furthering the irony here is that many of the city's most accomplished independent advocates and City Advisors are also unhappy with the way that the SFBC shut public comment out of the bike plan.

people get upset when orgs abuse process and take away other people's right to speak. so there is another irony in that you have this complaint both from someone who is relatively anti bike and some of the more advanced bike advocates in the city.

in that way it's all really about speech. you have to respect other people's right to speak. even if you totally disagree with them.

the streets are speech and this whole mess was created by privatizing speech about the streets. rob would have never been successful if it had been a "public" bike plan from the beginning.

there is a huge lesson to be learned here. the city did not cause this law-suit. and they would not have dragged it out so long if they felt they had another option...

I agree that it's a technical utopia worth striving for. It's a sign of how huge a hole our captains of industry have dug for the country that we have to pour in all this money to just try to get back to square one. The US only has a fraction of competitive bus and train manufacturers that it had just 20 years ago. Thankfully we have plenty of good European, Canadian, and Asian products to choose from. I get depressed thinking about all the strategic manufacturing this country has lost in bicycling. Trek, Specialized, and Cannondale are barely hanging on, and then with increasing overseas parts manufacture. Again, love the Xtracycle, but LarryvsHarry could clean house at the right price point.

Let's imagine that massive, transformational change were possible for a minute though. What kind of system could we envision that would actually make the costs of the personal automobile obsolete and unnecessary for everyone who lives within or travels into an urban area? If all the road space in the city were apportioned between pedestrians, cyclists, cargo bikes, and mass transit equipment and the money currently going to bank roll the auto industry and all of its services + the cash we're all pouring into that system were put together, we could have a bus network where each line had a wait of only five minutes at any given stop. Buses would move faster with priority lights, etc. The end of traffic jams, etc. This is technically utopian, but it doesn't have to mean impossible. I totally get the 'practical realities' of small cars for now, but I think we really need to combat the idea that the hydrogen car or the all-electric car is the endpoint, is somehow the solution, that this is what we should strive for--from an economic perspective alone it makes no sense. The personal cost of car ownnership for a single year is $8000. Imagine what we could be doing with the money we'd save as a society and personally!

As a 90% cyclist [5% MUNI/BART (some mornings are too wet!), 5% driving] who also owns a Smart ForTwo, the point I take is that no single tool is perfect for every task. 90% of my needs are met with a bicycle, and I'm convinced it can fulfill the needs of a huge number of people in San Francisco, but not all of them. During this Transition to a carbon-constrained world, smaller efficient cars will have their place too, but all of it has to be bound up in equitable and appropriate access.

Until I build up enough of a social network to Bike Move locally and regionally, on call, my small car will have to fill that role.

As for how realistic an increase in mode-share the bicycle can represent? Well, we're at 6% now, and Gottenburg (also has hills, is auto-friendly, and has far worse weather most of the year) manages 10%. Copenhagen manages 30% easily, but also enjoys a lot of facilities (far more than the current SF Bike Plan) and is also very flat. Incrementally, I think San Francisco can realistically achieve 25% mode share in 10-15 years' time (depending on how aggressively the city pursues this goal to facilitate cycling). Key potential rider pools include: school children, parents, tourists, suburban commuters, and some seniors. "Last Mile" delivery opportunities exist for the entrepreneurial too...especially if there's a federal health plan by then.

when i see prius owners and smart car car people i don't think 'gee, environmentalist' - i think gee, they've got cash to burn and they're only addressing one very small part of the cage problem, and only by a percentage in that in issue--i.e. carbon emissions/parking requirements.

we need to think long term and build cities so that people don't have to lose so much money on buying cars like priuses and smart cars if they want to be environmentally-responsible individuals.

I think most bicyclists would agree that a highly-functioning Muni is vital to the health of the city and the health of the planet. I truly want Muni to work and carry its half a million passengers a day pleasantly and efficiently. Where we would disagree, it appears, is that I am certain that more bicycle infrastructure will decrease congestion in our streets and enhance Muni by turning car drivers into bicyclists (bicycles take up so much less room than cars!) and by making it safe and convenient for people to forgo owning a car at all.

I am multi-modal myself--I drive 50% of my trips, bike 30%, walk 10% and Muni 10%. Of all my modes of transport, I greatly prefer my bike. It's fun, it gets me outside, it generally improves my mood, and quite often it's the quickest. If I'm going to locations that are near the underground stops (Civic Center to Embarcadero) I take Muni. In general, however, my bicycle is at least twice as fast as Muni and almost always more pleasant.

Fifty percent of all trips in San Francisco are two miles or less. By bike, it's easy to cover 2 miles in 12 minutes. In fact, it's difficult to drive by car in much less time, and with a bike you can generally park nearer your destination. In contrast, depending on where I'm going, 2 miles by Muni can take more than 40 minutes if it involves a transfer. Due to time and convenience, there are many people who simply will not get out of their car for Muni but who would get out of their car for a bicycle if they believed bicycling in San Francisco was safe.

In Copenhagen, 400,000 people ride a bicycle each day. Traveling by bike there is orderly, ordinary, and easy. Just imagine if we could get 100,000 folks out of their cars in San Francisco and onto bicycles. Less noise, less pollution, healthier, happier people. It truly is possible.

Any resulting Muni slowing will be caused by automobile traffic that would be initially congested following a bike lane. But that's only temporary. Take a look at any other bike-laned street and show me one that is heavily congested because of it. Your claim about the "reality" of Muni being the only real alternative is based on a lot of loose assumptions - have you ever considered that more people will bike with dedicated infrastructure because of the perceived improved safety (and speed)? And what about all those who already DO rely on their bike as their main mode of transportation? Ever look at cities like Portland or Amsterdam, where you have 40% bike commutes? If you want to attack the City's failure to adhere to its "Transit-First Policy", you're looking at the wrong thing - it's the bias towards CARS that is the problem. Cars are slowing Muni, endangering pedestrians & bicyclists, polluting, promoting poor health, etc. Bikes are your friend, as a pedestrian and Muni rider. Sure, you may see the minority who are disrespectful, but that's largely a result of lack of infrastructure. I think when we feel crowded or endangered, we tend to be anti-social.

And as to Mr. Anderson's speculation that the bike plan will "screw up" city traffic: the bike plan will not screw up traffic, but rather assist us in transitioning towards a new type (old type?) of traffic that uses less space, burns less fuel, allows riders to interact with the physical space of their city and improve their physical and mental health at the same time.

-Marc

p.s. for anyone interested in urban biking, check out the latest post at http://publicspacesf.blogspot.com and let me know what you think

If you're interested in urban biking, particularly in San Francisco, check out the latest post at http://publicspacesf.blogspot.com/ and let me know what you think.

-Marc

p.s. to Mr. Anderson: the bike plan will not "screw up" city traffic, but rather help us transition to a new kind of traffic that uses less space, burns less fuel, endangers less citizens, and gives people more opportunities to interact with their city and improve their physical and mental health

In the meantime, I savor and salute San Francisco's organic, do-it-yourself cycling revolution, a revolution that has only continued to grow and intensify in the face of anti-cycling obstruction and civic neglect over the past three years. Government lags behind the paradigm shift, but there's no turning back. An entire generation has been turned on to two wheels, and we are the future.

What reactionary petroleum-pimps like Rob Anderson don't seem to understand: cyclists are going to be "screwing up" the whole planet-wrecking car thing from now on, with or without a single new inch of bike lane. The days of auto-dominance on the streets of San Francisco are numbered--regardless of the Bike Plan.

Since the Examiner was bought, it has always been in San Francisco's best interest to do exactly the opposite of what they suggest. They endorsed McCain and Palin to run this country. Don't use them in your arguments.

Since there are already 12 people working in the Bicycle Program in MTA, why does the city need an overpaid ($160,000 a year) bike guy in the Mayor's Office?

But for now thank god its apparently over.

It will be really nice to see bike lanes striped.

The sentiment makes me smile, and the language choice makes me giggle

http://www.google.com/search?q=rob+anderson