January 2005 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

letter on plank
by John-Marc Chandonia 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Hi, I've formatted the plank as a PDF (posted on sfgreens.org) and written the following letter to the Supes to go with it. Please give me any corrections, and I'll print up letters for Sue and I to sign at the General meeting. Text follows: Dear Supervisor xxx, Congratulations on beginning another (for Ross: "your first") term with the Board of Supervisors! The San Francisco Green Party is currently working on a platform that, unlike our California and national party platforms (both of which are available on the web), deals exclusively with local issues. We're happy to report that the first plank in the platform, dealing with Transportation issues, was adopted by consensus at our General Membership meeting in October. We've enclosed a copy of this plank in hopes that you will find our positions helpful in crafting Transportation-related legislation during your term. In particular, the San Francisco Green Party is concerned that due to the current budget problems, Muni fares may be raised or services cut in order to close the gap. In the short term, we instead recommend raising the money by enacting one or more of the policies discussed in our plank, e.g., increasing the costs of parking, raising the transit impact fees paid by developers, or creating a local car registration fee. We're encouraged to hear that some of you are already looking into these possibilities. In the long term, we hope additional funds can be raised through progressive taxation: public transit should be primarily funded in the same ways as public parks, schools, and libraries, rather than through user fees (which are essentially regressive taxes, but unfortunately much easier to increase). If you have any questions or want clarification on the issues discussed in our platform, we'd be happy to set up a meeting with members of our working group, or answer questions by email or phone. Our current co-chairs are John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org, or 285-5696) and Sue Vaughan (668-3119). The San Francisco Green Party is continuing to revise and add to our platform, and we expect to adopt additional planks this year dealing with other important local issues. We hope you'll take a look at these as well. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

2 1

Trees Not Cars Lawsuit: Explanation and Update
by Jym Dyer 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Trees Not Cars Lawsuit: Explanation and Update 1-16-05 Dear Friends: Thank you all so much for all your letters, faxes, public testimony, showing up up at rallies etc. to try and ward off the city's proposed (boneheaded) widening of Martin Luther King Drive in Golden Gate Park to make it easier for motorists to access the monster (boneheaded) mega-garage in our previously beautiful, previously world-class, previously premier public park. Some of you may not understand why this misguided venture is even happening. It is in response to a court order demanding that the city honor promises it made to voters in 1998 when the horrible idea of building a garage in the park was first hatched. Back then, voters were manipulated into voting for a garage buried in an initiative called "The Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act," which promised to reduce the impact of cars on Golden Gate Park. The widening of MLK is just the latest of a long line of broken promises the city has made ever since. In December, 2003, the final signature was put on the (by then thoroughly corrupt) garage project by city officials. The Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Rec and Park Commission, and Concourse Authority all approved it either unanimously or by overwhelming majorities, and then-Mayor Willie Brown gave it the final go-ahead right before leaving office. But the ink was barely dry on all these signatures before the city went to court and filed a "validation" lawsuit, a relatively new type of litigation designed to establish high enough bond ratings to reassure skittish investors wanting to invest in risky projects. It also opens a 30-day window for people to submit objections; after that, no further lawsuits can be filed. This begs the question: if the public officials who approved the garage were doing their job properly, why did the city need court validation for it? That is, if everything the legislative and executive branches did was kosher, why bring in the third branch of government, and limit the public's ability to sue? As it turns out, there were plenty of things our representatives in City Hall turned a blind eye to in approving this project. Prop J represented a balance between those who wanted a garage in the park -- mostly museum trustees and out-of-towners -- and those who understood its drawbacks. J is packed with mitigation measures intended to allay voters' concerns about allowing private interests to violate our public park. These promises were so compelling that they induced even powerful environmentalists to either withdraw their opposition, or publicly come out in support of Prop J. That's why J was virtually impossible to defeat. Among these promises were: all the entrances and exits would be outside the park, making the park even safer and more car-free for bicyclists and pedestrians; the Music Concourse would not be harmed by construction; the garage would be paid for exclusively through private donations; control over the garage would rest forever in public hands; and best of all, a new City Charter amendment ensured that all parking fees, after normal operating and maintenance expenses, would be diverted to the perpetually cash-strapped Rec and Park Department. As a friend of mine once said, "If something seems too good to be true, it probably is." What started out as quid pro quo began to reseble more closely a corporate bait-and-switch: take what you want and swindle the rest. The banking heirs and wealthy trustees who insisted that a garage in the park was necessary didn't really care about bicyclists, pedestrians, transit, or a traffic-calmed park; they just wanted their garage. They turned over complete control of the project to a new non-profit, the Music Concourse Community Partnership, which is not subject to Sunshine laws. The MCCP razed historic pedestrian archways, clearcut cherry trees in full bloom, located an entrance in the center of the park, and sliced and diced the City Charter to siphon off garage revenue to pay back their construction loans, in direct contradiction to Prop J. That's where Trees Not Cars comes in. We filed our objections to the validation lawsuit last January, before the 30-day deadline was up, and we have been pressing on ever since to force the city to comply with what voters voted for. In August, Superior Court Judge James Warren ruled that we were correct on one point: all access to the garage needs to originate outside the park. But more than one city official has publicly admitted that the design the city came back with, widening MLK, is worse than the original design, the one the judge ruled illegal. We are appealing Judge Warren's decision on the basis that it doesn't go far enough -- we believe the diversion of garage revenue, the lack of traffic-calming, the formation of the MCCP, and the siting of an entrance inside the park are all illegal, and must be stopped. We are determined to hold the city's feet to the fire: to uphold the City Charter and the democratic process, and to keep private interests from running roughshod over our ideals. And so far, we're winning! We were declared the prevailing party in the August ruling. And we are determined to persevere until we bring this project in line with what the voters were promised. We will not stand by placidly and watch Golden Gate Park being sold to the highest bidder. All this work takes lots of time and costs lots of money. It's how rich and powerful people deter us from getting in their way. We are fortunate to have been adopted by an umbrella group, the Forest Conservation Council, which has programs devoted to preserving urban green space. All donations to FCC are 100% tax deductible. Trees Not Cars doesn't have Warren Hellman's resources, but we do have you. We could really use your help. Please send checks made out to "FCC" to: Katherine Roberts 466 Frederick #4 San Francisco, CA 94117 You can also phone me at 415-933-8967, or e-mail me at grrlfriday@ scorcher.org. I will gratefully accept any help you are able to offer. Thanks for caring, and I look forward to speaking with you soon. Cheers, Katherine

1 0

letter to MTA
by howard strassner 18 Jan '05

18 Jan '05

ÐÏà¡±á>þÿ þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÜ¥hcà eö+öjjjjjjj€€€€€€ ®€r*EŸÂÂÂÂÂÂÂC"E"E"E"\"üX&üT*·*X+vr*jÂ ÂÂÂÂr*jjÂŸÂÖjÂjÂC"ÐÿhóýÄ~jjjjÂC"« SIERRA CLUB SAN FRANCISCO GROUP 85 Second Street, Box SFG, San Francisco, CA 94105 January 18, 2005 Board of Directors Metropolitan Transportation Agency 401 Van Ness Avenue, FAX 554-4143 San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: December 7, 2004 Potential Actions Parking as a Funding Source for Muni - Better Parking Data Dear Directors, The Sierra Club is pleased to expand on our January 4, public comment and submit the following suggestions for improved parking data to assist the directors and the public to recommend viable changes in parking fees as a revenue source for Muni. 1) Present Historical Data of Meter Revenue for each Meter Rate Area: This should show how meter collection varied over the years and with increasing meter rates. Anecdotal data in my neighborhood indicates little or no drop off in parking use after the recent doubling of meter rates. But we need the facts in order to predict the actual revenue collected with each proposed meter rate increase from each area with different hourly rates. In a related issue: when the MTA considers operating meters on Sundays and later in the evening, as requested in our January 3, letter, predicted revenue increase can be estimated from (Meters) The Ideal Source of Local Public Revenue published by Professor Donald Shoup in 2004 Regional Science and Urban Economics. Dr. Shoup reported, in this paper, on page 778, that Pasadena collected an average of $1,826 per meter, including evenings and Sundays, at a dollar an hour. If the data showed the total collected along with the number of dollar per hour meters we could estimate the increase for the increased hours, recommended in our January 3, letter. The Shoup paper also shows, on page 754, that when curb side meter rates are lower than nearby parking garages people cruise for cheaper parking which causes congestion which impedes Muni service. Ron Szeto has a copy of this paper. This supports our January 3, recommendation for higher meter rates near downtown garages. 2) Show the History of Sales Tax Collection over Time: Sales tax is an essential revenue source for Muni capital spending and City services. There are those who claim that more and cheaper parking is essential for retail sales. If this history, over a long period of time, after adjustment for rate changes and inflation along with comments about employment levels, shows steady or increasing sales tax revenue than we can safely conclude that increasing parking fees has not harmed the business climate in San Francisco. Anecdotally we see that the Ferry building is prospering without their desired garage and that Bloomingdale will soon open without new parking. We also know that millions of square feet of office were constructed in San Francisco with little additional parking and in spite of steadily increasing parking fees. 3) Show the History of Net Revenue for Garages over a few Years: Similar to the above a couple of years data is not enough to make a decision on viable parking fees. A spread sheet showing parking fees for each garage and parking utilization, by long and short term parkers, over time will be useful. Prop E requires the MTA to follow parking policies to encourage travel by public transit and alternative transportation and therefore even if garage revenue is not greatly increased with higher fees, the may be good policy if sales tax revenues remain at least steady, because this means that people are using transit to get to places to spend their money. The last time the MTA raised parking fees the data included more complete information on long and short term utilization. History in this area is important because of congestion impacts during peak hours and will also be useful for more entrepreneurial operation. 4) Show Annual Operating Expenses and Parking Tax Collection for Garages: The December 7, information showed that some of the City garages have very low net income per space. Additional information may show operating problems or lead the MTA to replace some parking with commercial or residential space in order to increase net income. 5) Show Parking Fees for Nearby Private Garages: Thanks to your Interim Director of the Parking Authority, the writer has already accumulated some of this data for the MTA and will soon provide this information in a separate letter. We believe that all of the additional information requested is already available somewhere within the MTA or the City and we look forward to its release in an orderly format so the public and the Directors can make decisions that will increase revenue while bring San Francisco closer to Transit First. Very truly yours, Howard Strassner, Chair Transportation Committee 419 Vicente, San Francisco CA 94116, 661-8786, (h,w,fx) email: ruthow(a)juno.com cc: Michael Burns and Ron Szeto ¡ €Ð/¥à=Š § š© ª !"Ià !"+l|ÒÉO89ö"ü÷óîêüåüåüåüåüåüßüåüåüåüåüÝu ]cIU]c]c$U]c$]c U]c ]c"UVWhi| ÂÚÛ>?PRIJà á *+ÉÊ9:;MNOP¹ÐÑñòý$ý$~ý$©ý$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$ûÿ$_û$û$û$ûÿ$Š û$ûÿ$· û$ûÿ$Nû$ûÿ$<û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$-òóôöþ$þ$þ$K@ñÿNormala "A@òÿ¡"Default Paragraph Fontöÿÿÿÿ!ÿÿ ÿÿ ö¡"òö öW^š¬#'BFJO¢QUdiEIO [ 6=W`±·ÀÏëðø«howard strassner2C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking Revenue MTA.dochoward strassner2C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking Revenue MTA.dochoward strassner2C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking Revenue MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassnerEC:\Documents and Settings\howard\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.docÿ@FaxNe00:winspoolFaxFax`&ê odÈÈLetterDfaxFax`&ê odÈÈLettereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDfaxWW WVETimes New RomanSymbol&Arial"MS Sans SerifAÐGDÆŠFi Ÿ¢!$vBTestimony to Rec and Park Commission - 6-19-03 by Howard Strassnerhoward strassnerhoward strassner þÿÿÿýÿÿÿþÿÿÿ"þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRoot Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀFÚeü*ïûÄÐÿhóýÄWordDocumentÿÿÿÿ+CompObjÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿjSummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿ þÿÿÿ þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.6ô9²qþÿàòùOh«+'³Ù0Ü ìø ,< Xd € °ŒÄÌÔäCTestimony to Rec and Park Commission - 6-19-03 by Howard Strassnerhoward strassnerNormalhoward strasDocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÕÍÕ.+,ù®0àHP\dlt|ä !CTestimony to Rec and Park Commission - 6-19-03 by Howard Strassnersner8Microsoft Word for Windows 95@ÀZ@G5ñÄ@ÒçõÄ@ôóÕýÄŸ¢þÿÕÍÕ.+,ù®0àHP\dlt|ä !CTestimony to Rec and Park Commission - 6-19-03 by Howard Strassner

1 0

Automakers sue to toss smog law
by Patrick Villano 10 Jan '05

10 Jan '05

Some light reading for the Transpo folks: (The standard corporate excuse: "if we adhere to these anti-pollution standards, it won't reduce harmful effects by much, and it'll cost the industry a fortune and maybe put us all out of biz. blah blah." Statements proven throughout history to be false, of course.) Automakers sue to toss smog law Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Printable Version Email This Article The country's biggest automakers filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the California Air Resources Board, making good on their threat to try to overturn an innovative law that curbs tailpipe gases linked to global warming. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and some Central Valley car dealers filed the lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Fresno. The suit charges that the law limiting carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases from new cars, light trucks and SUVs pre-empts federal law setting fuel- economy standards. "There's no other way to eliminate carbon dioxide than to make a car combust less fuel,'' said Eron Shosteck, spokesman for Ford Motor Co., General Motors, BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota and four others. "This is fuel economy. Period. Fuel economy and CO2 emissions are synonymous.'' The 72-page lawsuit relies on the key arguments advanced by the auto industry in the debate over the nation's first law to control such emissions from passenger vehicles -- that the law will do little to improve health while increasing cost and limiting selection in the marketplace. The law requires that new vehicles' emissions of heat-trapping gases be cut by one-third by 2016. Scientists say the accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere is creating the effect of a greenhouse. "Global warming heats up the surface temperature of Earth and can result in higher (ground-level) ozone concentrations that can affect public health," said Jerry Martin, spokesman for the air board. "We see this as another emission rule, like our other emission rules, designed to protect the public health from air pollution.'' In addition to requiring cutbacks on carbon dioxide, Martin said the law also controlled nitrous oxide, methane and hydrofluorocarbons, three gases that are "1,000 times more damaging'' in their global warming effects. The state maintains that the federal Clean Air Act specifically allows California to set air pollution standards, which then may be followed by other states. Seven other states already have passed similar laws or have them in the works. The state has also joined 11 other states in a suit challenging a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision not to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. The law to curb tailpipe emissions was approved by the state Legislature in 2002. The state air board adopted the regulations to implement the law in September, and the law is to go into effect in 2006. The phase-in of new models starts in 2009. State officials, who hadn't yet reviewed the suit and couldn't comment on it, have argued that the law isn't aimed at changing fuel-economy standards -- although they agree that the improvements that will be required in transmissions, engines and other components will save on fuel. On Tuesday, California Controller Steve Westly joined with New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi in criticizing the automakers -- which included Mazda, Volkswagen, Porsche and Mitsubishi Motors -- for spending money to fight the law instead of investing in cutting-edge technology. Westly points out that he and his colleague sit on the boards of their state employee and teacher pension funds, which he says invest about $2 billion in stocks in the suing companies. CalPERS alone has $832 million in investments in the automakers. Both controllers say they intend to use those funds as leverage to bring industry representatives to the table next month for discussions. Conservation groups expressed disappointment over the suit, saying they had hoped the auto companies would recognize the consumer demand for clean cars. "It's especially disappointing to see Ford and Toyota filing suit, since they've been positioning themselves as environmentally sensitive manufacturers, '' said Jim Marston, attorney for Environmental Defense. Coincidentally, the Union of Concerned Scientists released its biannual ranking of automakers Tuesday and -- based on analyses completed in October, and without knowledge of the lawsuit -- named Honda as the world's greenest automaker. "Honda chose not to sue California today," said Jason Mark, the group's director of clean vehicles, "and we hope they use their engineers to comply and not their lawyers to fight the law.''

1 0