Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Chris Weeks is perplexed

Chris:

I'm not surprised that you are "perplexed" (see below) if the Christian Science Monitor article is your only source of information on the litigation. It was only vaguely mentioned in passing in the article, but California law (CEQA) requires an environmental study of all projects, public or private, that might possibly affect the environment. The city has done no environmental study of this project, even though the Bicycle Plan is an ambitious, 460-page project that proposes, among other things, to remove traffic lanes and street parking in San Francisco neighborhoods to make bike lanes. That's a direct impact on the physical environment of the city and requires an environmental study before implementation, especially traffic studies, since taking away traffic lanes in a city that, according to the DMV, has 452,813 registered motor vehicles, is likely to aggravate traffic congestion in the city. The article cites the David Binder poll in support of the plan in the city. But, as you surely understand, poll results are determined by the questions asked. If Binder had asked those polled the following question, the results probably would have been different: Do you support eliminating traffic lanes and street parking in your neighborhood to make bike lanes?

In fact I don't oppose bike lanes in general, since they can be functional, depending on the street. The bike lanes on Valencia, for example, are sensible and well-used. But note that there are still enough lanes on Valencia to handle vehicle traffic, and no street parking was eliminated by creating those bike lanes.

In the unlikely event that you want to learn more about the litigation and/or a perspective critical of the SFBC and the Bicycle Plan, you can consult my blog: http://district5diary.blogspot.com/

Regards, Rob Anderson

Chris Weeks wrote:

Ron[sic]-

After reading your quotes in todays Christian Science Monitor about your law suit, I have to admit, I am perplexed. I wanted to hear from you why you think delaying the completion of San Francisco's Bike Network is good for the environment and San Francisco. It was not clear from your responses what your motivation is for delaying the completion of the network that will rationalize cyclists use of city streets. Many of our 20,000 plus employees often regret that they can not bicycle to or from our new campus because Bike Lanes have not been completed to connect Mission Bay to Downtown and that streets without Bike Lanes are too dangerous. This missing link in the network is causing problems for our new campus and I would be interested to learn from you how it benefits San Francisco to keep Mission Bay isolated from the proposed Bicycle Network.

Thank you for your time

Labels: ,