May 2005 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

transpo policy paper
by John-Marc Chandonia 30 May '05

30 May '05

Please send comments; we need a final draft by the middle of this week. I've attached a formatted RTF as well as pasting the text below. Transit Policy Summary The SF Green Party promotes social, economic, and environmental justice through the expansion of inexpensive and appealing public transit service, improved pedestrian areas, and safer bicycling, especially in underserved and low-income neighborhoods of San Francisco. This is a summary of major points from the Transportation plank of our local platform, adopted in 2004. The full version is at http://sfgreens.org/transpo.pdf. Transit (really) first! " Immediately roll adult Muni fares back to 2003 levels, and make Muni free to youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Continue to roll fares back towards zero as new funding sources become available. Public transit benefits non-riders also, and should be free to the public just as public parks, libraries, and schools are. " Create a citywide Bus Rapid Transit network with dedicated bus lanes, controlled traffic signals, and timed transfers, to ensure rapid and convenient service. " Pay for these improvements by raising parking costs to market rate, charging developers for transit costs at the time of new development, and taxes on large businesses, especially those that benefit most from transit, such as the SF Giants. " Increase meter rates to a price that opens up several free spaces per block. Ease of finding parking would offset the pain of higher prices for drivers, and encourage them to shop at local businesses rather than driving to a suburban mall. This would raise money for transit both directly and indirectly (more sales tax revenue). Housing, not Parking " Legalize existing "in-law" units and conversion of garages to living quarters. " Eliminate parking requirements for new housing, and institute maximum parking limits for new development, with lower caps in areas well served by transit. " Increase the tax on parking lots, and encourage conversion of above-ground parking garages and lots to housing. Any new parking should be built underground. " Sell permits to park on the street in front of your own driveway. Ticket other blocked driveways and sidewalk parkers without requiring a citizen complaint. Bikes, Pedestrians, and Taxis " Cut government bureaucracy that slows the creation of new bike lanes. " Create transit-only streets, allowing bikes, buses, taxis, paratransit, and delivery. " Increase traffic-calming measures such as pedestrian bulbouts, trees, and wider sidewalks. Pleasant streets encourage people to walk to local businesses. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

2 2

Fwd: Re: curbside parking
by susan vaughan 26 May '05

26 May '05

Thought we might be interested in some of these ideas. John Holtzclaw's comments are in capital letters through the letter (Howard Strassner wrote the letter). I have only glanced over this, I have not read it carefully. Sue > > > > White Paper - Nearly Universal SF Curbside Parking > Charges - First Rough > Draft for Discussion 5-05 -HS > > 1) Why Nearly Universal SF Curbside Parking Charges > would be good for San > Francisco's economy and environment: > > Global Warming and the proximity of Peak Oil > production are becoming > conventional wisdom. The price of gasoline is > approaching it’s historical > high, corrected for inflation, disadvantaging sprawl > areas where every trip > must be made by car. > > Professor Don Shoup published his guide for parking > planners - "The High > Cost of Free parking" which includes a section on > curbside parking fees > from a separate paper "The ideal source of Public > Revenue" [ELABORATE ON > HOW THIS RELATES TO SF] > > In order to protect our neighborhoods from outside > commuter parking, the SF > Planning Department has accepted the concept > limiting the number of > residential parking permits that can be issued in an > area. See appendix A. > > Voters recognized the need to limit parking by > passing Prop E, which > includes in SEC. 16.102. TRANSIT-FIRST POLICY 7. > Parking policies for > areas well served by public transit shall be > designed to encourage travel > by public transit and alternative transportation. > > Muni needs additional operating funds and is > proposing increasing meter > rates in neighborhood commercial areas to $1.50 - > $2.00 an hour. For spaces > close to busy commercial neighborhoods, the revenue > from one space might > (with current time limits) might be: 300 days/year X > 5 hours/day X $1.50 > /hour = $2,250/ year. If we add Sundays and > evenings: 360 X 7 X $1.50 = > $3780. > > 2) List the Difficulties to implementing Nearly > Universal SF Curbside > Parking Charges: > Sixty years of pro automobile propaganda leading to > over 70% of SF > households own at least one car and in general > household with cars are > wealthier than household without cars and are more > likely to vote. > > We are really trying to develop a method that > extracts money from those who > think that they should be able park at little or no > cost to themselves. Our > main purpose is to discourage car ownership. > > 3) Suggested Initial Possible Ordinance Types: > (thinking with my fingers > [WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?) > > A) DPT for the MTA could form voluntary partnerships > with commercial > district organizations and neighborhoods, adjacent > to the curb side parking > space and share the parking income, after the > initial cost of installing a > meter is collected. DPT should install one meter for > multiple spots when > eight or ten nearly contiguous property owners on > one side of a block or > around the corner agree. The agreement should > include: percentage of the > gross parking revenue collected that is shared; > parking fees and operating > times. DPT should install the most lucrative meters > first and have the > right to remove a meter with sixty days notice. The > first areas may have to > be non-RPPP [THIS IS THE FIRST MENTION OF RPPP, SO > DEFINE IT HERE] areas. > These are lower income neighborhoods [HOW DO YOU > KNOW?]. [These areas don’t > perceive severe parking problems during the day > caused by people from > outside the area. These areas will not be very > lucrative My hope is that > these are neighborhoods where people will clean > their garages or get rid of > an extra car for a few hundred dollars a year. Here > people with more cars > and no property will hate the people with property > and less cars. The MTA > revenue from these areas will not be too high. CLEAN > UP THESE. IT THIS TO > BE AN OFFICIAL SC DOCUMENT OR HOWARD'S STREAM OF > CONSCIOUSNESS??] > > B) Since a property owner has no special rights to > the parking space > adjacent to her property we might consider Shoup’s > suggestion: DPT could be > allowed to install meters for multiple spots and > share the revenue with the > neighborhood to improve the commercial district > and/or provide traffic > calming. > > C) If the meters are to be located in a RPPP area we > may have to allow > permit holder to park free (this will seriously > reduce income) or DPT only > installs meters where the RPPP area has converted to > a limited number of > permit areas The total of permit plus meter spaces > could be determined by > the area. Extra income from permits and meters could > be shared for > neighborhood uses - perhaps the many could be used > for affordable housing > with no parking. > > We need more discussion. > > Proposed Changes to Residential Preferential Permit > Parking (RPPP) 5-05 -HS > > Background: The Planning Code minimum parking > requirement was established > in 1955 in an attempt to preserve existing curb side > parking for existing > residents by requiring new residential construction > to provide at least one > new off street parking space for each new unit. > Since then there have been > some modifications. In some neighborhoods this did > not work well because > many curb side parking places were taken by visitors > or commuters. Thus > RPPP was established to insure that only > neighborhood car owners could use > the existing curb side spaces all day. RPPP works by > DPT granting everyone > who meets the requirements (has a car registered to > an address in the > neighborhood and pays a $27 annual fee) an annual > permit. (The permit fee > will soon be increased to $60 to cover the actual > cost of administering > RPPP. In some neighborhoods, this results in many > residents still having a > difficult time finding a parking space. SF has > always protected the "vested > parking rights" of existing residents and merchants. > > Proposed Change: The DPT counts the number of curb > side parking spaces in > each RPPP area and only issues permits for - 95% of > the available spaces. > Parking consultants say that drivers experience > parking difficulties when > over 95% of parking spaces are taken. (Don Shoup > says that this number > should only be 85 or 90% to make it really easy to > find a parking space.) > This number, like duration, days and hours, could be > set by each > neighborhood. There may have to be some > consideration of street cleaning. > Every one who now has a permit can continue forever > to get a permit for > their current or new car. People move, get rid of > their car or die and soon > an area will have less than the maximum. When this > happens, once a year in > each area, the DPT should auction off the newly > available permits. People > could bid the annual extra fee (over the basic > permit fee) that they are > willing to pay for a parking permit which they will > have forever. > > People selling a house or condo could transfer their > permit only for the > remainder of the year. City Carshare cars could get > permits no matter how > many permits were out. If the extra fee is not > allowed, a lottery or > waiting list could be used to distribute permits. > > Status: The Planning Department is proposing > something similar to the above > for their "Better Neighborhood" proposal for > Octavia. Supervisor Ammianno’s > offices did some work on this. The City Attorney had > some problems with > auctioning new permits - they say this is a tax and > needs a vote of the > people. I would say that this is a voluntary fee for > service. The Planning > Department wants this change because they want to > build new housing units > with less than one parking space per unit and > neighbors have opposed that > since 1955. If the extra fee becomes law half of the > funds go to Muni and > half goes to the General Fund per Prop ‘E’. > > Benefits: > > A) For existing residents: 1) They get a permit > forever; 2) The permit is > more useful because parking spaces are easier to > find. Now parking spaces > may be a long walk away after a long search. This > may be unsafe for > elderly, women or disabled. > > B) For Visitors and Service Providers: 3) Parking is > easier to find. This > will help contractors and delivery trucks. > > C) For Transit Users: 4) There are more operating > funds for Muni; > > D) For Transit Advocates: 5) There are fewer parking > spaces and therefore > lower car ownership and less driving; 6) DPT reports > that they issue about > 73,000 Permits a year down from a recent 80,000. If > ultimately drivers are > willing to pay $50 a month for 50% of these permits > the City will collect > about $24 million a year which would be used for > transit and discourage car > ownership. > > E) For Pedestrian Safety Advocates: 7) There should > be less parking on the > sidewalks and less driving. > > F) For Housing Advocates: 8) This will help reduce > the requirements for off > street parking in new construction and reduce the > cost of housing. > > F) For merchants: 9) There will be a few extra > parking spaces in > residential areas near commercial streets. > > Why is the Sierra Club Involved? We want to reverse > the unsustainable > downward spiral in which the number of cars > registered in San Francisco > increases every year and these cars get driven > increasing air pollution > green house gases and impeding transit. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

1 0

Our of Town
by christine mcclintock 25 May '05

25 May '05

Sorry - forgot to mention that I'm going out of town early tomorrow morning, and won't be at the meeting tonight.

1 0

Fwd: Green Party to endorse Class Pass?
by susan vaughan 24 May '05

24 May '05

yes, I'll do this Jeremy. Sue --- Jeremy Nelson <nelson.jeremy(a)comcast.net> wrote: > From: "Jeremy Nelson" <nelson.jeremy(a)comcast.net> > To: "Sue Vaughan" <susan_e_vaughan(a)yahoo.com> > CC: "Jennifer Olsen" <jennifer(a)livablecity.org> > Subject: Green Party to endorse Class Pass? > Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 07:33:01 -0700 > > Hi Sue- > > Can you ask Green Party if they would be willing to > endorse our campaign to > get MTA to expand Class Pass program to more > colleges and universities? > > Here are some materials on Class Pass: > > - Class Pass website: > http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/classpass.html > > - Class Pass fact sheet: > http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/FareFreeTransit-TLC.pdf > > - Here's the list of endorsing organizations and > individuals thus far: > * Transportation for a Livable City > * Rescue Muni > * Walk SF > * SF Bicycle Coalition > * MTA Citizens Advisory Council > * SF Youth Commission > * SFSU Student Affairs Committee > * Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC) > > Thanks and let me know if you have any questions - > Jeremy > > > Jeremy Nelson > Policy Director > Transportation for a Livable City (TLC) > NOTE NEW ADDRESS & OFFICE PHONE: > 995 Market St., Suite 1550 > San Francisco, CA 94103 > office: 415.344.0489 > cell: 415.425.9848 > fax: 775.540.9813 > e-mail: jeremy(a)livablecity.org > web: www.livablecity.org > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] two letters for the TWG meeting
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 24 May '05

24 May '05

Great idea!!! I'll quick write a letter recommending this!!! Sue On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:45:52 -0400 Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> writes: > Can we put the CNG station inside the parking garage? That would > prevent the intrusion of another car-oriented facility in the park. > > Dave > > > > At 10:39 AM -0700 5/23/05, Jerry Path wrote: > >Hi Everyone, > > > > I would support the CNG station in Golden Gate Park. I'm > assuming its > >effect would be minimal on the park since it is only for the > ranger's > >vehicles. > > By the way I've had a set back with my hernia operation. It > seems I was > >doing too much walking or whatever and managed to pull the stitches > out. So > >now I am kind of grounded until it heals properly. > > > > > Best Jerry > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: susan vaughan <susan_e_vaughan(a)yahoo.com> > >> To: working group transportation <transpo(a)sfgreens.org> > >> Date: 5/22/2005 11:47:17 PM > >> Subject: [Transpo] two letters for the TWG meeting > >> > >> Here are two letters to consider. Leah Shahum asked > >> us to write a letter re. the bridge tolls -- I'm > >> waiting for her to send me more information and tell > >> us where to send it. > >> > >> I told Rick Ruvolo that I could write a letter in > >> support of the CNG station in GGP. How do we feel > >> about that? Do we support it or not? > >> > >> Sue > >> _______________________________________________________ > >> 1028A Howard Street > >> San Francisco, California 94103 > >> May 24, 2005 > >> > >> Golden Gate Bridge District > >> > >> > >> Dear Director: > >> > >> The Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco > >> Green Party promotes social, economic and > >> environmental justice through the expansion of > >> inexpensive and appealing public transportation > >> services, improved pedestrian areas and safer > >> bicycling. > >> We oppose proposals to establish tolls for bicyclists > >> on the bridge. We understand that the Bridge District > >> is in need of money, but we encourage you raise > >> revenues from car drivers, not bicyclists, for the > >> following reasons: > >> > >> 1) We do not think an appreciable amount of money > >> could be raised from bikers. Although the Golden Gate > >> Bridge is a popular place for bikers, the amount that > >> bikers would pay would be a fraction of the amount > >> that car drivers would pay. We do not believe that > >> the toll collected from bikers would pay for the cost > >> of the program; > >> 2) Keeping the bridge free for bikers encourages > >> people to use their bikes instead of cars to get > >> between San Francisco and Marin County; > >> 3) Raising the toll for car drivers encourages people > >> to take the bus, bike or car pool, all behaviors that > >> should be encouraged. > >> > >> For these reasons, we oppose the implementation of > >> tolls for bikers. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia, co-chairs of the > >> Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco > >> Green Party > >> ______________________________________________________ > >> > >> 1028A Howard Street > >> San Francisco, California 94103 > >> May 24, 2005 > >> > >> Aaron Peskin > >> President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors > >> City Hall, Room 244 > >> 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place > >> San Francisco, California 94102 > >> Aaron.peskin(a)sfgov.org > >> > >> Dear Supervisor Peskin: > >> > >> The Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco > >> Green Party promotes social, economic and > >> environmental justice through the expansion of > >> inexpensive and appealing public transportation > >> services, improved pedestrian areas and safer > >> bicycling. Our transportation plank also encourages > >> the transition to cleaner fuels. > >> We support the construction of a compressed natural > >> gas refueling station for city-owned maintenance > >> vehicles near a work shed in the arboretum in Golden > >> Gate Park. We understand that the San Francisco > >> Department of the Environment received grant money for > >> this project, but is at risk of losing this money > >> because the project has not commenced. While we would > >> prefer that the refueling station not be in the park, > > > there is no other place nearby to construct this > >> refueling station. As it is now, park rangers must > >> drive seven miles to and from the nearest CNG > >> refueling station. > >> We encourage you to work for the release of this > >> grant money so that this project can begin. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia, co-chairs of the > >> Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco > >> Green Party > >> > >> CC: > >> Gloria Young, board.of.supervisors(a)sfgov.org > >> Mayor Gavin Newsom, wade.crowfoot(a)sfgov.org > >> Jake McGoldrick, jake.mcgoldrick(a)sfgov.org > >> Michela Alioto-Pier, michela.alioto-pier(a)sfgov.org > >> Fiona Ma, fiona.ma(a)sfgov.org > >> Ross Mirkarimi, ross.mirkarimi(a)sfgov.org > >> Chris Daly, chris.daly(a)sfgov.org > >> Sean Elsbernd, sean.elsbernd(a)sfgov.org > >> Bevan Dufty, bevan.dufty(a)sfgov.org > >> Tom Ammiano, tom.ammiano(a)sfgov.org > >> Sophie Maxwell, sophie.Maxwell(a)sfgov.org > >> Gerardo Sandoval, Gerardo.sandoval(a)sfgov.org > >> > >> > >> > >> __________________________________ > >> Yahoo! Mail Mobile > >> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. > >> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Transpo mailing list > >> Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > >> https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Transpo mailing list > >Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > >https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Re: [Transpo] two letters for the TWG meeting
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 24 May '05

24 May '05

Hi Jym, The seven miles away is on Cesar Chavez and something. I've talked to Chris Duderstadt and David Miles about the CNG station and they are cool with it. THey told that Pinky Kushner is not, and I'm now waiting to hear back from her. Sue On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:19:24 -0700 Jym Dyer <jym(a)econet.org> writes: > > I'm assuming its effect would be minimal on the park since > > it is only for the ranger's vehicles. > > =v= Surely also the vehicles that deliver the CNG. > > =v= The last few years of dishonesty from the Parks Dept. > has made me skeptical. They say there's no place else to > put it, but is that accurate? Where is "7 miles away?" > <_Jym_> > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

RE: [Transpo] two letters for the TWG meeting
by Jerry Path 23 May '05

23 May '05

Hi Everyone, I would support the CNG station in Golden Gate Park. I'm assuming its effect would be minimal on the park since it is only for the ranger's vehicles. By the way I've had a set back with my hernia operation. It seems I was doing too much walking or whatever and managed to pull the stitches out. So now I am kind of grounded until it heals properly. Best Jerry > [Original Message] > From: susan vaughan <susan_e_vaughan(a)yahoo.com> > To: working group transportation <transpo(a)sfgreens.org> > Date: 5/22/2005 11:47:17 PM > Subject: [Transpo] two letters for the TWG meeting > > Here are two letters to consider. Leah Shahum asked > us to write a letter re. the bridge tolls -- I'm > waiting for her to send me more information and tell > us where to send it. > > I told Rick Ruvolo that I could write a letter in > support of the CNG station in GGP. How do we feel > about that? Do we support it or not? > > Sue > _______________________________________________________ > 1028A Howard Street > San Francisco, California 94103 > May 24, 2005 > > Golden Gate Bridge District > > > Dear Director: > > The Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco > Green Party promotes social, economic and > environmental justice through the expansion of > inexpensive and appealing public transportation > services, improved pedestrian areas and safer > bicycling. > We oppose proposals to establish tolls for bicyclists > on the bridge. We understand that the Bridge District > is in need of money, but we encourage you raise > revenues from car drivers, not bicyclists, for the > following reasons: > > 1) We do not think an appreciable amount of money > could be raised from bikers. Although the Golden Gate > Bridge is a popular place for bikers, the amount that > bikers would pay would be a fraction of the amount > that car drivers would pay. We do not believe that > the toll collected from bikers would pay for the cost > of the program; > 2) Keeping the bridge free for bikers encourages > people to use their bikes instead of cars to get > between San Francisco and Marin County; > 3) Raising the toll for car drivers encourages people > to take the bus, bike or car pool, all behaviors that > should be encouraged. > > For these reasons, we oppose the implementation of > tolls for bikers. > > Sincerely, > > Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia, co-chairs of the > Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco > Green Party > ______________________________________________________ > > 1028A Howard Street > San Francisco, California 94103 > May 24, 2005 > > Aaron Peskin > President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors > City Hall, Room 244 > 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place > San Francisco, California 94102 > Aaron.peskin(a)sfgov.org > > Dear Supervisor Peskin: > > The Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco > Green Party promotes social, economic and > environmental justice through the expansion of > inexpensive and appealing public transportation > services, improved pedestrian areas and safer > bicycling. Our transportation plank also encourages > the transition to cleaner fuels. > We support the construction of a compressed natural > gas refueling station for city-owned maintenance > vehicles near a work shed in the arboretum in Golden > Gate Park. We understand that the San Francisco > Department of the Environment received grant money for > this project, but is at risk of losing this money > because the project has not commenced. While we would > prefer that the refueling station not be in the park, > there is no other place nearby to construct this > refueling station. As it is now, park rangers must > drive seven miles to and from the nearest CNG > refueling station. > We encourage you to work for the release of this > grant money so that this project can begin. > > Sincerely, > > Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia, co-chairs of the > Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco > Green Party > > CC: > Gloria Young, board.of.supervisors(a)sfgov.org > Mayor Gavin Newsom, wade.crowfoot(a)sfgov.org > Jake McGoldrick, jake.mcgoldrick(a)sfgov.org > Michela Alioto-Pier, michela.alioto-pier(a)sfgov.org > Fiona Ma, fiona.ma(a)sfgov.org > Ross Mirkarimi, ross.mirkarimi(a)sfgov.org > Chris Daly, chris.daly(a)sfgov.org > Sean Elsbernd, sean.elsbernd(a)sfgov.org > Bevan Dufty, bevan.dufty(a)sfgov.org > Tom Ammiano, tom.ammiano(a)sfgov.org > Sophie Maxwell, sophie.Maxwell(a)sfgov.org > Gerardo Sandoval, Gerardo.sandoval(a)sfgov.org > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail Mobile > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

3 2

Re: [Transpo] two letters for the TWG meeting
by Jym Dyer 23 May '05

23 May '05

> I'm assuming its effect would be minimal on the park since > it is only for the ranger's vehicles. =v= Surely also the vehicles that deliver the CNG. =v= The last few years of dishonesty from the Parks Dept. has made me skeptical. They say there's no place else to put it, but is that accurate? Where is "7 miles away?" <_Jym_>

1 0

two letters for the TWG meeting
by susan vaughan 23 May '05

23 May '05

Here are two letters to consider. Leah Shahum asked us to write a letter re. the bridge tolls -- I'm waiting for her to send me more information and tell us where to send it. I told Rick Ruvolo that I could write a letter in support of the CNG station in GGP. How do we feel about that? Do we support it or not? Sue _______________________________________________________ 1028A Howard Street San Francisco, California 94103 May 24, 2005 Golden Gate Bridge District Dear Director: The Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party promotes social, economic and environmental justice through the expansion of inexpensive and appealing public transportation services, improved pedestrian areas and safer bicycling. We oppose proposals to establish tolls for bicyclists on the bridge. We understand that the Bridge District is in need of money, but we encourage you raise revenues from car drivers, not bicyclists, for the following reasons: 1) We do not think an appreciable amount of money could be raised from bikers. Although the Golden Gate Bridge is a popular place for bikers, the amount that bikers would pay would be a fraction of the amount that car drivers would pay. We do not believe that the toll collected from bikers would pay for the cost of the program; 2) Keeping the bridge free for bikers encourages people to use their bikes instead of cars to get between San Francisco and Marin County; 3) Raising the toll for car drivers encourages people to take the bus, bike or car pool, all behaviors that should be encouraged. For these reasons, we oppose the implementation of tolls for bikers. Sincerely, Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia, co-chairs of the Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party ______________________________________________________ 1028A Howard Street San Francisco, California 94103 May 24, 2005 Aaron Peskin President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors City Hall, Room 244 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102 Aaron.peskin(a)sfgov.org Dear Supervisor Peskin: The Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party promotes social, economic and environmental justice through the expansion of inexpensive and appealing public transportation services, improved pedestrian areas and safer bicycling. Our transportation plank also encourages the transition to cleaner fuels. We support the construction of a compressed natural gas refueling station for city-owned maintenance vehicles near a work shed in the arboretum in Golden Gate Park. We understand that the San Francisco Department of the Environment received grant money for this project, but is at risk of losing this money because the project has not commenced. While we would prefer that the refueling station not be in the park, there is no other place nearby to construct this refueling station. As it is now, park rangers must drive seven miles to and from the nearest CNG refueling station. We encourage you to work for the release of this grant money so that this project can begin. Sincerely, Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia, co-chairs of the Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party CC: Gloria Young, board.of.supervisors(a)sfgov.org Mayor Gavin Newsom, wade.crowfoot(a)sfgov.org Jake McGoldrick, jake.mcgoldrick(a)sfgov.org Michela Alioto-Pier, michela.alioto-pier(a)sfgov.org Fiona Ma, fiona.ma(a)sfgov.org Ross Mirkarimi, ross.mirkarimi(a)sfgov.org Chris Daly, chris.daly(a)sfgov.org Sean Elsbernd, sean.elsbernd(a)sfgov.org Bevan Dufty, bevan.dufty(a)sfgov.org Tom Ammiano, tom.ammiano(a)sfgov.org Sophie Maxwell, sophie.Maxwell(a)sfgov.org Gerardo Sandoval, Gerardo.sandoval(a)sfgov.org __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

1 0

Rally and Press Conference to Protest Muni Fare Hikes and Service Cuts and Give-Aways to Illegal Parkers
by susan vaughan 22 May '05

22 May '05

PROTEST MUNI FARE HIKES AND SERVICE CUTS PROTEST A REDUCTION IN PARKING FINE AND FEE INCREASES INSTEAD OF THE ELIMINATION OF MUNI FARE HIKES AND SERVICE CUTS SUPPORT CHRIS DALY'S RESOLUTION WHEN: Tuesday, May 24 WHAT TIME: 1:15 p.m. WHERE: Polk Street steps of City Hall WHO: The Coalition for Transit Justice and supporters FOLLOWED BY: Public testimony at the regular Board meeting at 2 p.m. in Room 250 to testify in support of Chris Daly's resolution to send the entire Municipal Transportation Agency budget back to the MTA Board of Directors. ______________________________________________________ BACKGROUND: Earlier in the year, the MTA (Executive Director Michael Burns) announced a $57.3 million shortfall for FY2005-2006. MTA staff presented five different scenarios to the Board of Directors, which oversees both Muni and the Department of Parking and Traffic. Scenario Two would have raised the necessary revenue through increases in parking fines and fees only, but instead of opting for Scenario Two -- even though we are a "transit-first" city according to our city charter -- the Board of Directors opted for Scenario 5 which increases fares, cuts service, and increases some parking fines and fees. The Board of Directors then sent its decision on to the Board of Supervisors for its up or down vote during its annual budget deliberations. On Tuesday, May 11, Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst Harvey Rose announced the discovery of about $9.2 million in the MTA budget. On May 12, parking fine and fee increases were considered by the Budget Committee of the Board of Supervisors. Even though no one knew about the discovery of the $9.2 million when the agenda was written for the Budget Committee, the MTA proposed using $4.6 million of the newly discovered revenues to reduce increases in parking fines and fees INSTEAD OF REDUCING OR ELIMINATING MUNI FARES OR RESTORING PLANNED SERVICE CUTS. A majority of the members of the Budget Committee voted to forward this proposal onto the full board where it will be considered on Tuesday. We will be giving public comment on Daly's resolution to send the entire MTA budget back to the MTA board. Please join us. Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

1 0