyclists are slowing down traffic, thus causing more pollution, therefore there should be an environmental review of bike lanes. Is that the wrong interpretation?

I'm all for improved access - we're in agreement on that part.

 

This example doesn't really make sense. Let's suppose the ten employees never rode bikes and always used their parking spots. And then the company went ahead and hired ten more employees. All ten new employees would be without a parking space. At least in your above example, eight of the new employees would be cheering because there would be spaces available for them.

So as I see this example, no matter how you cut it, the ten employees who converted to bicycling helped... first they removed cars from the congested roads, and then they enabled the company to hire 8 more employees without needing added parking lot improvements.

 

Hey, this post keeps going. I think the parking logic shows your bias. Your 'which perspective do you identify with' highlights this. How did we go from increased idling traffic and fuel consumption to parking spaces.

Regarding your example: Now, THAT doesn't need an environmental review. If 10 employees are hired but there are only 8 spaces, that increases the chance that 2 of the employees will carpool, mass transit, bike, vespa, (or gripe) etc. The other cars are parked. It does not increase their idle time or fuel consumption. If the employees complain and lobby for more car spaces, well then we know fuel consumption will increase. But, that is a decision made by the employees or company.

I think we are all for biking here. But, most things come at a cost. Sometimes short term, sometimes long term. The mass bike rides in SF DO, without a doubt increase idling traffic and fuel consumption, short term. Longterm, there is more public awareness, perhaps better lanes, and more bike use. Same may go for bike lanes. I don't know.

 

The parking spaces scenario was my attempt to show how bikes take up less room than cars, and aren't really slowing traffic. Yes, I'm biased toward non-polluting transportation. No secrets there.

Mass rides are an interesting issue. They're not just in San Francisco, and some places even have nude rides. Yes, long term, they probably increase the awareness of cycling. But, there's a backlash, as Anderson's actions indicate.

 

If there are ten cars in front of my car, I'm idling a lot longer than if there were 10 bikes on the road next to the side of my car.

Crossing an intersection is the main way in which a cyclist causes idling of cars but since they're on bikes, we're able to get out of the intersection faster than does a pedestrian causing the car to idle less than if the cyclist was on foot. And though the cyclists may be causing a slightly longer delay than if they were in a car, the cyclist alleviates car congestion during the remaining part of their commute to a much greater degree.

A commuter in any form is going to, at some point in their commute, cause a delay to someone else's time. But just as sidewalks have helped to alleviate pedestrian caused delays to cars, bike paths can do the same to alleviate cyclist caused delays to cars. I can't see how getting a cyclist off of a road designed solely for cars is going to create more problems than it solves.

Keep in mind that I do recognize that there are cyclists out there that don't observe the rules of the road and cause undue inconveniences and unnecessary delays to cars. This is a separate matter than what we're discussing, however.

 

Certainly not the wrong interpretation of Anderson's (faulty or correct?) viewpoint. But since Anderson is not part of the discussion group, I was not sure which posters you were addressing. A little closer reading of the original article shows that Anderson did not cause an environmental review, but that he opposed the environmental review being bypassed because it was decided there were no possible "adverse" effects.....but this is the function of the review, is it not? I have no support for troublemakers seeking attention, but Anderson should be shown to be a troublemaker using facts, not by issuing opposing opinions. (This last statement is not directed at you, just a general point).