August 2004 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Suggested changes to draft 11
by Tom Zych 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

Hi all, Probably most of you don't know me - I'm new. I emailed some suggestions to Sue and John-Marc and was delighted to see they were considered useful. So, here are some more :) * 4. Creation of a local vehicle registration fee, based on the engine size, weight, fuel efficiency, and value of the vehicle. This fee would be partially offset by a transportation tax credit for all San Franciscans, including those who do not rely on cars for transit. The net effect will be to raise revenue, while rewarding non-drivers and drivers of smaller, less-polluting, and more efficient cars. We want to ensure the net effect of this fee and credit is not regressive. [JMC: There were concerns that this should also directly reflect the pollution emitted by the vehicle. However, the tax needs to be something that can be computed without inspecting each individual vehicle. Does engine size do this, or is there a better way to phrase this? How about average C02 output for that model and year?] Good point. I was thinking in terms of the latter idea - measuring a sample of each model / year, then assuming all cars in that class generate the same amount of CO2. But also, I wanted the phrasing to make clear what we're addressing - CO2 emissions. I'm not sure we really need to address *how* we'd be measuring CO2 - that seems like more detail than we need here. Also, do automobiles create any greenhouse gases besides CO2? Regarding the issue of making it progressive, one issue I'm thinking of is poor people who need a car because of where they live, but can't afford any car except an old clunker with horrible mileage and emissions. They're polluting even more than SUV owners, but for them it's necessity, not choice. So I'd hate to slap them with the same kind of fee. I think we should somehow address the availability of inexpensive, low-emissions, *no-frills*, possibly subsidized vehicles for this class of drivers; or, viable mass transit alternatives for them, without many cracks for people to fall through. * 10. Amend San Francisco's environmental review procedures, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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 would not result in an increase in car vehicle miles traveled. [JMC: moved from F, since it deals with multiple forms of transit] Agreed, this is the right place. For consistent phrasing it should read "Amendment of". E. Pedestrians * At some point in the day, almost everyone is a pedestrian. The advantages of walking are bourn out in both the health of pedestrians -----> borne -- Tom Zych freethinker(a)pobox.com

1 0

Re: [Transpo] correction of rewrite
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 09 Aug '04

09 Aug '04

No Jerry, you were right the first time. It's "year." Sue On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 21:24:52 -0700 "Jerry Path" <pjrry(a)igc.org> writes: > Hi again - the last word in the rewrite should be "generations" > instead of "years". Jerry Path > > > Jerry Path > pjrry(a)igc.org > Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Re: [Transpo] rewrite of the rewrite of background section
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 09 Aug '04

09 Aug '04

I'm taking a stab at this as follows: Our present system of transportation is currently based almost entirely on the personal automobile. The primary reason for the existence of the personal vehicle is not to meet our needs for mobility but to nourish and coddle the massive energy and automobile corporations. Psychological manipulation of people through advertising has been an important tool in building this system -- addicting people to the car by promoting it not only as a necessity but as a source of status, power and freedom, as well. The power of the large energy and automobile corporations to manipulate us and thus dictate the terms of our transportation infrastructure now leaves us on the dangerous brink of further wars to secure natural resources and global warming on disastrous scales. It is urgent that common people resist the manipulation of the energy and automobile industries and work collectively and democratically towards the creation of sustainable means of transportation. However, the first step in this movement is to help the vast majority of San Franciscans -- as well as the rest of the nation -- to see the car not as an entitlement -- or even a necessity -- but as an increasingly untenable means of transportation due to congestion, pollution, global warming, and the geopolitics of oil depletion and price instability. Many people will argue that technology will provide the solution to the ICE (internal combustion engine) and allow people to still have their personal vehicles -- though they may not operate on petroleum. Decades of research has yet to provide an alternative to ICEs. In addition, lower emission vehicles that use compressed natural gas still contribute to congestion and geopolitical instability -- and at present seem to be subject to a more rapidly declining curve of natural gas production than even oil once peak production is reached. Sue > Background > > Our present transportation system is centered in a > one-dimensional way around the car. Its primary function has not > been to meet our needs for mobility so much as it has been to > nourish and coddle the massive energy and automobile corporations. > > Advertising has been an important tool in building this system - > addicting people to the car by promoting it as a source of status, > power and freedom. It has resulted in a loss of the common persons' > having much say over how their needs are meet. > > Taking back this democratic right means that ever increasing > numbers of people will have to see the car as it is - a source of > congestion, pollution and alienation. > > This will be a process involving many different interconnected > and interdependent factors. This document represents a start in this > process. > > However, we are speaking to a deep crisis which our mainstream > leadership refuses to honestly acknowledge because so much depends > on the car being at the center of things. Consequently, taking > leadership means honesty in facing sometimes unpleasant facts - but > in doing so we are putting human needs at the center where they > belong, and drivers will also benefit. To continue on our current > path would be sucide for us as well as for the Earth over the next > several years. > > > Jerry Path > pjrry(a)igc.org > Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

correction of rewrite
by Jerry Path 09 Aug '04

09 Aug '04

Hi again - the last word in the rewrite should be "generations" instead of "years". Jerry Path Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

1 0

rewrite of the rewrite of background section
by Jerry Path 09 Aug '04

09 Aug '04

Hi all, Well, I've tried to do a rewite of the rewrite of the background section. Jerry Path Background Our present transportation system is centered in a one-dimensional way around the car. Its primary function has not been to meet our needs for mobility so much as it has been to nourish and coddle the massive energy and automobile corporations. Advertising has been an important tool in building this system - addicting people to the car by promoting it as a source of status, power and freedom. It has resulted in a loss of the common persons' having much say over how their needs are meet. Taking back this democratic right means that ever increasing numbers of people will have to see the car as it is - a source of congestion, pollution and alienation. This will be a process involving many different interconnected and interdependent factors. This document represents a start in this process. However, we are speaking to a deep crisis which our mainstream leadership refuses to honestly acknowledge because so much depends on the car being at the center of things. Consequently, taking leadership means honesty in facing sometimes unpleasant facts - but in doing so we are putting human needs at the center where they belong, and drivers will also benefit. To continue on our current path would be sucide for us as well as for the Earth over the next several years. Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

1 0

new Transpo plank draft
by John-Marc Chandonia 01 Aug '04

01 Aug '04

Here's the new draft. I've added all feedback to date, including Christine's re-worded background. I've put a * by every item that has been changed (except for typos). Chris, does A.9 address your concerns about democratic representation? I'd like it to apply to all commissions, not just the Taxi commission. Dave W, could you take a look at C.5 and C.6? I'd like to clean up the language about underground parking and unbundling; they may make more sense if they're split off into separate items with more clear language, now that we have a few more weeks to work on this. I'd also like to hear suggestions as to how to make it clear that we want the overall cost of transportation to be progressive; Carlos' suggestion that we put all parts of our platform on hold until the CA legislature funds a perfect transit system for low-income neighborhoods is obviously unworkable. There's still some controversy around A.4., but I think it's essential for funding the other improvements. Thanks, JMC Proposed Transportation Plank Draft 11, 8/1/04 The San Francisco Green Party believes that a good place to begin changing our present transportation system is by striving for a safe, healthy, attractive, and liveable city through good local transit. Public transit should be an efficient, reliable and appealing option for all people, not just a last option for 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 livelihoods of the drivers. Cars should be accommodated gracefully in planning, but no longer 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. While transit improvements are necessary for all neighborhoods, the southeast neighborhoods bear a particularly high share of transportation costs in the form of air pollution from our freeways, and should be compensated by focusing on other transit improvements in these neighborhoods. Several of the following proposals 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. * Background Our present transportation system has created a monopoly on a very basic need: mobility. Its primary function has been to nourish and coddle the massive energy and automobile corporations. This has resulted in a loss of power for the common person. Specifically, these industries have created false needs through advertising and manipulated figures in order to foster a fruitless competition for status at the expense of good transportation for all. Taking back the power to meet our own needs means we will have to overcome the addiction to the automobile as a symbol of our liberty and independence. This will be a process involving many different interconnected and interdependent factors which therefore need to be implemented in a coordinated fashion. This ever-evolving document outlines the local aspects of that process. It is a collection of policies intended to work in conjunction with each other to eventually create a vastly improved system of transportation that supersedes economic class and means. Furthermore, we speak to a deep crisis which our mainstream leadership refuses to honestly acknowledge. To do so would seriously jeopardize the status quo, which is the bedrock of the economic stability and gain of an elite few. Consequently, taking on this leadership means we are also taking on some hard and perhaps unpleasant challenges for many of us. However, to continue on our current path would be a slow suicide for us as well as the Earth over the next several generations. A. Transit Justice Many of our current means of funding transit are regressive: a much higher share of the incomes of working class people is consumed through 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 the southeast neighborhoods of the city, which is caused in part 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. Recruitment of neighborhood residents for a major share of the new jobs created by transit projects which have an impact on those neighborhoods, such as the 3rd Street Light Rail. 2. Employment by Muni of an increased number of San Francisco residents for jobs at all levels, so that income from these jobs stays in the City. 3. Conversion of Muni buses in the southeast neighborhoods to electric or less-polluting technology such as CNG (compressed natural gas), to mitigate air quality problems caused by the freeways and other sources such as power plants. Such conversion will reduce particulate pollution in these neighborhoods. * 4. Creation of a local vehicle registration fee, based on the engine size, weight, fuel efficiency, and value of the vehicle. This fee would be partially offset by a transportation tax credit for all San Franciscans, including those who do not rely on cars for transit. The net effect will be to raise revenue, while rewarding non-drivers and drivers of smaller, less-polluting, and more efficient cars. We want to ensure the net effect of this fee and credit is not regressive. [JMC: There were concerns that this should also directly reflect the pollution emitted by the vehicle. However, the tax needs to be something that can be computed without inspecting each individual vehicle. Does engine size do this, or is there a better way to phrase this? How about average C02 output for that model and year?] 5. Gradual elimination of subsidies for commuters, such as free or below market rate parking in areas where commuters park. Current subsidies mask the true costs of commuting by car, encouraging driving over more environmentally and economically sustainable modes of transit. 6. Increasing the share of transit costs to 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). In addition, the Planning Department should aggressively collect all past unpaid fees from developers. * 7. Increasing the share of public transit costs that is paid by corporations which profit the most from our current car-oriented culture. 8. Planning on a regional level that incorporates more dense housing development (see section G) along corridors rich in public transit. 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 funds and have greater representation on regional planning committees. * 9. Democratic reform of the commissions that determine our transit policy and spending priorities. Representatives on each committee should reflect the diverse range of people being served by transit. Representatives on the most important commissions should be democratically elected, and other commissions should be appointed by a variety of elected officials (e.g., district supervisors). * 10. Amend San Francisco's environmental review procedures, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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 would not result in an increase in car vehicle miles traveled. [JMC: moved from F, since it deals with multiple forms of transit] B. Muni and Regional Transit * In order to increase use of Muni, public transit needs to be safe, efficient, affordable, reliable, and appealing. Muni's performance should be improved to the point where it's an attractive option for most people going about their daily business, not just those commuting to and from work. Funding for Muni should be increased and operating costs should be shifted to sources other than the riders. Public transit should eventually be free to riders, funded by all citizens as are public parks, public schools, and public libraries. Increased Muni ridership benefits everybody: businesses get the added benefit of more mobile customers, drivers benefit from less congestion, and everybody enjoys 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 most neighborhoods in half an hour or less. This would entail the development of a system of dedicated bus lanes and traffic lights controlled by Muni operators along major transit corridors. 2. Gradual replacement of the citywide BRT system with light rail. Light rail should then be expanded into neighborhoods that will benefit from improved rider experience and faster movement. Expansions that have the least per-rider cost and that help the lowest-income riders should be the first priority. 3. Immediately roll fares back to $1 ($35 for Fastpasses) 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. As long as riders have to pay fares, expand Proof of Payment to all Muni routes to decrease boarding times. 6. Expand programs which enable employees to pay for public transit with pre-tax earnings. 7. Maintain infrastructure in good repair so less money is spent on equipment failures and emergencies. 8. Eliminate redundant Muni stops on the same line that are only one block apart, except in hilly areas where this would pose a major inconvenience for riders. 9. Ensure faster service by allowing all Muni buses and trains to control traffic signals as they approach. Replace stop signs along the busiest Muni routes with controlled traffic lights. 10. Create clearer marking for transit priority corridors and lanes and enforce them more aggressively, especially parking violations in bus and rail lanes. Gradually designate more lanes as transit priority lanes. 11. Establish timed, no-wait transfers at key junctions between Muni lines. 12. Expand Nextbus or equivalent service to all lines. 13. Transition the Muni fleet to cleaner-fuel and electric buses, and buy new low-floor vehicles to ensure easier boarding. 14. Extend Caltrain downtown, electrify it, and coordinate Muni bus arrivals and departures with the Caltrain schedule. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. Institute student discounts on Fastpasses for all students, to cover those unable to participate in these programs. 18. Include the cost of a monthly Fastpass in residential parking permits to give drivers the option of taking Muni at no additional cost. 19. Improve transit service in the southeast part of SF. Specifically, build a new Caltrain station at Oakdale Avenue to better serve the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood. Improve the Bayshore station with direct connections to the Third Street light rail and Geneva Avenue buses to better serve the Visitacion Valley neighborhood. 20. Direct more regional funding toward Muni's operating costs rather than expensive capital projects. 21. Improve scheduling such that Muni drivers and other transit operators work shifts and hours they deem reasonable. In addition, all Muni employees who work split shifts (both rush hours) should be considered full-time and earn equivalent hourly rates and benefits. 22. Build the "G line" and run it from Market Street, up Church and then along the N-Judah line to 9th Avenue and into Golden Gate Park. Operate historic streetcars on this line. This would be relatively inexpensive compared to other new light rail projects, and provide a more convenient way to the park than driving for many people, especially those coming on BART from outside the City. 23. Mandate that BART charge for parking at all BART parking lots. C. Parking: * Parking has a huge impact on our transportation system. Every car occupies space at its owner's residence and three to four spaces elsewhere. Space used for the storage of private automobiles amounts to vast areas of pavement and building space that could be used for parks, natural areas, public recreation, housing, retail, 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 percent 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 use of transit, walking, and bicycling. Parking also reduces population densities, requiring people to travel greater distances to meet their needs, and obstructs efficient and safe travel by walking, bicycle, and transit. The San Francisco Green Party recommends that the City: 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. These "in-law" units, in converted basements, garages and carriage houses, will provide housing that will in most cases be less expensive than standard apartments and closer to jobs and transit than housing outside the City. Such units will also reduce the use of automobiles by reducing storage capacity, and thus reduce congestion on City streets. 2. Legally protect all existing "in-law" units and protect tenants who currently live in these units from eviction. * 3. Prohibit new public parking facilities in the downtown district north of Townsend and Division, 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. [JMC: mention success rate? change "do the same" to "emulate these successful programs"?] 4. Increase the tax on commercial parking lot operators. Currently, a 25 percent tax on parking lot operators' receipts (which are exempt from the 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 discourage driving, and to generate public funds. Such taxes are progressive user fees, paid primarily by non San Franciscans who commute to high-paying jobs, offering collateral benefits to transit passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. * 5. Eliminate parking requirements for new housing, starting with affordable, senior, and SRO housing, and institute maximum parking limits for new housing. The specific maximum limits should vary by neighborhood, ranging from a high limit of one parking space per housing unit in less transit-friendly areas such as parts of the Sunset and Bayview, to a low limit of .25 parking spaces per housing unit in neighborhoods such as downtown, North Beach, and the Mission, which are densely populated, already congested with traffic, and well-served by transit. Parking requirements should never be an impediment to housing construction. San Francisco needs car-free housing. A reduction in the amount of parking provided for new housing will result in lower housing prices for consumers and higher profit margins for developers. Parking requirements in new housing are subsizided by developers for the private benefit of relatively wealthy housing consumers. Any new parking should be constructed underground. * 6. Allow non-independently accessible parking to meet parking requirements for new housing, until such requirements are eliminated. Parking should be unbundled from housing. Suggested language: Require that parking be sold and rented separately from housing, so that people who have no need for a parking space are not mandated to purchase one when they buy a home. [JMC: concern that this limits the design of housing--in many cases, the garage is integrated with the house, so you can't allow somebody access to the garage without letting them into your house] 7. 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 giving a large number of permits to one individual at very low cost severely undervalues precious urban space. While it costs hundreds of dollars a month to store a few thousand pounds of private property, it's free in most neighborhoods to store a private car on the public streets. This is a disservice to people most in need of on-street parking and who should be willing to pay for it. People should pay market price for on-street 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. 8. Convert certain public garages and lots to housing. Above-ground parking lots are a menace to lively street life and can cause great disruption to transit and bicycle traffic. The city should identify a few garages and parking lots and acquire the property, or otherwise cause the property to be converted to housing. 9. Mandate car-sharing parking pods in every neighborhood and in new developments, preferably in highly visible and accessible locations. Car-sharing permits residents to have access to cars without having to invest in permanent ownership. The pay-per-use system of car-share cooperatives and nonprofits saves residents money and reduces car use. 10. Encourage businesses to be "green." Free parking forces customers who do not drive to subsidize customers who do drive. The San Francisco Green Party encourages businesses to charge for parking or provide a financial benefit equal to the subsidized cost of parking to customers who do not drive. 11. Ban parking garages in city parks. Institute a moratorium on new municipal parking garages and lots. 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. 12. Charge market rates at all off-street parking facilities owned or operated by San Francisco in areas well served by Muni, with a few exceptions for spaces reserved for night shift workers, emergency personnel, or workers who are required to use their personal vehicles for their job. 13. Eliminate free VIP parking at the airport. * 14. Dramatically increase the cost of new curb cuts to make way for new driveways to garages. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the elimination of public parking space, often in the removal of trees, and the transformation of sidewalk right-of-ways into driveways. The cost of new curb cuts should be proportional to the length of the cut, and increase with each tree removed. All trees removed should be replaced, on the same block wherever possible. 15. Enforce existing zoning laws against the paving of front yards to provide parking. * 16. Convert one car space at the forward-facing end of some city blocks to motorcyle-only parking, especially in areas in which motorcycle-parking is practically non-existent. 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 physical barriers to protect motorcycles in such parking spaces from being hit by careless drivers. 17. Allow dedicated motorcycle parking on sections of curbs 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 different markings (e.g., striping on the curb or street) should be used to indicate this. D. Taxis * Taxis account for a significant portion of the trips made each year in San Francisco. Taxis operate almost continuously; they therefore contribute proportionally 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 cabs should thus be acknowledged as a vital part of the city's Transit First policy. To this end, the San Francisco Green Party recommends that the City: * 1. Implement one of the following options, which would create a professional class of drivers with city-sponsored health care and other benefits: i. Municipalize the taxi system. Cabs would be owned by the City and driven by employee drivers. Under this system, drivers would be paid an hourly wage plus commission for any fares over 15 to 20 per shift; or, ii. Provide drivers with city-sponsored benefits, but maintain the existing system of private vehicle ownership. 2. Retain the cap on gate fees that companies charge drivers as long as taxis remain in private hands. 3. Establish centralized dispatch. Currently cab companies either have their own dispatch service or affiliate with one. However, because independent cab drivers (and not their passengers) are clients of cab companies who are responsible for dispatch, there is currently no direct incentive for cab companies to improve dispatch efficiency. 4. Subsidize taxis for the purpose of supplementing Muni. People who work unusual 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 taxi companies to take credit/debit 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. (see section G). * 9. Require that all cabs be replaced by low-emission or zero-emission vehicles once such vehicles appropriate for taxi purposes become available; the new vehicles would be phased in as old cabs are retired. 10. Require that cabs be inspected a minimum of two times in the first year and thereafter four times a year. The average cab in San Francisco 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 bourn 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 about 30 percent. One part of our proposed solution is to improve three main areas of pedestrian welfare: safety, health and access. At the same time, we should increase 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. The San Francisco Green Party encourages the City to: 1. Require police and parking control officers to enforce laws which improve pedestrian safety and convenience. Aggressively enforce violations of pedestrian rights-of-way such as parking on sidewalks. 2. Dedicate more City funds to pedestrian projects such as safety awareness, zebra striping, lighted crosswalks, and countdown signals. Redesign crosswalks in high-density neighborhoods with many pedestrians (e.g., Haight Street, Chinatown, and others) to allow for diagonal crossing during a traffic signal cycle in which lights are red in both directions. 3. Combine doubling of speeding fines in problem areas, such 19th Avenue, with increased enforcement of speed laws. As success is achieved in these areas, step up enforcement in other parts of the City. 4. Make walking more attractive by planting more trees along sidewalks, ensuring their well-being, and enforcing laws to prevent them from being trimmed improperly and/or destroyed. Increase the number of benches on sidewalks, while complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 5. Encourage changes in state law such that pedestrian injuries and deaths as a result of moving violations result in much more severe penalties. Currently, unless intent can be proved, motorists are only charged with moving violations. * 6. Tow vehicles that block the right of way of pedestrians when violations are observed by parking control officers, rather than waiting for someone to call DPT. * 7. When designing sidewalks, use level of service standards that account for pedestrians in motion, not just those waiting to cross streets at intersections or in pedestrian crosswalks. Such a change would encourage planners to design wider sidewalks. 8. Increase traffic-calming measures that improve safety for pedestrians. Such measures include narrowing streets, planting trees, and pedestrian bulbouts, among others. 9. Construct pedestrian bulbouts 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). 10. Enforce existing laws regarding operation of motorized vehicles on sidewalks. The only legal vehicles are motorized wheelchairs traveling at eight miles per hour or less, 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 provides independent, door-to-door transportation for every able-bodied person, 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 percent 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 substantial funds over the long term to bicycle planning, infrastructure, and promotion. 2. Build a complete citywide bicycle network that provides separated bike paths, bike lanes, and streets on which it is safe to bicycle. 3. Create more and better bicycle parking. Sidewalk bike parking should be as ubiquitous as possible without blocking pedestrians or violating ADA requirements. 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. Improve design of bike racks and bicycle access on Muni, BART, and CalTrain. 5. Include bicycle safety information in driver education courses. Fund mandatory bicycle education, including safe operation and social aspects, in our schools for children age 10 to 12. 6. Provide funding for bicycle cooperatives that offer less expensive bikes for sale and rental to those who can not afford them. 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. 7. Instruct San Francisco police to deprioritize bicycle violations at stop signs and red lights where bicyclists yield the right-of-way, and urge the California 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. 8. Establish bike patrols that ensure that bike lanes are clear during all times, especially commute hours. G. Streets and Cars The San Francisco Green Party recognizes the need of many people to use cars for business and personal reasons. However: i. World fossil fuel supplies are dwindling and, as yet, there is no viable, cheap alternative to gasoline or natural gas. ii. The number of dwelling units in San Francisco has increased by approximately 34,000 while the number of cars has increased by 165,000 since 1955, having a severe impact on the quality of street life in the city. iii. Obesity is becoming epidemic across all ethnicities, and especially in children, in some part due to the fact that Americans are in the habit of driving instead of walking or biking. The City and other entities should therefore: 1. Support nonprofit and cooperative car-sharing enterprises through parking policies that dedicate spaces specifically for vehicles owned in common (see section C). 2. Increase the price of parking a car, and allocate fewer development resources to building parking at the expense of housing (see section C). * 3. Provide shared fleets of hybrid, electric, renewable-fuel, and low-emissions vehicles at worksites for people whose jobs necessitate driving (e.g., building inspectors and visiting nurses). 4. Design ALL our streets to encourage slower and safer speeds and less competitive driving. This may include narrower street lanes (and wider sidewalks, bike lanes and more trees) so as not to give a freeway-like atmosphere to city streets. 5. Increase enforcement of traffic violations such as speeding and blocking intersections. 6. Support 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. 7. Encourage state lawmakers to triple fines for any moving violation that occurs while the driver is talking on a cell phone. 8. Create more carfree areas and close JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park on Saturdays as well as Sundays. 9. Create 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. * 10. Strictly enforce noise regulations against vehicles that violate noise pollution laws. -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0