and opiniated people i have ever encountered. They don't care about anyone but themselves and, if you''re not young, fit, healthy and foolhardy enough to ride a bike, then they think you can just go to hell.

Bikes are the only type of vehicle that can virtually go everywhere (except for freeways, than God) so why they want their own freeways is beyond me. The city stopped building new bike lanes for many years precisely because of these reasons but now insanity has returned.

"The recent city bike count shows that only 3.5% of city commuters ride bikes to work, an insignificant increase from 2.1% in 2000."

That's a 67% increase in modal share, and a huge increase relative to the # of bikes there were in 2000. Cars have stayed relatively flat in numbers, by comparison.

"It would be folly for City Hall to allow a small, PC minority to jam up traffic for the majority."

The proposal itself, which if you took the time to examine it, shows that no traffic lanes would be removed for the Fell/Oak bike lanes. Only a parking lane that parks maybe 80 cars. 2,000 people a day bike thru the area.

I agree Rob Anderson and besides I was hit recently by a bike and they Peddaled off giving me the finger and a fractured ankle. Why don't they have to have some kind of insurance oh. and I constantly see them not using the safe Bike lanes instead choose the sidewalk

on Upper Market and Twin Peaks. Yes indeed - that's exactly what senior citizens need MORE of is bike lanes on San Francisco's steepest, windiest and foggiest streets.

Morgan engages in a prime example of what's called "mirror imaging." Morgan sees what he WANTS to see and then he assumes everyone else sees it too. And while personally I like a lot of Morgan's Wigg Party ideology - self-reliance, building connections between San Franciscans and celebrating the unique way of life we have here - I think he's totally unrealistic in thinking a city like San Francisco can be traversed on bicycles by most people.

"The community" you speak of is the one represented by the loudest people who show up at all the neighborhood meetings and demand bicycle lanes - while most of us are busy working or caring for our families or friends. In this city the group with the most effective pressure techniques gets its way and recently that's been the bicycle coalition. But when the city removed a whole lane of traffic on Upper Market and Portola for a bike lane very few people use - many of us started to take notice. And believe me Morgan - two can play the Bike coalition's game.

Public transit is buses, trains, streetcars, boats and planes.

Private transit is cars, bikes, walking and horse-riding

Your concept of "transit first" conveniently messes these up, by including cyclists and pedestrians, but excluding planes. That makes no sense.

The "process" you refer to was rigged by the city and you bike people to get the desired result. You speak for no one but the bike people.

Yes, I know you bike people and your enablers in City Hall changed the City Charter's definition of "transit first" to include bicycles, as if that somehow legitimizes scorning the transportation "mode" of everyone else.

There's no evidence that Oak and Fell Street are particularly dangerous for cyclists, though I wouldn't ride a bike there. But then I wouldn't ride a bike anywhere in the city, because it's inherently risky. The notion that City Hall is obligated to make you and your comrades "comfortable" riding a bike on those streets shows a remarkably inflated sense of entitlement.

80 parking spaces in that neighborhood is a very big deal, since street parking is scarce. I used to live on Grove Street and moved my roommate's car before the street cleaners when she was out of town. It was a difficult task, since, as I say, street parking is in very short supply there. Rich people always have a garage for parking, but many others don't.

Take away those parking spaces, and motorists who live in that neighborhood will end of circling even longer to find a place to park, which will indeed make traffic worse and cause more pollution.

Your Johnny-come-lately account of recent SF history is bogus. Mayor Newsom gave you folks everything you and the Bicycle Coalition asked for, but of course is was never enough.

I lived in SF 40 years ago, and it was already a great city then, and it still is. We don't need you and your generation's bike lanes to make this city great.

In a recent Guardian story, Supervisor Olague, by the way, didn't sound completely convinced about supporting this project. Now that she has to face District 5 voters in November---she never had to do that as a planning commissioner---it will be interesting to see which way she flops on this one.

The November election, by the way, will also be a good opportunity for her to justify the awful development projects she supported as a commissioner: UC's rip-off of the old extension property on lower Haight Street, the Market/Octavia project, the Rincon Hill highrises, not to mention voting to implement the Bicycle Plan with no environmental review only to be rebuked by the Superior Court.

And you be sure that she will have opposition on the ballot to provide district voters an alternative to this project and the city's plan to screw up Masonic Avenue just in time for the opening of the new Target store at Geary and Masonic.