More credible, however, is the comprehensive MTA Strategic Plan aiming to swell that 3.5 percent bike share to 8 or 10 percent by 2018. Papandreou is the point-man responsible for crafting and implementing this ambitious program to rapidly triple the number of cyclists on the road. Yet he admits he doesn't even know when Critical Mass rides.

"I don't pay attention to it at all."


Chris Carlsson doesn't wear a bike helmet. This, he says, is a statement against capitalism. Why, he asks, should cyclists feel the need to go out and make additional purchases before pedaling off?

Neon, thumping beats, and a carefree good time are par for the San Francisco Bike Party’s course.
Photograph by Alex Leber
Neon, thumping beats, and a carefree good time are par for the San Francisco Bike Party’s course.
Sometimes a bicycle isn’t just a bicycle.
Photograph by Alex Leber
Sometimes a bicycle isn’t just a bicycle.

The San Francisco author and radical activist has a ready smile and a white beard resembling Sigmund Freud's. And, sort of like Freud, Mass co-founder Carlsson believes a bicycle isn't just a bicycle. Instead, "it's a signifier of our cultural revolt against the stupidity of modern life. In and of itself, bicycles aren't very interesting." He laments that the Bicycle Coalition and its government allies "have no particular problem with wage labor" and "just want to get more people on bicycles."

Critical Mass is a leaderless, or at least an authority-less, movement. The rides ostensibly have individual meanings for each individual rider. But Carlsson's sentiments do encapsulate its limitations in effecting policy change.

Critical Mass was, at the start, a radical undertaking — but it helped to push cycling into the mainstream. In doing so, it was a self-diluting movement: Far from symbolizing a revolt against modern life, cycling is now seen as a signifier of that modern life. Critical Mass riders hoping to topple this and other cities' powers-that-be have been disappointed; bikes go well with "wage labor." The powers-that-be are resilient enough to not only coexist with augmented cycling, but to make a buck off the deal.

The bicycle lanes installed over Bill Maher's dead body on Valencia ushered in a neighborhood of twee, fair-trade cafes, twee, fair-trade boutiques, and bike corrals encased in knitted cozies — which is twee, if not fair-trade. "When I moved onto Valencia 30 years ago, it was a backwater street. All the stores were closed and the only ones out here were Holy Rollers," recalls Jr. (his legal name), a 64-year-old bike messenger with a Santa Claus beard who's been delivering packages in this city since 1968. "Now it's a second Haight Street for computer whizzes. It's a direct route with no hills. And many of [the whizzes] are bikers."

Census data indicate some 15 percent of trips now taken in the demographically metamorphosed Mission are on cycles. And, unlike Jr., most of these bikers aren't riding 40-year-old Schwinns held together with welds and electrical tape. They're often successful young members of the "creative class" with the desire — and the means — to live in the bike-friendliest portions of the bike-friendliest cities. Catering to these economic winners "elevated biking. It's seen as an economically beneficial part of a development strategy," notes S.F. State geography professor Jason Henderson. The ability to bike to work, he continues, is a selling point for the companies to draw these young workers, as well as for a city banking on accommodating those companies.

In fact, the city is hustling to make up for lost time. San Francisco was in 2006 slapped with an injunction against installing cycling infrastructure such as bike lanes after a judge bought outspoken bike critic and blogger Rob Anderson's argument that the city shirked on analyzing the environmental impacts of that infrastructure. The MTA is now thrilled to disgorge numbers marking its progress since the injunction was lifted in late 2010: Twenty-two miles of bike lanes added to the city's burgeoning network; 3,350 new bike racks; and an estimated 71 percent more riders since 2006 — despite the injunction.

Papandreou points to the 71-percent jump as proof that cyclists are coming whether the city caters to them or not. But the construction cranes mushrooming around town indicate a looming glut of new San Franciscans. If the city's pro-development forces have their way — and that's where the smart money, and plenty of it, is being wagered — San Francisco's population may surge to well over 1 million.

In our wee city, it'd be impossible for the horde of anticipated newcomers to each drive their own cars without inducing traffic nightmares of a sort inconducive to "wage labor." This is where the Bicycle Coalition fits symbiotically into the ecosystem. "The Bicycle Coalition is probably one of the most powerful special interest groups in town right now. I'm not calling bicycle transportation a bad special interest. They're a good special interest," says former Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin. "But, as a political matter, they'll side with the greediest developer to get 10 extra bike spots."

Developers are happy to no longer adhere to antiquated ratios of auto-parking-spots-to-dwelling-units, and the coalition is happy to lobby for concessions for cycles (bike spots, bike lanes, a bike-sharing program) from the transforming city and the burgeoning developments marketed to affluent people embracing a car-free lifestyle.

Peskin admits this 10-speed Machiavellianism is working. For the coalition to be able to work with both progressives and business interests requires a commitment not to the politics of the day, but to a greater, and more, basic, cause.

« Previous Page
 |
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
21 comments
John Lilly
John Lilly

anarchists don't feel the need to answer to anyones irrelevant opinions.

NoBikesOnSidewalks
NoBikesOnSidewalks

I'd have much more goodwill to cyclists if they would stop riding on the dang sidewalks! If you have to bike up Pine Street, do what you've got to do, but do not think it is okay to ride on the sidewalk there: it is not. The few bad, obnoxious apples who don't give a flip about anyone else are what makes people see all cyclists as a nuisance.

cafelinus
cafelinus

As a progressive (who hopefully hasn't lost his sense of humor or patience) I might point out that encountering critical mass back in the 90s as a pedestrian meant having to wait at street corners with sore feet (from working a long day at a job that really didn't pay enough to live in the city even then) while a quite long parade of people on bikes passed by (without in my recollection giving you chance to cross the street).

EssEffOhMy
EssEffOhMy

I assure you that Critical Mass remains very relevant to me and my many friends who ride in it whenever we get the chance. Joe, why didn't you interview anyone for this article who still rides in and enjoys Critical Mass? (Just interviewing the founders who don't enjoy it anymore, obviously doesn't count.) Considering about 12K rode in the anniversary ride last September, there a still a few of us. And I say "a few" facetiously. 

Andy Blue
Andy Blue

There is nothing more predictable in this town than the occasional newspaper article claiming Critical Mass is bad and/or ineffective and/or irrelevant. But it's never done anything but just bring more publicity to the event. My prediction is that THIS FRIDAY will now end up being be the biggest ride in months. And you know what? It'll be a blast. Thanks Joe Eskenazi! The obvious fact is that hundreds, sometimes thousands, continue to find CM very relevant to their lives and community and continue to show up for this celebration of freedom, public space -- and of course bicycles -- every month, year after year. I could go on for days about why Critical Mass is incredibly relevant. But I don't have to. Anyone who shows up on the last Friday of the month knows this. (Course if anyone wants me to go on and on, and even provide evidence from academic research, I would be thrilled to talk your ear off!).

jymdyer
jymdyer

• Interesting and informative piece.  I have quibbles here and there, but never mind.

I was in S.F. during and after the 1997 crackdown on Critical Mass and N.Y.C. during and after the 2004 crackdown (which started with the Republican National Convention). In both cases, a burgeoning bike community associated with Critical Mass was growing even without attractive bike infrastructure.

Here in San Francisco, our numbers kept growing even during the injunction that Rob Anderson's lawsuit imposed.  In New York City we had to contend with Sadik-Khan's hostile predecessor, Iris Weinshall (who would later file her own failed nuisance lawsuit against a bike lane), yet even under those conditions, our numbers kept growing.

 I expect that good infrastructure will swell our numbers even more, and the data shows that they have -- and at 0.46% of the transportation budget it's a bargain!  But it's worth looking at what make our numbers swell in the first place, even in the face of hostile authorities.

sfparkripoff
sfparkripoff

Cycling is Impractical for Families and Daily commuting.....So why is the SFMTA Deficit spending to build more Bike Lanes?  By willfully ignoring most of San Francisco’s residents, the Board of Supervisors and the MTA have created a master plan that makes no sense at all. 

It demands that people ride bicycles or use a transit system that doesn’t work. The enduring fiction is that cars and their drivers are evil, but bicyclists are holy.  The number and type of bicyclists remains constant because people do not convert to bike riding, but move into, then away from it. As people move into their professional lives, age and have children, bike riding becomes a recreational activity, not a commuting choice.

Yet, San Francisco has developed an urban plan around the loud but short-sighted desires of 15,000 people in our population of 800,000. All the changes required will be paid for by extending parking meter hours, raising parking rates, raising parking fines, and installing tolls into San Francisco. The narrowing of traffic lanes to add bicycle lanes has only added to the gridlock around the city. Shrinking the number of auto lanes and replacing them with bike lanes has created less efficient roadways for public transit,  private autos, and emergency vehicles. 

Over the last ten years developers have been fighting the construction of parking garages and using the Bicycle Coalition to spread their car-free message. Why? So that they can construct car free, stack and pack, high rise transit villages WITH NO PARKING!  Why? 

1. Because it lowers their overall construction costs

2. It maximizes their profit 

3. Car free housing is easier to get through the planning department 

According to architecture 2030 The Building Sector is the Largest Contributor
to U.S. CO2 Emissions. Breakdown as follows:

Buildings      46.7%
Industry       19.9%
Transportation 33.4%

Most of this energy is produced from burning fossil fuels, making this sector the largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet – and the single leading contributor to anthropogenic (human forcing) climate change

Developers LOVE that the Bicycle Lobby is encouraging the public to drop their cars in favor of bikes. Keep the public focused on the terrible cars so that the developers pack the skyline  with so many people that the city will be in total gridlock. Once that happens the only way you will be able to get around the city will be on a bicycle. If you look into the history of the Bicycle Lobby and all of the other non-profits that were spun off from them you will find questionable legislation, multiple conflicts of interest, and a lot of deception.

The public would love to see the writer report on that story!

rmajora
rmajora topcommenter

City Hall is bluffing about putting anything bike-related on the ballot, since even those dim bulbs know that the bike people are the most unpopular special interest group in the city. A citywide vote on the bike bullshit would put an end to all the "improvements" to city streets the MTA is now foisting on the neighborhoods.

For the record: the city did absolutely no environmental review of the 500-page Bicycle Plan before the Planning Commission and the BOS voted unanimously to make it part of the General Plan. Representatives from both those agencies stood up and lied about that during our last appeal hearing before the Supervisors. 

It was an easy decision for Judge Busch, since the city was obviously violating the most important environmental law in the state. That's why City Hall and phony "moderates" like Scott Wiener want to "reform" CEQA; so that no favored City Hall project will never be delayed again. 

Where's a link to Matt Smith's Critical Mass story ("Critical Masturbation") in 2003?

Rob Anderson

beaugheale
beaugheale

@NoBikesOnSidewalks I take the same attitude towards pedestrians: As long as any are poorly behaved, I don't care about any of them. Fortunately, I stop short of holding this attitude about any particular race, let alone I might end up with a show on Fox News!

rmajora
rmajora topcommenter

@jymdyer 

The number of cyclists in SF is "swelling"? According to the city's own numbers, there were 2.1% riding bikes to work in 2000, and in 2010 there were 3.5% commuting by bike, a not-so-swollen gain of 1.4% in ten years.

Speaking of numbers, the writer here invokes the 71% gain number, but it only represents a gain between a few years of the annual bicycle commuter count, not a gain in cycling in the city overall.

Another number cited in the story: the city is paying $188,000 a year for the SFPD to babysit Critical Mass every month.

And the problem with the changes the city wants to make to city streets on behalf of your small minority is not a lack of money, since City Hall always finds enough money to do what it wants to do. It's a lack of space on city streets to make bike lanes. Polk Street is a good example of the problem: making bike lanes there requires taking away a lot of scarce street parking, which that neighborhood---and others---will resist.

GetSomeFacts
GetSomeFacts

@sfparkripoff Dense urban housing is by far the most efficient form of housing. Parking garages for your car to live don't count. I ride my bike every day to work - it is the most practical way for me to get to work by far. And yes, I have a family. So speak for yourself.

mrericsir
mrericsir topcommenter

@sfparkripoff Dude, it's time to loosen the tinfoil hat, turn off Glenn Beck, walk slowly away from the TV and go outside.

jymdyer
jymdyer

@rmajora Unlike this present piece, the 2003 piece was just a tirade unsupported by facts.

beaugheale
beaugheale

@rmajora @jymdyer Ideologies aside, going from 2.1% to 3.5% is a 60% increase. Perhaps it's time for a new calculator. Or a new way to fudge statistics.

meatsack
meatsack

@beaugheale @sfparkripoff  

The majority of Americans drive a car, so if this majority of tax payers are not supporting the full cost of driving a car, who is?

sfparkripoff
sfparkripoff

@mrericsir@sfparkripoffGo to Google and type in: 

Livable City shares an office with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

Now start a new Google search and type in:

Livable city car free legislation  

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

rmajora
rmajora topcommenter

@jymdyer @rmajora 

Smith criticized Critical Mass from the perspective of an avid cyclist who thinks it does a lot more harm than good for your cause, which is why, if a bike bond is put on the ballot it will be rejected by a majority of city voters.

beaugheale
beaugheale

@rmajora @beaugheale @jymdyer Perhaps if your issue is with the way statistics are calculated, you might want to launch a campaign against high school math teachers. Though it won't help you with the bigger problem: That cars aren't paying their own way in the transportation system. In any event, I hope your blog is better than your math skills.

rmajora
rmajora topcommenter

@beaugheale @rmajora @jymdyer 

You're the one who's "fudging." If this is a serious way to calculate the increase, why isn't the city using it? Because even they know that it's ludicrous. The 71% is also ludicrous, but that's another story, which I've written about on my blog.

mrericsir
mrericsir topcommenter

@sfparkripoff ...says the guy who offers nothing but his own "facts."  I hope for your own sake that you're being intentionally ironic here.

 
©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...