Comments on: MTA Hearing on Bike Plan Packed, Mayor to Hold Presser at 3 pm http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/26/mta-hearing-on-bike-plan-packed-mayor-to-hold-presser-at-3-pm/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:39:06 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: g http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/26/mta-hearing-on-bike-plan-packed-mayor-to-hold-presser-at-3-pm/comment-page-1/#comment-9321 g Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:04:55 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=2961#comment-9321 Ok from now on going to try to stick to the direct style and avoid going on about the corporation or what a ridiculous wasteful mess this has been. Hopefully you are listening, likely not. We've seen how well that worked out. And I don't mean listening to me as much as listening to something else beside the CEQA status quo. 1. Rob is going to appeal the the Board 2. The hearing at this appeal is chance to get other information into the dialogue, information not currently considered. 3. Please consider the below as a resolution to use in denying the appeal. It also would be helpful to re-affirm the los legislation or somehow make sure it is included. It is referenced in the resolution. 1. Why? Because there needs to be some basis to override los. As far as I know the issue has not been litigated. The current EIR apparently does not contain rationale too look at the street in a different way. 2. Not speaking in this instance could lead to these discriminatory conceptions of the streets being further affirmed by the courts. 3. And it's just necessary, the resolution is built upon things that all make sense yet have not been heard within engineering/CEQA dialogue. The City has a responsibility to fix dangerous conditions. It has the right to abate nuisances. For these rights to be heard they have to be spoken. Ok from now on going to try to stick to the direct style and avoid going on about the corporation or what a ridiculous wasteful mess this has been. Hopefully you are listening, likely not. We've seen how well that worked out. And I don't mean listening to me as much as listening to something else beside the CEQA status quo.

1. Rob is going to appeal the the Board
2. The hearing at this appeal is chance to get other information into the dialogue, information not currently considered.
3. Please consider the below as a resolution to use in denying the appeal. It also would be helpful to re-affirm the los legislation or somehow make sure it is included. It is referenced in the resolution.

1. Why? Because there needs to be some basis to override los. As far as I know the issue has not been litigated. The current EIR apparently does not contain rationale too look at the street in a different way.
2. Not speaking in this instance could lead to these discriminatory conceptions of the streets being further affirmed by the courts.
3. And it's just necessary, the resolution is built upon things that all make sense yet have not been heard within engineering/CEQA dialogue. The City has a responsibility to fix dangerous conditions. It has the right to abate nuisances. For these rights to be heard they have to be spoken.

]]> By: Justin http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/26/mta-hearing-on-bike-plan-packed-mayor-to-hold-presser-at-3-pm/comment-page-1/#comment-8931 Justin Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:48:31 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=2961#comment-8931 Anyone know of any good information anywhere that lays out in non-biased and really informative ways the 2nd Street bike lanes issue? I've heard the Rincon Hill neighbors' sides of the stories, and the ones who talked about supporting cycling but fearing change to their 'hood seemed to be sincere and earnest folks--but we heard no reply from the MTA staff for SFBC folks to their particular complaints. I know we're not supposed to get into the technical details during these public comment sessions, but that is over, and it failed on 2nd St yet again. I think we as activists for adequate SOMA bike infrastructure now need to actually understand all the details and be able to call out Rincon for its bad faith criticisms, if they are such. Right now I'm having to take that on faith. That said, I think the MTA board's decision to further defer the plan for 2nd St today was a bit spineless--to their credit they did pass the 17th St plan, which did receive a little bit of opposition, but 2nd St was the only plan that received particular and specific criticism today--and it was the only one not passed. The message sent seems to be that if 10 people complain about a project, but 20 people speak in favor of it, and staff approves of it, any project can be table and further delayed. Is this just par for the course? My sense is that its these tabled projects that really matter now. 23rd street lanes were a walk in the park--but there also not the most vital piece of infrastructure out there. Anyone know of any good information anywhere that lays out in non-biased and really informative ways the 2nd Street bike lanes issue? I've heard the Rincon Hill neighbors' sides of the stories, and the ones who talked about supporting cycling but fearing change to their 'hood seemed to be sincere and earnest folks--but we heard no reply from the MTA staff for SFBC folks to their particular complaints. I know we're not supposed to get into the technical details during these public comment sessions, but that is over, and it failed on 2nd St yet again. I think we as activists for adequate SOMA bike infrastructure now need to actually understand all the details and be able to call out Rincon for its bad faith criticisms, if they are such. Right now I'm having to take that on faith.

That said, I think the MTA board's decision to further defer the plan for 2nd St today was a bit spineless--to their credit they did pass the 17th St plan, which did receive a little bit of opposition, but 2nd St was the only plan that received particular and specific criticism today--and it was the only one not passed. The message sent seems to be that if 10 people complain about a project, but 20 people speak in favor of it, and staff approves of it, any project can be table and further delayed. Is this just par for the course? My sense is that its these tabled projects that really matter now. 23rd street lanes were a walk in the park--but there also not the most vital piece of infrastructure out there.

]]> By: g http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/26/mta-hearing-on-bike-plan-packed-mayor-to-hold-presser-at-3-pm/comment-page-1/#comment-8891 g Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:26:09 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=2961#comment-8891 The bike plan EIR would benefit from more information in the record, particularly the los legislation. The EIR, suprisingly, apparently does not really address impact conflicts. It is also not clear that they have perceived the issues resolved by the LOS legislation most notably the air/quality los thing. This is also an opportunity to make more realistic statements concerning bike safety in regards to traffic engineering. Such as invoking real rights like a right to move inn reasonable safety. This is all important because a statement of overrriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence, so if some information is not in the record and they are doing things the old-fashioned way it may be difficult to rationalize doing things differently or any such decision may be vulnerable to appeal. The bike plan EIR would benefit from more information in the record, particularly the los legislation. The EIR, suprisingly, apparently does not really address impact conflicts. It is also not clear that they have perceived the issues resolved by the LOS legislation most notably the air/quality los thing. This is also an opportunity to make more realistic statements concerning bike safety in regards to traffic engineering. Such as invoking real rights like a right to move inn reasonable safety.

This is all important because a statement of overrriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence, so if some information is not in the record and they are doing things the old-fashioned way it may be difficult to rationalize doing things differently or any such decision may be vulnerable to appeal.

]]> By: mikesonn http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/26/mta-hearing-on-bike-plan-packed-mayor-to-hold-presser-at-3-pm/comment-page-1/#comment-8851 mikesonn Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:04:43 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=2961#comment-8851 What are these alternative plans for 2nd street? What are these alternative plans for 2nd street?

]]> By: mikesonn http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/26/mta-hearing-on-bike-plan-packed-mayor-to-hold-presser-at-3-pm/comment-page-1/#comment-8821 mikesonn Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:36:48 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=2961#comment-8821 They just went on break. They will be back on at 12:55. Lots of support! They just went on break. They will be back on at 12:55.

Lots of support!

]]> By: John Murphy http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/26/mta-hearing-on-bike-plan-packed-mayor-to-hold-presser-at-3-pm/comment-page-1/#comment-8781 John Murphy Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:24:07 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=2961#comment-8781 live stream going on sfgtv live stream going on

sfgtv

]]>