With a claim that bike lanes increase pollution, a San Francisco resident has managed to put the brakes on the city's pro-biking plans. In 2004, San Francisco unveiled a proposal to create more bike lanes and bike parking, aiming to have 10 percent of city trips taken on two wheels by 2010. Enter Rob Anderson, who doesn't own a car but is no fan of cyclists. "The behavior of the bike people on city streets is always annoying," he says. "This 'Get out of my way, I'm not burning fossil fuels.'" Anderson sued the city to make it do an environmental impact review, saying that giving more street space to bicyclists will lead to more air pollution from cars idled in traffic jams. He won, halting the city's plans. Officials are moving slowly on the review, hoping to cover all their bases to keep Anderson from suing again -- as he's already pondering. "Regardless of the obvious dangers," he wrote on his blog, "some people will ride bikes in San Francisco for the same reason Islamic fanatics will engage in suicide bombings -- because they are politically motivated to do so."
source: The Wall Street Journal
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
archigeek Posted 1:54 am
20 Aug 2008
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 3:17 am
20 Aug 2008
Keeping cars out of the city would reduce idling fumes and make bicycling safer.
I should have the choice to bicycle, I help pay for the streets.
Leaving the Earth undamaged by my lifestyle is an important value to me.
Bicycling does not add greenhouse gases to the air like cars, and greenhouse gases are destroying many of Earth's resources.
Bicycling is healthy exercise.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:57 am
20 Aug 2008
The ruling on this suit was made in November of 2006, which is almost two years ago. Unfortunately, Mr. Anderson was legally correct: any project for which any California government entity takes any action, including issuing a discretionary permit, requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act unless the project is exempt. So, the first problem here is bad law that fails to exempt bike projects.
Since the ruling, San Francisco has been working on an environmental impact report which some of you might know as an EIR. The problem now is that SF is dragging its feet. The EIR should have been finished a long time ago, but Mayor Gavin Newsom, which Grist has heralded as an environmental leader, is apparently listening to those who don't want any cars inconvenienced or removed from city streets, thus the long delay in completing the EIR.
So that's where we stand now, folks. You can get angry at Rob Anderson if you want, but the ball's in the City's court now, so it's San Francisco, in the person of Gavin Newsom, that's responsible for this long delay.
Finally, forcing environmental review is much easier than overturning an EIR. While EIRs are difficult to prepare properly, a sophisticate government agency like San Francisco knows which firms to hire to get this done right and it shouldn't be amenable to being overturned in a lawsuit.
Permalink
guade00 Posted 6:28 am
20 Aug 2008
Even if the agency finds a significant effect, and it produces an EIR, the agency must identify alternatives and disclose ways to reduce or avoid the possible environmental damage. Maybe the city should identify a congestion fee for cars in the city. That should really annoy Rob Anderson!
Dude was probably beat up by one of those Critical Mass thugs. Oh wait, they're only up here in Seattle.
Permalink
Vwombat Posted 6:36 am
20 Aug 2008
The bike lane thing sounds great, but it doesn't go FAR enough. Who wants to ride a bike with the intention of reducing pollution, and in doing so, create traffic issues which CAUSE more pollution?
It's a no-brainer! You'd have to breathe it all in on your bike anyway!?!
Bring on more/better public transport options, a city centre with HUGE tolls on automotive traffic, and streets open to pedestrians, bikes, skateboards, unicycles... Bring on free electro vehicles in city centres to move people around. Play with radical ideas and experiment!
The city is a nexus of human activity. Look at the bigger picture and MAKE them move differently than with fossil fools (that was a deliberate spelling mistake BTW).
Greetings from Australia! M!
Permalink
Angelsnecropolis Posted 10:00 am
20 Aug 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 11:07 am
20 Aug 2008
I didn't say that CEQA requires an EIR for non-exempt projects, I said that CEQA review is required for them. CEQA review begins with an initial study, not an EIR, unless the project proponent foregos the initial study because the project clearly may have a significant environmental impact, which is what the initial study will determine.
Permalink
BlackBear Posted 11:30 am
20 Aug 2008
This is interesting to me because it seems to assume that these extra cyclists will appear out of no where, when it is more likely that they will appear out of their cars. Will one more cyclist slow traffic to the same extent that one less car will speed it up?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:59 am
20 Aug 2008
If so, no idle...no Co2.
Therefore, Ride On, Bikers!
Permalink
Pathos Posted 4:22 pm
21 Aug 2008
That said, it's yet another good argument for hybrids. Spread the word: "Hybrids are safer for bikers!" All the liberal yuppie moms who look forward to checking out athletic young dudes' biker-shorts-clad hindquarters from their cars every morning will want one!
Permalink
Clearly Leery Posted 6:50 am
22 Aug 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:24 am
25 Aug 2008
What we mean by creating bike lanes is painting the already existing pavement, not creating more of it. Bike lanes don't have to be paved, just painted. Of course, paint is toxic too, but that's a minor detail compared to the toxic and otherwise destructive effects of autos or asphalt.
A necessary oversimplification of what Rob Anderson's lawsuit claimed, quite correctly, was that by replacing auto lanes with bike lanes, there is a reasonable chance that the resulting traffic congestion may result in more air pollution, and that environmental review was thus required. The truth is actually more complicated, but that's the gist of it. Again, the problem is bad law. San Francisco tried to take an illegal shortcut and was stopped by an anti-bicycle jerk.
Permalink
chaoswhisperer Posted 11:16 am
26 Aug 2008
â€oeWill one more cyclist slow traffic to the same extent that one less car will speed it up?â€
Excellent question. Although I think the problem is probably more about rates of utilization than about how well one bicycle compensates for one car. By my calculations, removing a lane of traffic reduces capacity by about 2,500 drivers and passengers per hour. A bike lane can probably handle all those people on a bike, but it would be pretty crowded. The big question is, â€oeIf you build it, will they come?â€. The fact is, it will take a while to get that many people to utilize the new bike lane, and until they do, it will potentially cause increased congestion for the cars on the decreased capacity road and increased pollution for everybody.
The issue then becomes one of policy. Do we modify the infrastructure in the hopes that the resultant increase in pollution will be short term and that the long term result will ultimately be less pollution?
Permalink