June 2004 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

platform changes
by Jerry Path 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

Hi I have some further changes - additions which I would like to suggest for our platform. The 1st is under - "B. Muni and Regional transit." - point # 21. I would suggest changing the part - "including 6-hour days at the same rate of pay " - to read - "including 6-hour days with the same take home pay." I think that saying "the same rate of pay" might be taken to mean an overall reduction of pay - which is not our intent. The 2nd is under - " G. Streets and Cars." After the line - "The San Francisco Green Party therefore supports :" - I would add this - " and also neighborhood and community cooperative car-sharing" , so that the whole sentence would read - " Non-profit car-sharing enterprises, such as City-Carshare, and also neighborhood and community cooperative car sharing". Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

2 1

Re: [Transpo] Curb cuts (plank section C 12)
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 21 Jun '04

21 Jun '04

Jim, Can you work this and the suggestions in the previous e-mail into the latest draft? If not, can you put paste each part into the right section and I'll work on it? Thanks Sue P.S. These are good suggestions. On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Jym Dyer <jym(a)econet.org> writes: > >> [C]12. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the > >> elimination of public parking space and often in the removal > >> of trees. Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or > >> ticketing cars illegally blocking a driveway unless a > >> resident of the property complains, a curb cut effectively > >> turns the driveway into a private parking space. > > =v= The "because" clause is unnecessary, as this is true even if > the resident isn't blocking the driveway: the very existence of > the curb cut means a public parking space has been taken traded > for one or more private parking spaces. > > =v= The root of the problem here is a huge misperception: the > idea that adding off-street parking will free up room for more > on-street parking. This never works. In fact, it always makes > things worse, because by accommodating more cars, you get more > cars. > > =v= San Francisco will in some circumstances approve of a curb > cut for a one-car garage, but a curb cut for a two- or more-car > garage will *always* be approved. The destruction of a tree is > always approved -- the process is simply a rubber-stamping -- > since the huge misperception takes priority. (They figure a > multi-car garage will free up more parking spaces, but instead, > it only adds more cars to the streets.) > > >> New curb cuts should be very expensive: the cost should > >> be proportional to the length of the cut, and increase with > >> each tree removed. > > =v= Abandon the huge misperception and something becomes clear: > a curb cut is always a private gain at public expense. Damaging > public property, especially a street tree, should only be done > for a compelling reason. > > =v= There's another wrench in the works, as well. The ecology > of the urban forest in San Francisco is suffering from a lack > of a good succession of trees of various ages. More mature > trees protect younger ones. When a driveway is put in, that > usually only leaves room for one street tree. So, when that > tree finally dies, its replacement can't have other mature trees > on either side, to protect it. It'll be surrounded by concrete. > > =v= One more thing: the current city policy of "per tree" > mitigation doesn't take the maturity of the tree into account. > You can destroy a 100-year old tree and "mitigate" that by > planting a twig (with a 50% chance of living, and which is not > likely to live more than 10 years in any event). So, instead > of a "per tree" penalty, I'd suggest we adopt a formula based > on the size of the tree. The standard measurement is called > the "tree basal area," which is the area ("pi-r-squared") of > a cross section of a tree at a point 4 feet from the ground. > > =v= So, given all of the above, *my* wording would be this: > > 12. No new driveway curb cuts should be approved except to > accommodate residents with physical disabilities. New curb > cuts should be very expensive: the cost should be proportional > to the length of the cut, and any trees removed must be replaced > with multiple trees, the basal areas of which must add up to the > basal area of the original tree. > > =v= If consensus can't be reached on that, I can suggest this: > > 12. No new driveway curb cuts should be approved if they > will result in the damage or loss of a street tree, except to > accommodate residents with physical disabilities. New curb > cuts should be very expensive: the cost should be proportional > to the length of the cut, and any trees removed must be replaced > with multiple trees, the basal areas of which must add up to the > basal area of the original tree. > > <_Jym_> > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Re: [Transpo] plank update; more edits from Sue
by Jym Dyer 20 Jun '04

20 Jun '04

=v= I'm sorry I haven't had time to provide any input earlier. Mostly just a few things here and there, with simple copyedits in all caps. Plus a few paragraphs here and there, for what they're worth. (Preamble) "... should be compensated by focusing ON other transit improvements in these neighborhoods." (A1) "... transit projects which HAVE AN IMPACT ON those neighborhoods, ..." =v= (Impact, used as a verb, doesn't actually mean "have an impact on.") (A5) "More of the cost of transit should be paid by commuters: in particular, parking spaces used primarily by commuters should be extremely expensive." =v= I have two concerns with this. First, the "shoulds" are not really explained. I presume it has something to do with the "true costs of automobile operation" in the Preamble, but this doesn't explain why commuters are singled out here. =v= Second, I can certainly see these words, as written, being singled out and used against us. I can well imagine drive-time KGO DJs and their ilk, who seem to think they have a mandate to pander to anything that spews exhaust, using this to tell commuters that Greens hate them, personally. =v= Here's a stab at alternate wording: Commuter subsidies distort the true costs of modes of transit, encouraging car use over modes that are better for the environment and, ultimately, less economically-sound. The subsidy of free and cheap parking, in particular, discourages the use of mass transit and also wastes a large proportion of mass transit funding. These subsidies should be dropped or shifted to encourage more responsible modes. I don't know how to word the "lower rates on weekends" part. This goes back to the "market rate" issue again, and I suspect that without the subsidy, the supply-and-demand dynamics will come into play. (B4) > {Sue: Massachusetts had some kind of a tax write-off for > people who used public transportation as opposed to cars.} =v= The Bay Area has "Commuter Check," though it's implemented so that employers have to agree to the program, and the tax write-off is handled through their payroll system: http://www.commutercheck.com/cities/sanFrancisco.html (Note that it subsidizes BART parking, which it shouldn't.) It would be good to also have "Commuter Check" available to individuals. (C) "Every car OCCUPIES SPACE at its owner's residence ..." =v= Cars don't live. :-) My wording highlights the fact that storing cars actually decreases "living" space. (C1) "The law should also legalize existing ancillary units, and protect tenants who currently live in THESE units from eviction." (C12) =v= This is a big issue for me, the very one that led to the founding of Trees Not Cars. To keep this message from becoming too long, I've decided to post a followup solely about this one point. (C15) =v= C15 is identical to C12. One should be removed. (C New) =v= People are paving their front yards to park more cars. This is illegal, but it's going on with impunity. They should be stopped and the yards should be depaved. (D11) =v= I prefer any recommendation of alternative fuels and other eco-hyped technologies to be issued with caveats. One caveat is that the full lifecycle of the fuel be considered: the U.S. is mostly talking about schemes to make produce hydrogen fuels vis fossil fuels and nuclear power. Another caveat is whether these can be produced, cleanly, in enough quantity to really make a difference; as opposed to powering a handful of cars that only an elite can afford. Final caveat: the technologies should be prioritized for things such as mass transit rather than cars. =v= Or just remove this section? It's not a transportation infrastructure policy as such. (E4) "Plant more trees along sidewalks, ENSURE THEIR WELL-BEING, AND ENFORCE LAWS TO PREVENT THEM FROM BEING TRIMMED IMPROPERLY AND/OR DESTROYED. Increase the number of benches ..." =v= Maybe all that's too much to put into a tranportation plank, but it's all germane to the value of trees to transportation. Half the street trees planted die right away for lack of care. Many mature trees are trimmed too severely and often not in compliance with the law -- even by the DPW -- that their value in calming traffic is lost. (E7) =v= Who decides what "completely block" means? I ask this because usually those parking on sidewalks and in crosswalks come up with a rationalization that they've left enough room. I don't think a platform should codify this rationalization to any degree: it's illegal to block *any* of the right of way. (E10) =v= San Francisco needs to engineer a new way of handling drainage at intersections, because the current approach is the exact opposite of a bulbout -- which encourages speeding cars to turn corners too fast and give pedestrians a longer journey from corner to corner. =v= A selling point: bulbouts could create more parking spaces, possibly motorcycle spaces, or possibly one car parking space where there wasn't enough room before. (F3) =v= New York City has bike racks that also protect trees. This is a great piece of street furniture, and an idea San Francisco should use. (New York also has tree guards that unintentionally work very well as bike racks, but only because New York bikers lock up with chains instead of U-locks.) (F6) =v= I'd mention street trees here, as well. Incidentally, I've seen the "freeway-like atmosphere" of some streets come into existence only after the DPW trimmed mature trees on them! (F7) =v= Perhaps the co-op approach could be combined with the Bikestation approach? (A Bikestation should be located somewhere other than Embarcadero BART, though.) (G Preamble 2) "... 1955, HAVING A SEVERE IMPACT ON the quality ..." =v= ("Impact" as verb again.) (G1) "NONPROFIT car-sharing ..." =v= (No hyphen.) <_Jym_>

1 1

Re: [Transpo] plank update; more edits from Sue
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 20 Jun '04

20 Jun '04

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:37:40 -0700 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > I've updated the platform plank with some new language mainly > contributed by Dave, and removed the reference to bikes on the > sidewalk. It's pasted here, and on my website (sfgreens.org) > > Our next TWG meeting (7/8) has been added to the SFGP website. > I'll be out of town for the next 2 weeks, but Sue said she might > want to call a meeting before then. Until then, control of the > draft is in her hands. > > Proposed Transportation Plank > Draft 7, 6/18/04 > > The San Francisco Green Party believes good transit policy is an > essential part of creating a safe, healthy, and attractive city. > Public transit should be an efficient, reliable and attractive > option > for all citizens, not just those who have no other choice. Walking > and bicycling should be promoted as healthy and safe options for > the > able-bodied. Taxi service must be improved, without compromising > safety or the drivers' livelihoods. Cars should be accommodated > gracefully in planning, but not given priority over other forms of > transit. In particular, we advocate that drivers should pay more > of > the true costs of automobile operation and parking, which are > currently subsidized at the expense of other means of transit. The > Southeast neighborhoods of our city, which bear a high share of > transit costs in the form of air pollution from our freeways, > should > be compensated by focusing other transit improvements in these > neighborhoods. > > Several of these proposals would require changes in state law; we > ask > that our local legislators and representatives attempt to change > California law to enable San Francisco to control these aspects of > our > transit policy. > > > A. Transit Justice > > Many of our current means of funding transit are regressive: > working > class people pay a much higher share of sales taxes and fixed fees. > We advocate moving to more progressive forms of funding (e.g., > income > and property taxes). We support efforts to relieve the air > pollution > in Southeast neighborhoods of the city, which is partly caused by > freeways with diesel trucks, and advocate for special attention to > be > given to improving transit in these neighborhoods. > > The San Francisco Green Party advocates: > > 1. Ensuring that neighborhood residents get a major share of the > new > jobs created by transit projects which impact those > neighborhoods, > such as the 3rd Street Light Rail. > > 2. Muni should hire more local people for jobs at all levels, so > income from these jobs stays in the City. > > 3. Muni buses in the Southeast neighborhoods should all be > converted > to electric or less-polluting technology such as CNG (compressed > natural gas), to mitigate air quality problems caused by the > highways and other sources such as power plants. > > 4. We call for creation of local car registration fee, based on the > engine size, weight, fuel efficiency, and value of the car. > This > fee should be offset by a transportation tax credit to reward > drivers of cheaper, less polluting, and more efficient cars. > [Dave: don't exempt contractors, as this would make the > license program harder to administer and lead to abuse. > Should be cost of doing business, just as the truck is now] > {Sue: lower taxes for less polluting cars. Tax credits should go to those who do not drive and take public transportation or bike or walk instead.} > 5. More of the cost of transit should be paid by commuters: in > particular, parking spaces used primarily by commuters should be > extremely expensive. These costs could be lowered on weekends > when > there is less demand, to encourage people to come to town to > patronize local businesses. {Sue: shouldn't we encourage people who visit SF for shopping to come on Golden Gate Transit, Samstrans or BART?} > > 6. An increased share of transit costs should be paid by developers > at > the time of new development, based on the anticipated impact of > the > development on public transportation costs (including street > traffic). {Sue: higher TIDF should apply in the downtown corridor in that most public transportation is routed to downtown where it is work intensive} > > 7. The corporations that profit the most from our current > car-oriented > culture should be asked to pay more of the costs of other > forms of transit. > > 8. Regional planning is necessary for smart transit development. > Planning should take into account the transit impact of > commuters as well as residents: areas such as San Francisco, > which have a higher daytime population due to commuters, > should receive a higher share of representaion and funds. > > > B. Muni and Regional transit > > In order to encourage ridership, public transit needs to be > efficient, > affordable, and reliable. Muni's performance and reliability > should be increased to the point where it's an attractive option > for most people going about their daily business, not just > commuting > to and from work. We should increase funding for Muni and work to > shift the operating costs to other sources than the riders: public > transit should eventually be free to riders, funded by all citizens > just as public parks, public schools, and public libraries are. > Increased Muni ridership benefits everybody: businesses get the > added > benefit of more mobile customers, drivers will benefit from less > congestion, and everybody would get better air quality. > > The San Francisco Green Party advocates: > > 1. Creation of a citywide bus rapid transit (BRT) network to ensure > that people can reliably travel between any neighborhoods of the > city in under half an hour. > > 2. After building the citywide BRT system, gradually replace BRT > with > rail and expand the rail system where such expansion provides > improved rider experience and better transit service, > prioritizing > the expansions that have the least per rider cost and help the > lowest-income riders first. > > 3. Immediately roll fares back to $1 ($35 Fastpass) and make Muni > free > to youth, seniors, and the disabled. Continue to roll back > fares > towards zero as new funding sources become available. > > 4. Ensure that as long as riders have to pay fares, frequent riders > receive a substantial discount for use of the Fastpass, which > speeds boarding time and encourages casual ridership. > {Sue: Massachusetts had some kind of a tax write-off for people who used public transportation as opposed to cars. We should encourage the passage of laws at the state level that permit tax deductions for people who buy Fastpasses.} > 5. Maintain infrastructure in good repair, so less money is spent > on > breakdowns and other emergencies. > > 6. Eliminate redundant Muni stops on the same line that are only > one > block apart. > > 7. Ensure faster service by allowing Muni buses and trains to > control > traffic signals as they approach. Replace stop signs along the > busiest Muni routes with controlled traffic lights. > > 8. Expand the diamond transit-only lanes, to prevent Muni > buses from getting stuck in traffic. Clearly marked lanes such > as > those on the N-Judah between 9th and 19th Avenue will discourage > cars from driving in transit lanes. > > 9. Establish no-wait transfers at key junctions. > > 10. Expand Nextbus or equivalent service to all lines. > > 11. Transition the Muni fleet to cleaner-fuel and electric buses, > and > buy new low-floor vehicles to ensure easier boarding. > > 12. Extend Caltrain downtown and electrify it. > > 13. Improve transfers between all public transit systems in the > City: > in particular, allow direct Muni-BART transfers at Civic Center > and Embarcadero stations, and improve connections at Balboa > Park > and Glen Park stations. > > 14. Maintain 24-hour OWL service on major routes, to ensure people > can > safely walk the distance to the nearest line. If ridership is > low, run idle paratransit buses at night on these routes to > save > money. > > 15. Institute "class pass" programs at the city's colleges in > which fares are prepaid as part of school fees, similar to the > program at UC Berkeley, and institute student discounts for all > students on Fastpasses. > > 16. Include the cost of a monthly Fastpass in parking permits, to > give > every driver the option of taking Muni at no additional cost. > > 17. Improve transit service in the Southeast: build a new Caltrain > station at Oakdale Avenue to better serve the Bayview-Hunters > Point neighborhood. Improve the Bayshore station, with direct > connections to Third Street light rail and Geneva Avenue buses > to > better serve the Visitacion Valley neighborhood. > > 18. More regional funding should be directed towards Muni's > operating costs rather than expensive capital projects. > > 19. Aggressive enforcement of double parking in bus/rail lanes, or > violating transit-only lanes. > > 20. Muni should receive more funding from a variety of sources, > including parking fees and fines (see Parking section), an > increase in the TIDF (transit impact development fee), and > aggressive collection of unpaid TIDF fees from developers. > > 21. Muni drivers and other transit operators should have more > reasonable shifts, including 6-hour days at the same rate of > pay. > [Concerns this would be too expensive] > > 22. We call for more lanes in which buses are given priority. We > call for more clear marking as well as more aggressive > enforcement > of these lanes. > > 23. Build the "G line" by running historic streetcars from Market > Street up Church, out to 9th Ave via the N-Judah tracks, to a > new > branch up 9th Ave into Golden Gate Park. This would be > relatively > inexpensive compared to other new light rail projects, and > provide > a more convenient way to the park than driving for most people. > > > C. Parking: > > Parking has a huge impact on our transportation system. Every car > needs a space to live at its owner's residence and 3 to 4 spaces > elsewhere. Space used for the storage of private automobiles > amounts > to vast acres of pavement and building space that could be used for > parks, natural areas, public recreation, housing, sidewalks, > bicycle > lanes, transit lanes, or many other public benefits. With 210 > million > square feet in San Francisco dedicated to car parking, even a > reduction of 10% in the amount of space we need to store our cars > would free up 21 million square feet! Providing so much parking > also > subsidizes car use by San Francisco residents and visitors and > discourages transit, walking, and bicycling. Parking reduces > population densities, requiring people to travel greater distances > to > meet their needs. Parking gets in the way of efficient and safe > bicycle and transit travel. Parking lots and garages create dead > environments at the street level that penalize people who prefer to > walk. {Sue: garages on the ground floors of buildings also use space that could otherwise be used for retail, eliminating the need for people to travel in order to shop for some items.} > > The following recommendations will help to reverse the > ever-increasing > provision of parking at the expense of walking, bicycling, and > transit. The San Francisco Green Party supports: > > 1. Allow conversion of garages in private homes to living quarters. > In most areas of the city, current law forbids a homeowner from > adding a housing unit unless the homeowner also adds a parking > space. Such ancillary, or "in-law" units, built out of > basements > and garages and carriage houses, will provide housing, usually > low-cost housing, close to jobs and transit. It also reduces the > use of automobiles by reducing storage capacity. Parking > requirements should never prevent the construction of housing. > The > law should also legalize existing ancillary units, and protect > tenants who currently live in illegal units from eviction. > > 2. Prohibit new public parking facilities in the downtown district > north of Townsend and Division, and east of South Van Ness and > Van > Ness Avenues; and within 500 feet of a transit preferential > street > anywhere in San Francisco. A few cities in the U.S. and many in > Europe have reduced parking in their downtowns as a means to > reduce > traffic and improve the alternatives to the automobile; San > Francisco should do the same. > > 3. Increase the tax on commercial parking lot operators. Currently, > a > 25% tax on parking lot operators' receipts (which are exempt > from > regular sales tax) generates roughly $50 million a year, not > nearly > enough to compensate for the impact of such parking facilities > on > public transit and urban livability. The tax should be > increased > substantially to devalue the use of land as parking lots, to > disincentivize driving, and generate public funds. The tax is a > progressive user fee, paid primarily by non San Franciscans, > mostly > people who commute to high-paying jobs, with collateral benefit > to > transit passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. > > 4. Eliminate parking requirements for new housing, starting with > affordable, senior, and SRO housing, and institute new maximum > parking limits, ranging from one parking space per housing unit > in > transit-poor locations to 1 parking space per four housing units > in > transit-rich areas. As noted, parking requirements should never > be > an impediment to housing construction. San Francisco needs > car-free > housing. Reducing the amount of parking provided in new housing > will result in lower housing prices for consumers and higher > profit > margins for developers, allowing greater extraction of public > benefit. In other words, the provision of parking in new housing > is > a developer subsidy for the private benefit of relatively > wealthy > housing consumers. Until parking requirements are eliminated, > non-independently accessible parking should count toward meeting > parking requirements. In addition to eliminating the minimum > parking requirement altogether, the city should impose maximum > parking limits on housing in particularly sensitive, > densely-populated and transit-rich neighborhoods. The specific > maximum limits should vary by neighborhood, ranging from a high > limit of 1 parking space per housing unit in the less > transit-friendly areas such as areas of the Sunset and Bayview, > and > a low limit of .25 parking spaces per housing unit in > neighborhoods > like downtown, North Beach, and the Mission, which are densely > populated, already congested with traffic, and well-served by > transit. > > 5. Reform the residential parking permit program to provide parking > for people who truly need it, and raise revenue by charging a > fair > price for that parking. Our current practice of permitting > relatively free and unregulated parking results in a severe > undervaluing of precious urban space. While it costs hundreds > of > dollars a month to store a a few thousand pounds of private > property, it's free to store a private car on the public > streets. > This is a disservice to people who most need on-street parking > and > would (should) be willing to pay for it. People should pay > market > price for onstreet parking. However, any transition to a system > where people pay higher prices should protect current residents > by > grandfathering in current prices until people move. A good > portion > of the money generated by parking fees should remain in the > neighborhood to be used for neighborhood amenities as advised by > local committees. Parking in front of driveways should be > permitted as reserved, personal parking, but users should pay a > premium. > > 6. Convert certain public garages and lots to housing. Certain > above-ground parking lots are a menace to lively street life and > in > locations that cause great disruption to transit and bicycle > traffic. The city should identify a few locations and acquire > the > property, or otherwise cause the property to be converted to > housing. > > 7. Mandate car-sharing parking spaces in every neighborhood and in > new > developments. Car-sharing permits residents to have access to > cars > without having to invest in permanent ownership. The resultant > pay > per use saves residents money while reducing car use. > Car-sharing > pods should be created in every neighborhood in the city, > preferably in highly visible and accessible locations. > > 8. Discourage businesses from providing free parking for their > customers who drive at the expense of their customers who > don't. This is not a suggestion for policy change but for > grassroots social change. Green businesses should charge for > parking, or provide a financial benefit to their customers who > do > not drive at least equivalent to the effective financial benefit > provided by the provision of free parking. > > 9. A ban on parking garages in city parks. The city should not > build > any more parking garages in city parks, or anywhere else for > that > matter. The city should meet transportation needs through > balanced > provision of alternatives to driving, and, in the short term, > more > intensive use of existing parking lots. > > 10. Eliminate free parking for city employees unless they are > required to use their personal vehicle for their job. > > 11. Eliminate free VIP parking at the airport. [Dave: has > never heard of this; need to clarify what that means. > We should take it out unless somebody provides a reference] {Sue: Denise D'Anne told me about this. I'll check with her.} > 12. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the > elimination > of public parking space and often in the removal of trees. > Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or ticketing cars > illegally blocking a driveway unless a resident of the property > complains, a curb cut effectively turns the driveway into a > private parking space. New curb cuts should be very expensive: > the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, and > increase with each tree removed. > > 13. Convert 1 car space at the end of some city blocks to > motorcyle-only parking, in areas in which motorcycle-parking is > practically nonexistant. Priority should be given in cases > where > a large car or SUV parked in the space would block drivers' > vision > and present a safety hazard to pedestrians and other drivers. > Install a physical barrier protecting motorcycles in the > parking > spaces from being hit by incompetent drivers. > > 14. Allow dedicated motorcycle parking on streets adjacent to > sections > of curb between driveways that are too small for cars. Many of > these areas are currently painted red. These spaces should be > illegal for cars, but legal for motorcycles, and a different > markings (e.g., striping on the curb or street) should be used > to > indicate this. > > 15. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the > elimination > of public parking space and often in the removal of trees. > Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or ticketing cars > illegally blocking a driveway unless a resident of the property > complains, a curb cut effectively turns the driveway into a > private parking space. New curb cuts should be very expensive: > the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, and > increase with each tree removed. > > > D. Taxis and Paratransit > > Each taxi in San Francisco averages 18,200 trips per year for a > cumulative total of 25 million rides. Taxis operate almost > continuously; they therefore contribute less to most forms of air > pollution than private automobiles, as cars produce more air > pollution > in the first half hour of operation. San Francisco's 1,381 cabs > should thus be acknowledged as a vital part of the city's Transit- > First policy. > > The San Francisco Green Party supports: > > 1. Creating a professional class of drivers through one of two > options. The first option would be the creation of a municipal > taxi service in which cabs are owned by the city and leased to > drivers. Under such a system, drivers would be paid an hourly > wage > plus commission for any fares over 15 to 20 per shift in order > to > encourage efficiency. Under this system, drivers could also be > brought into the city's benefits system. The second option > would > maintain the fleet of privately-owned vehicles but would charge > a > concession fee to owners of medallions. Under either system, > drivers could be incorporated into the City and County Health > Services and retirement system. Currently, drivers are > considered > independent contractors and must pay for their own health > insurance. > > 2. As long as taxis remain in private hands, maintain or lower the > gate cap that companies can charge drivers who rent vehicles. > Lowering the gate cap could result in drastically reduced > prices. {SUe: change "prices" to "fares."} > > 3. Establish centralized dispatch. Currently cab companies, which > do > not own cabs themselves, are responsible for doing dispatch. > However, in that cab companies collect fees from drivers on a > per-shift > rather than per-customer basis, there is currently no direct > incentive for cab companies to hire more dispatchers. > > 4. The City should subsidize taxis for the purpose of supplementing > Muni. People who work odd hours need dependable and affordable > transportation. Taxis can fulfill this need; in many cases, > this > would be cheaper for the city than expanding bus service along > certain routes at certain times. > > 5. Incorporate taxis into any future local and regional Translink > pass systems, to ease the transition from buses and BART to > cabs. > > 6. Require taxis to take credit cards. > > 7. Create cab stands at the termini of Muni lines, major transit > junctions, commercial areas, and in parts of the city > underserved > by Muni OWL service and other forms of transit. Cab stands are > good for drivers, riders and the environment. > > 8. Create transit-only streets that can be used by Muni and cabs. > [JMC: overlaps with G.10] > > 9. Requiring that all cabs in operation by 2015 be low-emission or > zero-emmission vehicles. > > 10. Requiring that cabs be inspected a minimum of four times a > year. > The average cab in SF is driven about 100,000 miles per year, > and > cars that are tuned up generate less pollution. > > 11. Fund a pilot program for converting taxis to hydrogen power, > with refueling stations around the city, with hydrogen created > from solar or wind power. These stations could eventually > be used by buses and cars. [From Rob Arnow] > {Sue: Hydrogen? Right now one hydrogen car costs about $1 million, and there are many who think the hydrogen economy is a lot of hype. If we were to fund a pilot program, it could be tremendously expensive. How about biodiesel taxis instead? There are not enough fast food restaurants to supply the needs of the country if we want to kepp all our personal cars, but there might be enough to meet the needs of smaller fleets of municipal vehicles -- including taxis.} > > E. Pedestrians > > At some point in the day, almost everyone is a pedestrian. The > advantages of walking are bourne out in both the health of > pedestrians > and the health of the environment itself. The San Francisco Green > Party challenges the city to lower the number of households with > cars > from the current rate of 29%. One part of our proposed solutions encompass > three > main areas of pedestrian welfare: safety, health and access. Another part of the solution increases the number of retail stores, libraries, schools, restaurants and other services within each neighborhood -- perhaps on the ground floors of buildings that once had garages -- in such a way as to make every neighborhood self-sufficient or nearly self-sufficient. > > [Sue: In this section we might also want to say something about the > creation of livable communities in which schools, grocery stores, > bookstores and libraries, etc., are plentiful enough to be within > walking distance of most residents (unlike most of the Sunset now)] > [JMC: this looks like good material for the intro, if somebody > would > draft language!] {Sue: ok I did it. I included it in the intro to the ped part.} > > The San Francisco Green Party supports the following measures: > > 1. Fund education for Police and DPT regarding enforcement of laws > relating to pedestrians. Enforcement of laws generates enough > revenue for the city to make these programs self-sufficient; > more aggressive enforcement would make the city safer and allow > more PCOs (parking control officers) to be hired. {Sue: enforcement of the laws pays for PCOs I think (we're trying to find this out at the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee). I don't know if education re. ped issues would be additional.} > > 2. Dedicate more City funds to pedestrian and bike projects. > > 3. Increases fines for violations that most affect pedestrians: > > a. Raise fines for parking on the sidewalk to the same amount as > for other violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act > (e.g., > illegal blocking of ramps or parking in spaces reserved for the > disabled). [Ted: concern that this is regressive. Dave: also > thinks current fine ($100) is OK, and we should just call for > more enforcement] {Sue: yes, more enforcement since state laws puts a cap on sidewalk parking fines at $100.} > > b. Double speeding fines in problem areas, beginning with 19th > Ave. > > 4. Plant more trees along sidewalks and increase the number of > benches > to prevent sidewalk parking of motorized vehicles. [Stephanie: > concern about noise from benches bothering residents] > > 5. Expand the number of pedestrian countdown signals and "zebra > stripes" in crosswalks. > > 6. Motorists must be held accountable for pedestrian deaths. > Killing > a pedestrian should be a much more serious penalty than a mere > moving violation. {SUe: this would require changes in the law at the state level.} > > 7. Vehicles that completely block the right of way of pedestrians > should be towed, without anybody having to call DPT. > > 8. When designing sidewalks, city planners should use Level of > Service > (LOS) standards which account for pedestrians in motion. > > 9. Increase traffic-calming measures that improve safety for > pedestrians. Such measures include narrowing streets, planting > trees and enforcement of sidewalk parking (cars parked curbside > narrow traffic lanes and force people to drive more slowly). > > 10. Bulbouts are good traffic-calming measures for pedestrians. > They > can be constructed in such a way that bike lanes go through > them, > or in such a way that bikes waiting to go through intersections > serve as a buffer between pedestrians in the crosswalks and > cars > (which wait behind the bikes). > > 11. In high-density neighborhoods with many pedestrians (e.g., > Haight > Street, Chinatown), we advocate redesigning the crosswalks to > allow diagonal crossing, and a cycle in which lights are red in > both directions. > > 12. Enforcement of existing laws regarding operation of motorized > vehicles on sidewalks: the only legal vehicles are motorized > wheelchairs, and cars and motorcycles entering or leaving > garages. > > > F. Bikes > > Bicycling is quiet, clean, practically free, and personally > healthful. > Bicycling, like walking but to a lesser degree, is an antidote to > alienation, encouraging interaction with and engagement in the > public > life of the streets. It's the most efficient means of > transportation. > It provides independent, door-to-door transportation for people too > young or old to operate a car, and can even provide mobility for > physically impaired people who find it difficult to walk. In a > city > where most trips are under five miles, bicycling should become a > first-choice transportation means for at least 10% of all trips > within > the City. San Francisco should support all measures to remove the > obstacles that prevent residents and visitors from enjoying easy, > safe, and pleasurable bicycling to any destination in the City. > > The San Francisco Green Party recommends the following measures > to accomplish this: > > 1. Allocate at least $120 million over the next 20 years to bicycle > planning, infrastructure, and promotion. > > 2. Build a complete citywide bicycle network, that provides > separated > bike paths, bike lanes, and streets traffic-calmed to the > prevailing speed of a relatively slow bicycle rider. > > 3. Create more and better bicycle parking. Sidewalk bike parking > should be ubiquitous. Workplaces should provide bicycle parking > indoors, and showers and lockers for bicycle commuters. Every > parking garage should comply with the law requiring secure > bicycle > parking and the advertising of such, and the law should be > strengthened to require monitoring of the bicycle parking area by > a > security camera or attendant. All major transit stations should > provide secure, covered bicycle parking. > > 4. Engineer better and provide more access for bicycles on Muni, > BART, > and CalTrain. > > 5. Restore optional driver education to our schools for students at > the age of 16 or 17, and include bicycle safety information. > Fund > mandatory bicycle education, including safe operation and social > aspects, in our schools for children age 10 to 12. > > 6. Design ALL our streets to encourage slower and safer speeds and > less competitive driving. This may include narrower street > lanes > (and wider sidewalks and bike lanes) so as not to give a > freeway-like atmosphere to city streets. > > 7. San Francisco should provide funding for bicycle cooperatives > that > would provide less expensive bikes for those who can not afford > them - and also less expensive rentals. These co-ops would also > provide a place to repair and learn about bikes - especially > health > and safety. Co-ops could also sponsor teach-ins which would > strive > to reach out to potential cyclists and anyone who wants to > participate in making transportation better for all. > > 8. Instruct San Francisco police to deprioritize bicycle violations > at > stop signs and red lights where bicyclists yield the > right-of-way, > and urge the CA legislature to amend the Vehicle Code to adopt > the > Idaho vehicle code's unique treatment of bicycle behavior at > intersections: yield at STOP signs and STOP (then proceed) at > red > lights. > > 9. Bike patrols should ensure bike lanes are clear during all > times, > especially commute hours. > > 10. San Francisco's environmental review procedures, as required > under > the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), should be > amended > so that traffic changes that are a result of improvements to > the > environment for pedestrians, transit, and bicycle riding are > not > subject to lengthy and time-consuming environmental impact > reports, provided that such improvements could not result in an > increase in car vehicle miles traveled. > > > G. Streets and Cars > > The San Francisco Green Party recognizes the need of many people to > use cars for business and personal reasons. However: > > 1. World fossil fuel supplies are dwindling and there is as of yet > no > viable, cheap alternative to gasoline or natural gas. > > 2. The number of dwelling units in San Francisco has increased by > 34,000 while the number of cars has increased by 165,000 since > 1955, severely impacting the quality of street life in the city. > > 3. Obesity is becoming epidemic across all ethnicities, and > especially > in children, in some part due to the fact that Americans > automatically drive places instead of walking or biking. > > The San Francisco Green Party therefore supports: > > 1. Non-profit car-sharing enterprises, such as CityCarshare. > > 2. Increasing the price of parking a car, and allocating fewer > development resources to building parking at the expense > of housing (see section C). > > 3. Fleets of hybrid, electric and low-emissions vehicles at > worksites > for people whose jobs necessitate driving (e.g., building > inspectors and visiting nurses). > > 4. Implementation of traffic-calming measures such as narrowing roadways, > planting trees, pedestrian bulbouts at intersections, and zebra > stripes at crosswalks (see section E). > > 5. Increased enforcement of traffic violations such as speeding and > blocking intersections. Specifically, the SFGP supports > legislation to double the fine for speeding along 19th Avenue. > The > SFGP also supports stricter enforcement of sidewalk parking > violations along 19th Avenue and other streets. Cars parked on > streets, as opposed to sidewalks, are a traffic calming tool. > > 6. Increased density along major transit corridors and the > development > of truly livable - and therefore walkable and bikable > communities > - that have grocery stores, libraries, bookstores, parks, > community gardens, clothing stores, restaurants, schools, > medical > offices and everything else that is necessary for healthy and > joyful lives. > > 7. Supporting experimental programs such as "Way to Go Seattle" > that > paid families to leave their second car at home and only depend > on > one car or on alternative means of transportation. > > 8. Triple fines for any moving violation that occurs while the > driver > is talking on a cell phone. [Ted recommends for SUVs also] > > 9. The area of Golden Gate Park which is currently closed to cars > on Sundays is extremely popular. This closure should also be > done on Saturdays and holidays. {Sue: the creation of more car-free areas in the city such as JFK Drive on Sundays in Golden Gate Park.} > > 10. Support for more dedicated bus lanes (see section B), as well as > zones (such as the downtown section of Market Street) with > restrictions on private automobile use. Delivery trucks, > public > transit, taxis, paratransit, and bicycles would not be > restricted > in such zones. > > 11. We recognize noise pollution as a form of pollution, and call > for > strict enforcement of noise regulations against motor vehicles. > > 12. Turn most wide one-way streets in South of Market into two-way > streets, and time traffic lights on them to discourage > speeding. > At the same time, sidewalks should be widened to reduce the > total > amount of space reserved for cars. This would transform the > neighborhood into a much more pedestrian-friendly district of > the > city within easy walking distance of many other means of > transit. > Local businesses such as restaurants with sidewalk cafes could > burgeon as a result of this transformation of the neighborhood. > > > 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

plank update
by John-Marc Chandonia 19 Jun '04

19 Jun '04

I've updated the platform plank with some new language mainly contributed by Dave, and removed the reference to bikes on the sidewalk. It's pasted here, and on my website (sfgreens.org) Our next TWG meeting (7/8) has been added to the SFGP website. I'll be out of town for the next 2 weeks, but Sue said she might want to call a meeting before then. Until then, control of the draft is in her hands. Proposed Transportation Plank Draft 7, 6/18/04 The San Francisco Green Party believes good transit policy is an essential part of creating a safe, healthy, and attractive city. Public transit should be an efficient, reliable and attractive option for all citizens, not just those who have no other choice. Walking and bicycling should be promoted as healthy and safe options for the able-bodied. Taxi service must be improved, without compromising safety or the drivers' livelihoods. Cars should be accommodated gracefully in planning, but not given priority over other forms of transit. In particular, we advocate that drivers should pay more of the true costs of automobile operation and parking, which are currently subsidized at the expense of other means of transit. The Southeast neighborhoods of our city, which bear a high share of transit costs in the form of air pollution from our freeways, should be compensated by focusing other transit improvements in these neighborhoods. Several of these proposals would require changes in state law; we ask that our local legislators and representatives attempt to change California law to enable San Francisco to control these aspects of our transit policy. A. Transit Justice Many of our current means of funding transit are regressive: working class people pay a much higher share of sales taxes and fixed fees. We advocate moving to more progressive forms of funding (e.g., income and property taxes). We support efforts to relieve the air pollution in Southeast neighborhoods of the city, which is partly caused by freeways with diesel trucks, and advocate for special attention to be given to improving transit in these neighborhoods. The San Francisco Green Party advocates: 1. Ensuring that neighborhood residents get a major share of the new jobs created by transit projects which impact those neighborhoods, such as the 3rd Street Light Rail. 2. Muni should hire more local people for jobs at all levels, so income from these jobs stays in the City. 3. Muni buses in the Southeast neighborhoods should all be converted to electric or less-polluting technology such as CNG (compressed natural gas), to mitigate air quality problems caused by the highways and other sources such as power plants. 4. We call for creation of local car registration fee, based on the engine size, weight, fuel efficiency, and value of the car. This fee should be offset by a transportation tax credit to reward drivers of cheaper, less polluting, and more efficient cars. [Dave: don't exempt contractors, as this would make the license program harder to administer and lead to abuse. Should be cost of doing business, just as the truck is now] 5. More of the cost of transit should be paid by commuters: in particular, parking spaces used primarily by commuters should be extremely expensive. These costs could be lowered on weekends when there is less demand, to encourage people to come to town to patronize local businesses. 6. An increased share of transit costs should be paid by developers at the time of new development, based on the anticipated impact of the development on public transportation costs (including street traffic). 7. The corporations that profit the most from our current car-oriented culture should be asked to pay more of the costs of other forms of transit. 8. Regional planning is necessary for smart transit development. Planning should take into account the transit impact of commuters as well as residents: areas such as San Francisco, which have a higher daytime population due to commuters, should receive a higher share of representaion and funds. B. Muni and Regional transit In order to encourage ridership, public transit needs to be efficient, affordable, and reliable. Muni's performance and reliability should be increased to the point where it's an attractive option for most people going about their daily business, not just commuting to and from work. We should increase funding for Muni and work to shift the operating costs to other sources than the riders: public transit should eventually be free to riders, funded by all citizens just as public parks, public schools, and public libraries are. Increased Muni ridership benefits everybody: businesses get the added benefit of more mobile customers, drivers will benefit from less congestion, and everybody would get better air quality. The San Francisco Green Party advocates: 1. Creation of a citywide bus rapid transit (BRT) network to ensure that people can reliably travel between any neighborhoods of the city in under half an hour. 2. After building the citywide BRT system, gradually replace BRT with rail and expand the rail system where such expansion provides improved rider experience and better transit service, prioritizing the expansions that have the least per rider cost and help the lowest-income riders first. 3. Immediately roll fares back to $1 ($35 Fastpass) and make Muni free to youth, seniors, and the disabled. Continue to roll back fares towards zero as new funding sources become available. 4. Ensure that as long as riders have to pay fares, frequent riders receive a substantial discount for use of the Fastpass, which speeds boarding time and encourages casual ridership. 5. Maintain infrastructure in good repair, so less money is spent on breakdowns and other emergencies. 6. Eliminate redundant Muni stops on the same line that are only one block apart. 7. Ensure faster service by allowing Muni buses and trains to control traffic signals as they approach. Replace stop signs along the busiest Muni routes with controlled traffic lights. 8. Expand the diamond transit-only lanes, to prevent Muni buses from getting stuck in traffic. Clearly marked lanes such as those on the N-Judah between 9th and 19th Avenue will discourage cars from driving in transit lanes. 9. Establish no-wait transfers at key junctions. 10. Expand Nextbus or equivalent service to all lines. 11. Transition the Muni fleet to cleaner-fuel and electric buses, and buy new low-floor vehicles to ensure easier boarding. 12. Extend Caltrain downtown and electrify it. 13. Improve transfers between all public transit systems in the City: in particular, allow direct Muni-BART transfers at Civic Center and Embarcadero stations, and improve connections at Balboa Park and Glen Park stations. 14. Maintain 24-hour OWL service on major routes, to ensure people can safely walk the distance to the nearest line. If ridership is low, run idle paratransit buses at night on these routes to save money. 15. Institute "class pass" programs at the city's colleges in which fares are prepaid as part of school fees, similar to the program at UC Berkeley, and institute student discounts for all students on Fastpasses. 16. Include the cost of a monthly Fastpass in parking permits, to give every driver the option of taking Muni at no additional cost. 17. Improve transit service in the Southeast: build a new Caltrain station at Oakdale Avenue to better serve the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood. Improve the Bayshore station, with direct connections to Third Street light rail and Geneva Avenue buses to better serve the Visitacion Valley neighborhood. 18. More regional funding should be directed towards Muni's operating costs rather than expensive capital projects. 19. Aggressive enforcement of double parking in bus/rail lanes, or violating transit-only lanes. 20. Muni should receive more funding from a variety of sources, including parking fees and fines (see Parking section), an increase in the TIDF (transit impact development fee), and aggressive collection of unpaid TIDF fees from developers. 21. Muni drivers and other transit operators should have more reasonable shifts, including 6-hour days at the same rate of pay. [Concerns this would be too expensive] 22. We call for more lanes in which buses are given priority. We call for more clear marking as well as more aggressive enforcement of these lanes. 23. Build the "G line" by running historic streetcars from Market Street up Church, out to 9th Ave via the N-Judah tracks, to a new branch up 9th Ave into Golden Gate Park. This would be relatively inexpensive compared to other new light rail projects, and provide a more convenient way to the park than driving for most people. C. Parking: Parking has a huge impact on our transportation system. Every car needs a space to live at its owner's residence and 3 to 4 spaces elsewhere. Space used for the storage of private automobiles amounts to vast acres of pavement and building space that could be used for parks, natural areas, public recreation, housing, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, transit lanes, or many other public benefits. With 210 million square feet in San Francisco dedicated to car parking, even a reduction of 10% in the amount of space we need to store our cars would free up 21 million square feet! Providing so much parking also subsidizes car use by San Francisco residents and visitors and discourages transit, walking, and bicycling. Parking reduces population densities, requiring people to travel greater distances to meet their needs. Parking gets in the way of efficient and safe bicycle and transit travel. Parking lots and garages create dead environments at the street level that penalize people who prefer to walk. The following recommendations will help to reverse the ever-increasing provision of parking at the expense of walking, bicycling, and transit. The San Francisco Green Party supports: 1. Allow conversion of garages in private homes to living quarters. In most areas of the city, current law forbids a homeowner from adding a housing unit unless the homeowner also adds a parking space. Such ancillary, or "in-law" units, built out of basements and garages and carriage houses, will provide housing, usually low-cost housing, close to jobs and transit. It also reduces the use of automobiles by reducing storage capacity. Parking requirements should never prevent the construction of housing. The law should also legalize existing ancillary units, and protect tenants who currently live in illegal units from eviction. 2. Prohibit new public parking facilities in the downtown district north of Townsend and Division, and east of South Van Ness and Van Ness Avenues; and within 500 feet of a transit preferential street anywhere in San Francisco. A few cities in the U.S. and many in Europe have reduced parking in their downtowns as a means to reduce traffic and improve the alternatives to the automobile; San Francisco should do the same. 3. Increase the tax on commercial parking lot operators. Currently, a 25% tax on parking lot operators' receipts (which are exempt from regular sales tax) generates roughly $50 million a year, not nearly enough to compensate for the impact of such parking facilities on public transit and urban livability. The tax should be increased substantially to devalue the use of land as parking lots, to disincentivize driving, and generate public funds. The tax is a progressive user fee, paid primarily by non San Franciscans, mostly people who commute to high-paying jobs, with collateral benefit to transit passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 4. Eliminate parking requirements for new housing, starting with affordable, senior, and SRO housing, and institute new maximum parking limits, ranging from one parking space per housing unit in transit-poor locations to 1 parking space per four housing units in transit-rich areas. As noted, parking requirements should never be an impediment to housing construction. San Francisco needs car-free housing. Reducing the amount of parking provided in new housing will result in lower housing prices for consumers and higher profit margins for developers, allowing greater extraction of public benefit. In other words, the provision of parking in new housing is a developer subsidy for the private benefit of relatively wealthy housing consumers. Until parking requirements are eliminated, non-independently accessible parking should count toward meeting parking requirements. In addition to eliminating the minimum parking requirement altogether, the city should impose maximum parking limits on housing in particularly sensitive, densely-populated and transit-rich neighborhoods. The specific maximum limits should vary by neighborhood, ranging from a high limit of 1 parking space per housing unit in the less transit-friendly areas such as areas of the Sunset and Bayview, and a low limit of .25 parking spaces per housing unit in neighborhoods like downtown, North Beach, and the Mission, which are densely populated, already congested with traffic, and well-served by transit. 5. Reform the residential parking permit program to provide parking for people who truly need it, and raise revenue by charging a fair price for that parking. Our current practice of permitting relatively free and unregulated parking results in a severe undervaluing of precious urban space. While it costs hundreds of dollars a month to store a a few thousand pounds of private property, it's free to store a private car on the public streets. This is a disservice to people who most need on-street parking and would (should) be willing to pay for it. People should pay market price for onstreet parking. However, any transition to a system where people pay higher prices should protect current residents by grandfathering in current prices until people move. A good portion of the money generated by parking fees should remain in the neighborhood to be used for neighborhood amenities as advised by local committees. Parking in front of driveways should be permitted as reserved, personal parking, but users should pay a premium. 6. Convert certain public garages and lots to housing. Certain above-ground parking lots are a menace to lively street life and in locations that cause great disruption to transit and bicycle traffic. The city should identify a few locations and acquire the property, or otherwise cause the property to be converted to housing. 7. Mandate car-sharing parking spaces in every neighborhood and in new developments. Car-sharing permits residents to have access to cars without having to invest in permanent ownership. The resultant pay per use saves residents money while reducing car use. Car-sharing pods should be created in every neighborhood in the city, preferably in highly visible and accessible locations. 8. Discourage businesses from providing free parking for their customers who drive at the expense of their customers who don't. This is not a suggestion for policy change but for grassroots social change. Green businesses should charge for parking, or provide a financial benefit to their customers who do not drive at least equivalent to the effective financial benefit provided by the provision of free parking. 9. A ban on parking garages in city parks. The city should not build any more parking garages in city parks, or anywhere else for that matter. The city should meet transportation needs through balanced provision of alternatives to driving, and, in the short term, more intense use of existing parking lots. 10. Eliminate free parking for city employees unless they are required to use their personal vehicle for their job. 11. Eliminate free VIP parking at the airport. [Dave: has never heard of this; need to clarify what that means. We should take it out unless somebody provides a reference] 12. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the elimination of public parking space and often in the removal of trees. Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or ticketing cars illegally blocking a driveway unless a resident of the property complains, a curb cut effectively turns the driveway into a private parking space. New curb cuts should be very expensive: the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, and increase with each tree removed. 13. Convert 1 car space at the end of some city blocks to motorcyle-only parking, in areas in which motorcycle-parking is practically nonexistant. Priority should be given in cases where a large car or SUV parked in the space would block drivers' vision and present a safety hazard to pedestrians and other drivers. Install a physical barrier protecting motorcycles in the parking spaces from being hit by incompetent drivers. 14. Allow dedicated motorcycle parking on streets adjacent to sections of curb between driveways that are too small for cars. Many of these areas are currently painted red. These spaces should be illegal for cars, but legal for motorcycles, and a different markings (e.g., striping on the curb or street) should be used to indicate this. 15. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the elimination of public parking space and often in the removal of trees. Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or ticketing cars illegally blocking a driveway unless a resident of the property complains, a curb cut effectively turns the driveway into a private parking space. New curb cuts should be very expensive: the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, and increase with each tree removed. D. Taxis and Paratransit Each taxi in San Francisco averages 18,200 trips per year for a cumulative total of 25 million rides. Taxis operate almost continuously; they therefore contribute less to most forms of air pollution than private automobiles, as cars produce more air pollution in the first half hour of operation. San Francisco's 1,381 cabs should thus be acknowledged as a vital part of the city's Transit- First policy. The San Francisco Green Party supports: 1. Creating a professional class of drivers through one of two options. The first option would be the creation of a municipal taxi service in which cabs are owned by the city and leased to drivers. Under such a system, drivers would be paid an hourly wage plus commission for any fares over 15 to 20 per shift in order to encourage efficiency. Under this system, drivers could also be brought into the city's benefits system. The second option would maintain the fleet of privately-owned vehicles but would charge a concession fee to owners of medallions. Under either system, drivers could be incorporated into the City and County Health Services and retirement system. Currently, drivers are considered independent contractors and must pay for their own health insurance. 2. As long as taxis remain in private hands, maintain or lower the gate cap that companies can charge drivers who rent vehicles. Lowering the gate cap could result in drastically reduced prices. 3. Establish centralized dispatch. Currently cab companies, which do not own cabs themselves, are responsible for doing dispatch. However, in cab companies collect fees from drivers on a per-shift rather than per-customer basis, there is currently no direct incentive for cab companies to hire more dispatchers. 4. The City should subsidize taxis for the purpose of supplementing Muni. People who work odd hours need dependable and affordable transportation. Taxis can fulfill this need; in many cases, this would be cheaper for the city than expanding bus service along certain routes at certain times. 5. Incorporate taxis into any future local and regional Translink pass systems, to ease the transition from buses and BART to cabs. 6. Require taxis to take credit cards. 7. Create cab stands at the termini of Muni lines, major transit junctions, commercial areas, and in parts of the city underserved by Muni OWL service and other forms of transit. Cab stands are good for drivers, riders and the environment. 8. Create transit-only streets that can be used by Muni and cabs. [JMC: overlaps with G.10] 9. Requiring that all cabs in operation by 2015 be low-emission or zero-emmission vehicles. 10. Requiring that cabs be inspected a minimum of four times a year. The average cab in SF is driven about 100,000 miles per year, and cars that are tuned up generate less pollution. 11. Fund a pilot program for converting taxis to hydrogen power, with refueling stations around the city, with hydrogen created from solar or wind power. These stations could eventually be used by buses and cars. [From Rob Arnow] E. Pedestrians At some point in the day, almost everyone is a pedestrian. The advantages of walking are bourne out in both the health of pedestrians and the health of the environment itself. The San Francisco Green Party challenges the city to lower the number of households with cars from the current rate of 29%. Our proposed solutions encompass three main areas of pedestrian welfare: safety, health and access. [Sue: In this section we might also want to say something about the creation of livable communities in which schools, grocery stores, bookstores and libraries, etc., are plentiful enough to be within walking distance of most residents (unlike most of the Sunset now)] [JMC: this looks like good material for the intro, if somebody would draft language!] The San Francisco Green Party supports the following measures: 1. Fund education for Police and DPT regarding enforcement of laws relating to pedestrians. Enforcement of laws generates enough revenue for the city to make these programs self-sufficient; more aggressive enforcement would make the city safer and allow more PCOs (parking control officers) to be hired. 2. Dedicate more City funds to pedestrian and bike projects. 3. Increases fines for violations that most affect pedestrians: a. Raise fines for parking on the sidewalk to the same amount as for other violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (e.g., illegal blocking of ramps or parking in spaces reserved for the disabled). [Ted: concern that this is regressive. Dave: also thinks current fine ($100) is OK, and we should just call for more enforcement] b. Double speeding fines in problem areas, beginning with 19th Ave. 4. Plant more trees along sidewalks and increase the number of benches to prevent sidewalk parking of motorized vehicles. [Stephanie: concern about noise from benches bothering residents] 5. Expand the number of pedestrian countdown signals and "zebra stripes" in crosswalks. 6. Motorists must be held accountable for pedestrian deaths. Killing a pedestrian should be a much more serious penalty than a mere moving violation. 7. Vehicles that completely block the right of way of pedestrians should be towed, without anybody having to call DPT. 8. When designing sidewalks, city planners should use Level of Service (LOS) standards which account for pedestrians in motion. 9. Increase traffic-calming measures that improve safety for pedestrians. Such measures include narrowing streets, planting trees and enforcement of sidewalk parking (cars parked curbside narrow traffic lanes and force people to drive more slowly). 10. Bulbouts are good traffic-calming measures for pedestrians. They can be constructed in such a way that bike lanes go through them, or in such a way that bikes waiting to go through intersections serve as a buffer between pedestrians in the crosswalks and cars (which wait behind the bikes). 11. In high-density neighborhoods with many pedestrians (e.g., Haight Street, Chinatown), we advocate redesigning the crosswalks to allow diagonal crossing, and a cycle in which lights are red in both directions. 12. Enforcement of existing laws regarding operation of motorized vehicles on sidewalks: the only legal vehicles are motorized wheelchairs, and cars and motorcycles entering or leaving garages. F. Bikes Bicycling is quiet, clean, practically free, and personally healthful. Bicycling, like walking but to a lesser degree, is an antidote to alienation, encouraging interaction with and engagement in the public life of the streets. It's the most efficient means of transportation. It provides independent, door-to-door transportation for people too young or old to operate a car, and can even provide mobility for physically impaired people who find it difficult to walk. In a city where most trips are under five miles, bicycling should become a first-choice transportation means for at least 10% of all trips within the City. San Francisco should support all measures to remove the obstacles that prevent residents and visitors from enjoying easy, safe, and pleasurable bicycling to any destination in the City. The San Francisco Green Party recommends the following measures to accomplish this: 1. Allocate at least $120 million over the next 20 years to bicycle planning, infrastructure, and promotion. 2. Build a complete citywide bicycle network, that provides separated bike paths, bike lanes, and streets traffic-calmed to the prevailing speed of a relatively slow bicycle rider. 3. Create more and better bicycle parking. Sidewalk bike parking should be ubiquitous. Workplaces should provide bicycle parking indoors, and showers and lockers for bicycle commuters. Every parking garage should comply with the law requiring secure bicycle parking and the advertising of such, and the law should be strengthened to require monitoring of the bicycle parking area by a security camera or attendant. All major transit stations should provide secure, covered bicycle parking. 4. Engineer better and provide more access for bicycles on Muni, BART, and CalTrain. 5. Restore optional driver education to our schools for students at the age of 16 or 17, and include bicycle safety information. Fund mandatory bicycle education, including safe operation and social aspects, in our schools for children age 10 to 12. 6. Design ALL our streets to encourage slower and safer speeds and less competitive driving. This may include narrower street lanes (and wider sidewalks and bike lanes) so as not to give a freeway-like atmosphere to city streets. 7. San Francisco should provide funding for bicycle cooperatives that would provide less expensive bikes for those who can not afford them - and also less expensive rentals. These co-ops would also provide a place to repair and learn about bikes - especially health and safety. Co-ops could also sponsor teach-ins which would strive to reach out to potential cyclists and anyone who wants to participate in making transportation better for all. 8. Instruct San Francisco police to deprioritize bicycle violations at stop signs and red lights where bicyclists yield the right-of-way, and urge the CA legislature to amend the Vehicle Code to adopt the Idaho vehicle code's unique treatment of bicycle behavior at intersections: yield at STOP signs and STOP (then proceed) at red lights. 9. Bike patrols should ensure bike lanes are clear during all times, especially commute hours. 10. San Francisco's environmental review procedures, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), should be amended so that traffic changes that are a result of improvements to the environment for pedestrians, transit, and bicycle riding are not subject to lengthy and time-consuming environmental impact reports, provided that such improvements could not result in an increase in car vehicle miles traveled. G. Streets and Cars The San Francisco Green Party recognizes the need of many people to use cars for business and personal reasons. However: 1. World fossil fuel supplies are dwindling and there is as of yet no viable, cheap alternative to gasoline or natural gas. 2. The number of dwelling units in San Francisco has increased by 34,000 while the number of cars has increased by 165,000 since 1955, severely impacting the quality of street life in the city. 3. Obesity is becoming epidemic across all ethnicities, and especially in children, in some part due to the fact that Americans automatically drive places instead of walking or biking. The San Francisco Green Party therefore supports: 1. Non-profit car-sharing enterprises, such as CityCarshare. 2. Increasing the price of parking a car, and allocating fewer development resources to building parking at the expense of housing (see section C). 3. Fleets of hybrid, electric and low-emissions vehicles at worksites for people whose jobs necessitate driving (e.g., building inspectors and visiting nurses). 4. Implement traffic-calming measures such as narrowing roadways, planting trees, pedestrian bulbouts at intersections, and zebra stripes at crosswalks (see section E). 5. Increased enforcement of traffic violations such as speeding and blocking intersections. Specifically, the SFGP supports legislation to double the fine for speeding along 19th Avenue. The SFGP also supports stricter enforcement of sidewalk parking violations along 19th Avenue and other streets. Cars parked on streets, as opposed to sidewalks, are a traffic calming tool. 6. Increased density along major transit corridors and the development of truly livable - and therefore walkable and bikable communities - that have grocery stores, libraries, bookstores, parks, community gardens, clothing stores, restaurants, schools, medical offices and everything else that is necessary for healthy and joyful lives. 7. Supporting experimental programs such as "Way to Go Seattle" that paid families to leave their second car at home and only depend on one car or on alternative means of transportation. 8. Triple fines for any moving violation that occurs while the driver is talking on a cell phone. [Ted recommends for SUVs also] 9. The area of Golden Gate Park which is currently closed to cars on Sundays is extremely popular. This closure should also be done on Saturdays and holidays. 10. We support more dedicated bus lanes (see section B), as well as zones (such as the downtown section of Market Street) with restrictions on private automobile use. Delivery trucks, public transit, taxis, paratransit, and bicycles would not be restricted in such zones. 11. We recognize noise pollution as a form of pollution, and call for strict enforcement of noise regulations against motor vehicles. 12. Turn most wide one-way streets in South of Market into two-way streets, and time traffic lights on them to discourage speeding. At the same time, sidewalks should be widened to reduce the total amount of space reserved for cars. This would transform the neighborhood into a much more pedestrian-friendly district of the city within easy walking distance of many other means of transit. Local businesses such as restaurants with sidewalk cafes could burgeon as a result of this transformation of the neighborhood. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Re: Latest TWG Platform still online
by John-Marc Chandonia 17 Jun '04

17 Jun '04

I'll always keep my latest version on "sfgreens.org". I'll draft another version tonight or tomorrow in response to the last few days of comments. Then it's in Sue's hands for 2 weeks while I'm travelling. She mentioned last night that she may schedule an in-person meeting during that time to work on it. After I get back, we'll finalize it at our meeting on the 2nd Thurs in July. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Re: Draft: Transportation plank
by Dave Snyder 17 Jun '04

17 Jun '04

Yes. And it's currently illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk, as it probably should be. But in the perfect world, everyone is respectful of everyone else always, and safe, and in that perfect world, people ride their bicycles on the sidewalk for a few feet because there's absolutely no reason not to. I support a campaign to discourage riding on the sidewalk referring to all the bad ways people in this imperfect world badly ride their bicycles on the sidewalk. But let's be positive about that, and emphasize the benefits of bicycling and the need to do ten times more to encourage bicycling than we currently do. Let's not bring the police into it. --Dave >Come on, everyone. Bicyclists can ALWAYS walk their bikes on sidewalks. > >Sue > >On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:55:43 -0700 (PDT) marc <marc(a)cybre.net> writes: >> >> Folks, >> >> If we are to raise barriers to non-motorized transportation by >> calling on >> the cops to enforce against bikes and peds, then we need to >> explicitly >> prioritize the ecology of violations that we want enforced as in 1) >> trucks >> and MUNI 2) cars, 3) motorcycles, 4) bikes, 5) peds. >> >> I am not comfortable with a Green transit policy that ignores the >> fact >> that bike riding on the sidewalk can be the safest way to go in >> some >> circumstances and the least safe way to go in others. It is a >> barrier to >> cycling if we ask people to ignore common sense where there is no >> harm, >> thus no foul. >> >> We should be (hell, the bike coalition in league with its ped >> allies >> should be) putting forth principles of sharing limited, contested >> and >> congested transportation resources such as sidewalks, amongst >> alternative >> transportation modalties rather than giving the SFPD and DPT a peg >> upon >> which to hang their distorted enforcement priorities which punish >> cyclists >> while ignoring motor vehicle violations. >> >> No harm, no foul (as in stop signs should be yield signs) should be >> our >> guiding principle in addressing the potential for conflict. >> >> -marc >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Teddy Strawser wrote: >> >> > good work john-marc >> > >> > one final comment on the idea of calling for "enforcement of >> riding >> > bicycles on sidewalks". this would only be ok if we also called >> for >> > "enforcement of pedestrestrians jaywalking and called for a >> higher >> > fine". it is very similar. jaywalking pedestrians are a HUGE >> public >> > health issue (contribute to more than half of ped deaths) and they >> also >> > slow down muni, and create conjestion which is bad for the >> environment. >> > >> > however, i understand why including this would distract from the >> #1 >> > priority: enforcement of cars. there's not enough enforcement to >> handle >> > cars, bikes, and peds....so stick with cars as the priority and >> replan >> > the streets so that we can get bikes safely off off the sidewalk >> and >> > peds dont have to jaywalk. >> > >> > but, with that said, if we are going to call for a crackdown on >> bicycles >> > on sidewalks we should include a crackdown on peds jaywalking. i >> will go >> > ahead and draft the language just in case we decide to keep the >> focus on >> > enforcement against non cars (bikes, peds, mcs,etc) >> > >> > will send the langauage later today. >> > ted >> > >> > >> > >> > John-Marc Chandonia wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > Here's a copy of the proposed Transportation plank that >> the >> > > Transportation Working Group will be presenting tonight. We >> plan to >> > > present this platform plank for ratification at our July >> General >> > > Meeting (3rd Wednesday). In accordance with our rules on >> adding >> > > planks, it is being presented in "almost-final" form 1 month in >> > > advance, at the June GM, where there is no decision to be made >> on it. >> > > Please email concerns and suggestions as soon as possible to >> John-Marc >> > > Chandonia, jmc(a)sfgreens.org, or call 285-5696. At the July >> meeting of >> > > the TWG (2nd Thursday), we'll address all concerns raised to > > that >> > > point and finalize a plank to present to the GM in July. Of >> course, >> > > concerns may also be raised and addressed at that time, but the >> > > earlier we hear from you, the more thought we can put into >> addressing >> > > any concerns. The current draft may also be found at >> > > http://sfgreens.org/. >> > > >> > > Proposed Transportation Plank >> > > Draft 6, 6/16/04 >> > > >> > > The San Francisco Green Party believes good transit policy is >> an >> > > essential part of creating a safe, healthy, and attractive >> city. >> > > Public transit should be an efficient, reliable and attractive >> option >> > > for all citizens, not just those who have no other choice. >> Walking >> > > and bicycling should be promoted as healthy and safe options for >> the >> > > able-bodied. Taxi service must be improved, without >> compromising >> > > safety or the drivers' livelihoods. Cars should be >> accommodated >> > > gracefully in planning, but not given priority over other forms >> of >> > > transit. In particular, we advocate that drivers should pay >> more of >> > > the true costs of automobile operation and parking, which are >> > > currently subsidized at the expense of other means of transit. >> The >> > > Southeast neighborhoods of our city, which bear a high share of >> > > transit costs in the form of air pollution from our freeways, >> should >> > > be compensated by focusing other transit improvements in these >> > > neighborhoods. >> > > >> > > Several of these proposals would require changes in state law; >> we ask >> > > that our local legislators and representatives attempt to >> change >> > > California law to enable San Francisco to control these aspects >> of our >> > > transit policy. >> > > >> > > >> > > A. Transit Justice >> > > >> > > Many of our current means of funding transit are regressive: >> working >> > > class people pay a much higher share of sales taxes and fixed >> fees. >> > > We advocate moving to more progressive forms of funding (e.g., >> income >> > > and property taxes). We support efforts to relieve the air >> pollution >> > > in Southeast neighborhoods of the city, which is partly caused >> by >> > > freeways with diesel trucks, and advocate for special attention >> to be >> > > given to improving transit in these neighborhoods. >> > > >> > > The San Francisco Green Party advocates: >> > > >> > > 1. Ensuring that neighborhood residents get a major share of the >> new >> > > jobs created by transit projects which impact those >> neighborhoods, >> > > such as the 3rd Street Light Rail. >> > > >> > > 2. Muni should hire more local people for jobs at all levels, >> so >> > > income from these jobs stays in the City. >> > > >> > > 3. Muni buses in the Southeast neighborhoods should all be >> converted >> > > to electric or less-polluting technology such as CNG >> (compressed >> > > natural gas), to mitigate air quality problems caused by the >> > > highways and other sources such as power plants. >> > > >> > > 4. We call for creation of local car registration fee, based on >> the >> > > engine size, weight, fuel efficiency, and value of the car. >> This >> > > fee should be offset by a transportation tax credit to >> reward >> > > drivers of cheaper, less polluting, and more efficient cars, >> as >> > > well as exceptions for contractors who require trucks for >> their >> > > jobs. >> > > >> > > 5. More of the cost of transit should be paid by commuters: in >> > > particular, parking spaces used primarily by commuters should >> be >> > > extremely expensive. These costs could be lowered on >> weekends to >> > > encourage people to come to town to patronize local >> businesses. >> > > >> > > 6. An increased share of transit costs should be paid by >> downtown >> > > businesses, which benefit tremendously by the ease of >> accessing >> > > downtown on transit. >> > > >> > > 7. The corporations that profit the most from our current >> car-oriented >> > > culture should be asked to pay more of the costs of other >> > > forms of transit. >> > > >> > > 8. Regional planning is necessary for smart transit >> development. >> > > Planning should take into account the transit impact of > > > > commuters as well as residents: areas such as San >> Francisco, >> > > which have a higher daytime population due to commuters, >> > > should receive a higher share of representaion and funds. >> > >> > > >> > > B. Muni and Regional transit >> > > >> > > In order to encourage ridership, public transit needs to be >> efficient, >> > > affordable, and reliable. Muni's performance and reliability >> > > should be increased to the point where it's an attractive >> option >> > > for most people going about their daily business, not just >> commuting >> > > to and from work. We should increase funding for Muni and work >> to >> > > shift the operating costs to other sources than the riders: >> public >> > > transit should eventually be free to riders, funded by all >> citizens >> > > just as public parks, public schools, and public libraries are. >> > > Increased Muni ridership benefits everybody: businesses get the >> added >> > > benefit of more mobile customers, drivers will benefit from >> less >> > > congestion, and everybody would get better air quality. >> > > >> > > The San Francisco Green Party advocates: >> > > >> > > 1. Creation of a citywide bus rapid transit network to ensure >> that >> > > people can reliably travel between any neighborhoods of the >> city in >> > > under half an hour. >> > > >> > > 2. Gradually replace bus rapid transit on the heaviest lines >> (such as >> > > along the Geary and Mission corridors with light rail to >> enable >> > > moving more people quickly and decrease boarding times. >> Build the >> > > "G line" by running historic streetcars from Market Street >> up >> > > Church, out to 9th Ave via the N-Judah tracks, to a new >> branch up >> > > 9th Ave into Golden Gate Park. >> > > >> > > 3. Immediately roll fares back to $1 ($35 Fastpass) and make >> Muni free >> > > to youth, seniors, and the disabled. Continue to roll back >> fares >> > > towards zero as new funding sources become available. >> > > >> > > 4. Ensure that as long as riders have to pay fares, frequent >> riders >> > > receive a substantial discount for use of the Fastpass, >> which >> > > speeds boarding time and encourages casual ridership. >> > > >> > > 5. Maintain infrastructure in good repair, so less money is >> spent on >> > > breakdowns and other emergencies. >> > > >> > > 6. Eliminate redundant Muni stops on the same line that are only >> one >> > > block apart. >> > > >> > > 7. Ensure faster service by allowing Muni buses and trains to >> control >> > > traffic signals as they approach. Replace stop signs along >> the >> > > busiest Muni routes with controlled traffic lights. >> > > >> > > 8. Expand the diamond transit-only lanes, to prevent Muni >> > > buses from getting stuck in traffic. Clearly marked lanes >> such as >> > > those on the N-Judah between 9th and 19th Avenue will >> discourage >> > > cars from driving in transit lanes. >> > > >> > > 9. Establish no-wait transfers at key junctions. >> > > >> > > 10. Expand Nextbus or equivalent service to all lines. >> > > >> > > 11. Transition the Muni fleet to cleaner-fuel and electric >> buses, and >> > > buy new low-floor vehicles to ensure easier boarding. >> > > >> > > 12. Extend Caltrain downtown and electrify it. >> > > >> > > 13. Improve transfers between all public transit systems in the >> City: >> > > in particular, allow direct Muni-BART transfers at Civic >> Center >> > > and Embarcadero stations, and improve connections at Balboa >> Park >> > > and Glen Park stations. >> > > >> > > 14. Maintain 24-hour OWL service on major routes, to ensure >> people can >> > > safely walk the distance to the nearest line. If ridership >> is >> > > low, run smaller buses or vans at night on these routes to >> save >> > > money. >> > > >> > > 15. Institute "class pass" programs at the city's colleges in >> > > which fares are prepaid as part of school fees, similar to >> the >> > > program at UC Berkeley, and institute student discounts for >> all >> > > students on Fastpasses. >> > > >> > > 16. Include the cost of a monthly Fastpass in parking permits, >> to give > > > > every driver the option of taking Muni at no additional >> cost. >> > > >> > > 17. Improve transit service in the Southeast: build a new >> Caltrain >> > > station at Oakdale Avenue to better serve the >> Bayview-Hunters >> > > Point neighborhood. Improve the Bayshore station, with >> direct >> > > connections to Third Street light rail and Geneva Avenue >> buses to >> > > better serve the Visitacion Valley neighborhood. >> > > >> > > 18. More regional funding should be directed towards Muni's >> > > operating costs rather than expensive capital projects. >> > > >> > > 19. Aggressive enforcement of double parking in bus/rail lanes, >> or >> > > violating transit-only lanes. >> > > >> > > 20. Muni should receive more funding from a variety of sources, >> > > including parking fees and fines (see Parking section), an >> > > increase in the TIDF (transit impact development fee), and >> > > aggressive collection of unpaid TIDF fees from developers. >> > > >> > > 21. Muni drivers and other transit operators should have more >> > > reasonable shifts, including 6-hour days at the same rate of >> pay. >> > > [Concerns this would be too expensive] >> > > >> > > 22. We call for more lanes in which buses are given priority. >> We >> > > call for more clear marking as well as more aggressive >> enforcement >> > > of these lanes. >> > > >> > > >> > > C. Parking: >> > > >> > > Parking has a huge impact on our transportation system. Every >> car >> > > needs a space to live at its owner's residence and 3 to 4 >> spaces >> > > elsewhere. Space used for the storage of private automobiles >> amounts >> > > to vast acres of pavement and building space that could be used >> for >> > > parks, natural areas, public recreation, housing, sidewalks, >> bicycle >> > > lanes, transit lanes, or many other public benefits. With 210 >> million >> > > square feet in San Francisco dedicated to car parking, even a >> > > reduction of 10% in the amount of space we need to store our >> cars >> > > would free up 21 million square feet! Providing so much parking >> also >> > > subsidizes car use by San Francisco residents and visitors and >> > > discourages transit, walking, and bicycling. Parking reduces >> > > population densities, requiring people to travel greater >> distances to >> > > meet their needs. Parking gets in the way of efficient and >> safe >> > > bicycle and transit travel. Parking lots and garages create >> dead >> > > environments at the street level that penalize people who prefer >> to >> > > walk. >> > > >> > > The following recommendations will help to reverse the >> ever-increasing >> > > provision of parking at the expense of walking, bicycling, and >> > > transit. The San Francisco Green Party supports: >> > > >> > > 1. Allow conversion of garages in private homes to living >> quarters. >> > > In most areas of the city, current law forbids a homeowner >> from >> > > adding a housing unit unless the homeowner also adds a >> parking >> > > space. Such ancillary, or "in-law" units, built out of >> basements >> > > and garages and carriage houses, will provide housing, >> usually >> > > low-cost housing, close to jobs and transit. It also reduces >> the >> > > use of automobiles by reducing storage capacity. Parking >> > > requirements should never prevent the construction of >> housing. The >> > > law should also legalize existing ancillary units, and >> protect >> > > tenants who currently live in illegal units from eviction. >> > > >> > > 2. Prohibit new public parking facilities in the downtown >> district >> > > north of Townsend and Division, and east of South Van Ness >> and Van >> > > Ness Avenues; and within 500 feet of a transit preferential >> street >> > > anywhere in San Francisco. A few cities in the U.S. and many >> in >> > > Europe have reduced parking in their downtowns as a means to >> reduce >> > > traffic and improve the alternatives to the automobile; San >> > > Francisco should do the same. >> > > >> > > 3. Increase the tax on commercial parking lot operators. >> Currently, a >> > > 25% tax on parking lot operators' receipts (which are exempt > > from >> > > regular sales tax) generates roughly $50 million a year, not >> nearly >> > > enough to compensate for the impact of such parking >> facilities on >> > > public transit and urban livability. The tax should be >> increased >> > > substantially to devalue the use of land as parking lots, to >> > > disincentivize driving, and generate public funds. The tax >> is a >> > > progressive user fee, paid primarily by non San Franciscans, >> mostly >> > > people who commute to high-paying jobs, with collateral >> benefit to >> > > transit passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. >> > > >> > > 4. Eliminate parking requirements for new housing, starting >> with >> > > affordable, senior, and SRO housing, and institute new >> maximum >> > > parking limits, ranging from one parking space per housing >> unit in >> > > transit-poor locations to 1 parking space per four housing >> units in >> > > transit-rich areas. As noted, parking requirements should >> never be >> > > an impediment to housing construction. San Francisco needs >> car-free >> > > housing. Reducing the amount of parking provided in new >> housing >> > > will result in lower housing prices for consumers and higher >> profit >> > > margins for developers, allowing greater extraction of >> public >> > > benefit. In other words, the provision of parking in new >> housing is >> > > a developer subsidy for the private benefit of relatively >> wealthy >> > > housing consumers. Until parking requirements are >> eliminated, >> > > non-independently accessible parking should count toward >> meeting >> > > parking requirements. In addition to eliminating the >> minimum >> > > parking requirement altogether, the city should impose >> maximum >> > > parking limits on housing in particularly sensitive, >> > > densely-populated and transit-rich neighborhoods. The >> specific >> > > maximum limits should vary by neighborhood, ranging from a >> high >> > > limit of 1 parking space per housing unit in the less >> > > transit-friendly areas such as areas of the Sunset and >> Bayview, and >> > > a low limit of .25 parking spaces per housing unit in >> neighborhoods >> > > like downtown, North Beach, and the Mission, which are >> densely >> > > populated, already congested with traffic, and well-served >> by >> > > transit. >> > > >> > > 5. Reform the residential parking permit program to provide >> parking >> > > for people who truly need it, and raise revenue by charging a >> fair >> > > price for that parking. Our current practice of permitting >> > > relatively free and unregulated parking results in a severe >> > > undervaluing of precious urban space. While it costs >> hundreds of >> > > dollars a month to store a a few thousand pounds of private >> > > property, it's free to store a private car on the public >> > > streets. This is a disservice to people who most need >> on-street >> > > parking and would (should) be willing to pay for it. People >> should >> > > pay market price for onstreet parking. However, the >> transition to a >> > > system where people pay should protect existing low-income >> > > residents by providing discounted parking permits. A good >> portion >> > > of the money generated by parking fees should remain in the >> > > neighborhood to be used for neighborhood amenities as advised >> by >> > > local committees. Parking in front of driveways should be >> permitted >> > > as reserved, personal parking, but users should pay a >> premium. >> > > >> > > 6. Convert certain public garages and lots to housing. Certain >> > > above-ground parking lots are a menace to lively street life >> and in >> > > locations that cause great disruption to transit and bicycle >> > > traffic. The city should identify a few locations and >> acquire the >> > > property, or otherwise cause the property to be converted to >> > > housing. >> > > >> > > 7. Mandate car-sharing parking spaces in every neighborhood. >> > > Car-sharing permits residents to have access to cars without >> having >> > > to invest in permanent ownership. The resultant pay per use > > saves >> > > residents money while reducing car use. Car-sharing pods >> should be >> > > created in every neighborhood in the city, preferably in >> highly >> > > visible and accessible locations. >> > > >> > > 8. Discourage businesses from providing free parking for their >> > > customers who drive at the expense of their customers who >> > > don't. This is not a suggestion for policy change but for >> > > grassroots social change. Green businesses should charge >> for >> > > parking, or provide a financial benefit to their customers >> who do >> > > not drive at least equivalent to the effective financial >> benefit >> > > provided by the provision of free parking. >> > > >> > > 9. A ban on parking garages in city parks. The city should not >> build >> > > any more parking garages in city parks, or anywhere else for >> that >> > > matter. The city should meet transportation needs through >> balanced >> > > provision of alternatives to driving, and, in the short term, >> more >> > > intense use of existing parking lots. >> > > >> > > 10. Eliminate free parking for city employees unless they are >> > > required to use their personal vehicle for their job. >> > > >> > > 11. Eliminate free VIP parking at the airport. [Dave: has >> > > never heard of this; need to clarify what that means] >> > > >> > > 12. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the >> elimination >> > > of public parking space and often in the removal of trees. >> > > Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or ticketing cars >> > > illegally blocking a driveway unless a resident of the >> property >> > > complains, a curb cut effectively turns the driveway into a >> > > private parking space. New curb cuts should be very >> expensive: >> > > the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, >> and >> > > increase with each tree removed. >> > > >> > > 13. Convert 1 car space at the end of some city blocks to >> > > motorcyle-only parking, in areas in which motorcycle-parking >> is >> > > practically nonexistant. Priority should be given in cases >> where >> > > a large car or SUV parked in the space would block drivers' >> vision >> > > and present a safety hazard to pedestrians and other >> drivers. >> > > Install a physical barrier protecting motorcycles in the >> parking >> > > spaces from being hit by incompetent drivers. >> > > >> > > 14. Allow dedicated motorcycle parking on streets adjacent to >> sections >> > > of curb between driveways that are too small for cars. Many >> of >> > > these areas are currently painted red. These spaces should >> be >> > > illegal for cars, but legal for motorcycles, and a >> different >> > > markings (e.g., striping on the curb or street) should be >> used to >> > > indicate this. >> > > >> > > 15. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the >> elimination >> > > of public parking space and often in the removal of trees. >> > > Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or ticketing cars >> > > illegally blocking a driveway unless a resident of the >> property >> > > complains, a curb cut effectively turns the driveway into a >> > > private parking space. New curb cuts should be very >> expensive: >> > > the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, >> and >> > > increase with each tree removed. >> > > >> > > >> > > D. Taxis and Paratransit >> > > >> > > Each taxi in San Francisco averages 18,200 trips per year for a >> > > cumulative total of 25 million rides. Taxis operate almost >> > > continuously; they therefore contribute less to most forms of >> air >> > > pollution than private automobiles, as cars produce more air >> pollution >> > > in the first half hour of operation. San Francisco's 1,381 >> cabs >> > > should thus be acknowledged as a vital part of the city's >> Transit- >> > > First policy. >> > > >> > > The San Francisco Green Party supports: >> > > >> > > 1. Creating a professional class of drivers through one of two >> > > options. The first option would be the creation of a >> municipal >> > > taxi service in which cabs are owned by the city and leased > > to >> > > drivers. Under such a system, drivers would be paid an >> hourly wage >> > > plus commission for any fares over 15 to 20 per shift in >> order to >> > > encourage efficiency. Under this system, drivers could also >> be >> > > brought into the city's benefits system. The second option >> would >> > > maintain the fleet of privately-owned vehicles but would >> charge a >> > > concession fee to owners of medallions. Under either >> system, >> > > drivers could be incorporated into the City and County >> Health >> > > Services and retirement system. Currently, drivers are >> considered >> > > independent contractors and must pay for their own health >> > > insurance. >> > > >> > > 2. As long as taxis remain in private hands, maintain the gate >> cap >> > > that companies can charge drivers who rent vehicles. >> > > >> > > 3. Establish centralized dispatch. Currently cab companies, >> which do >> > > not own cabs themselves, are responsible for doing dispatch. >> > > However, in cab companies collect fees from drivers on a >> per-shift >> > > rather than per-customer basis, there is currently no direct >> > > incentive for cab companies to hire more dispatchers. >> > > >> > > 4. The City should subsidize taxis for the purpose of >> supplementing >> > > Muni. People who work odd hours need dependable and >> affordable >> > > transportation. Taxis can fulfill this need; in many cases, >> this >> > > would be cheaper for the city than expanding bus service >> along >> > > certain routes at certain times. >> > > >> > > 5. Incorporate taxis into any future local and regional >> Translink >> > > pass systems, to ease the transition from buses and BART to >> cabs. >> > > >> > > 6. Require taxis to take credit cards. >> > > >> > > 7. Create cab stands at the termini of Muni lines, major >> transit >> > > junctions, commercial areas, and in parts of the city >> underserved >> > > by Muni OWL service and other forms of transit. Cab stands >> are >> > > good for drivers, riders and the environment. >> > > >> > > 8. Create transit-only streets that can be used by Muni and >> cabs. >> > > [JMC: overlaps with G.10] >> > > >> > > 9. Requiring that all cabs in operation by 2015 be low-emission >> or >> > > zero-emmission vehicles. >> > > >> > > 10. Requiring that cabs be inspected a minimum of four times a >> year. >> > > The average cab in SF is driven about 100,000 miles per >> year, and >> > > cars that are tuned up generate less pollution. >> > > >> > > >> > > E. Pedestrians >> > > >> > > At some point in the day, almost everyone is a pedestrian. The >> > > advantages of walking are bourne out in both the health of >> pedestrians >> > > and the health of the environment itself. The San Francisco >> Green >> > > Party challenges the city to lower the number of households with >> cars >> > > from the current rate of 29%. Our proposed solutions encompass >> three >> > > main areas of pedestrian welfare: safety, health and access. >> > > >> > > [Sue: In this section we might also want to say something about >> the >> > > creation of livable communities in which schools, grocery >> stores, >> > > bookstores and libraries, etc., are plentiful enough to be >> within >> > > walking distance of most residents (unlike most of the Sunset >> now)] >> > > [JMC: this looks like good material for the intro, if somebody >> would >> > > draft language!] >> > > >> > > The San Francisco Green Party supports the following measures: >> > > >> > > 1. Fund education for Police and DPT regarding enforcement of >> laws >> > > relating to pedestrians. Enforcement of laws generates >> enough >> > > revenue for the city to make these programs self-sufficient; >> > > more aggressive enforcement would make the city safer and >> allow >> > > more PCOs (parking control officers) to be hired. >> > > >> > > 2. Dedicate more City funds to pedestrian and bike projects. >> > > >> > > 3. Increases fines for violations that most affect pedestrians: >> > > >> > > a. Raise fines for parking on the sidewalk to the same amount >> as >> > > for other violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act > > (e.g., >> > > illegal blocking of ramps or parking in spaces reserved for >> the >> > > disabled). [Ted: concern that this is regressive. Dave: >> also >> > > thinks current fine ($100) is OK, and we should just call >> for >> > > more enforcement] >> > > >> > > b. Double speeding fines in problem areas, beginning with >> 19th Ave. >> > > >> > > 4. Plant more trees along sidewalks and increase the number of >> benches >> > > to prevent sidewalk parking of motorized vehicles. >> [Stephanie: >> > > concern about noise from benches bothering residents] >> > > >> > > 5. Expand the number of pedestrian countdown signals and "zebra >> > > stripes" in crosswalks. >> > > >> > > 6. Motorists must be held accountable for pedestrian deaths. >> Killing >> > > a pedestrian should be a much more serious penalty than a >> mere >> > > moving violation. >> > > >> > > 7. Vehicles that completely block the right of way of >> pedestrians >> > > should be towed, without anybody having to call DPT. >> > > >> > > 8. When designing sidewalks, city planners should use Level of >> Service >> > > (LOS) standards which account for pedestrians in motion. >> > > >> > > 9. Increase traffic-calming measures that improve safety for >> > > pedestrians. Such measures include narrowing streets, >> planting >> > > trees and enforcement of sidewalk parking (cars parked >> curbside >> > > narrow traffic lanes and force people to drive more slowly). >> > > >> > > 10. Bulbouts are good traffic-calming measures for pedestrians. >> They >> > > can be constructed in such a way that bike lanes go through >> them, >> > > or in such a way that bikes waiting to go through >> intersections >> > > serve as a buffer between pedestrians in the crosswalks and >> cars >> > > (which wait behind the bikes). >> > > >> > > 11. In high-density neighborhoods with many pedestrians (e.g., >> Haight >> > > Street, Chinatown), we advocate redesigning the crosswalks >> to >> > > allow diagonal crossing, and a cycle in which lights are red >> in >> > > both directions. >> > > >> > > 12. Enforcement of existing laws regarding operation of >> motorized >> > > vehicles on sidewalks: the only legal vehicles are >> motorized >> > > wheelchairs, and cars and motorcycles entering or leaving >> > > garages. >> > > >> > > 13. Enforcement of laws against riding bicycles on sidewalks, >> paricularly >> > > against adults. People should walk bicycles on sidewalks >> when >> > > they come to a part of the street which is unsafe for >> riding. >> > > [Ted has concerns about this: not our highest priority, >> plus >> > > discriminatory vs immigrants] >> > > >> > > >> > > F. Bikes >> > > >> > > In freeing ourselves from dependance on the automobile, the >> bicycle is >> > > an essential tool. To make it possible for the bicycle to become >> a >> > > dominant form of transportation, it must become easy, safe, >> > > pleasurable and affordable. San Francisco legislators should >> more >> > > aggressively support a goal of having 10% of all trips within >> the City >> > > made by bike. >> > > >> > > The San Francisco Green Party recommends the following measures >> > > to accomplish this: >> > > >> > > 1. Allocate more resources to contine building the city-wide >> bike network. >> > > >> > > 2. Create more and better bicycle parking - on sidewalks for >> short >> > > term and in our workplaces for long term. >> > > >> > > 3. Engineer better and provide more access for bicycles on Muni, >> BART, >> > > and CalTrain. Advocate for the return of Driver Education to >> our >> > > schools with a special emphasis on safety and sharing the >> street >> > > with cyclists. Fund education efforts on the health and >> > > environmental benefits of cycling. >> > > >> > > 4. Design our streets to encourage slower and safer speeds and >> less >> > > competitive driving. This may include narrower street lanes >> (and >> > > wider sidewalks and bike lanes) so as not to give a >> freeway-like >> > > atmosphere to city streets. Turn wide one-way streets in >> SOMA into >> > > two-way streets for the same reasons, and time traffic lights > > on >> > > to discourage speeding. >> > > >> > > 5. San Francisco should provide funding for bicycle cooperatives >> that >> > > would provide less expensive bikes for those who can not >> afford >> > > them - and also less expensive rentals. These co-ops would >> also >> > > provide a place to repair and learn about bikes - especially >> health >> > > and safety. Co-ops could also sponsor teach-ins which would >> strive >> > > to reach out to potential cyclists and anyone who wants to >> > > participate in making transportation better for all. >> > > >> > > 6. Create bicycle-priority routes in which bicycles are allowed >> to >> > > treat four-way stop signs as a yield, with special signing >> to >> > > indicate that this is legal. >> > > >> > > 7. Bike patrols should ensure bike lanes are clear during all >> times, >> > > especially commute hours. >> > > >> > > 8. Only one environmental impact report should be required for >> the >> > > entire citywide bike plan. >> > > >> > > >> > > G. Streets and Cars >> > > >> > > The San Francisco Green Party recognizes the need of many people >> to >> > > use cars for business and personal reasons. However: >> > > >> > > 1. World fossil fuel supplies are dwindling and there is as of >> yet no >> > > viable, cheap alternative to gasoline or natural gas. >> > > >> > > 2. The number of dwelling units in San Francisco has increased >> by >> > > 34,000 while the number of cars has increased by 165,000 >> since >> > > 1955, severely impacting the quality of street life in the >> city. >> > > >> > > 3. Obesity is becoming epidemic across all ethnicities, and >> especially >> > > in children, in some part due to the fact that Americans >> > > automatically drive places instead of walking or biking. >> > > >> > > The San Francisco Green Party therefore supports: >> > > >> > > 1. Non-profit car-sharing enterprises, such as CityCarshare. >> > > >> > > 2. Increasing the price of parking a car, and allocating fewer >> > > development resources to building parking at the expense >> > > of housing (see section C). >> > > >> > > 3. Fleets of hybrid, electric and low-emissions vehicles at >> worksites >> > > for people whose jobs necessitate driving (e.g., building >> > > inspectors and visiting nurses). >> > > >> > > 4. Implement traffic-calming measures such as narrowing >> roadways, >> > > planting trees, pedestrian bulbouts at intersections, and >> zebra >> > > stripes at crosswalks (see section E). >> > > >> > > 5. Increased enforcement of traffic violations such as speeding >> and >> > > blocking intersections. Specifically, the SFGP supports >> > > legislation to double the fine for speeding along 19th >> Avenue. The >> > > SFGP also supports stricter enforcement of sidewalk parking >> > > violations along 19th Avenue and other streets. Cars parked >> on >> > > streets, as opposed to sidewalks, are a traffic calming >> tool. >> > > >> > > 6. Increased density along major transit corridors and the >> development >> > > of truly livable - and therefore walkable and bikable >> communities >> > > - that have grocery stores, libraries, bookstores, parks, >> > > community gardens, clothing stores, restaurants, schools, >> medical >> > > offices and everything else that is necessary for healthy >> and >> > > joyful lives. >> > > >> > > 7. Supporting experimental programs such as "Way to Go Seattle" >> that >> > > paid families to leave their second car at home and only >> depend on >> > > one car or on alternative means of transportation. >> > > >> > > 8. Triple fines for any moving violation that occurs while the >> driver >> > > is talking on a cell phone. [Ted recommends for SUVs also] >> > > >> > > 9. The area of Golden Gate Park which is currently closed to >> cars >> > > on Sundays is extremely popular. This closure should also >> be >> > > done on Saturdays and holidays. >> > > >> > > 10. We support more dedicated bus lanes (see section B), as well >> as >> > > zones (such as the downtown section of Market Street) with >> > > restrictions on private automobile use. Delivery trucks, > > public >> > > transit, taxis, paratransit, and bicycles would not be >> restricted >> > > in such zones. >> > > >> > > 11. We recognize noise pollution as a form of pollution, and >> call for >> > > strict enforcement of noise regulations against motor >> vehicles. >> > > >> > >> >> -- Dave Snyder

1 0

Re: Draft: Transportation plank
by John-Marc Chandonia 17 Jun '04

17 Jun '04

On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:32:20PM -0700, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > Come on, everyone. Bicyclists can ALWAYS walk their bikes on sidewalks. I'm in favor of allowing kids to ride on the sidewalks; I've rarely seen them ride anywhere else, and I wouldn't want them to ride on any street while they're learning due to safety concerns. Adults who are teaching their kids would have to ride with them. I'm fine with this as long as there aren't pedestrians around. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Re: Draft: Transportation plank
by Dave Snyder 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

How about equivalent to a fast pass: $45/month? But I really think it should be market rate. We should not be subsidizing car parking when people are lacking basic health care. And it's not neo-liberal rhetoric; it's radical rhetoric. It's the same philosophy behind the Reclaim the Streets movement in the UK. And walking freely on the sidewalk is an entirely different use of public space than placing private property on public space and prohibiting others from using it by force, with the cooperation of the police. The correct analogy would be building a house on the sidewalk, or a kiosk to sell trinkets, or, the worst example, parking a car on the sidewalk. Whether it's popular shouldn't be the only thing criterion we use. Besides, we can make it popular by building in exemptions for current permit holders and limiting permits to the number of spaces so that the program actually guarantees a space rather than just a hunting license for a space. It has to be popular because under current law it would be considered a tax not a user fee and therefore require a vote, probably two-thirds, of the affected voters. For details, see, http://livablecity.org/campaigns/res_permit.html. Dave At 1:05 PM -0700 6/16/04, Rob Arnow wrote: >How about suggesting it be raise to $200 a year? Or just say "increase"? > >There is a big difference between MUNI, and "public space." Whereas MUNI >actually requires labor to keep it going, pavement requires much much less. >I'm not "usurping public space" by walking for free on the sidewalk, so lets >not use neo-liberal rhetoric as a tool for justifying what is simply a >desire to make it prohibitive to own a car. I think there are good reasons >for this, but better to go slow and raise the fee to $200 a year, rather >than $1000. This might be good policy but its not going to be popular. > >Rob > >-- >Robert Arnow Design Studio >www.robarnow.com >415-552-2229 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dave Snyder" <dave(a)livablecity.org> >To: "Rob Arnow" <rob(a)robarnow.com>; <grns-sf-staff(a)greens.org>; >"transportation working group" <transpo(a)sfgreens.org> >Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:35 PM >Subject: Re: Draft: Transportation plank > > >> >*Not sure how I feel about charging market rates for street parking. I'm >not >> >sure what market rate is but this seems a bit draconian, and certainly >not >> >popular. How about just increasing the fees? >> >> As a Green, I'm certainly not a believer in "market rates" for their >> own sake. Let's analyze: >> >> "Market rate" for Muni service would be a little more than twice the fare. >> >> "Market rate" for parking would vary drastically by neighborhood, but >> in the Haight, say, it would be about $100/month, or, 50 times the >> current rate of $2.25/month. ($27/year). We subsidize car parking >> about 20 times the rate we subsidize bus riding. When you consider >> that city policies have forced the development of nearly a million >> parking spaces in this town, increasing supply relative to demand and >> therefore suppressing the "market price," you should note that even >> this analysis of car parking subsidy understates the reality. >> >> At a minimum, these subsidies should be equalized. Better, to promote >> transit riding, we should subsidize Muni until it's free, paid for >> out of car parking fees. I think we should respect the need not to >> shock people who have arranged their lives around an unfortunately >> reasonable assumption of free private usurpation of public property >> (parking), so another way to deal with that is to exempt current >> permit holders from increased fees, charging only newcomers the >> higher fee. This would generate money much more slowly, but as people >> move out of the neighborhood, more and more permits would be subject >> to the fee. People normally take into account commuting and parking >> prices when they consider moving to a new neighborhood or house. >> >> -- >> Dave Snyder > > >> -- Dave Snyder

1 0

Re: Draft: Transportation plank
by Dave Snyder 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

>*Not sure how I feel about charging market rates for street parking. I'm not >sure what market rate is but this seems a bit draconian, and certainly not >popular. How about just increasing the fees? As a Green, I'm certainly not a believer in "market rates" for their own sake. Let's analyze: "Market rate" for Muni service would be a little more than twice the fare. "Market rate" for parking would vary drastically by neighborhood, but in the Haight, say, it would be about $100/month, or, 50 times the current rate of $2.25/month. ($27/year). We subsidize car parking about 20 times the rate we subsidize bus riding. When you consider that city policies have forced the development of nearly a million parking spaces in this town, increasing supply relative to demand and therefore suppressing the "market price," you should note that even this analysis of car parking subsidy understates the reality. At a minimum, these subsidies should be equalized. Better, to promote transit riding, we should subsidize Muni until it's free, paid for out of car parking fees. I think we should respect the need not to shock people who have arranged their lives around an unfortunately reasonable assumption of free private usurpation of public property (parking), so another way to deal with that is to exempt current permit holders from increased fees, charging only newcomers the higher fee. This would generate money much more slowly, but as people move out of the neighborhood, more and more permits would be subject to the fee. People normally take into account commuting and parking prices when they consider moving to a new neighborhood or house. -- Dave Snyder

1 0