|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?
The title of a WSJ article about a gadfly type in San Francisco
who had put SF aggressive bicycle infrastructure plans on hold until an environmental impact statement on the plans can be completed. Rob Anderson's theory is that cars will always outnumber bikes, so taking road space to accommodate bicycles merely adds to traffic congestion, slower commutes and more engine idling and thus...more pollution! An interesting take on the issue. Many here will decry the emphasis on bike lanes as part of community attempts to make non-motorized commuting more attractive, but it seems this one fellow has single-handedly halted the effort in SF all by himself! Quite impressive actually. He definitely has some pretty negative views of bicyclists and bike commuting on the roads, even though I believe he doesn't operate a car himself. Check out the WSJ article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...sub_pag e_one and an interesting reaction to this guy at http://sfist.com/2008/08/20/wall_st_..._on_san_fr.php Bicycle pollution! Hah! There's a good one. SMH |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?
Stephen Harding wrote in news:X4drk.350$w51.10
@trnddc01: http://sfist.com/2008/08/20/wall_st_..._on_san_fr.php And on the other hand, there is a growing feeling in NYC that possibly the thing to do is not to allow on-street parking for cars. Stay tuned, this is getting interesting. Barry Harmon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?
The guy makes a lot of assumptions
Stephen Harding wrote: The title of a WSJ article about a gadfly type in San Francisco who had put SF aggressive bicycle infrastructure plans on hold until an environmental impact statement on the plans can be completed. Rob Anderson's theory is that cars will always outnumber bikes, so taking road space to accommodate bicycles merely adds to traffic congestion, slower commutes and more engine idling and thus...more pollution! An interesting take on the issue. Many here will decry the emphasis on bike lanes as part of community attempts to make non-motorized commuting more attractive, but it seems this one fellow has single-handedly halted the effort in SF all by himself! Quite impressive actually. He definitely has some pretty negative views of bicyclists and bike commuting on the roads, even though I believe he doesn't operate a car himself. Check out the WSJ article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...sub_pag e_one and an interesting reaction to this guy at http://sfist.com/2008/08/20/wall_st_..._on_san_fr.php Bicycle pollution! Hah! There's a good one. SMH |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?
Many here will decry the emphasis on bike lanes as part of
community attempts to make non-motorized commuting more attractive, but it seems this one fellow has single-handedly halted the effort in SF all by himself! Quite impressive actually. Heh heh. it sounds as if, like me, he's old enough to remember the Supreme Court case, Brown vs. Board of Education, in which blacks got rid of school segregation by demonstrating that "separate but equal" never is equal. Confining us to a ghetto in the gutter demonstrates the same thing. I don't want to be confined to margins for the marginalized And we need to get rid of those "as far right as practicable" laws too. Jeremy Parker in London UK, where there's no requirement to stick to lanes or paths,,and no "as far left as practicable" law. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?
cars out number bikes?!?!
What planet does this guy live on? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?
Stephen Harding wrote in
news:X4drk.350$w51.10@trnddc01: The title of a WSJ article about a gadfly type in San Francisco who had put SF aggressive bicycle infrastructure plans on hold until an environmental impact statement on the plans can be completed. The whole article is a joke. Look at the name of the author. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?
On Aug 21, 4:32 pm, sally wrote:
Stephen Harding wrote innews:X4drk.350$w51.10@trnddc01: The title of a WSJ article about a gadfly type in San Francisco who had put SF aggressive bicycle infrastructure plans on hold until an environmental impact statement on the plans can be completed. The whole article is a joke. Look at the name of the author. --Ms. Dvorak is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal's San Francisco bureau. Write to Phred Dvorak at It may very well be a pseudonym, but it's a well used one. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?
San Francisco Ponders: Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...756955249.html An interesting take on the issue. =v= Meh, not really. This headline is misleading: there's really no pondering, just paperwork. The injunction against San Francisco's bike plan was imposed by a retiring right-wing judge as his parting gift to the people of that city. =v= The law cited in the ruling is the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. In those days they thought they could end traffic jams (and the pollution from idling cars) by making more and wider highways. California went on a road-building spree only to learn a painful lesson in induced traffic -- and even *worse* pollution, of course. =v= The law has been amended many times since 1970, of course, and more recent changes actually recognize the installation of bike facilities as something that's *good* for air quality. (In fact, throwing in a token recreational multi-use path here and there has become the typical "mitigation" for road projects that will increase air pollution.) Overall, though, this law has ended up looking like swiss cheese, with gaps here and there for pain-in-the-ass lawyers to exploit and right-wing judges to base bad rulings on. =v= But overall, while this pretext has been bandied about, the ruling and injunction doesn't hinge on it. It hinges on a lack of paperwork. _Jym_ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?
Jym Dyer wrote:
San Francisco Ponders: Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution? http://online.wsj.com/public/article...756955249.html An interesting take on the issue. =v= Meh, not really. This headline is misleading: there's really no pondering, just paperwork. The injunction against San Francisco's bike plan was imposed by a retiring right-wing judge as his parting gift to the people of that city. =v= The law cited in the ruling is the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. In those days they thought they could end traffic jams (and the pollution from idling cars) by making more and wider highways. California went on a road-building spree only to learn a painful lesson in induced traffic -- and even *worse* pollution, of course. =v= The law has been amended many times since 1970, of course, and more recent changes actually recognize the installation of bike facilities as something that's *good* for air quality. (In fact, throwing in a token recreational multi-use path here and there has become the typical "mitigation" for road projects that will increase air pollution.) Overall, though, this law has ended up looking like swiss cheese, with gaps here and there for pain-in-the-ass lawyers to exploit and right-wing judges to base bad rulings on. =v= But overall, while this pretext has been bandied about, the ruling and injunction doesn't hinge on it. It hinges on a lack of paperwork. Right wing paranoia at work. The issue is of course paperwork. The city didn't do the required environmental impact statement on the effects of the plan. (Strange a "right winger" would be using environmental impact as a tool to subvert the city). It's always about "paperwork". That's the mechanism for those interests to stop whatever doesn't interest them! This Anderson guy doesn't fit the model of a "right winger" at all; in fact, he sounds a bit like a left wing kook. He's the reason the plan is on hold for a year while the environmental impact statement gets done. The court was the mechanism and if the particular Judge was indeed a right wing ideolog, I can easily see a left wing ideolog making the same decision; perhaps more so. SMH |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?
This Anderson guy doesn't fit the model of a "right winger"
at all; in fact, he sounds a bit like a left wing kook. =v= I realize that I'm the one who employed the right/left wing terminology here, but I have to admit has severe limitations. How, exactly, to classify someone who states that people ride bikes for the same "political" motivations as Islamic suicide bombers? Anderson has elements of both "wings" evident, but he's definitely a mixed bag. His motivation for this lawsuit, as expressed in his own words, stems from personality clashes and his own bizarre imaginings of the motivations of others. =v= Judge James Warren, on the other hand, has a consistent and well-documented track record of rulings that favor the rich powerful and oppose the less-advantaged. That's pretty much the classic definition of being right-wing, and that's why I used the term for him. _Jym_ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story | [email protected] | General | 130 | September 5th 07 05:16 PM |
Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story | [email protected] | Techniques | 152 | September 5th 07 05:16 PM |
Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story | [email protected] | Social Issues | 84 | August 21st 07 10:48 PM |
Getting Bike Lanes - LONG was Bracelets for Bike Lanes? | Robert J. Matter | Rides | 0 | April 22nd 05 06:32 AM |
Getting Bike Lanes - LONG was Bracelets for Bike Lanes? | Tom Keats | Social Issues | 0 | April 21st 05 05:29 AM |