<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Doyle Drive Will (Not?) Skip Bike Infrastructure</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bikeblogs.org/sf/2008/11/24/new-doyle-drive-will-skip-bike-infrastructure/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bikeblogs.org/sf/2008/11/24/new-doyle-drive-will-skip-bike-infrastructure/</link>
	<description>Biking in the Bay</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 11:14:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter Smith</title>
		<link>http://bikeblogs.org/sf/2008/11/24/new-doyle-drive-will-skip-bike-infrastructure/#comment-2299</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:13:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bikeblogs.org/sf/?p=499#comment-2299</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the info, mcas. 

I meant to ask about that 'prevention of planning for bike infrastructure' thing, and now I'm curious about the details. If the injunction forbade, say, physically-separated bike lane planning - even in only an EIR, then what would have been the criteria to allow the judge to make that prohibition? Or was it just a matter of us/the City saying, "Ah, don't worry about planning for real bike infrastructure because we can't do it anyways."?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the info, mcas. </p>
<p>I meant to ask about that &#8216;prevention of planning for bike infrastructure&#8217; thing, and now I&#8217;m curious about the details. If the injunction forbade, say, physically-separated bike lane planning - even in only an EIR, then what would have been the criteria to allow the judge to make that prohibition? Or was it just a matter of us/the City saying, &#8220;Ah, don&#8217;t worry about planning for real bike infrastructure because we can&#8217;t do it anyways.&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mcas</title>
		<link>http://bikeblogs.org/sf/2008/11/24/new-doyle-drive-will-skip-bike-infrastructure/#comment-2291</link>
		<dc:creator>mcas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:55:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bikeblogs.org/sf/?p=499#comment-2291</guid>
		<description>Physically-Separated Bike Lanes were not part of the EIR-- but that doesn't mean it can't be done post-injunction.  It just means that the city was not allowed to have been planning projects including these during the injunction.  Post-injunction, the city can plan and implement anything, regardless of what was included in that EIR.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Physically-Separated Bike Lanes were not part of the EIR&#8211; but that doesn&#8217;t mean it can&#8217;t be done post-injunction.  It just means that the city was not allowed to have been planning projects including these during the injunction.  Post-injunction, the city can plan and implement anything, regardless of what was included in that EIR.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

