Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
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.

I read this when published. It was the Journal's "A-head" story for the day,
a kind of lighthearted-but-interesting feature story that begins on Page 1
every day.

Anderson's "theory" does not make use of current thinking about automobile
traffic, which is that it expands (or contracts) to fill available space, so
that traffic density in the long term converges on the same values
regardless of capacity.

In other words, though Anderson and other drivers experience cyclists
slowing things down and causing engines to idle, without the bikes
additional cars would have exactly the same effects.

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