San Francisco Bike Plan under assault

Though DC is not moving on its bike plan as fast as, well...., planned; it is nothing compared to San Francisco, where a 65-year-old unemployed blogger has stymied cycling-support efforts by arguing that urban bicycle boosting could actually be bad for the environment.

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

In February 2005, Mr. [Rob] 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

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.

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.

USNews picked up on this quote in particular

"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."

Sounds like a new version of Godwin's Law. The same USNews article linked to a story in Atlanta about increased cyclist accidents as more riders hit the road.

"We're seeing more people getting hit" by cars, said Dr. John Xerogeanes, chief of sports medicine at Emory's Orthopedic and Spine Center. "There are people crashing and people having trouble because they're starting to ride their bike in the city."

One theoretical cause for the San Francisco brouhaha is Critical Mass

the environment has always been the Balkans of the culture wars, a potential powder keg ready to split left and right. But now that high energy prices have combined with concern about global warming to really put America’s energy habits in the crosshairs, is there a backlash brewing against environmental zeal?

Even the NYT ran an article this month asking if mandatory solar power in a German town constitutes a “green dictatorship.”

Which is how some San Francisco locals apparently feel about bike riders clogging streets and demanding and end to cars. Would the environment be better served with less politics?

And

Mr. Anderson was also bugged by what he describes as the holier-than-thou attitude typified by Critical Mass

Rob Anderson also thinks bikes hurt the economy. He was interviewed on NPR recently as part of a cars vs. bikes story. He claims he's not against bike lanes, but just that he's protecting the process. He thinks that taking away space from cars is bad for the environment because it increases traffic jams, as though it doesn't change the mode share at all. His other claims are that bikes exacerbate road rage, endanger pedestrians, and cause traffic. Noah Budnik of Transportation Alternatives and the Thunderhead Alliance is brought on to refute him. He gets asked the "why do cyclists break the law" question and answers it with "roads were designed for cars. We need complete streets." Daisuke Wakabayashi then joins to talk about  Seattle Criticial Mass-related violence. He's sort of an odd choice, I guess he's meant to be an impartial observer. They discuss bike lanes, bike boulevards, showers and the idea of licensing cyclists. I suspect most cyclists have a driver's license. I'd be OK with requiring all cyclists to have a driver's license, if all driver's had to take a confident city cycling course.

Sarah Handel blogs about the story and hurts my feelings.

D.C. is a tough city to navigate under any circumstance, and even after 7 years here, I just can't get my head around doing so on two wheels.

Luckily other areas are not burdened by a Rob Anderson, but their bike plans are moving slowly too

The 2005 Delaware Bicycle Facility Master Plan calls for 1,402 miles statewide of state and regional bicycle routes and recreational connectors. A previous plan, from the '90s, fell by the wayside.

"It was time for a new plan, because the old plan didn't recognize bicycles as a mainstream mode of travel," Reeb said.

Reeb said he doesn't know how close the state is to fulfilling its plan or how long it will take. Whenever a road is repaved or undergoes construction, shoulders or dedicated bicycle lanes are built into the project.

Moving forward one stretch of road at a time, even if it leaves gaps where bicyclists must move from a shoulder to a traffic lane, shows the state is thinking ahead, Reeb said.

"It's not like we're out there building new bicycle routes, but we're doing as much as we can, as soon as we can, in a cost-effective way," Reeb said. "We build what we can, and then we figure out later how to connect it. We try and anticipate needs, and build it as we have opportunity."

Jeff Butcher, president of the White Clay Bicycle Club, said the state isn't doing enough to ensure cars and bicycles coexist safely.

"Unless you're willing to put up with traffic to get there, and that takes a fairly skilled and competent rider, there are a lot of places you just will have to take a car," Butcher said. "You have to start somewhere, but I'm not satisfied with the progress. Our state is still too automobile-centric."

Photo by BikePortland.org

Comments

[Duncan Watson]

Won't the complete streets act help out our friends in SF?

[Contrarian]

This may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. If you spend any time around bicycle advocacy you'll find that there is almost no accepted science behind it. I wonder if this bicycle plan really had any engineering behind it, or did they do it the way they do it here: have traffic engineers whose only expertise is in maximizing the flow of motor vehicles stuff in facilities where they'd fit?

Sure, in the short term it's too bad that San Francisco's bike plan is delayed. But there is a very good possibility that being forced to apply some scientific rigor to the planning process will result in better facilities, and will also produce findings that are of broader use elsewhere.

For example, I personally believe that bicycles reduce congestion in urban areas. Is there any science behind that belief? Not really, it's just the sum of my prejudices and anectdotal knowledge. But now, in order to get these facilities built SF is going to have to study the issue in a rigorous way. That's a good thing.

[Chris]

I'm so bored by the fact that anytime anything's brought up about improving facilities for cycling, the unrelated matter of cyclists who break traffic laws are brought up. If I applied that kind of standard to motorists, there'd be no repaving or widening of roads, that's for sure.

[Washcycle]

Well, right there you're wondering if traffic engineers did any engineering, so I'd say probably.

As to the scientific rigor - I'm not sure what you'd want them to study or when you'd be satisfied that they'd studied it enough. Whether or not bikes reduce congestion is really not important. They are good for health and they don't create emissions and some people choose to ride them. Science is an unending process and it takes a long time to reach consensus, so you can't sit around and wait for "all the science to come in" as they like to say.

And with something like this, it's an iterative process. Plan based on what is known, build, study, repeat. Will mistakes be made - sure.

Or perhaps you think Portland and Amsterdam should remove their facilities because they didn't properly study them beforehand?

The plan does point out that "Further study will be required before many of the projects described in this plan can be fully implemented." And they didn't just pull things out of the air. They do cite studies and standards.

[Chris]

I think there should be a scientific study on whether widening roads really relieves congestion for motorized vehicles before any government authorities are allowed to spend money on such things.

[Washcycle]

How about studying what widening lanes will do to safety?

[Joel]

Short version is that they tried to short-cut the required process (enviro impact study) and opened the door to a guy with a ax to grind. I don't imagine that it will change much in the long run, just delay the implementation. CA is a state that LOVES its red tape and by trying to trim a little of it SF dug its own pit. Working around this stugg (gov employee) you learn quickly to always include a TPS Report cover sheet, even if you don't think you need it.

[JKR]

The contrarian has a point. The environmental review process is supposed to document all the impacts. This includes the impacts that building bike facilities might have on traffic conditions and thus on congestion, pollution, etc. The good news is that the work San Francisco puts in will benefit other cities when they get sued for not sufficiently studying an impact. Its unfortunate that it has to be this way but it will be worth it in the long run I think.

In 1979, the British Standards Institution (BSI) developed the first commercial standard for quality systems that became known as BS 5750. That same year, BSI issued its first certificate to a small cement plant in England for compliance with BS 5750. It took almost another decade for the international community to recognize the benefits of standards for quality systems.