Northern California - Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?

A rare example of how someone with very little money can have so much power.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121919354756955249-lMyQjAxMDI4MTI5MDEyOTAzWj.html

That is so sad, on so many levels.

He has a personal issue with the way some individuals ride ("several near misses with bikers roaring through crosswalks and red lights"), extrapolates that to the entire bike riding population, throws in Critical Mass to justify the extrapolation, then uses a bunch of arcane technical rules in the court system to bring a popular initiative to a halt. Oh, yeah - the justification is that bike lanes will cause more pollution.

Granted he has a couple of points that should be looked at - if creating a bike lane takes away an auto lane, does it create worse traffic (and hence worse pollution)? Is it realistic that 10% of all trips in SF will be by bike anytime soon? And now the city will have to address those. However, I suspect the cost of holding this whole thing up in the court system will far outweigh any benefit. Plus, he's clearly made up his mind already, and data be damned - he's already talking about challenging the environmental impact review that he sued to have prepared, without seeing it.

At least so far the SF voters don't seem real interested in having him in public office.

JB

Yeah. Anderson's an idiot.

But you can blame the City and the SFBC. Any plan involving building just about anything is required to adhere to the CEQA process. They didn't dot their i's and cross their t's. Why? Because CEQA is a pain in the ass, and they wanted the thing passed sooner and cheaper.

CEQA requires either an EIR or a "Negative Declaration" for a plan like that.

An EIR (Environmental Impact Report) is a big ass study that describes/analyzes the significant environmental effects of a proposed project. This includes, air, noise, light pollution, impacts on traffic and transit, aesthetics, etc... Then the report identifies alternatives and ways to reduce or avoid the possible environmental impacts.

A "Negative Declaration" is a brief report describing the reasons that a proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an EIR. An ND is prepared when there is no substantial evidence that a project may have a significant environmental effect. Must be explained in the ND. (Basically if the project is small, you can do this instead of an EIR).

EIRs are expensive and time consuming.

Anyway, they should have covered their bases so retards like Anderson couldn't shut it down. These studies might be a PITA, but they do prevent crap from getting built that would screw everything up. They also force developers to fix any impacts their project may bring about.

Anyway regarding Anderson's argument, his entire argument is supported by this root statement:

..."Cars always will vastly outnumber bikes," he reasons.

I have a newsflash for Anderson... You cannot walk a mile, without taking the first step.

Policy impacts our way of life. It is up to policymakers to put policies into place that will head us in the right direction. Sometimes that requires putting into place policies that will be met with a great deal of static. However, some of the best policy comes from this seed. Foresight along with studies and forecasts for support will lead us in the right direction.

Bike facilities will increase bike usage, and therefore decrease auto usage. If that gets the ball rolling, then maybe the truth to Anderson's statement will fade with time.

..."attempt by the anti-car fanatics to screw up our traffic on behalf of the bicycle fantasy."

It's not a fantasy, and has proven to be a real form of transportation elsewhere in the world. There is no reason we can't head in that direction, although it might take time.

By his reasoning, we should get rid of all cross-walks so that cars don't have to stop and idle...

By his reasoning, we should get rid of all cross-walks so that cars don't have to stop and idle...
and he would probably agree with that sentiment, strangely enough given his self-described car-free status.

Sometimes our "system" here in Ca. just flat out sux