Tuesday, December 16, 2008

City in contempt of court

The City of San Francisco will face contempt charges on January 14, 2009. The court issued an Order to Show Cause why the city should not be held in contempt of its orders, injunction and peremptory writ of mandate that ordered the city to set aside both its ordinance placing the Bicycle Plan in the city's General Plan and the legislation implementing the Plan on city streets. Petitioners' Coalition for Adequate Review asked the court to issue the OSC, because the city has refused to remove the invalid text from its General Plan, which is used by the public and city government to determine whether proposed projects conform to city law.

Contempt can carry serious penalties, including additional enforcement orders, fines and/or imprisonment. Even though the court ruled against the city way back in November, 2006, and, despite a number of reminders, the city has refused to remove the legislation from its books, misleading both the public and city government about what the law is. The hearing on the OSC is set for January 14 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 301 of the San Francisco Superior Court.

Labels:

38 Comments:

At 4:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love the timing.

 
At 4:50 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Why?

 
At 12:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe the city realizes that once your little legal tantrum is finished, the Bike plan will remain on the books in the city's general plan and that taking it out just to put it back in again is a waste of everyone's time right now.

 
At 12:25 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Wrong on both the legal principle involved---disobeying a court order---and the specifics of the legistlation. The city lost the litigation challenging the complete lack of any environmental review of the 500-page Bicycle Plan. Since they have completely changed the Bicycle Plan, they have in fact just issued a Draft EIR on a completely different Bicycle Plan than the one Judge Busch ordered them to review. Regardless of the merits or deficiencies of this new Bicycle Plan, it's a different Plan than the one they made part of the General Plan with no environmental review.

That's why that legislation is invalid now and never will be valid for the new Bicycle Plan.

If our successful litigation was nothing but a "legal tantrum," why did Judge Busch, a very intelligent guy, rule in our favor? Did he fail to recognize that our complaint had no merit? And how do you think he's going to like having the city disobey his order?

The truth seems to be that the city is still seething with resentment about losing this case and hates to have to eat the shit necessary to get that legislation off its books and out of the General Plan. Which will involve the Board of Lemmings (aka the Board of Supervisors) having to specifically back that legislation off the books.

Leaving the invalid legislation in the General Plan can leave the city vulnerable to further litigation, since the General Plan is invalid as long as it's on the books. And the Planning Dept. and developers, for example, rely on the General Plan to determine whether proposed projects are in conformity with city law. Get it? Hence, city's petty spitefulness in refusing to remove the legislation---we reminded them several times that they must do so---is doubly stupid, since it may end up costing the city a lot more than doing the EIR on the Bicycle Plan has already cost.

 
At 1:56 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

What is the net effect of the city not doing what you want them to do?

 
At 3:34 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

As the post pointed out, Judge Busch can do any number of things, including fines and imprisonment, which seems unlikely. At the very least, I assume he will order the city to get rid of the legislation.

 
At 12:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, if it's a case of changing the bike plan then I can see your argument.

I call it a legal tantrum because you've taken your personal beef with the bike people and found a legal procedure to delay their progress.

In this case, you are 100% correct, legally speaking, that the city violated the EIR requirement (which is why judge Busch made the ruling he did).

But your motives are also 100% personal and you're not acting out of a supreme respect for city processes, but out of a supreme disrespect of a certain group of people.

 
At 12:55 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

To make the previous commenters comment "non-anonymous" - I agree with him 100%.

The net effect of this action is

1) Costs the city money
2) Annoys some people you don't like.

Sad.

 
At 1:01 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

How do you know what my "personal" motives are? "100% personal"? No, that's way too high. Besides, whose motives are completely impersonal? Leah Shahum's? Oliver Gajda's? But you're right to suggest that there are different issues involved with how and what I write about the Bicycle Plan and the city's bike people.

There's the obvious legal issue about how the city tried to push the Plan through the process without doing any environmental review. Good that you at least understand that. There's the issue on how a significant minority of cyclists behave badly on city streets: Out of our way; we aren't burning fossil fuel! These folks enjoy getting together on the last Friday of every month to screw up city traffic with Critical Mass. Am I out of line or unique in resenting this outrageous display of collective arrogance?

There's the issue of the intrinsic danger involved in riding a bike, which many commenters to this blog are in denial about, apparently because they think an honest discussion of the dangers might discourage others from riding a bike. And then there's the remarkable intellectual shortcomings of the bike people, as evidenced by the many comments to District 5 Diary: Bikes are Good and Cars are Bad!

It's fair to say that I do in fact have little respect for many of those involved in the great bike movement, but I still like to think that a majority of city cyclists are more or less good people, even if even they habitually run red lights and ignore traffic laws.

 
At 1:08 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Oh Murph, don't be sad! It would have been a lot cheaper for the city if it had followed the law and done the EIR in the first place. Yes, it's always good to annoy people you don't like, but the effects on SF of making the city do an EIR remain to be seen. I'm in the process of reading the EIR now and will write about it soon on D5 Diary. We are now part way through the public comment period, which will end in the middle of January. At the very least, city neighborhoods will now have fair warning about what the city and the bike people want to do to their streets, not an insignificant achievement.

 
At 3:18 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

"fair warning about what the city and the bike people want to do to their streets, not an insignificant achievement."

I thought this - your lawsuit - was about "The Environment" - not "Their Streets".

 
At 3:21 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

"There's the issue on how a significant minority of cyclists behave badly on city streets"

How is this relevant? The lawsuit was supposedly about how bike lanes could be bad for "The Environment" - thus the need for an EIR.

If you are going to use an end-around and claim to be holier than thou - stick to the script.

 
At 3:48 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

There were three main points in the original complaint: the CEQA, enviro review issue, the public notice issue, and a state pre-emption issue. Judge Busch essentially ignored the last two and focused on the CEQA issue, which is the most important. The SF Bicycle Coalition did the public outreach on the original Bicycle Plan, which was highly improper, since they had a stake in the outcome of the Plan. They supposedly held public input meetings all over the city, but I never heard about them. Since I'm relatively well informed about D5 issues, I assume my experience was typical. Very few people in the city really knew what was in the Bicycle Plan. I'm assuming it will be different this time around, given all the publicity on the litigation over the past several years.

 
At 11:58 PM, Anonymous Shawn Allen said...

All you've really got is a legal leg to stand on, Rob. Your moral objections to the attitude and behavior of cyclists are completely tangential to your legal challenge, and distract from the important issues raised in your lawsuit.

"There's the issue on how a significant minority of cyclists behave badly on city streets: Out of our way; we aren't burning fossil fuel!"

What the hell does "significant minority" mean? I'd also say that a "significant minority" of drivers act like assholes on the road, and that a "significant minority" of pedestrians put their lives in danger by jaywalking busy intersections. I take it as a given that a minority ("significant" or not) of people in general act badly. Aside from your own anecdotal evidence, you have no factual basis on which to single out cyclists. Every time you make generalizations by extrapolating collective behavior from the stupidity of a minority, you just make yourself look dumber and dumber.

"These folks enjoy getting together on the last Friday of every month to screw up city traffic with Critical Mass. Am I out of line or unique in resenting this outrageous display of collective arrogance?"

No, but it's worth mentioning that most cyclists probably wouldn't feel the need to participate in CM if the city actually accommodated them. Critical Mass is a political function born of the need to assert cyclists' rights to the road, remind motorists that there are a lot of us out there, and to demonstrate to onlookers that cycling is actually quite a lot of fun. I personally haven't done it in a long time because I feel that it's been co-opted to some degree by people with an axe to grind, but I still recognize its usefulness as a political tool.

"There's the issue of the intrinsic danger involved in riding a bike, which many commenters to this blog are in denial about, apparently because they think an honest discussion of the dangers might discourage others from riding a bike."

That's bullshit, and you know it. The big problem with your assertion is that the word "danger" is totally ambiguous. As statistics you've cited reveal, even walking is dangerous. Hell, there have been more pedestrians plowed down by MUNI buses this year (8) in SF than cyclists killed on their bikes (1).

You talk about "solo falls" as if people are dying in the streets, but the reality is quite the opposite. Most solo falls are insignificant and certainly not life-threatening. The biggest threat to cyclists on the road is the motor vehicle, but there are myriad ways to mitigate that threat: By riding predictably, ensuring our visibility at night, and obeying traffic signals, for instance. Dedicated cycling lanes also help. You can read Robert Hurst (I don't know a single cyclist who "overlooks the dangers of cycling in traffic", by the way) and speculate about the severity of "solo falls" until the cows come home, but at the end of the day you're just blowing smoke. Comparing potential miles ridden to other activities, Dave Moulton found that you're about as likely to die on a bike as you are in an SUV, or only a fifth as likely as you are just walking. And when you consider the health benefits that regular cardiovascular exercise provides, it's a no-brainer. Clearly riding a bike in San Francisco isn't for everyone, but there tens of thousands of safe, respectful, and responsible people riding out there every day who are well qualified to challenge your assertion that cycling is "intrinsically dangerous".

"And then there's the remarkable intellectual shortcomings of the bike people, as evidenced by the many comments to District 5 Diary: Bikes are Good and Cars are Bad!"

And if your behavior on this blog is any indication, angry old NIMBYs are more wrong-headed and morally bankrupt than anyone prompted to a childish retort by your shameless bigotry and political ineptitude. You want to talk about the Bicycle Plan? Stick to the facts at hand, rather than relying on your own anecdotal evidence and long-bred prejudices to prove some totally tangential point. This shit is getting old.

 
At 9:34 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

I use the phrase "significant minority" to describe cyclists who misbehave on city streets because obviously there's no way to know precisely how many of these buttholes there really are. It's always going to be anecdotal evidence. But anyone like me who spends a lot of time on city streets---I'm out walking and riding Muni every day---sees a lot of this bad behavior, which, to my mind, means that there's a "significant" percentage of cyclists that act that way. Are you claiming that it's an insignificant minority?

So Critical Mass is meant to be an assertion of the rights of cyclists? Bullshit. It's really yet another instance of the arrogance of city cyclists showing the rest of us that they don't have to obey traffic laws or get a parade permit. And then there's the expense of the 40 city cops on overtime that have to "escort" the illegal demonstration to keep a lid on the violence.

When I talk about the "dangers" involved in riding a bike, I don't have to justify that usage to anyone but bike people. I'm not referring to fatalities; I mean all the injuries inherent in riding a bike, either in the city or anywhere, for that matter. Note that even the SFBC has an ongoing campaign to locate and fill in potholes on city streets, since potholes are only one of the hazards facing cyclists. Then there's dooring, equipment failures, reckless drivers, etc. The reality is that nothing but a small minority of folks are willing to accept those risks as they go about their daily rounds of commuting, shopping, taking the kids to daycare, etc.

These issues are indeed "old" and have been thoroughly discussed on this blog for several years. Your view that cycling is a safe, sensible way to travel in SF is really, in the end, a faith-based belief system that is unlikely to ever be shared by any but a small minority.

 
At 11:05 AM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

Again, what does whether or not cycling is safe have to do with CEQA? You fall back on the argument that the city did not do due diligence on the EIR, then go off tangentially into the dangers of cycling and what yahoos cyclists are. How is behavior of cyclists relevant to whether or not the city erred in not doing an EIR? Answer - it's not.

If you would stop being such a coward and just own up to the fact you are using the EIR as a legal tactic to oppose cycling as opposed to making sure the city follows the letter of the law, we could simply agree to disagree. Of course then I would continue in saying that your tactics are just stall measures that have no net effect outside of wasting the money and time of the city, in the end a signifigant *majority* of San Franciscan's either support or are ambivalent to more bike lanes, but they really hate to hear the city is wasting money on bueracratic hullabaloo amounting to nothing.

Not to say that the specifics of the bike plan will not be reviewed - despite the research and engineering done by the planners, there might be components of it that don't make sense. Public comment will be taken and adjustments will be made. Already this is planned for the lanes on Phelan. If you don't think this works, see for example the MUNI TEP. Several lines were on the chopping block or being altered in ways that the actual ridership of those lines knew was not appropriate. Public comment was taken, the plan was altered, and it's much better. But that's not what is happening with the bike plan yet, because it's stalled in the EIR fiasco.

"It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not!" Even with Rick Warren, I mean Rob Anderson in play.

 
At 11:40 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

The discussion of safety wasn't in response to your comment, Murph. You're not the only bike nut in the city, after all. So I'm a "coward" because I don't agree with your opinion of my motives?

The city violated both the letter and the spirit of CEQA, which is about nothing but reviewing projects before they are implemented.

You repeat the inanity about the city wasting time and money on the EIR, but the process is no longer "stalled." The city has now produced a substantial---if not substantive---document in the form of a draft EIR on the Bicycle Plan for us to discuss and critique. It's praiseworthy that you take an interest in the TEP, Murph. Your scoutmaster will no doubt award you a merit badge for your engagement on that issue. But we now have an EIR to study, and it would be more relevant for you to take an interest in that. You can read it online via the MTA's website.

The "whether you like it or not" is perfectly applicable to how the SFBC and the city, including the mayor, have proceeded with the Bicycle Plan by trying to rush it through the process without serious review or debate, unbeknownst to most San Franciscans.

 
At 12:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There's the issue on how a significant minority of cyclists behave badly on city streets..."

Actually, since that's how *all street users* behave at times, it's NOT an issue.

MUNI drivers, pedestrians, drivers, cyclists-- we all act like total assholes... sometimes. This does not obviate the need to promote our safety, however (in fact it's an argument for the greater promotion of safety). If that was the case, there would be no speed limit, no traffic regulations, no engineering for automobiles or sidewalks and crosswalks for pedestrians, etc., because they are assholes and don't deserve it.

"These folks enjoy getting together on the last Friday of every month to screw up city traffic with Critical Mass"

You're making two mistakes here: 1) lumping all cyclists in with critical mass, and 2) assuming that purpose of critical mass is to "screw up traffic".

But the majority of SF cyclists do not ride in critical mass and critical mass started mostly because motor traffic had so screwed up bicycle traffic that some cyclists took to riding in a group so they wouldn't feel constantly threatened by automobiles.

That's worth thinking about.

"Am I out of line or unique in resenting this outrageous display of collective arrogance?"

No, because critical mass is essentially confrontational. I.E., "these streets belong to us also" and anything that's a break from the norm is uncomfortable for some folks. But again, critical mass is a small subset of all San Francisco bicyclists.

Is it arrogant? Not any more arrogant that the opposite, which is car drivers thinking (incorrectly) that the streets belong solely to them, while they screw up traffic for everyone else, every day of the week. The real question is if it's arrogant to display and act on your rights to the road.

Does critical mass screw up traffic? Well, thousands of bicyclists take only a few minutes to pass through any given intersection, which would be a miracle of traffic flow by any standard.

"There's the issue of the intrinsic danger involved in riding a bike, which many commenters to this blog are in denial about, apparently because they think an honest discussion of the dangers might discourage others from riding a bike"

The intrinsic danger is that yes, you might crash your bike and get hurt. The extrinsic danger is that yes, you may get hit by a car and killed. But these dangers are really no different than any other transportation mode on the streets of SF. Bicycling (and also walking) has health benefits and other social benefits, however (decreased traffic congestion, cleaner air, more efficeint use of parking and road resources, less noise, etc.), which should be taken into account.

"And then there's the remarkable intellectual shortcomings of the bike people, as evidenced by the many comments to District 5 Diary: Bikes are Good and Cars are Bad!"

I haven't read that particular comment, but it does sound pretty simplistic.

"I still like to think that a majority of city cyclists are more or less good people, even if even they habitually run red lights and ignore traffic laws."

Thanks for throwing us a bone on that one, Rob. What I'd really like to see to address the running of lights and stop signs is some recognition that these laws were designed to regulate motor traffic and bicycles are not motor traffic, so they deserve a body of laws that take their nature into account. Without that body of laws, it should not surprise us in the least that bicyclists ignore some laws that were written for cars (I've also seen lots of ridiculous bicycling that my argument here cannot account for).

As it stands now, all we've got is 'bicycle assimilation', which means bicyclists must adhere to the *motor vehicle* code!

 
At 12:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"At the very least, city neighborhoods will now have fair warning about what the city and the bike people want to do to their streets, not an insignificant achievement."

City neighborhoods ARE the bike people, Rob.

 
At 1:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So Critical Mass is meant to be an assertion of the rights of cyclists? Bullshit. It's really yet another instance of the arrogance of city cyclists showing the rest of us that they don't have to obey traffic laws or get a parade permit."

Really Rob, why should we believe you, as a non-cyclist, know the first thing about critical mass?

"And then there's the expense of the 40 city cops on overtime that have to "escort" the illegal demonstration to keep a lid on the violence."

That's nothing compared to what we spend to keep the streets choked with cars.

And keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of critical mass 'violence' is perpetrated *on* cyclists *by* motorists.

"The reality is that nothing but a small minority of folks are willing to accept those risks as they go about their daily rounds of commuting, shopping, taking the kids to daycare, etc."

This statement would be true if you added "...with the current infrastructure."

"The city violated both the letter and the spirit of CEQA, which is about nothing but reviewing projects before they are implemented."

No fucking way. The letter, yes, but the spirit? It's an environmental law that manifests itself in public process. The spirit of the law is to promote a cleaner environment, not cleaner processes!

 
At 9:31 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"City neighborhoods ARE the bike people, Rob."

Hardly. Recall that the upper Haight Street neighborhood---and the fire department---rejected the traffic circles on Page Street; Japantown rejected the SFBC's attempt to put a bike lane on Post Street; and people on upper Market Street vigorously protested taking away street parking for bike lanes between Van Ness and Octavia. Of course the city did it anyway, rushing it through in time for Bike to Work Day.

 
At 9:42 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"Really Rob, why should we believe you, as a non-cyclist, know the first thing about critical mass?"

Is this a factual dispute? We all know that it takes place on the last Friday of every month; that it has an escort of city cops on overtime; that it has no parade permit and no organization takes responsibility for it, though the SFBC publicizes it while attaching a mealy-mouthed disclaimer to its support. And we all know that the demo, which lasts for several hours, cruises around the city disrupting traffic and flouting traffic laws. Do you dispute any of that?

"That's nothing compared to what we spend to keep the streets choked with cars."

Motorized traffic is the very lifeblood of the city's economy, as people commute to work, tourists---tourism is our main industry---travel into and around the city, every business in the city gets its supplies delivered by truck. There are 460,150 motor vehicles registered in SF. There are more than 1,000 Muni vehicles on the streets and 1,000 taxicabs.

"No fucking way. The letter, yes, but the spirit? It's an environmental law that manifests itself in public process. The spirit of the law is to promote a cleaner environment, not cleaner processes!"

The letter and the spirit are one and the same with CEQA, which is only about reviewing projects before they are implemented to determine their effect on the enviroment. The 500-page Bicycle Plan was a major project that obviously needed environmental review. It's just arrogance to deny that, as if the city's declaration of good intentions---bikes don't burn fossil fuel!---was enough to satisfy CEQA's legal requirements. It's just stupid to continue denying this reality.

 
At 10:10 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

I wrote: "There's the issue on how a significant minority of cyclists behave badly on city streets"

Murph wrote: "How is this relevant? The lawsuit was supposedly about how bike lanes could be bad for 'The Environment'---thus the need for an EIR.If you are going to use an end-around and claim to be holier than thou - stick to the script."

I made the point about the bad behavior of many cyclists as part of a list of the various issues surrounding cycling in SF. You sure stick to the bike nut script. Of course bike lanes could be bad for the environment if you take away traffic lanes on busy city streets to make bike lanes, thus stalling everyone else in increased traffic congestion, fouling the air and degrading the quality of life for everyone but the planet-saving cyclists. Got it, Murph?

 
At 11:58 AM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

For example, this cyclist really screwed up traffic with her bad behavior...

Heroic Cable Car collides with double parked SUV"

This one shit for brains shut down a city street for over an hour because they felt it was their right to park in the middle of the street. Not only that, the cable car line was disrupted along the whole route. This one incident caused more disruption than any critical mass - which at any one point causes 5 or so minutes delay.

And this incident is far from atypical.

 
At 12:16 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

So that makes Critical Mass okay?

 
At 4:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"people on upper Market Street vigorously protested taking away street parking for bike lanes between Van Ness and Octavia."

Yeah, but the city realized that the merchants who think they own Market street weren't a significant minority.

 
At 4:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Motorized traffic is the very lifeblood of the city's economy..."

You're out of your fucking mind.

 
At 5:02 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"Yeah, but the city realized that the merchants who think they own Market street weren't a significant minority."

Right. The city treated dozens of small business people with complete contempt, including an arrogant lecture from Leah Shahum about how they have to embrace change! All of it rushed through the process in time for Bike to Work Day. What assholes!

 
At 2:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, dozens of merchants were upset that thousands of cyclists wanted to be able to use road space that people were storing cars in.

 
At 3:15 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Yes, those arrogant merchants who wanted to preserve street parking in front of their businesses! I guess they have to embrace Shahum's notion of change, "whether they like it or not."

 
At 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, those arrogant merchants who wanted to preserve street parking in front of their businesses..."

I never said they were arrogant. It makes sense for them to want to preserve the parking spots in their vicinity (after all, it is their de facto employee parking).

But car parking is not the only use for a street and merchants have a strong tendency to equate easy motoring with business vitality*, which may be a half-truth in the suburbs, but is nowhere near the mark in San Francisco.

*similar to the way you associate easy motoring with the health of the city economy.

 
At 11:29 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

So making it more difficult to drive on city streets will be good for our economy? Cyclists will now stop at those antique stores that lost street parking and haul away furniture on their bikes? You bike people are correctly seen as arrogant and contemptuous of the city's small businesses, which is why you and the city are going to have trouble implementing the Bicycle Plan as defined in the EIR.

 
At 1:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So making it more difficult to drive on city streets will be good for our economy?"

You cannot say, with any credence, that dedicating a little space to bicycles is going to make driving in the city more difficult. If you're going to have a pet theory like that at least provide some pet evidence.

"Cyclists will now stop at those antique stores that lost street parking and haul away furniture on their bikes?"

You've built a couple of false assumptions into this comment: 1) that it's not possible to move furniture on a bike, and 2) that people who use bicycles don't also use other methods of transportation.

Despite what you may think, people do move things on bike trailers and many city bicyclists also have cars or belong to a car-sharing service or have friends with cars or sometimes rent cars. So your bike vs. car thing is a false dichotomy.

The same person traveling down market street will sometimes be found in the bike lane (if there is one), sometimes walking on the sidewalk, sometimes in a cab, sometimes on the F, and sometimes in their own car (if they are among the 50% of residents who own one).

So the real issue is not 'bikes vs. cars', but 'have we made room for all modes of travel'? And if you look at the typical SF street, the answer is a resounding 'no'.

"You bike people are correctly seen as arrogant and contemptuous of the city's small businesses..."

Another pet theory presented without evidence. 'The bike people' are not a disctinct group, they overlap into all walks of SF life, including many owners of small businesses.

You have created a false category.

 
At 9:19 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

You are apparently coming in late on a discussion that's been going on for several years. "A little space"? Yes, bike lanes are only four or five feet wide, but to make one on most city streets you have to either take away street parking or an existing traffic lane, which will could make traffic worse on a busy street.

I've never seen anyone moving furniture on a bicycle.

I counted 18 small businesses---including a cancer clinic---that pleaded with the BOS committee to leave the metered parking alone between Van Ness and Octavia. Their concerns were treated dismissively by Supervisor Dufty and Supervisor Mirkarimi said nothing at all. Only Supervisor Ma somewhat timidly questioned the process.

It's all about bikes with the SFBC, which is why they never even mention Muni on their website in our supposedly transit first city. It's also why they oppose anything that makes it easier to drive in the city, like parking lots.

 
At 10:34 AM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

Alert! The city is once again making it more expensive to drive in the city. This is probably worth front page commentary...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/23/BAFL14TPCC.DTL

 
At 11:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, bike lanes are only four or five feet wide, but to make one on most city streets you have to either take away street parking or an existing traffic lane..."

So two to four traffic lanes plus two 'parking lanes' is a good way to set up a city street, but allocating any of that space to bicycles is not?

Don't sidewalks also 'screw up traffic' by taking away space from cars?

 
At 11:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I've never seen anyone moving furniture on a bicycle."

Well I've never seen a merchant complain about losing metered parking to a bike lane, so it must not have happened, right?

 
At 4:22 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

duh

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home