More on "doubling down"

There was so much wrong packed into Heather Knight's recent column I need more posts to cover it all:

Emergency transit lanes for buses operating at reduced capacity for social distancing to whisk essential workers to their jobs without getting stuck in traffic are on hold.

I get the impression that Knight doesn't often ride Muni. I do, and the main reason it's now "at reduced capacity" is because the pandemic/recession has radically reduced ridership, with a number of regular bus lines not running at all. 

There's no one checking that passengers are social distancing---or even making passengers pay the fare, for that matter. Who would do that? Not the drivers, who have already apparently been instructed not to challenge people who don't pay to avoid being assaulted. 

Nor is there any real evidence that people now riding Muni are in fact "essential workers." That's just a hope, not a verified reality. Why else would anyone ride Muni? Because Muni is "essential" if they want to get where they want to go in the city and can't afford a car or a taxi, which, as Jeffrey Tumlin himself admitted, is the safest way to avoid infection during the pandemic. 

My observation: traffic in general is still lighter, and every Muni line I ride---mostly the #5, #7 and the #43---moves well. All those routes are now regular routes, with no pre-pandemic express lines. They now stop at every stop for passengers:

A protected bike lane on Fell Street to alleviate the crush of exercisers in the crowded Panhandle is also being fought over.

Where's that fight happening? I must have missed it. I wrote about the limitations of that new bike lane the other day, but I haven't seen any other criticism. The "crush" on the path is still on.

The long-time problem with the existing path on the north side of the Panhandle has always been speeding cyclists who are a safety threat for pedestrians who have to share the path---or even cross the Panhandle on foot to and from the Haight. 

It used to be mostly east-bound cyclists going downhill that were the worst safety threat to pedestrians. With electric bicycles and people on scooters, both west-bound and east-bound cyclists and people on scooters are a safety hazard for pedestrians. 

The new bike path is too narrow to make passing easy for speeding cyclists and scooters. The result: speeders are often avoiding the new bike path entirely and still using the shared path so they won't be delayed by slowpokes they can't pass: 

CEQA was signed in 1970 by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan to require state and local agencies to disclose the environmental impacts of planned projects and try to mitigate them. It’s a great idea in theory, but it’s often used to fight transit and housing projects that actually help the environment. It’s become a cudgel used by NIMBYs to block any project they don’t like — such as housing in cities, even though thwarting urban housing contributes to suburban sprawl and long, emission-spewing commutes. 

Knight has lazily adopted the bullshit that corporations and other special interest groups---like, for example, the Bicycle Coaltion---to routinely defame the most important environmental law in California. 

If it is so often abused, why doesn't Knight and other CEQA critics cite some examples?