Posts Tagged ‘rob anderson’

Today on KQED-FM at 10:00AM: “Critical Mass, 20 Years Later” – Michael Krasny – Commute Clot Anniv.

Monday, September 24th, 2012

Well, today’s the start of San Francisco Critical Mass Week 2012.

Michael Krasny of KQED Forum will kick things off with a one-hour show on the history of Critical Mass.

And then festivities will end, of course, this Friday with the big 20th Anniversary Ride the evening of September 28th, 2012. (Not that you’d know it from the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition website’s ”Chain of Events” section, where all info about CM* is now censored.)

Suddenly surrounded by bicycles:

All the deets:

“It started with a bike ride in San Francisco on Sept. 25, 1992. About 50 people cycled in a pack along Market Street, hoping to earn some respect from drivers who sometimes ignored them or edged them off the road. They called it the “Commute Clot.” Today it’s known as Critical Mass, a movement that’s spread worldwide. Supporters say it promotes cycling and the rights of bicyclists. But critics say it is illegal, clogs traffic and antagonizes drivers. We talk about Critical Mass’ 20th anniversary, and its effects on the city.

Host: Michael Krasny

Guests:

Chris Carlsson, co-founder of Critical Mass who was part of the first ride on Sept. 25, 1992, and has since participated in Critical Mass rides in Milan, Vancouver and Porto Alegre, Brazil

Hugh D’Andrade, founder of SFCriticalMass.org

Rob Anderson, blogger on transportation issues and author of the blog District 5 Diary

Tune in at 10:00 on your radio or on your device, Listen Live.

*The SFBC raises money through fees but it also gets mucho dinero directly from SFGov. So that’s why it endorsed Ed Lee for Mayor even though SFBC’s members generally did not and still do not like Ed Lee. Similarly, Chrstina Olague, Mayor Ed Lee’s hand-picked recruit for District 5 Supervisor, gets endorsed over Julian Davis even though SFBC members actually favor JD. The SFBC is basically a quasi-government agency now, so it’s very afraid of seeming to say something negative about certain members of the City Family. It’s also afraid of hurting the chances of its officers someday getting jobs / health care directly with SFGov / SFMTA. Anyway, that’s why the SFBC is basically a SFGov kiss-ass these days. It will lobby San Francisco government, certainly, but that’s about as far as it wants to go. (Think about it – who would the SFMTA endorse for Mayor?)

San Francisco Really Really Wants to Tell Tourists How to Get to the Golden Gate Bridge – Signs Popping Up All Over

Friday, April 20th, 2012

I’ll tell you, the first time I saw one of these signs, I thought our local rich, white, old, crybaby, NIMBY homeowners had gotten together to create their own sign to direct drivers the hell away from the ‘hood.

But now I don’t know.

As seen on Geary:

Click to expand

Who knows what SFGov has in store for us…

I Am Become Rob Anderson, #1: What the Heck is This Brand-New, Home-Made Sign on Fell Street? I Cry Foul

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

There’s no shortage of people who want to tell you what to do and how to do it, don’t you know.

As here, where it appears that a small cabal has paid good money for an orange sign to direct traffic away from Golden Gate Park.

Uh, this is not an official City and County of San Francisco sign. Ergo, it is an usurpation of authoritah:

Click to expand

If this wobbly POS gets reinforced with about 100 pounds of QUIKRETE pronto, then it might last a week.

If not, then the over-under is two days, place your bets.

The sign you see above needs to be destroyed. This is not up for discussion.

“It is a visual and therefore, a visceral betrayal. Stop it.”

John Malkovich, Transformers III, Dark of the Moon

OMG, It’s a Huge, Brand-New, 137-Page Cycling Safety Study from the Mineta Transportation Institute – Here’s Your Free PDF

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

Here it is:

Promoting Bicycle Commuter Safety(PDF 2.2MB)

Big, in’nt?

And oh, did I say “brand-new?” What I meant to say was slightly dated. Check it:

Click to expand

(“Procedural review?” The Ghost of Mr. Anderson lives on. Injunction junction, what was your function?)

Now, realize first that everything in San Jose is named for Norm Mineta, and here you go:

“Study Shows How To Improve Bicycle Commuter Safety; SF Bay Area, Portland, OR Are Case Studies

Mineta Transportation Institute’s free report evaluates risks, safety, planning, enforcement and more.

SAN JOSE, Calif., Feb. 22, 2012 — The Mineta Transportation Institute (transweb.sjsu.edu) has published a report that leverages literature review and case studies in the San Francisco Bay area and Portland, OR to recommend ways to improve safety for bicycle commuters. Promoting Bicycle Commuter Safety includes chapters on risks, application of social psychology to bike safety, dimensions of effective practices, and more. The report also includes illustrative tables and photos. Principal investigator was Asbjorn Osland, Ph.D., with several chapter contributors. The 157-page report is available for free PDF download from transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2927.html.

“A basic premise in this report is that cycling should be encouraged because as the number of cyclists increases, the attention of motorists and safety improve,” said Dr. Osland. “However, an important caveat is that the number of cyclists must be commensurate with the infrastructure built for cycling to enhance their safety. This report discusses and evaluates various bicycle commuter settings against a framework of what are called the 5 Es – engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation.”

Dr. Osland noted that, of those five categories, engineering is essential because the infrastructure is vital to protecting cyclists. Education is emphasized because safety is the central focus of the report. A number of case studies was included, and the Bicycle Transportation Alliance in the Portland OR area was prominently featured as an effective example of the “education” and “encouragement” dimensions of the 5 Es. The report concludes with a discussion, and it notes the need for continued research or evaluation, with particular reference to using the social psychological model.

As part of the literature review, researchers found a large amount of crucial data, including:

–  In 2008 males accounted for 87 percent of bicycling fatalities in the
U.S. More cyclists are male, but females may follow the rules more.

 –  Bicycle accidents that involved a motor vehicle were a very small
percentage of all bicycle accidents; however, the vast majority of fatal
bicycle accidents involved a vehicle. This is why engineers suggest
keeping cyclists separate from vehicles.

–  Too many cyclists violate the rules of the road, yet enforcement is
often lacking.

 –  Driver aggression, drivers “squeezing past” bicycles when there isn’t
enough room for them to safely pass, and cyclists riding poorly were
mentioned as problems in the Berkeley surveys.

–  A lack of empirical data on outcomes makes it difficult to identify true
best practic­es regarding safety education programs. However, wearing
helmets, maximizing conspicuity, and maintaining one’s bicycle in good
working condition while following the rules of the road seem logical.

Tables in the report include those detailing bicycle rider injuries and fatalities; risks associated with riding against traffic, with traffic, and on sidewalks; bicycle stress level values and components; comparison of several bicycle trip factors in the U.S. and Northern Europe; and more.

Illustrations include before-and-after photos of street redesign; examples of safety posters; a children’s bike rodeo; an example of a “bike garden” in Switzerland, where cyclists can practice safety skills; bike safety web pages; street markings and signs; and more. Of special note are the maps detailing the city of Berkeley, Calif. bicycle boulevard network, built on existing and newly-created calmed streets.

The complete 157-page report, including an application of models to the 5 Es, is available for free PDF download at transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1003.html

ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Asbjorn Osland, Ph.D., is professor of management at San Jose State University. He received his doctorate and MBA from Case Western Reserve University. He also holds a Master of Social Work and a post-baccalaureate in accounting. He has taught full time since 1993. Before that he worked in Latin America and West Africa for 13 years for Chiquita Brands, for ten years in several countries for Plan International, and for the Peace Corps in Colombia. His research interests include case writing, business and society, and international HRM, with over 60 published articles, cases and chapters, and a comparable number of conference presentations..

ABOUT THE MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE

The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) conducts research, education, and information and technology transfer, focusing on multimodal surface transportation policy and management issues, especially as they relate to transit. MTI was established by Congress in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and was reauthorized under TEA-21 and again under SAFETEA-LU. The Institute has been funded by Congress through the US Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Research and Innovative Technology Administration, by the California Legislature through the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and by other public and private grants and donations, including grants from the US Department of Homeland Security. DOT selected MTI as a National Center of Excellence following competitions in 2002 and 2006. The internationally respected members of the MTI Board of Trustees represent all major surface transportation modes. MTI’s focus on policy and management resulted from the Board’s assessment of the transportation industry’s unmet needs. That led directly to choosing the San Jose State University College of Business as the Institute’s home. Visit transweb.sjsu.edu

Forget About Rob Anderson, the StreetsBlog Crowd Now Has a New Public Enemy #1: It’s Writer Scott James of the Bay Citizen

Friday, July 15th, 2011

[UPDATE: Right on schedule"Bay Citizen’s Scott James Tries to Drum Up Opposition to Fell and Oak Bikeways"]

Back in the day, Rob Anderson was The Most Hated Man In Town, ’cause he tied the City and County up in knots by insisting upon an Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Bicycle Plan. He instigated a slam-dunk lawsuit (really, he was pretty much guaranteed victory) owing to the City trying to go around CA state law by just pretending that an EIR wasn’t necessary.

But eventually, after years, the required report got finished and that was that. IMO, he should have quit while he was ahead, but no, he and his lawyer said the EIR wasn’t good enough – they ended up losing on that issue. Still, you’d have to say he was one of the most successful NIMBYs in CA history.

Remember when he was on the front page of the national edition of the Wall Street Journal? Good times:

But that was then and this is now, so forget about Rob Anderson.

Comes now Scott James of the Bay Citizen - feel free to set your sights (sites?) on him:

Why?

Well, because of stuff like this. People didn’t like that bit, not at all.

And now, today, ooh boy, that’s not going to go down well, no sir.

I was pleasantly surprised by how there’s not a ‘no way, this is crazy, don’t do it’ feeling out there,” [Mike] Sallaberry said, according to Streetsblog.org, a pro-cycling website. But the bike coalition research, obtained using the open-records law, surveyed only 14 businesses — and it actually reveals very serious objections, which some survey respondents later reiterated in interviews.

To annoy drivers “and make it worse of a pain is not the solution,” Miloslavich said.

Robert Williams, owner of Panhandle Guitar, said: “Fell Street is dangerous to have bike lanes on.”

[SFMTA Spokesmodel Paul] Rose said he was not sure whether Sallaberry’s remarks had been correctly reported. Sallaberry was not available for comment.”

Wow, that’s all you can come up with? You’re “not sure whether the remarks had been correctly reported?”

Wow. That’s the last arrow in your quiver that you should be using, right? Oh, it was the only arrow you had?

Wow.

Obviously, when the SFMTA and its affiliates decide to do a program, it’s the job of the SFMTA to push that program through come Hell or high water. If the program gets executed then the manager succeeded and if the program doesn’t get executed, then the manager failed – it doesn’t matter a whit whether or not the program itself is good or bad for the commonweal at that point. Not at all. What matters is that the SFMTA decided to do something. It’s the job of SFMTA employees to cheerlead and mislead and lie to get any particular program through.

Remember the traffic circles of the lower and upper Haights? Boy, they took out stop signs on Page Street and Waller and then you’d just have to guess at what drivers were going to do when they came upon the intersection. You see, drivers didn’t have to stop. Anyway, that crazy idea got voted down – it lost five times out of five – but all the people behind the stupid traffic circles could say is how “sad” it was that the traffic circles were such a failure.

The fact that they weren’t a good idea never seemed to occur to the people behind the traffic circles.

Fixing the eastbound Panhandle-to-Wiggle connector shouldn’t be that hard. Mostly, it’s about taking out some parking spaces or otherwise freeing up some more room. It’s not about “completing” Oak Street, it’s not about being the next “win-win” from the SFMTA. It’s about making compromises, it’s about winners and losers, it’s about costs and benefits.

Lying to people about the costs doesn’t benefit the people of San Francisco.

Of course.

The Empire Strikes Back – Rob Anderson, Others Possibly on the Hook for $52K due to the Bike Plan Injunction

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

[UPDATE: Word comes from City Attorney Press Secretary Matt Dorsey. Yes, they're looking for $52k:

"The City is seeking to recover its costs related to the preparation of the administrative record and excerpts of the record requested by the court.  We are also seeking to recover the costs we incurred in serving by messenger the attorney for the petitioner.  The recovery of these costs, which total $51,959, is authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure.  

Aggressively pursuing the fullest possible recovery of the City's costs in litigation is a standard practice by the City Attorney's Office.  (And I would assume that's similarly true of other law offices, both public and private.)"

And here's another update:

"We're seeking to recover costs from the petitioners as a whole, so all of them.  Assuming we prevail, they can decide among themselves how to apportion what they owe.  

Also, we haven't received a copy of it yet, but it appears from the docket that Ms. Miles filed a motion to strike the cost bill.  The hearing is set for January 7."

So, there you have it.]

[Launching watermelons (two minutes long - there's a nice payoff with a slo mo bonus) can be fun but it's always best to quit while you're ahead...]

I don’t know, I can’t say I understand all this about social gadfly Rob Anderson, or the Coalition for Adequate Review (CAR), or “Ninty-Nine Percent Anderson” or some other person or entity being on the hook for expenses incurred by the City and County of San Francisco because of the whole Bicyle Plan injunction/litigation thing.

But word on the street today is that S.F. is pressing the case to get $52k in legal costs reimbursed. It’s all explained on the Holier Than You blog.

See?  (I’ll tell you, physics majors who went to UC Hastings are known to be extremely reliable sources of information, so that’s why I’m buying all this.)

Anyway, appears as if this case will continue into 2011, believe it or not.

Here it is in black and white:

“AUG-19-2010 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS, $51,959.00 TOTAL COSTS, MATURE DATE SEP-10-2010, FILED BY DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”

“SEP-08-2010 NTC AND MOTION TO STRIKE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO TAX RESPONDENTS COXT CLAIM; MEMO OF P AND A; DECLARATION OF MARY MILES IN SUPPORT ; DECLARATION OF ROB ANDERSON, PROOF OF SERVICE FILED BY PETITIONER COALITION FOR ADEQUATE REVIEW NINTY-NINE PERCENT ANDERSON, ROB HEARING SET FOR JAN-07-2011 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 301.”

On It Goes…

It Begins: San Francisco’s First Post-Injunction Bike Lane Goes In, As Scheduled

Monday, August 9th, 2010

See? Right on schedule:

Via loveletterstosf, click to expand.

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has all the deets and here’s what the Mayor had to say after his “self-congratulatory press conference,”  after the jump

(more…)

Post-Injunction S.F. Gets Moving: New Bike Lane on Townsend Today at 1:00 PM

Monday, August 9th, 2010

Erin Sherbert has the story of today’s ceremony honoring the recent lifting of the San Francisco Bicycle Plan injunction.

(Leave us remember that the four-year-injunction was 100% not the fault of Judge Busch.)

Anyway, look for something like this to go down on Townsend today at 1:00 PM, somewhere near Fourth Street in the SoMA:

 

But this event will probably push some over the edge. Like the snarky people at Enough, we say, enough:

OK, we get it, now the city can paint some stripes on the road and call them ‘bike lanes.’ Stop shitting yourself.”

How wude!

Oh well…

San Francisco Bicycle Plan Injunction Finally Lifted by Judge Peter Busch

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Here’s the news from the office of City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera: The Bicycle Plan injunction has beeen lifted.

Judge Busch finds that City has complied with CEQA, grants City’s request to allow remaining safety, usability improvements

SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 6, 2010) — San Francisco Superior Court Judge Peter J. Busch issued an order late this afternoon finding San Francisco in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, in seeking to implement its Bicycle Plan citywide. The ruling effectively dissolves an injunction that continued to prohibit City engineers from moving forward on some planned bicycle route improvements intended to enhance the safety and usability of streets for bicyclists. A previous order from Nov. 2009 lifted significant portions of the original 2006 injunction, but left limited restrictions intact while the adequacy of environmental review for certain projects was adjudicated.

“I am very gratified by the ruling from Judge Busch, who carefully considered an enormous amount of evidence in this case, and found that the City met its environmental review requirements,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “Today’s decision clears an important hurdle toward making San Francisco safer for bicyclists, and healthier for all of us. I am very thankful to the many dedicated public servants involved in this policy initiative and meeting the stringent legal requirements to fulfill it, including Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors, the Municipal Transportation Agency, and the Planning Department.”

The case is: Coalition for Adequate Review et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Superior Court No. 505-509, filed July 28, 2005

So there you have it. “Crazy”* Rob Anderson has driven his dead-bang winner of a lawsuit, one that put him on the front page of the Wall Street Journal…

…and made the City and County** look like a bunch of fools, into the ground. He didn’t know when to quit. (The time to quit would have been when the City finally complied with the requirements of CEQA.)

Who knows, maybe he’ll come up with another beautiful lawsuit idea, another slam dunk, but don’t count on it.

Sic Transit Gloria Anderson

*That’s what they called him, out of frustration, back when they had to pay attention to him.

**”Hey remember when we said we were going to start working on those reports earlier and go faster? Forget all that. Actually, we’re going to start later and go slower. We were going to tell you sooner but…”

[UPDATE: The Mayor would like to add a few words. See them after the jump.]

(more…)

When PG&E Comes to Tear Up Your Street, They Really Tear Up Your Street

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

As here, on Grove betwixt Divisidero and Scott. 

Would you call this block a part of Alamo Square (after all, you can see the wide, wide steps of A.S. right there), or the Western Addition(literally, this block was added as part of the western addtion to San Francisco, which used to have its north-south border on Larkin in the Tenderloin) or the North of Panhandle (NOPA) District (the grass-fed burgers of NOPA restaurant are just a block away!), or something else? No matter.

The point is that this block is right near where conspiracy theorist Crazy Rob Anderson (go ahead, ask him about the truth behind the death of JFK) lives. Check it:

IMG_7029 copy

Click to expand

(Man, I’ve seen people freak out over just one truck working a block. Can you imagine how the NIMBYs felt about this disruption to their day?)

I was going to try to get on my HAM radio to see if I could warn Rob about this overt operation, tell him about how undercover agents from the FBI, CIA, NSA, ETC could be laying in their own cables right along with friendly PGE.

But then I thought, well, that’s just what THEY would want me to do, probably triangulate on my broadcast equipment in a New York minute. Then they’d find my chemtrails videos and everything. So, I didn’t do nothing.

But remember, The Truth Is Out There. We’re through the looking glass, people!