=v= Actually, “we bike zealots” (some of us, at least) were a little suspicious of those who put bicycle and pedestrian priority on the ballot. Certainly the opposition chose to hammer on the myth of eeevil outlaw bikers running down grannies and puppies rather than dealing with the substance of the proposition, and we thought that it was perhaps an intentional ploy to sink the whole thing. Instead, the voters approved it handily despite the smear campaign.

> But that bit of deviousness will just seem, well, devious …

=v= Any deviousness, real or imagined, would be mooted by the aforementioned smear campaign. Bicycles were front and center in the discourse, and the fine citizens of San Francisco voted pro-bike.

The problem, I think, is that no detail has been given on precisely the management system and user-types the bikeshare pilot is intended to use.

There are a handful of areas where even a tiny 50-bike pilot can be viable, for a while at least. However, if we get a proper Velib-like system with thousands of bikes, it will depress demand for bike rentals unless they can offer something the SF Velib bikes cannot for the Marin-visiting tourists.

“This is likely what Anderson most fears–that with the coming of additional bike lanes and parking, the pace of our ongoing ‘velorution’ will accelerate. Alas, no injunction can halt a paradigm shift, or close the generation gap between sickly 20th century autocentrism and healthy 21st century cycling.”

Thanks for the Big Picture thinking, greaseball. What Anderson most fears is that our incompetent, featherbeding, politically correct city government is going to allow you crackpots to screw up traffic for everyone else.

In Barcelona, which is the only bike sharing program I’m really familiar with so there are others which have probably found other solutions that work for them, the program is only available to residents (collecting addresses lets them know where to set up more stations in the city) and the subscription is for a full year. If the program is set up to avoid directly competing with the rental companies, simply having more San Franciscans tooling around the city on bikes is going to make it more likely tourist here for just a few days will see rentals as an option to get around while they’re in town.

but,

I happen to see the Phil Matier piece. It seemed the beef, was the zone was not marked properly. Where people were getting ticketed, was a fair distance from the bus stand, and not one sign was visible beyound the stand indicating it was a bus zone. From the video, it looked to be at least a good 30 feet from the stand, appearing like its not a restricted zone to any typical driver. (unless its a camera trick). The story even had an interview from city staff why the curb was not painted. So, to me his story was was about entrapment making millions for the enforcement department, not that drivers should be allowed to stop in bus zones.

I just wish those officers would ticket cars on 4th in SF and elsewhere blocking bike lanes and handicap access to sidewalks waiting for a spot at the gas pump. That could make good money and help public safety a lot.

http://carfreetalk.blogspot.com/2009/07/bus-stops-are-for.html

http://carfreetalk.blogspot.com/2009/07/say-what.html

I would like to point out to Phil Matier (and I guess I’ll have to send him an email) that it is not only PARKING that is against the law in bus stop, but driving as well. Every time a vehicle pulls into a bus stop, buses — and the passengers they are dropping off and picking up — are forced into traffic, increasing the risk of collisions (let’s not use the word ‘accidents’) and lawsuits against the city.

Tens of thousands of dedicated SF cyclists are already taking our rightful place on the shared public roadways. We’re not going away–in fact, our numbers swell every year. Even during the first two years of Anderson’s anti-bike injunction, cycling in SF increased a stunning 43%.

The bike plan may not be necessary to grow cycling in San Francisco, but studies indicate new bike infrastructure is, in itself, sufficient. This is likely what Anderson most fears–that with the coming of additional bike lanes and parking, the pace of our ongoing ‘velorution’ will accelerate. Alas, no injunction can halt a paradigm shift, or close the generation gap between sickly 20th century autocentrism and healthy 21st century cycling.

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/bcomm/3179.html

And going off what Daniel said, the idea is to get more potential cyclists on bikes and doing away with their cars in the city, thereby reducing traffic (and even Muni) congestion all-around since cars take up a ridiculously larger amount of space than bikes. Rob, can you tell us about a time when your Muni bus was held up by a bicyclist? But just forget any of the times your bus has had to wait for all the passing car traffic to depart its stop – because obviously those aren’t the real problem.

But keep screaming into the wind Mr. Anderson…

“Transit first” means cyclists? City voters would be surprised to hear that. Let’s put the Bicycle Plan on the ballot and see how it would do.

(1) Decline in media revenue from car dealerships
As the auto industry declines, newspapers will receive less money from car dealerships. (Now around $2B per year, according to the dealers. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/NADAData.pdf) That should reduce the extreme media bias towards the auto industry here in the US.

(2) Reduction in number of cranks through attrition
As Gen-Xers become an increasing force in media over time, I think we’re seeing fewer old cranks writing such drivel in the media. And a decline in support for such rubbish their readership. (Not saying there is much support now for this opinion, but it should decline.)

Two very welcome trends, I say!

In SF, cycling is a statement that 42,000 Americans per year should not see themselves die in or under a car; cycling is a statement that we must end the never-ending Middle Eastern oil wars and occupations; cycling is a statement that we cannot afford to treat the obesity-related diseases induced by autopian sprawl; cycling is a statement for clean water and clean air, and quieter, calmer, more sane streetscapes; cycling is a step back from the edge of a wholesale retreat from the public sphere and into 3-ton metal bubbles, within which pathological ideologies grow.

The city is changing. The old road designs are rapidly aging. Rob: please come out of your Jesus Christ pose and stop obstructing the bike lane.