Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Today's hearing on the Bicycle Plan

Okay, as one of the Petitioners in the litigation, I have an obvious bias. But based on the grilling he gave the city attorney (Audrey Pearson) this morning in court, it seemed clear to me that Superior Court Judge Busch is probably going to order the city to do an EIR on the Bicycle Plan. Judge Busch said that the decision might come within days or it might take as long as a month. From the perspective of one who knows the case pretty well, it was also clear that Busch had done his homework. The city should start thinking about whether they're going to appeal his decision. On the other hand, after watching Judge Busch in action for several hours now, I don't think they can count on his decision leaving any grounds for an appeal. Busch doesn't strike me as a guy who likes to leave a lot of loose ends dangling.

See also this, and this.

Labels: , ,


At 11:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't stop improvements for bikes.

At 10:13 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Are you bike nuts remedial readers or what? The litigation is not about stopping "improvements for bikes." It's about the failure of the city to follow state environmental law in passing and implementing the Bicycle Plan. Before, for example, the city takes away traffic lanes and street parking to make bike lanes, it needs to do the required environmental and traffic studies. Of course you bike nuts think it's some kind of imposition to require the city and the SFBC to follow the law. Eventually, you are going to get your "improvements," more or less, but only after the changes the city wants to make to our streets receive the proper study and public review, which will happen if, as I hope, the court orders the city to do an EIR on the Plan.

At 8:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gosh! I wish I could afford a new car... But I can't. So it's the bike for me. Thanks a whole lot for doing everything in your power to get me killed out there, pal.

Whatever gave you the idea that bikes were dangerous to the environment, anyway? And "traffic study"? What a joke.

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

Even if you can't afford a car, maybe you can afford a tutor to help you with your reading skills. I of course have never writtten anything to the effect that bicycles are "dangerous to the environment." You are risking your life by riding a bike in the city, which you have every right to do, and good luck! What I question is the assumption in the Bicycle Plan that we must completely redesign city streets to make it safer for, at most, less than 2% of the population at the expense and inconvenience of the 452,813 city residents who own motor vehicles.

And why are traffic studies a joke?

At 9:31 AM, Anonymous Elliot Hamilton said...

Mr Anderson,

I truly hope that you live for a great many years, so that you get to see a greater San Francisco, freed from the reliance upon single-occuptant car use. As a car enthusiast and bicycle rider, and someone who regularly uses all forms of transport - personal, private and public, I'd like to believe you have a point. However, if you are, in fact, the bitter gentleman your opponents claim, then I hope your health is well looked after so you have a long time to reflect upon your choices.

What about those of us who believe that there is a place for the enjoyment of automobiles, and a place for the enjoyment of bicycles and a place for us to work together to reach our goals, whether those be reaching our daily jobs, or the happiness of our communities? How does your resistance provide balance for the city and its residents? You mention public transport occasionally - how exactly do you see your efforts helping to improve the public transport system for people like yourself?

Do you want bicycle riders to feel unsafe in more of the city while positive steps towards the implementation of additional safety measures are implemented? Or do you think the injunctions have not gone far enough? Would you prefer to see more injured and killed cyclists?

I see no mention in your demands for 'adequate review' or 'fair process' of any positive agenda. What is the process you demand in aid of, if not argument for the sake of argument?

As a young adult, one is usually led to believe that with age experience and (invariably) failure, comes wisdom. In your case, unfortunately, I see little but bitterness and smarm.

Elliot H.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home