PDA

View Full Version : Bikes bad for the environment in SF.. (WSJ today)


Pete Serotta
08-20-2008, 11:35 AM
By PHRED DVORAK
August 20, 2008; Page A1
SAN FRANCISCO -- New York is wooing cyclists with chartreuse bike lanes. Chicago is spending nearly $1 million for double-decker bicycle parking.

San Francisco can't even install new bike racks.


Blame Rob Anderson. At a time when most other cities are encouraging biking as green transport, the 65-year-old local gadfly has stymied cycling-support efforts here by arguing that urban bicycle boosting could actually be bad for the environment. That's put the brakes on everything from new bike lanes to bike racks while the city works on an environmental-impact report.

Cyclists say the irony is killing them -- literally. At least four bikers have died and hundreds more have been injured in San Francisco since mid-2006, when Mr. Anderson helped convince a judge to halt implementation of a massive pro-bike plan.(It's unclear whether the plan's execution could have prevented the accidents.) In the past year, bike advocates have demonstrated outside City Hall, pushed the city to challenge the plan's freeze in court and proposed putting the whole mess to local voters. Nothing worked.

"We're the ones keeping emissions from the air!" shouted Leah Shahum, executive director of the 10,000-strong San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, at a July 21 protest.


WSJ's Phred Dvorak reports from a Critical Mass event in San Francisco, a monthly bike ride that draws hundreds of cyclists. She talks with bikers as well as disgruntled drivers.
Mr. Anderson disagrees. Cars always will vastly outnumber bikes, he reasons, so allotting more street space to cyclists could cause more traffic jams, more idling and more pollution. Mr. Anderson says the city has been blinded by political correctness. It's an "attempt by the anti-car fanatics to screw up our traffic on behalf of the bicycle fantasy," he wrote in his blog this month.

Mr. Anderson's fight underscores the tensions that can circulate as urban cycling, bolstered by environmental awareness and high gasoline prices, takes off across the U.S. New York City, where the number of commuter cyclists is estimated to have jumped 77% between 2000 and 2007, is adding new bike lanes despite some motorist backlash. Chicago recently elected to kick cars off stretches of big roads on two Sundays this year.

Famously progressive, San Francisco is known for being one of the most pro-bike cities in the U.S., offering more than 200 miles of lanes and requiring that big garages offer bike parking. It is also known for characters like Mr. Anderson.

A tall, serious man with a grizzled gray beard, Mr. Anderson spent 13 months in a California federal prison for resisting the draft during the Vietnam War. He later penned pieces for the Anderson Valley Advertiser, a muckraking Northern California weekly owned by his brother that's known for its savage prose and pranks.

Running for Office

In 1995, Mr. Anderson moved to San Francisco. Working odd jobs, he twice ran for a seat on the city's Board of Supervisors, pledging to tackle homelessness and the city's "tacit PC ideology." He got 332 of 34,955 votes in 2004, his second and best try.

That year Mr. Anderson, who mostly lives off a small government stipend he receives for caring for his 92-year-old mother, also started a blog, digging into local politics with gusto. One of his first targets: the city's most ambitious bike plan to date.

Unveiled in 2004, the 527-page document was filled with maps, traffic analyses and a list of roughly 240 locations where the city hoped to make cycling easier. The plan called for more bike lanes, better bike parking and a boost in cycling to 10% of the city's total trips by 2010.

The plan irked Mr. Anderson. Having not owned a car in 20 years, he says he has had several near misses with bikers roaring through crosswalks and red lights, and sees bicycles as dangerous and impractical for car-centric American cities. Mr. Anderson was also bugged by what he describes as the holier-than-thou attitude typified by Critical Mass, a monthly gathering of bikers who coast through the city, snarling traffic for hours. "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.' "

Going to Court

In February 2005, Mr. Anderson showed up at a planning commission meeting. If San Francisco was going to take away parking spaces and car lanes, he argued, it had better do an environmental-impact review first. When the Board of Supervisors voted to skip the review, Mr. Anderson sued in state court, enlisting his friend Mary Miles, a former postal worker, cartoonist and Anderson Valley Advertiser colleague.


Rhonda Winter/San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco cyclists protest bike-plan delays in front of City Hall.
Ms. Miles, who was admitted to the California bar in 2004 at age 57, proved a pugnacious litigator. She sought to kill the initial brief from San Francisco's lawyers after it exceeded the accepted length by a page. She objected when the city attorney described Mr. Anderson's advocacy group, the Coalition for Adequate Review, as CAR in their documents. (It's C-FAR.) She also convinced the court to review key planning documents over the city's objections.

Slow Pedaling

In November 2006, a California Superior Court judge rejected San Francisco's contention that it didn't need an environmental review and ordered San Francisco to stop all bike-plan activity until it completed the review.

Since then, San Francisco has pedaled very slowly. City planners say they're being extra careful with their environmental study, in hopes that Mr. Anderson and Ms. Miles won't challenge it. Planners don't expect the study will be done for another year.

Meanwhile, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Miles have teamed up to oppose a plan to put high-rises and additional housing in a nearby neighborhood. He continues to blog from his apartment in an old Victorian home. "Regardless of the obvious dangers, 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," he wrote in a May 21 post.

"In case anyone doubted that you were a wingnut, this statement pretty much sums things up!" one commenter retorted.

Mr. Anderson is running for supervisor again this November -- around the time the city will unveil the first draft of its bike-plan environmental review. He's already pondering a challenge of the review.

Write to Phred Dvorak at phred.dvorak@wsj.com

Karin Kirk
08-20-2008, 02:51 PM
I'm going to save up my frequent flyer miles and buy Mr. Anderson a one-way ticket to Amsterdam!

fiamme red
08-20-2008, 02:59 PM
A tall, serious man with a grizzled gray beard, Mr. Anderson spent 13 months in a California federal prison for resisting the draft during the Vietnam War.But he supports the Endless Petroleum War?

justinf
08-20-2008, 03:01 PM
.

bigbill
08-20-2008, 03:10 PM
I plan on being bad for the environment with my cycling. As the result of the better health I have gained by commuting, I will live longer therefore consuming more natural resources than an inactive person who might live a shorter life. I am bad for the planet. I'll go ride my bike and think about it.

AndreS
08-20-2008, 03:24 PM
Although he seems to be motivated more by an anti-cycling grudge than by concern for the environment, he does bring up an interesting point. Certainly one person commuting by bicycle will have a net positive impact because that takes a car off the road and there is virtually no effect on traffic (traffic jams/idling caused by cars slowing/stopping for cycle commuter). However: is there a point where the density of cycle commuters results in a net loss to the environment? Obviously at some higher density of cycle commuters that net loss (if it exists) will be overcome, but if there is a portion of the curve that does represent a net loss then at what density of cycle commuters does it go back to net gain? How is the hypothetical net loss affected by road design? Other factors? If there IS some density of cycle commuters that could reasonably result in a net loss to the environment, then could the plan be amended to include other incentives, for example car pooling, mass transit, etc. - to counterbalance the effect and so pass that way? Some traffic engineer(s), lawyers and legislators will have some work to do.

This is somewhat similar to the battery powered car debate: which really has less of an impact on the environment - CO2 emissions from an internal cumbustion engine or heavy metal contamination from battery manufacture/disposal?

gdw
08-20-2008, 03:35 PM
They tried to implement a transportation project without doing an environmental impact study.* Stupid and costly.

It's sad but fitting that a small vocal minority, cyclists, were able to push through an agenda which clearly impacts the majority, motor vehicle operators, only to be stymied by an even smaller yet more legally astute minority. Classic.



*They most have hired some of Colorado's DOT bureaucrats to assist them in the project.

jdoiv
08-20-2008, 03:49 PM
If you were to add bike lanes by taking away lanes for motorists, I could see this having a negative affect on the environment. You would have longer commutes. There was a study about HOV lanes in LA when I lived there that basically said that the HOV lanes exacerbated the congestion and smog as the lanes were not fully utilized.

However, I doubt that taking away motorist lanes was the idea of the pro-bike plan the city was planning. And, yes they were pretty dumb to try to do a project like this without an environmental impact study.

dauwhe
08-20-2008, 03:57 PM
is there a point where the density of cycle commuters results in a net loss to the environment?

Is there a point where the density of automobile commuters results in a net loss to the environment? ;)

I'm not sure what an environmental impact study will discover. What about the effects on the health of both drivers and riders? How will it effect car dealerships and bike shops? Parking lots? Bakeries? Does more bikes mean more bike shops, and thus more bike mechanics with tattoos, thus more business for tattoo parlors, and more cigarettes smoked in the alley behind the tattoo parlor, adding carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere?

We try to make it easy for people do drive everywhere. Seems only fair to try to make it easy for people to bike everywhere, too.

Dave

Vancouverdave
08-20-2008, 04:43 PM
But he supports the Endless Petroleum War?
See, fiamme red has the key to a great idea--the promotion of cycling as deeply patriotic. Cycling organizations need to use slogans like "Don't like bikes? Why do you love Bin Laden so much?" The direct linking of auto use to the enemies of our country. "Hate bikes on the road? Saudi King Abdullah thanks you!"

konstantkarma
08-20-2008, 10:26 PM
This is somewhat similar to the battery powered car debate: which really has less of an impact on the environment - CO2 emissions from an internal cumbustion engine or heavy metal contamination from battery manufacture/disposal?

Not to mention the necessity of coal-burning and CO2 emitting power plants to provide the electricity to charge those batteries.

DHallerman
08-21-2008, 01:38 PM
I love it!

Cycling jujitsu.

Aka, hoist them on their own petard...whatever a petard is...

See, fiamme red has the key to a great idea--the promotion of cycling as deeply patriotic. Cycling organizations need to use slogans like "Don't like bikes? Why do you love Bin Laden so much?" The direct linking of auto use to the enemies of our country. "Hate bikes on the road? Saudi King Abdullah thanks you!"

PaulE
08-21-2008, 02:16 PM
London adopted it, New York City tried to. It will be coming to major metropolitan cities. Once the cars are severely restricted, there will be room for bikes without a negative environmental impact. Mass transit will have to be improved as bikes are only part of the answer.

I googled petard. I got links to the lowest prices on petards, petards with free shipping, compare features and prices on petards. But what is a petard?

maunahaole
08-21-2008, 03:01 PM
petard (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hoist%20by%20your%20own%20petard.html)

gone
08-21-2008, 03:04 PM
Sadly, what this demonstrates is the lack of political will to make it happen. I'm certain that if it was something "important" like building the Niners a new stadium the city of San Francisco would squash this guy like a bug.

csm
08-21-2008, 05:43 PM
rush limbaugh had some comments on this today. I used to like him.

67-59
08-21-2008, 06:37 PM
London adopted it, New York City tried to. It will be coming to major metropolitan cities. Once the cars are severely restricted, there will be room for bikes without a negative environmental impact. Mass transit will have to be improved as bikes are only part of the answer.


This is the start of how SF should address this guy's claims. In the short term, he might have a point that adding bike lanes could increase auto congestion by limiting space. But...this would then lead to frustrated motorists looking for better alternatives. Some (hopefully) would turn to bikes. Others would look to mass transit options. Adding congestion pricing could accelerate this process.

nicrump
08-22-2008, 06:46 AM
I'm going to save up my frequent flyer miles and buy Mr. Anderson a one-way ticket to Amsterdam!

why should he be so lucky? lets send him to Beijing!

Karin Kirk
08-22-2008, 09:09 AM
why should he be so lucky? lets send him to Beijing!

I just figured that getting run over by a cyclist who is chatting on a cell phone in a haze of pot smoke would be a fitting punishment. But you're right, Beijing would be more appropriate.

William
08-22-2008, 09:31 AM
See, fiamme red has the key to a great idea--the promotion of cycling as deeply patriotic. Cycling organizations need to use slogans like "Don't like bikes? Why do you love Bin Laden so much?" The direct linking of auto use to the enemies of our country. "Hate bikes on the road? Saudi King Abdullah thanks you!"


http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/images/bin_laden.jpg

Goldenboy
08-22-2008, 09:47 AM
This guy would be strung up here in Portland for talking like that. For all our "Weirdness" here, this is great city to be a cyclist in. There is so much interest and involvement from city govenment in getting people on bikes and give them the places to ride them.

He just sounds like a very bittter man who no longer knows how to have fun.

Satellite
08-22-2008, 11:52 AM
Mr. Anderson is right here is an interesting study:

http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/documents/ulrich-cycling-enviro-jul06.pdf