Rob Anderson's commentary on San Francisco politics from District 5
posted by Rob Anderson @ 10:37 AM
links to this post
I'll post this again since you don't read anything you don't agree with.http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/06/06/dropping-old-scare-tactics-times-finds-new-ways-to-sow-bike-share-doubt/
Streetsblog is rarely a source of reliable information---it's a nationwide network of anti-car websites. The response to the NY Times article is typical of its pro-bike bias.Sean Sweeney is called a "Soho crank," but a few sentences later he's given credit for "raising a legitimate concern," which is exactly where the bike-share stations are going to be located: on sidewalks or in parking spaces? Sweeney's "legitimate" concern is then dismissed as "just one of several planning details that will be addressed as the project proceeds"!But occupying limited street space is surely an important issue for neighborhoods with limited parking and narrow sidewalks.The stories on bike-share in Montreal and New York both raise questions about the viability of such programs without massive government subsidies. New York's proposal forbids a subsidy. Can it work without one? We'll see.These are the same issues SF must face, over and above the folly of paying the administrator for the program $100,000 a year.
"But occupying limited street space is surely an important issue for neighborhoods with limited parking and narrow sidewalks."Yes, because 8-12 bikes is way more of a waste of space then 1 vehicle that more than likely only carries one person.
"Streetsblog is rarely a source of reliable information---it's a nationwide network of anti-car websites."Yet Randall O'Toole who is funded by Big Oil, which stands to lose if HSR is completed, is a reliable source of information.You're worse than Fox News.
I don't care where O'Toole gets his money, and I don't share his free market assumptions. But he's right about high-speed rail.
WHY is he right? WHY do you believe the ridership projections are inflated? WHY etc... oh wait - you don't want to analyze his papers, you just want to quote the conclusion as fact.
It doesn't seem that you've even read the post I linked above. O'Toole is quite good at articulating his own argument, which, as it happens, is also mine on the subject. Read that post, and then click on "high-speed rail" on his blog for his past posts on the subject.Here's the best overall critique of California's high-speed rail project.My last post on high-speed rail is below ("High-speed rail as a jobs program"), and for more posts on the subject click on "High-Speed Rail" at the bottom of the post.
O'Toole is right because Rob is vested in that opinion. Just like he is invested in hating all things bike. This NY Times piece is a joke, but it comes to the conclusion that he wants (and needs).
Bullshit. Why don't you do some reading before you pull a comment out of your ass? Easier to insult me than to do the reading.
Ok, "Mr. Sweeney said. “Our sidewalks are precious to us because they are so narrow.”"Why are your sidewalks narrow? Are they narrow because of the bike share program or because 90% of the ROW is dedicated to moving motor vehicles, not people?
Thanks for your hard research Rob.While we still have to deal with this asshole Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation, at least Obama got rid of this idiotic loser
Wonder if anyone including the bike nuts at Streetsblog saw a recent vid of a NY intersection showing cyclists all over the place break laws, ignoring lights and nearly running down pedestrians.Typical.
That same video showed drivers putting pedestrians in danger of much greater harm. Watch it again.
Post a Comment
Create a Link
View my complete profile