December 2004 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Re: [Transpo] [funking@mindspring.com: Transpo Working Group: MLK Resolution to be Approved ASAP by Your Group]
by Jym Dyer 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

=v= Kathy Roberts altered some of the wording so as to quote actual parts of Prop. J, and she suggested a few interesting "whereas" clauses at the end. I sent her stuff back to Josh Hart, but it's still early morning and I don't know what he's going to do with it all. At any rate, here's how it looks with those alterations, FWIW. <_Jym_> Resolution Opposing Garage Entrance Inside Golden Gate Park and the Widening of Martin Luther King Dr. to Four Lanes WHEREAS Golden Gate Park is intended to be "designed and managed to afford opportunities for all to experience beauty, tranquility, recreation, and relief from urban pressures" according to the Golden Gate Park Master Plan and WHEREAS the Golden Gate Park Master Plan states that "the order of priority should be to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles for the purpose of enjoying the Park" and WHEREAS one of the prime objectives of the Golden Gate Park Master Plan is to "minimize motor vehicle traffic" and WHEREAS the plan approved by the Concourse Authority and the Recreation and Park Commission to widen Martin Luther King Jr. Drive to four lanes will generate additional traffic within the park, as studies have shown that widening roads induces additional traffic* and WHEREAS increasing the number of travel lanes and removing parking along a roadway are generally understood by traffic engineering experts to increase vehicle speeds** and WHEREAS a widened MLK Dr. would be more dangerous for bicyclists because traffic speeds would increase without the provision of bike lanes, forcing cyclists to share a narrow lane with garage, Muni and right-turning traffic onto Middle Drive East and Academy Drive and WHEREAS the Golden Gate Park Master Plan dictates that "when modifications are made to park roads, the minimum travel lane width should be 16' (12' plus 4' for bikes)" yet the outside lanes in the plan for MLK would only be 12' and WHEREAS a widened MLK Dr. would have negative repercussions on park users, especially seniors, disabled, and small children, who would have to now cross 4 lanes of vehicular traffic, particularly dangerous when an intersection is only stop sign controlled, as intersections at 9th and MLK, Middle Dr. E and MLK, and Academy Dr. and MLK and Tea Garden Drive and MLK and WHEREAS a widened MLK would negatively affect the large and diverse commercial interests of the Inner Sunset, represented by the Inner Sunset Merchants Association, by worsening already gridlocked traffic conditions and WHEREAS a widened MLK would significantly add to the delay of transit in the Inner Sunset area, including the vital service provided by the N-Judah light rail line, the 44 O'Shaughnessy, and the 71 Noriega and WHEREAS the Concourse Authority's plan to widen MLK does not satisfy the Judge's order to provide a "dedicated entrance to the garage" as the word "dedicated" is defined as "set aside for special use," and the garage access lanes would be used by other vehicles without an intended destination to the garage and WHEREAS Proposition J, approved by voters in 1998, orders the Concourse Augthority to design "an entrance and exit (or entrances and exits) situated outside of the Park and dedicated exclusively for the underground parking facility," and the Authority has ignored this voter mandate prohbiting a second entrance inside the park, and Judge James Warren of the San Francisco Superior Court has ruled that the design of the second entrance within the park is illegal and WHEREAS locating an entrance to the parking garage in the middle of the Park will attract drivers into the Park, in violation of Prop. J's mandate that the design of the entrances "minimize the potential conflict between recreational enthusiasts and automobile traffic within the Park" and WHEREAS promotional materials and ballot arguments for Prop. J gave the strong impression that the Concourse would be closed to motor vehicles, and autos accessing the underground garage would be separated from recreational users of the Park in order to achieve a "pedestrian oasis" and WHEREAS numerous community leaders endorsed Prop. J, believing that garage proponents would hold true to the letter and spirit of the law, resulting in a park where the impact of the automobile is reduced while access for all is improved and WHEREAS many of those same community leaders have now joined the coalition opposing the entrance inside the Park and the widening of MLK and WHEREAS the new De Young museum is slated to open in October of 2005, and will attract hundreds of thousands of new visitors to the Park, while the only significant transportation improvements have been auto-related, which will result in unnecessary vehicle trips to the Park, directly undermining the Golden Gate Park Master Plan and WHEREAS the public process that has been led by the Concourse Authority in planning the new Music Concourse and surrounding area has been marked by a refusal to incorporate or consider comments from businesses and residents surrounding the Park, or from bicycle, pedestrian, and environmental protection groups and WHEREAS § 4.113 of the San Francisco City Charter requires Board of Supervisor approval of any nonrecreational substructure under a public park and WHEREAS MLK would be widened to create a dedicated entrance to the garage and WHEREAS the Supervisors have not yet approved this part of the overall plan THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT The undersigned San Francisco organizations and individuals request that the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor step in and stop the construction of the second entrance to the garage as well as the planned widening of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. * citation of studies to come

1 0

[funking@mindspring.com: Transpo Working Group: MLK Resolution to be Approved ASAP by Your Group]
by John-Marc Chandonia 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

----- Forwarded message from Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> ----- JMC and Sue, can you forward this to the Transportation WG to approve? I think we can approve this without going to the GM, since it is in the Transpo WG charter to address the issue of cars in GG Park. If you feel otherwise, feel free to bring this to the GM for approval. peace, susan Resolution Opposing Garage Entrance Inside Golden Gate Park and the Widening of Martin Luther King Dr. to Four Lanes ? WHEREAS Golden Gate Park is intended to be ?designed and managed to afford opportunities for all to experience beauty, tranquility, recreation, and relief from urban pressures? according to the Golden Gate Park Master Plan and ? WHEREAS the Golden Gate Park Master Plan states that ?the order of priority should be to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles for the purpose of enjoying the Park? and ? WHEREAS one of the prime objectives of the Golden Gate Park Master Plan is to ?minimize motor vehicle traffic? and ? WHEREAS the plan approved by the Concourse Authority and the Recreation and Park Commission to widen Martin Luther King Jr. Drive to four lanes will generate additional traffic within the park, as studies have shown that widening roads induces additional traffic* and ? WHEREAS increasing the number of travel lanes and removing parking along a roadway are generally accepted by traffic engineering experts to increase vehicle speeds** and ? WHEREAS a widened MLK Dr. would be more dangerous for bicyclists because traffic speeds would increase without the provision of bike lanes, forcing cyclists to share a narrow lane with garage, Muni and right-turning traffic onto Middle Drive East and Academy Drive and ? WHEREAS the Golden Gate Park Master Plan dictates that ?when modifications are made to park roads, the minimum travel lane width should be 16? (12? plus 4? for bikes)? yet the outside lanes in the plan for MLK would only be 12? and ? WHEREAS a widened MLK Dr. would have negative repercussions on park users, especially seniors, disabled, and small children, who would have to now cross 4 lanes of vehicular traffic, particularly dangerous when an intersection is only stop sign controlled, as intersections at 9th and MLK, Middle Dr. E and MLK, and Academy Dr. and MLK and Tea Garden Drive and MLK and ? WHEREAS a widened MLK would negatively affect the large and diverse commercial interests of the Inner Sunset, represented by the Inner Sunset Merchants Association, by worsening already gridlocked traffic conditions and ? WHEREAS a widened MLK would significantly add to the delay of transit in the Inner Sunset area, including the vital service provided by the N-Judah light rail line, the 44 O?Shaughnessy, and the 71 Noriega and ? WHEREAS the Concourse Authority?s plan to widen MLK does not address the Judge?s order to provide a ?dedicated entrance to the garage? as the word ?dedicated? is defined as ?to set aside for special use,? and the garage access lanes would be used by other vehicles without an intended destination in the garage and ? WHEREAS Proposition J, approved by voters in 1998, states that ?an entrance and exit, or entrances and exits (to the underground garage) will be located outside the park,? the Concourse Authority has ignored repeated requests from the community to eliminate this second entrance located INSIDE the park and Judge Warren of the San Francisco Superior Court has ruled that the design of the second entrance within the park is ?presently unacceptable? and ? WHEREAS locating an entrance to the parking garage in the middle of the Park will attract drivers into the Park, where there will be additional conflict with park users and ? WHEREAS promotional materials and ballot arguments for Prop. J gave the strong impression that the Concourse would be closed to motor vehicles, and autos accessing the underground garage would be separated from recreational users of the Park in order to achieve a ?pedestrian oasis? and ? WHEREAS numerous community leaders endorsed Proposition J, believing that garage proponents would hold true to the letter and spirit of the law, resulting in a park where the impact of the automobile is reduced while access for all is improved and ? WHEREAS many of those same community leaders have now joined the coalition opposing the entrance inside the Park and the widening of MLK and ? WHEREAS the new De Young museum is slated to open in October of 2005, and will attract hundreds of thousand of new visitors to the Park, while the only significant transportation improvements have been auto-related, which will result in unnecessary vehicle trips to the Park, directly undermining the Golden Gate Park Master Plan and ? WHEREAS the public process that has been led by the Concourse Authority in planning the new Music Concourse and surrounding area has been marked by a refusal to incorporate or consider comments from businesses and residents surrounding the Park, or from bicycle, pedestrian, and environmental protection groups and ? THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ? The undersigned San Francisco organizations and individuals request that the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor step in and stop the construction of the second entrance to the garage as well as the planned widening of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. ? ? ? *?citation of studies to come ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | __o SF BICYCLE COALITION ___ __0 | | _`\<,_ Promoting the Bike |___| _ \<,_ | | (*)/ (*) for Everyday Transport (*)+---(*)/ (*) | | | | 1095 Market St. #215 SF 94103 415.431.BIKE www.sfbike.org | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joshua Hart Program Director 415-431-2453 ext. 23 joshua(a)sfbike.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | __o SF BICYCLE COALITION ___ __0 | | _`\<,_ Promoting the Bike |___| _ \<,_ | | (*)/ (*) for Everyday Transport (*)+---(*)/ (*) | | | | 1095 Market St. #215 SF 94103 415.431.BIKE www.sfbike.org | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joshua Hart Program Director 415-431-2453 ext. 23 joshua(a)sfbike.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | __o SF BICYCLE COALITION ___ __0 | | _`\<,_ Promoting the Bike |___| _ \<,_ | | (*)/ (*) for Everyday Transport (*)+---(*)/ (*) | | | | 1095 Market St. #215 SF 94103 415.431.BIKE www.sfbike.org | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joshua Hart Program Director 415-431-2453 ext. 23 joshua(a)sfbike.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

[nelson.jeremy@comcast.net: Reminder: Geary TPS hearing Tues. (12/14) at 11am]
by John-Marc Chandonia 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

----- Forwarded message from Jeremy Nelson <nelson.jeremy(a)comcast.net> ----- Subject: Reminder: Geary TPS hearing Tues. (12/14) at 11am Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:54:24 -0800 Dear Geary/O'Farrell TPS supporters- Just a reminder that the TA hearing on Prop K funding for the Geary TPS project is TOMORROW (12/14), at 11 am in Room 250 of City Hall. The vote could go either way, so please be sure to attend this hearing and express your support of the project, which is a baby step towards a city-wide Bus Rapid Transit network. Since the respacing of bus stops to every other block (800 feet) instead of every single block (400 feet) has been controversial, TLC prepared the attached fact sheet to address many of the concerns raised by opponents of respacing these 5 bus stops. Please feel free to use this fact sheet during your testimony, as well as the talking points below. More info is at http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/Geary.html Best- Jeremy -------------------------------------- TALKING POINTS: 1) Respacing the bus stops is the core of the proposal, delivering 73% of the estimated time savings on Inner Geary and 38% of the estimated reliability gains for the entire corridor. 2) This is not a "take away" from the Tenderloin, nor is it a "service cut" for riders of the Local 38-Geary. The Tenderloin will disproportionately benefit from the travel time savings and from improved schedule reliability, and local riders will disproportionately benefit from improved schedule reliability, since wait times are a larger proportion of overall travel time on shorter trips. 3) The proposed bus stop spacing is to citywide and national standards and is being done throughout San Francisco. For example, MTA has removed 35 bus stops on 10 Muni lines in the just the past year. 4) We need more robust BRT, not less. The right "compromise" isn't to water down the time savings and reliability gains of this project by having the bus stop every single block. 5) Instead, a good compromise would be to first implement many of the streetscape and urban design improvements that should be part of a BRT project anyway (such as ped-scaled lighting, enhanced crosswalk treatments, traffic calming, street trees, enhanced bus shelters, facade improvements, etc). Once these neighborhood improvements are implemented, then these 5 bus stops should be eliminated. 6) Watering down the proposal sets a bad precedent. In implementing BRT in other corridors, there will be parochial battles over parking, bus stops, and the removal of traffic lanes. If we cave in now, others will insist that we give in to their demands, and San Francisco will end up with BRT in name only. 7) The Tenderloin does not have a higher percentage of seniors (14%) than the rest of the City (15%). The Tenderloin does have a slightly higher percentage of disabled residents than the City average, but it also has high levels of existing paratransit ridership. There may be a small number of folks for whom ambulating an additional 400 feet on a flat street is a burden, but these folks are likely already eligible for paratransit and Muni is federally-required to provide this door-to-door service to them. 8) Geary and O?Farrell are not steep. Grades on Geary and O?Farrell are under 3-3.5%, except the block of Geary between Jones and Leavenworth, where it is slightly over 5%. The ADA standard for permissible grade of wheelchair ramps is 10%. 9) Adding more Limited service retaining stops on every single block for the Local is not the answer. Adding more limited buses to this corridor would lead to more frequent bus bunching as buses wait to pull in and out of the shared local/limited bus stops. This bunching will increase travel times and reduce schedule reliability for both Local and Limited service. Also, if Local service were reduced to add more Limited buses, the remaining Locals would be less frequent and thereby overcrowded, resulting in longer waits and more pass-ups for Local riders. 10) I urge you to approve the project as proposed, require MTA to monitor impacts, and evaluate the impacts of the project in 6 months. The MTA Board has already required the Agency to do a 6-month evaluation of this project, and the TA Board can also hold hearings on that 6-month evaluation and can address any significant impacts if necessary. -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Nelson [mailto:nelson.jeremy@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:50 AM To: Amber Crabbe; Andrew Sullivan; apname-gov(a)yahoo.com; Bob Plantold; Bruce Livingston; Casey Hildreth; Cheryl Brinkman; chpederson(a)yahoo.com; Dan Krause; Daniel Murphy; Dave Snyder; David Baker; Elmer Tosta; ericrescue(a)yahoo.com; foster_marshall(a)yahoo.com; FTaylor(a)cmp.com; Gabriel Metcalf; Howard Strassner; Jason Henderson; Jay Primus; jenn(a)energy-solution.com; Joe Speaks; John-Marc Chandonia; jsfraser(a)aol.com; jswitzky(a)hotmail.com; Kate White; Keith Saggers; Leah Shahum; lene(a)teahousehome.com; Michael Alexander; Norm Rolfe; Peggy da Silva; Ron Miguel; Shannon Dodge; shuckkw(a)sbcglobal.net; Steve Boland; Suany Chough; Sue Vaughan; Tom Radulovich Subject: Geary TPS supporters: Take action today! Dear Geary/O'Farrell TPS supporters- You are receiving this e-mail because you have testified in support of the Geary/O'Farrell TPS project at prior hearings or sent e-mails of support in response to action alerts from TLC. At this busy time of year, we're asking you to please take action one more time in order to help ensure that this important transit project- which is the first step towards a city-wide Bus Rapid Transit Network- receives the funding it needs to move forward. WHAT'S AT STAKE: As you may already know, after several months of delay, the Transportation Authority (composed of the Board of Supervisors) will decide whether to approve Prop K funding for the Geary/O'Farrell TPS project at it's hearing next Tuesday, the 14th at 11am, in Room 250 of City Hall. TAKE ACTION: Here's how you can help: 1) Mark your calendar now to attend the hearing. A large turnout from supporters will be critical, and at this time a year, please don't count on someone else being there. 2) Send out an action alert to your organizations' membership. As an individual, send a reminder to like-minded friends and coworkers, especially if they live or work along the Geary corridor or are regular 38-Geary riders. Feel free to cut-n-paste language from our campaign website (http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/Geary.html) or just forward the link and tell them why it's important they take action. 3) Contact the Board of Supervisors personally and let them know that you and/or your organization supports this project. Even if you've already called or sent a letter, fax, or e-mail on this issue, please do so again: - E-mail the Supervisors at board.of.supervisors(a)sfgov.org or send a fax to 554-5163. - Even more helpful is to call each of the following Supervisors directly: Tom Ammiano (554-5144); Chris Daly (554-7970); Bevan Dufty (554-6968); Matt Gonzalez (554-7630); Sophie Maxwell (554-7670); Aaron Peskin (554-7450); Gerardo Sandoval (554-6975). 4) Print out the attached "pro-Geary TPS" flyers to distribute to passengers riding on the 38-Geary or waiting at the bus stops. If you are an organization, please recruit some of your members to volunteer to distribute flyers. If you are an individual who would like to distribute flyers, TLC will provide you with as many copies as you want, just call me at 425-9848 to arrange a time to pick some up. (Attached are Microsoft Word versions of a NEW outreach flyer and Matt Smith's SF Weekly article, formatted for reading on the bus - fits onto one double-sided 8.5" x 14" page). ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Re: should we tweak time of event?
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

We could do this, but having a panel discussion from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. is late for some people. We should check with Richard Heinberg since he is coming from Sonoma. Sue On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:49:55 -0800 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 03:58:29PM -0800, susan vaughan wrote: > > I'm thinking we should start the event at 6:30, but > > not do the screening until 7 p.m. I think we should > > do it this way to get people there so that we can fit > > in everything that we need to fit in: > > > > 1) refreshments (maybe) and socializing before we get > > started (6:30 to 6:50) > > 2) Announce and explain and introduce > > 3) Screening of The End of Suburbia > > 4) Panel discussion and an opportunity for Richard > > Heinberg to sell some books (perhaps he can also do > > this from 6:30 to 6:50) > > > > Remember, I think some people will leave after the > > screening, and a lot will leave after the panel > > discussion, leaving very few potential buyers for > > Richard Heinberg's book. > > I'd tweak things a bit so that people who work during the day > could get there at 7 and not miss anything. I'll have trouble > getting there before 7, unless I'm absolutely needed to help set > up. How about this? > > 6:45 - doors open, socialize and eat > 7:10 - intro > 7:15 - start movie > 8:45 - break to finish food, do SFGP pitch, sell books > 9:00 - panel discussion for 1 hour > > I've added the event to the website, with more details TBA. > Once we get more confirmed panelists (Matt and Medea were > non-committal), > we should add them to the flyer and do minor redesign to hilight > the name of the movie and the names of the panelists. The map and > movie awards could be removed or de-emphasized. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) > http://www.dolorespark.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Re: should we tweak time of event?
by John-Marc Chandonia 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 03:58:29PM -0800, susan vaughan wrote: > I'm thinking we should start the event at 6:30, but > not do the screening until 7 p.m. I think we should > do it this way to get people there so that we can fit > in everything that we need to fit in: > > 1) refreshments (maybe) and socializing before we get > started (6:30 to 6:50) > 2) Announce and explain and introduce > 3) Screening of The End of Suburbia > 4) Panel discussion and an opportunity for Richard > Heinberg to sell some books (perhaps he can also do > this from 6:30 to 6:50) > > Remember, I think some people will leave after the > screening, and a lot will leave after the panel > discussion, leaving very few potential buyers for > Richard Heinberg's book. I'd tweak things a bit so that people who work during the day could get there at 7 and not miss anything. I'll have trouble getting there before 7, unless I'm absolutely needed to help set up. How about this? 6:45 - doors open, socialize and eat 7:10 - intro 7:15 - start movie 8:45 - break to finish food, do SFGP pitch, sell books 9:00 - panel discussion for 1 hour I've added the event to the website, with more details TBA. Once we get more confirmed panelists (Matt and Medea were non-committal), we should add them to the flyer and do minor redesign to hilight the name of the movie and the names of the panelists. The map and movie awards could be removed or de-emphasized. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Flyer for Film Screening
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 12 Dec '04

12 Dec '04

This flyer is great Christine. Sue On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:42:52 +0000 "christine mcclintock" <chrismcclintock(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > Hi there, > > This is the flyer I've worked up for the screening. Feel free to > edit, > etc - not sure how well it can be emailed. As you see - I omitted > the > the panel discussion for now - until the speakers are all > confirmed. > > Thanks, > > Christine >

1 0

Flyer for Film Screening
by christine mcclintock 10 Dec '04

10 Dec '04

Hi there, This is the flyer I've worked up for the screening. Feel free to edit, etc - not sure how well it can be emailed. As you see - I omitted the the panel discussion for now - until the speakers are all confirmed. Thanks, Christine

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Screening of End of Suburbia
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

It looks like SUsan King is trying to have an anti-inaugural Green Party party on the 22nd so maybe it would be better to stay as far away from that date as possible. Monday, January 24th will not work for me as I have a meeting then. Thanks for doing this Christine. DOes the Off-Market Street Theater also have a screen and other equipment for screening a DVD? Sue On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:29:15 +0000 "christine mcclintock" <chrismcclintock(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > Hi, Everyone... > > So, I've gotten us a venue for the screening of The End of > Suburbia > (which I own, now, by the way). It's at the Off-Market Theater - > on > Mission between 5th and 6th... I have a few possible dates - > January > 23rd (Sunday) - January 24th (Monday) or January 26th > (Wednesday). I > checked with Richard and all of the days work for him. The only > conflict I see is the Energy Working Group, which might meet on > the > 26th - I called Don the other day about maybe doing multiple > showings > as the film really relates to energy and land use as well as > transpo. > ANyways - if I could get some feedback on this, I'd really > appreciate > it so I can get the date reserved with everyone - maybe we want > to > think about other speakers, too? More details at tomorrow's > meeting. > > > Take care, > > Christine > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Screening of End of Suburbia
by christine mcclintock 08 Dec '04

08 Dec '04

Hi, Everyone... So, I've gotten us a venue for the screening of The End of Suburbia (which I own, now, by the way). It's at the Off-Market Theater - on Mission between 5th and 6th... I have a few possible dates - January 23rd (Sunday) - January 24th (Monday) or January 26th (Wednesday). I checked with Richard and all of the days work for him. The only conflict I see is the Energy Working Group, which might meet on the 26th - I called Don the other day about maybe doing multiple showings as the film really relates to energy and land use as well as transpo. ANyways - if I could get some feedback on this, I'd really appreciate it so I can get the date reserved with everyone - maybe we want to think about other speakers, too? More details at tomorrow's meeting. Take care, Christine

2 1

activist fight Muni rate increase
by Susan King 08 Dec '04

08 Dec '04

Beyond Chron story on the MTA hearing yesterday. Both Charles and I spoke at the hearing. My quote is at the bottom of the article. sk Battle Over Muni Begins by Casey Mills for BeyondChron.com http://www.beyondchron.org/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=110&twindow=&mad=&sde tail=1204 December 8, 2004 The fight over how to close a projected $9 to $15 million budget gap for Muni over the next fiscal year kicked into full gear last night, as Muni chief Michael Burns unveiled his proposals and concerned citizens weighed in on them at a Municipal Transportation Authority (MTA) meeting. The public voice remained almost unanimously opposed to fee hikes and service cuts, and supportive towards increasing revenue through taxation on car owners and downtown interests. Burns' proposals ranged from ideas as regressive as increasing Muni fares to $1.75, to as progressive as raising the fees at public parking garages. A coalition of environmentalists, pedestrian and bicycle activists, and public transportation advocates provided strong arguments for the latter. Perhaps the strongest testimony came for making car owners pay their fair share of the social cost of driving. Speakers strongly supported the fee hike and public garages, in addition to an increase in parking meter rates and an expansion of their hours of operation, a parking tax increase, and local vehicle environmental impact fee. "It's time the MTA, as a multi-modal transportation agency, to ask motorists to pay the full social, environmental, and public health costs that they impose on the rest of us," said Transportation For a Livable City's Jeremy Nelson prior to the meeting, "instead of balancing their budget exclusively on the backs of transit riders as they have in recent years." A sizable group of Muni employees also attended, speaking to prevent cuts in services. The cuts would decrease the salaries of many workers despite their union, Local 258, giving up more than 200 positions over the past two years. "They're trying to balance this budget on the backs of riders and drivers," said Ellen Murray, a 19-year employee of Muni. "There are provisions available to make downtown property owners and big-time C.E.O.s pay their fair share, but they're not being used. Instead, we have a menu of fee and tax increases aimed at the working class, and not the big guys." Murray wasn't the only one arguing that Burns did not provide enough options to raise revenue to the public. Green Party activist Susan King, for example, raised the possibility of a tax rate increase on private parking facilities. She also proposed a downtown tax assessment district to explore the benefit businesses there enjoy from Muni getting many of their workers to their jobs, as well as an in crease in the Transportation Development Impact Fee. "I just don't think they're looking at these options," said King. "Instead, they're looking to the riders, which is the absolute wrong place to be looking." In addition to a litany of possible cuts and new sources of revenue, Burns asked the MTA to declare a fiscal emergency. The emergency would allow the MTA to pass proposals for balancing the budget without obtaining an Environmental Impact Report first - otherwise, the process for all proposals, be they required to go to a ballot or to the Board of Supervisors, would remain the same. Burns claimed he hoped to obtain the declaration to speed up the balancing of Muni's budget, which by law must be done before the end of each fiscal year. The MTA will meet again on January 4 to decide on how to best solve their budget crisis.

1 0