Saturday, March 05, 2011

Weiner to Bloomberg: "I'm going to tear out your fucking bike lanes"

From the NY Times:

On a balmy night last June, the city’s Congressional delegation gathered for dinner at Gracie Mansion. Representative Anthony D. Weiner, who aspires to live in the mansion someday, knew he would have only a few minutes with the host, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. So he brought up the hottest topic he could think of: bicycle lanes, and the transportation commissioner who had nearly doubled the number of them, Janette Sadik-Khan. “When I become mayor, you know what I’m going to spend my first year doing?” Mr. Weiner said to Mr. Bloomberg, as tablemates listened. “I’m going to have a bunch of ribbon-cuttings tearing out your [expletive] bike lanes.”

Mr. Weiner, a brash Democrat from Queens, had expected a bit of banter with his longtime adversary. Instead, Mr. Bloomberg adopted an exasperated, welcome-to-my-world expression. “His answer was, ‘Tell me about it,’ ” said a person who was there, one of two who recounted the tale. The mayor, some guests said, made it clear that Ms. Sadik-Khan was off on her own...Among the city’s political class, Ms. Sadik-Khan has also become notorious for a brusque, I-know-best style and a reluctance to compromise.

In public screeds and private whispers, many city leaders say they have felt rebuffed, alienated or outright dismissed by Ms. Sadik-Khan, with several recounting in interviews having picked up their phones to find her yelling on the other end. And she recently set City Hall atwitter by appearing to deflect criticism over the response to the December blizzard to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.

...In the past several months, even members of the Bloomberg administration have begun to acknowledge that Ms. Sadik-Khan’s aggressive style, so effective at first, may have morphed into a liability. The mayor, who found himself booed over bicycle lanes at a town hall meeting in Queens in January, spoke with Ms. Sadik-Khan, and they agreed she would solicit more opinions from neighborhood leaders. Since then, she has been making conciliatory phone calls to City Council members, adopting a friendlier tone and proposing more collaboration.

Last week, Ms. Sadik-Khan withdrew a plan to ban car traffic on 34th Street between Herald Square and the Empire State Building after complaints from businesses, residents and The New York Post...

Labels: ,

58 Comments:

At 5:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fortunately now that Gavin is gone, we are free of any putzes like wEIner - but we do have wIEner who will support our bike lanes.

 
At 7:19 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Not clear what this confused comment means, but Newsom gave the Bicycle Coalition everything it asked for. He didn't object to the Bicycle Plan being pushed through the process without any environmental review, and he supported the city's losing legal strategy all through the litigation that led to Judge Busch ordering the city to do an EIR on the Plan.

The reality is that Newsom is a progressive San Francisco Democrat, with all the upsides and downsides---on development, traffic, gay marriage, illegal immigration, the bike bullshit, etc. that involves. Newsom has always agreed with city progressives on more issues than he disagreed with them in spite of all the contempt they have heaped on him since Care Not Cash in 2002.

 
At 7:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fell Street - Newsom postured. Lee says he wants to pursue separated bike lanes.

 
At 8:31 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Lee is just telling everyone what they want to hear. He listened to the HANC people on the recycling center, but he's not going to stop their eviction. Lee isn't going to be around long enough to do anything about Fell Street, which
seems an unlikely project to me. Making separated lanes will eliminate a lot of street parking, which is already tight in the neighborhood.

Newsom didn't give you Fell Street? I don't know if Sadik-Khan would give you Fell Street. The city's bike people have been lucky to have Newsom as mayor during their Bicycle Plan Surge; he's essentially given them everything they've asked for. The next mayor may not be as friendly to the agenda of that special interest group.

The city's bike people are in danger of over-reach, since the city is now getting ready to "improve" and "calm" Cesar Chavez and Masonic Avenue with bike lanes and traffic jams. I would let the dust settle on those streets---and it might be considerable---before tackling Fell Street. The question is, How badly are the people of SF willing to allow the bike people and City Hall to screw up traffic on their streets? I guess we're going to find out.

It would be helpful if just one candidate in the campaign for mayor raised these issues, so city voters can learn what's at stake. David Chiu is a serious bike guy, who actually rides his bike to work. Maybe he could lead the city in a discussion of the Bicycle Plan as it applies to Fell Street, Masonic Avenue, Cesar Chavez, Fifth Street, and Second Street. Along with complete discussion of Critical Mass and what constitutes acceptable behavior by cyclists on city streets.

Lee's main task is to deal with the pension fund tsunami that's swamping the city's budget. Meanwhile, Jeff Adachi is gathering signatures for another ballot initiative on the issue if Lee can't come up with a serious deal.

 
At 3:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The next mayor is going to be Herrera or Chiu. You don't think we're going to get everything we ask for? Think again.

 
At 4:11 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

According to the latest poll on the mayor's race, none of the canidates even has 20% of the vote. It's way too early for anything but the kind of wishful thinking you express.

But if at some point the candidates have the kind of debate on the anti-car movement I'd like to see---that's my wishful thinking---Chiu and Herrera could split the bike nut vote and leave an opening for a candidate who understands that there are a lot of voters that are unhappy with City Hall's anti-car policies but have never had a chance to express that unhappiness in a citywide election.

 
At 5:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Chiu and Herrera could split the bike nut vote..."

Welcome to Ranked Choice Voting - sucker!

 
At 5:54 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Yes, but that works both ways, since anti-bike nut voters would be calculating their own rankings.

 
At 6:29 PM, Anonymous Raiche said...

What a simple dog this "Weiner" is. You'd have to be blind to not see the improvements bikes have made to NY. I don't want to take cars out of SF, but they should definitely be banned in Manhattan. Totally useless there.

 
At 7:33 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Weiner is a member of Congress who is running for Mayor of New York. Do you think he would say that without thinking that the bike lanes are unpopular in New York?

 
At 8:34 PM, Anonymous Dr Prrodge said...

The bike lanes are almost universally loved in NY. MIght be a few simpletons in Queens who don't yet understand that. Let them sniff it.

 
At 9:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He doesn't care if the bike lanes are unpopular in general - they are unpopular with Iris Weinshall, the wife of Chuck Schumer - the key to the $$$.

Unfortunately for him, the backlash from this will lose him votes but not gain him votes.

 
At 7:40 AM, Blogger Lex said...

"The bike lanes are almost universally loved in NY."

That's hilariously wrong. Cyclists are seen as a tiny minority (half of 1% according the the US Census community survey) that has received perks that are wildly disproportionate to their number.

They haven't helped themselves with their mixture of self entitlement and self righteousness.

 
At 8:15 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

Rebuttal.

 
At 9:51 AM, Blogger Lex said...

@ Mikesonn

That "rebuttal" is utter crap. Lets take it point by point.

1) made the city streets safer;
Lie #1. Traffic fatalities in NYC have been dropping since 2001. Sadik-Khan became DOT commissioner in 2007. Fatalities actually rose a bit after she took over and then resumed their 10 year decline.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2010/pr056-10.shtml

2) made bus transportation faster;
It's gotten faster in a couple of pilot projects where fare collection takes place before riders get on the bus. But she's also screwed up bus travel times in many areas where she's eliminated traffic lanes, creating more congestion and increased pollution.

3) reduced carbon emissions by getting more people out of their cars and onto bicycles;
Oh yeah. All those spandex clad cyclists used to drive their Hummers to work. Utter BS. What's happened is that the .5% of people who commute by bike have gotten off the subways, depriving mass transit of their fares.

4) made biking safer, which will lead to more New Yorkers exercising and getting healthier:
You know what would make bikers safer? A mandatory helmet law - 97% of cyclists who died in NYC over the last 10 years weren't wearing helmets.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf

5) created many more open spaces in the five boroughs, which in some cases has enhanced real estate values;
Proof about those enhanced real estate values? Any proof at all?

6) created opportunities for improved quality of life with swathes of tables and chairs generating communication, reflection and latte drinking;
Lets put a frame around that statement. It perfectly captures why the elitist bike nuts are totally out of touch with mainstream opinion.

7) made Manhattan even more of a tourist attraction, with all those visitors spending their euros, yen, pesos, etc.;
Again, does the writer have any proof fr this at all? Anything? Tourism in NYC has been on the upswing for years, long before Sadik-Khan showed up.


8) perhaps most important, created a vision for NYC and a model for other cities to emulate, as we prepare for a future with less oil and more people.
Apocalyptic voodoo.

 
At 10:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"fewer people have been killed in traffic accidents on New York’s streets than at any time in the past century, according to city records."

Mike you bleeding heart stinking commie liberal. It's good those people die - that's Darwin's theory of Evolution at work. Wait a minute, Darwin was a fraud - God created the universe in 7 days. Wait a minute, system error system error.

 
At 10:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And they are seen as a tiny minority as well here in SF, very self entitled, childish and scorn all traffic laws, and expecting more and more bike lanes without actually paying for them.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it mike.

 
At 11:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

if we're such a minority here, why doesn't anyone get up and say "I'm going to tear out your fucking bike lanes"?

I mean, why can't you stop it? All you can do is whine here, and we go out and get another facility, and add another 1000 cyclists.

Put some $4 dollar gas (and rising) in your crack pipe and smoke it.

 
At 11:47 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

Lex,

Unfounded assumptions rebutted by unfounded assumptions rebutted by unfounded assumptions ... ad infinitum.

 
At 12:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But mike: Lex is right. each of his points is very accurate.

 
At 12:31 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"if we're such a minority here, why doesn't anyone get up and say 'I'm going to tear out your fucking bike lanes'?"

Voters citywide have never had a chance to vote on the Bicycle Plan any more than they have had a chance to vote on Critical Mass. I'm not looking for a politician in SF to say what Weiner said to Bloomberg. I'm just looking for one candidate to begin a discussion of these issues---the Bicycle Plan (taking away 50 traffic lanes and more than 2,000 street parking spaces to make bike lanes on busy streets), Congestion Pricing, and, while we're at it, Critical Mass. The whole anti-car push from City Hall has never been endorsed by voters in a citywide election.

What's interesting about Weiner's statement is that he's a professional politician and running for Mayor of New York. Hard to believe that he would say something like that if he didn't think he had popular support. I bet he even did some polling on the bike lanes before he spoke.

It's always a shock for you bike people to learn that you aren't universally adored, isn't it?

 
At 1:14 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

"he's a professional politician and running for Mayor of New York. Hard to believe that he would say something like that if he didn't think he had popular support. I bet he even did some polling on the bike lanes before he spoke."

He polled his biggest donors. Just like Scott Walker did. And now Walker is going to be recalled. Money talks, but bullshit eventually walks.

He runs on this platform, he loses. That's why no SF politician is going to be so stupid. Rob Anderson and Lex and rocky's dad get ... 3 votes. And probably don't even donate.

 
At 1:32 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Right. Weiner is "stupid," even though he has been in Congress since 1998---elected to six terms in the House---and before that was elected to the City Council. He doesn't know anything about what people are thinking!

It would be good for SF is just one candidate opened up a serious discussion about traffic in the city, including the Bicycle Plan, Congestion Pricing, and Critical Mass.

Here's a plank for David Chiu and Dennis Herrera to put in their anti-car platform: Congestion Pricing. Be the first candidates in the race to advocate charging the people of SF to drive downtown in their own city!

 
At 1:58 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

Weiner is "stupid," even though he has been in Congress since 1998---elected to six terms in the House---and before that was elected to the City Council.

Election to high office clearly means you aren't stupid.

 
At 2:25 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

We still have to make this city a much more bike-friendly town. For every ten dollars we spend for transportation in this city, nine dollars and 30 cents goes to moving cars around, and the other 70 cents is to help pedestrians and bike riders. We need to change that.

- Congressman Anthony Wiener

http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/06/09/streetfilms-the-first-tour-de-queens/

 
At 3:46 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Yes, Murph, I'm sure Congressman Weiner will find your insights very helpful in his campaign for Mayor of New York.

 
At 3:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need to raise license fees and user fees on all cyclists who ride for free on our public streets. I'd like to see a surcharge applied to our striped bike lanes for those who use it.

Stop allowing bike people to freeload the system!

fyi: this is not rocky'dad, this is in fact Rocky; just to let the smurph know.

 
At 4:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn that pesky populist Sadik-Khan! Won't somebody think of that poor (shrinking) minority of angry, disenfranchised motorists?

 
At 5:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need to raise license fees and user fees on all cyclists who ride for free on our public streets.

No we don't.

I'd like to see a surcharge applied to our striped bike lanes for those who use it.

You can't always get what you want.

 
At 8:54 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

Cyclists pay property taxes, the single largest source of money for local roads. However, their bikes do about 1/100th the wear/tear to the roads as a car driver. Cyclists are actually due a refund, not a license fee.

 
At 9:01 AM, Blogger Lex said...

You'll like this Rob. A group of local NYC residents have filed a lawsuit against a bike lane. They assert that the NYC Dept. of Transportation used misleading statistics to get support from the lane, withheld information during the trial period, and then juggled the accident numbers to make it look like the bike lane was a success.

They also claim that there was no study of the environmental impact of the lane before it was installed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/nyregion/08bike.html?ref=nyregion

Our good friends at Streetsblog have supplied a copy of the lawsuit.

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/PPWsuit1.pdf

You set a great example. It's nice to see people following in your footsteps.

 
At 9:54 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Yes, I always try to set a good example, Lex, by pursuing Truth, Justice, and the American Way. I don't think these people in New York have heard of me but like those of us who saw the Bicycle Plan being pushed through the system illegally back in 2005, they evidently had exhausted all other remedies and had to file suit against their city.

What New York and San Francisco have in common on the issue: both cities are pushing the anti-car agenda without allowing voters citywide an opportunity to express themselves on the issue.

Litigation is no longer the issue here in SF, though we are appealing Judge Busch's decision to ratify the EIR on the Bicycle Plan.

What the city needs now is a candidate for mayor to initiate a wide-ranging dialogue on traffic poliicy---on the Bicycle Plan and what the city is getting ready to do to screw up traffic on Cesar Chavez and Masonic; on Congestion Pricing; and on Critical Mass and the behavior of cyclists on city streets.

 
At 10:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You got it kinda wrong, again, mikesonn:

Since most cyclists, not all, but most are renters they dont pay any property taxes. just to clarify that for you.

secondly, cyclists should pay a fair, reasonable fee for the use an enjoyment of bike lanes (not so much for the wear and tear). The fees would also help cover the excessive cost each time Critical Mass kidnaps the downtown area, requiring additional police and traffic control officers.

Would you agree to cyclists paying ANYTHING at all to ride in SF?

 
At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Shawn Allen said...

Since when was being brash and even a tad bit arrogant unusual in politics—especially in New York? It's just sexist to suggest that Sadik-Khan is arrogant when that's exactly what's expected of her stodgy male counterparts.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet based on this story's comments alone that Weiner could lose the election because of a statement like that. It's easy for old white men to jab each other at fancy dinners, but as Obama proved, you can't get elected in urban areas without the support of the young middle class. Weiner, Markowitz, Weinshall, and all the other old white people whining about how bike lanes keep them (and their wealthiest constituents) from speeding down Prospect Park West to their placarded parking spots doth protest too much.

One man's "anti-car agenda" is another's populist transportation movement. People have seen and celebrated the dramatic positive change from Sadik-Khan's hard-fought war, and even if the entrenched political elite succeeds in throwing her under the (metaphorical) bus, she will be remembered as a hero in New York City long after her tenure as Transportation Commissioner.

 
At 10:22 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

I wouldn't agree to cyclists paying anything. Not to mention, the admin costs on running such a system would far outweigh any financial gain.

Also, renters indirectly pay property tax. Do I even need to argue that point? And this is a renters city, so I'm sure the percentage of drivers that rent is just the same as cyclists. Weak argument.

"Pay for the enjoyment"? I'm sure you are for congestion pricing as well?

Rob,
"Yes, I always try to set a good example, Lex, by pursuing Truth, Justice, and the American Way."

Top notch, I say. Top notch!

 
At 10:32 AM, Anonymous Darth Sello said...

Hey rob! Just dropped in to wish you a shitty day! hope you die soon!

 
At 11:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, I always try to set a good example, Lex, by pursuing Truth, Justice, and the American Way." ~ Rob Anderson
wow that's funny. as i recall, you lost. yes you're appealing, and you'll lose again.

 
At 2:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rob, I assume you're filing a suit against the Cesar Chavez project too? I was thinking while we're doing that, maybe we could turn CC into an elevated double-decker eight-lane freeway; let's use this thread to talk about some strategy to make it happen. Traffic would flow a lot smoother and reduce pollution vastly!

 
At 3:36 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

No, Cesar Chavez, like Masonic, is part of the Bicycle Plan and can't be litigated separately now. The EIR on the Bicycle Plan admitted that the Plan is going to have a "significant impact," that is, delay traffic and Muni lines on both those streets after they take away traffic lanes on Cesar Chavez to make bike lanes and take away all the street parking on Masonic to make bike lanes.

Once the city takes away all the street parking on Masonic, the city will no longer have the parking corridors to create an extra lane during commute hours in the morning and the afternoon. That will jam up traffic on the whole street for most of the day. And it will be achieved, by the way, just in time for the opening of the Target store at Geary and Masonic!

The timing on Cesar Chavez: the city will start working on the sewer lines there this summer, and the actual "improvements"---everything the city does to our streets is of course an "improvement"!---will happen in 2012.

I think these projects are nuts, that they are going to make traffic on both streets dramatically worse for everyone, including Muni passengers, except for the bike people. But the bike people actually like traffic jams, which not only punish the wicked drivers of Death Machines but are safer for cyclists.

On top of all this, the city is getting ready to make Hayes Street a two-way street between Van Ness and Laguna in Hayes Valley.

As I've said before, it remains to be seen how much the city's residents are going to allow City Hall and the bike people to screw up traffic on their streets. We're going to find out in the next year or so.

The campaign for mayor could do the people of the city a real service if the candidates made traffic policy an issue for discussion. Make David Chiu and Dennis Herrera defend the Bicycle Plan, Congestion Pricing, and the plans to screw up Cesar Chavez and Masonic.

 
At 6:34 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

The only way any candidate is going to run on an anti-bike-lane platform is if you run.

BTW - I own 2 houses so I have Mike's back. How many houses does Rob own? Or is he just a freeloader?

 
At 8:52 PM, Anonymous kwk said...

"(Iris) Weinshall can hardly be described an as enemy of cyclists. During her tenure as transportation commissioner she oversaw a significant expansion of bike lanes, including routes to and from Brooklyn. But now, apparently, Weinshall has had enough. In her lawsuit, according to the Times, she is promising to expose the cozy relationship between officials and bike activists as well the dubious statistics that the city uses to justify its policies.
Like many New Yorkers, I will be quietly cheering her on!"

Battle of the Bike Lanes by John Cassidy, New Yorker March 8, 2011

 
At 9:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Krugman

Naparstek

Cassidy is a moron. Almost on the scale of Weinshall. "Weinshall can hardly be described as an enemy of cyclists" ? Her Bicycle lead under her while she was head of NYDOT resigned in protest of her incompetence regarding bikes.

 
At 10:20 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"The only way any candidate is going to run on an anti-bike-lane platform is if you run. BTW - I own 2 houses so I have Mike's back. How many houses does Rob own? Or is he just a freeloader?"

If you owned a hundred houses, your comments would still be stupid. If you're not a homeowner, you're a "freeloader"? Like to hear more about this line of thought. On second thought, spare us the bullshit, Murph.

And you're still a remedial reader. As I said several times on this thread, what the city needs is one of the candidates for mayor to initiate a discussion of city traffic policies, with particular attention to the Bicycle Plan, Congestion Pricing, and Critical Mass. Even if that candidate supported City Hall's present anti-car policies, it would claify the issues for city voters, who have never had a chance to vote on these issues.

 
At 11:20 AM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

It was one of YOUR flaks that dismissed Mike's assertion that cyclists pay for the roads because they pay property taxes - by saying that cyclists are primarily renters and thus don't pay property taxes.

There really isn't any need to go into a lot of the issues you worry about, because outside of you and a handful of commenters on SFGate, there is already consensus.

 
At 11:23 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

A "consensus" on what? Owning houses makes you smart?

 
At 11:40 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

Rob can't be bothered to examine comments made by people who agree with him.

 
At 12:04 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

I'm only responsible for the blog and my own comments.

 
At 4:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Economist (though it may be noted that Cassady may be getting the last laugh - no matter what he really thinks or if he's really that "dumb" - he's getting a lot of page views and laughing all the way to the bank).

Ezra Klein

BSNYC

 
At 7:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I made the initial comments about most cyclists being renters and not paying property taxes. I still maintain that truth.

Rent often does not cover all the costs of owning a property, so it's wrong to just say renters pay property taxes. they dont. the owner does.

so murph appears to say that renters are freeloaders? you said it.

and who cares if you do or do not own houses. you (murph) have always lived by boring stupid metrics. you define everything with a number or statistic.

I agree with Rob most of the time. and Cesar Chavez will become a traffic congested nightmare with fewer lanes and a few cyclists who will actually use it, at great cost to the city. a waste of money.

 
At 8:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"so murph appears to say that renters are freeloaders? you said it."

Murph makes the ironic statement that renters are freeloaders in order to illustrate a point - if the cyclists are freeloaders, so is Rob Anderson. But murph doesn't mean it (hence "irony") but clearly you do. So you agree with him most of the time, but deep down you know he's just a freeloading bastard, soaking up taxpayer dollars to fund MUNI, which is a waste of money, and doesn't need bike lanes to screw it up - it's plenty screwed up as it is, there are certainly no bike lanes in the Metro tunnel which has melted down 3 days running.

Let's shut down MUNI and build elevated bike lanes.

 
At 9:46 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

Rep. Anthony Weiner tweets that he was ‘joking’ about ripping out NYC bike lanes

 
At 6:43 AM, Blogger Lex said...

Time for a reality check. Do you know how many people in San Francisco commute by bicycle?

3%.

But they sure make a lot of noise.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_S0801&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-CONTEXT=st&-tree_id=308&-keyword=San%20Francisco&-redoLog=false&-geo_id=16000US0667000&-format=&-_lang=en

 
At 9:10 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

"Rent often does not cover all the costs of owning a property, so it's wrong to just say renters pay property taxes. they dont. the owner does."

So owners just rent out of the goodness of their heart? HA. Wow, that is rich.

"and who cares if you do or do not own houses. you (murph) have always lived by boring stupid metrics. you define everything with a number or statistic."

And what the hell does that even mean?

 
At 9:38 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

Lex:

"Time for a reality check. Do you know how many people in San Francisco commute by bicycle?

3%."

Because commuting is the only time people leave the house. Better talk to Rob about that since he doesn't work so he doesn't commute. Guess his walking doesn't count for anything.

 
At 10:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What the city needs is one of the candidates for mayor to initiate a discussion of city traffic policies, with particular attention to the Bicycle Plan, Congestion Pricing, and Critical Mass. Even if that candidate supported City Hall's present anti-car policies, it would claify the issues for city voters, who have never had a chance to vote on these issues."


http://ibikenopa.blogspot.com/2011/03/mayoral-candidate-david-chiu-takes.html

Chiu said his transit-first vision for the city includes a safer Masonic Avenue, and he strongly endorsed the Boulevard design developed by city planners with support from several neighborhood groups.

Without hesitation, Chiu also backed the cross-town separated bikeways proposed in an initiative developed by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and supported by Mayor Ed Lee and the SFMTA Board of Commissioners. In District 5, these changes would include bikeways on Fell and Oak streets between Scott and Stanyan.

 
At 11:37 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Then that makes him well qualified to lead a citywide discussion of those and other traffic issues. I suspect, however, he won't do that, because he and other pro-bike candidates---like Dennis Herrera---understand that the anti-car policies they're pushing from City Hall aren't really popular in the neighborhoods.

Even Supervisor Mirkarimi, who has spent years being the errand boy for the Bicycle Coalition, couldn't bring himself to reflect that reality in his 2008 reelection website, probably because he knew that it wouldn't help him in a citywide campaign for mayor, though of course it couldn't possibly hurt him in District 5. It remains to be seen if it will hurt his campaign for sheriff.

 
At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"pro-bike candidates"

redundancy. Any serious candidate is pro-bike.

 
At 2:06 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

Well, looks like we don't have to worry about Weiner tearing out those bike lanes, now do we?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home