June 2005 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

a place to screen The End of Suburbia
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

Hi Pat, We met at the SF Green Party booth at the Haight Street Fair. You were going to look into a place where we could screen "The End of Suburbia." Any luck? Thanks for doing this. Sue Vaughan 668-3119

2 1

meeting tomorrow
by John-Marc Chandonia 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

Reminder: tomorrow is the 4th Tuesday, so we have a Transpo meeting at 7. Please forward agenda items to this list. I can think of: 1) Any update to our movie showing plans? 2) What recommendation should we make to the party regarding endorsment of the transpo-related initiatives? (Have the MTA- related ones qualified or will they qualify for the ballot?) We may not be ready to make a decision without final text of the bills, but we can at least discuss them. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: GAHG presentation to Green Party TWG
by susan vaughan 16 Jun '05

16 Jun '05

Great!! Sue --- Jeremy Nelson <jeremy(a)livablecity.org> wrote: > Hi Sue- > > I'd be happy to present to the Green Party's > Transportation Working Group on > 6/28 at 7pm (1028 Howard, right?). It'd be great to > get the GP involved in > the GAHG coalition early on. > > I've also cc'd Daniel Frattin (UCH student rep) and > Brian Basinger (Aids > Housing Alliance), if either of them wants to come > present as well. > > We should have an official position letter for to > sign onto by them. > > If not, I think y'all will be comfortable with our > GAGH's generic goals at > this time, which based on the discussion at our last > meeting, seem to be as > follows: > > 1) Create political pressure for a better use of the > site than current > proposal, > > 2) Have a project with housing & reduced parking > analyzed in order to > promote this as a feasible alternative, and > > 3) Get Hastings/YMCA project to go through local > review (Planning > Commission, etc). > > Talk soon- Jeremy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: susan vaughan > [mailto:susan_e_vaughan@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:44 AM > To: nelson.jeremy(a)comcast.net; working group > transportation > Subject: Re: Groups Against Hastings Garage (GAHG): > Notes from 6/6 GAHG > mtg. / Next mtg: 6/29, 12-1pm, 995 Market St, Suite > 1550 > > > Hi Jeremy, > > I will not be able to make it to the meeting on June > 29 as I am teaching summer school. However, would > you > like to present this to the Transp. Working Group on > June 28 at 7 p.m.? > > Sue > > --- Jeremy Nelson <nelson.jeremy(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Dear opponents of the UC Hastings parking garage- > > > > Below are the notes from the first meeting of > > "Groups Against the Hastings > > Garage" (GAHG), a coalition of community groups, > > neighborhood residents, and > > Hastings students who are opposed to a 500-space, > > 7-story parking garage > > located in the Tenderloin neighborhood, just a few > > feet away from an > > apartment building that is home to many people > > living with AIDS. > > > > FOLLOW-UP STEPS: Coalition members, please review > > these notes, and see your > > assigned follow-up steps which are [BRACKETED AND > IN > > CAPS LIKE THIS]. > > > > HELP GROW OUR COALITION: Please forward this to > > community groups and > > neighborhood residents you know who would like to > > join our growing coalition > > opposed to this unneeded and harmful parking > garage. > > > > NEXT MEETING: All are welcome to attend GAHG's > next > > meeting - Wednesday, > > June 29th, noon to 1pm, at 995 Market St (at 6th > > St), Suite 1550 > > (HAC/TLC/SFBC offices). Suggested agenda topic: > > Develop a positive vision > > for what GAG wants done with this site? > > > > Best- Jeremy > > > > ================= > > > > Notes from 6/6 GAG meeting > > > > GAG members present: > > James - Aids Housing Alliance (AHA) / Rainbow Flag > > Apts. (RFA) > > Brian - Aids Housing Alliance (AHA) / Rainbow Flag > > Apts. (RFA) > > Daniel - Hastings student / student government rep > > Kyle - Hastings student / student government rep > > Jeremy - Transportation for a Livable City (TLC) > > Carmen - Transportation for a Livable City (TLC) > > Sam - Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC) / Central > City > > Collaborative (CCC) > > Kate - Housing Action Coalition (HAC) > > > > > > 1) Sam: Update on the fight to oppose the > previous > > (2002) proposal for > > Hastings parking garage > > - Site at corner of Golden Gate/Larkin is > currently > > a surface parking lot > > but was formerly site of 3 SRO buildings > > - After earthquake, Hastings moved quickly to > > demolish SRO buildings > > claiming they were unsound > > - Hastings also claimed the neighborhood needed > > parking due to the opening > > of Asian Art Museum > > - But main driver of the proposal appeared to be > the > > revenue stream to > > Hastings > > - Community groups, transportation/enviro > advocates, > > and Tenderloin > > residents organized to oppose > > - Opponents claimed parking wasn't an educational > > use and should therefore > > be subject to city review > > - State attorney general ruled that parking was an > > educational use and > > didn't require local approval and review > > - Direct action/sit-in by coalition of groups and > > residents opposed to the > > garage (coalition wanted housing, not parking) > > - Former Senator John Burton threatened to > withdraw > > Hastings state funding > > if they persisted with garage > > - Proposal withdrawn, Hastings appointed "blue > > ribbon committee" to develop > > new proposal (described below) > > > > > > 2) Jeremy: Update on current (2005) proposal > > - 7 stories (last proposal was 8 stories) > > - 480 spaces (last proposal was 885 spaces) > > - Minimal ground-floor retail (last proposal had > no > > retail at all) > > - No housing on site (same as last proposal) > > - New YMCA facility to be built next to garage > > - Old YMCA building and parking lots to be sold > and > > possibly developed as > > housing (YMCA in negotiation with potential > buyers) > > - Hastings is guaranteeing the YMCA loans and > > believe that the community > > benefits of housing on the old YMCA site will help > > sell the garage > > > > > > 3) Jeremy: Update on timeline > > - Last Year: "Institutional Master Plan" approved > > by Hasting Board and > > Planning Commission, included current garage > > proposal > > - Summer: YMCA in talks with potential buyer(s) > for > > its existing site this > > summer > > - Late Summer: Hastings students back Aug. 18th > > - Fall: Hastings Board meeting in September to > > approve concept plan, > > initiate "Supplemental EIR" and updated traffic > > study for the concept plan > > - Fall: EIR initiated by Planning Department in > > October > > - Spring 2006: Public hearings on "Supplemental > EIR" > > > > > > 4) All: Campaign Strategy, Goals, Tactics > > > > A) Strategy 1: Grow/organize GAHG coalition > > Goal: Create political pressure for a better use > of > === message truncated === __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

1 0

Re: Groups Against Hastings Garage (GAHG): Notes from 6/6 GAHG mtg. / Next mtg: 6/29, 12-1pm, 995 Market St, Suite 1550
by susan vaughan 16 Jun '05

16 Jun '05

Hi Jeremy, I will not be able to make it to the meeting on June 29 as I am teaching summer school. However, would you like to present this to the Transp. Working Group on June 28 at 7 p.m.? Sue --- Jeremy Nelson <nelson.jeremy(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Dear opponents of the UC Hastings parking garage- > > Below are the notes from the first meeting of > "Groups Against the Hastings > Garage" (GAHG), a coalition of community groups, > neighborhood residents, and > Hastings students who are opposed to a 500-space, > 7-story parking garage > located in the Tenderloin neighborhood, just a few > feet away from an > apartment building that is home to many people > living with AIDS. > > FOLLOW-UP STEPS: Coalition members, please review > these notes, and see your > assigned follow-up steps which are [BRACKETED AND IN > CAPS LIKE THIS]. > > HELP GROW OUR COALITION: Please forward this to > community groups and > neighborhood residents you know who would like to > join our growing coalition > opposed to this unneeded and harmful parking garage. > > NEXT MEETING: All are welcome to attend GAHG's next > meeting - Wednesday, > June 29th, noon to 1pm, at 995 Market St (at 6th > St), Suite 1550 > (HAC/TLC/SFBC offices). Suggested agenda topic: > Develop a positive vision > for what GAG wants done with this site? > > Best- Jeremy > > ================= > > Notes from 6/6 GAG meeting > > GAG members present: > James - Aids Housing Alliance (AHA) / Rainbow Flag > Apts. (RFA) > Brian - Aids Housing Alliance (AHA) / Rainbow Flag > Apts. (RFA) > Daniel - Hastings student / student government rep > Kyle - Hastings student / student government rep > Jeremy - Transportation for a Livable City (TLC) > Carmen - Transportation for a Livable City (TLC) > Sam - Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC) / Central City > Collaborative (CCC) > Kate - Housing Action Coalition (HAC) > > > 1) Sam: Update on the fight to oppose the previous > (2002) proposal for > Hastings parking garage > - Site at corner of Golden Gate/Larkin is currently > a surface parking lot > but was formerly site of 3 SRO buildings > - After earthquake, Hastings moved quickly to > demolish SRO buildings > claiming they were unsound > - Hastings also claimed the neighborhood needed > parking due to the opening > of Asian Art Museum > - But main driver of the proposal appeared to be the > revenue stream to > Hastings > - Community groups, transportation/enviro advocates, > and Tenderloin > residents organized to oppose > - Opponents claimed parking wasn't an educational > use and should therefore > be subject to city review > - State attorney general ruled that parking was an > educational use and > didn't require local approval and review > - Direct action/sit-in by coalition of groups and > residents opposed to the > garage (coalition wanted housing, not parking) > - Former Senator John Burton threatened to withdraw > Hastings state funding > if they persisted with garage > - Proposal withdrawn, Hastings appointed "blue > ribbon committee" to develop > new proposal (described below) > > > 2) Jeremy: Update on current (2005) proposal > - 7 stories (last proposal was 8 stories) > - 480 spaces (last proposal was 885 spaces) > - Minimal ground-floor retail (last proposal had no > retail at all) > - No housing on site (same as last proposal) > - New YMCA facility to be built next to garage > - Old YMCA building and parking lots to be sold and > possibly developed as > housing (YMCA in negotiation with potential buyers) > - Hastings is guaranteeing the YMCA loans and > believe that the community > benefits of housing on the old YMCA site will help > sell the garage > > > 3) Jeremy: Update on timeline > - Last Year: "Institutional Master Plan" approved > by Hasting Board and > Planning Commission, included current garage > proposal > - Summer: YMCA in talks with potential buyer(s) for > its existing site this > summer > - Late Summer: Hastings students back Aug. 18th > - Fall: Hastings Board meeting in September to > approve concept plan, > initiate "Supplemental EIR" and updated traffic > study for the concept plan > - Fall: EIR initiated by Planning Department in > October > - Spring 2006: Public hearings on "Supplemental EIR" > > > 4) All: Campaign Strategy, Goals, Tactics > > A) Strategy 1: Grow/organize GAHG coalition > Goal: Create political pressure for a better use of > the site > > - Existing Partners > * RFA residents > * UC Hastings student government reps and some > students / student groups > * AHA > * TLC > * HAC > * CCC/THC > * Supervisor Chris Daly > > - Potential Partners: > * Tenderloin Futures Collaborative > * Conard House residents > * SF Aids Foundation > * St. Anthony's Foundation/Marion Residence > * YMCA members > * SFBC > * Rescue Muni > * Walk SF > * Green Party > * Sierra Club > * Senior Action Network > * Police officers/police officer's union > * Other Hastings students/student groups & alumni > * Neighborhood organizations in the TL and vicinity > * SOMCAN > [FOLLOW-UP: ALL - ONCE POSITION LETTER IS DEVELOPED > (see below), WE'LL ALL > OUTREACH TO OTHER GROUPS TO GET THEM TO ENDORSE] > > > B) Strategy 2: Lobby elected/appointed officials > Goal: Get Hastings/YMCA project to go through local > review > > - Write letter to YMCA Board & Hastings Board > [FOLLOW-UP: ALL TO E-MAIL 1 OR > 2 SENTENCE BLURB ON YOUR ISSUE FOR KYLE TO CREATE > LETTER; NOTE: Kyle's email > is sosebee(a)gmail.com ] > - Petition to be developed based on letter > [FOLLOW-UP: TBD ONCE LETTER IS > DEVELOPED] > - Ask Mark Leno to get AG Bill Lockyer to issue a > decision that Hastings > must go through local review/Planning Commission > [FOLLOW-UP: BRIAN] > - Carole Migden [FOLLOW-UP: KATE WITH SFBC or DANIEL > WITH ?] > - Leland Yee [FOLLOW-UP: JEREMY] > - Fiona Ma [FOLLOW-UP: BRIAN] > - Janet Reilly [FOLLOW-UP: BRIAN] > - John Burton to gauge his interest in getting > involved again [FOLLOW-UP: > SAM] > - Mayor [FOLLOW-UP: WHO?] > - Board of Supervisors [FOLLOW-UP: WHO?] > - Planning Commission could write letter asking to > review project > [FOLLOW-UP: WHO?] > > > C) Strategy 3: Suggest Hastings existing > assumptions/studies are flawed > Goal: Have a project with housing & reduced parking > analyzed in order to > put this forward as a feasible alternative > > - Have environmental lawyer review original EIR > [FOLLOW-UP: JEREMY OR KATE] > - Have developer or developer attorney review CMA's > pro forma suggesting > that Hastings won't make any $ with housing > [FOLLOW-UP: JEREMY OR KATE] > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [tanstaafl] le tigre
by Jym Dyer 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

> This behaviour is ever-so-slightly preferred to the old > behavior of double-display of a single thread, resulting > in one one couldn't collapse. =v= Good thing you've got gnus. <_Jym_>

1 0

SF needs a block your own driveway permit program
by Jeremy Nelson 03 Jun '05

03 Jun '05

Jim Dyer wrote: Sell permits to park on the street in front of your own driveway. John-Marc Chadonia wrote: This would not add more car parking, because the cops already permit this, and it would be politically impossible to get the law enforced. This is basically a funding proposal, because state law limits the amount cities can charge for street parking. However, selling a special permit would get around that problem, allowing the city to charge market rate. It's also politically feasible, since people would be willing to pay for guaranteed parking (assuming they have 1 driveway and 1 car). Jeremy Nelson writes: Transportation for a Livable City has been advocating for DPT to pursue a "Block Your Own Driveway Permit" for about a year. It not only adds new revenue (charging for something we are currently giving away for free), but also does add some additional stet parking (because many people don't know they can block their own driveway because they think they'll get a ticket for this). This also eases and improves enforcement of parking violations, leading to increased citation revenue. Currently no one gets a ticket for a blocked driveway unless someone calls it in (in no one has complained, DPT's parking control officers (PCOs) assume that the car and the driveway belong to the same person). But by selling permits, you allow the DPT to shift from their current "cite/tow on complaint" enforcement model to a "cite/tow on sight" enforcement model (anyone blocking a driveway without a permit is not a resident and can be cited) which is more efficient and cost-effective enforcement model. Also, it's better customer service: if I'm a resident on my way to work or an appointment, and I come out of my home to find someone else blocking my driveway, I have to call in to complain, wait for the PCO to come and verify that this is my garage (they make you open the garage door), then wait for the PCO to call a tow truck. Depending on the time of day, this can take quite awhile. Much better to know that DPT has a system in place to keep driveways clear of cars that don't belong there but allow cars to park there that have a permit. Also, block your own driveway permits in Hermosa Beach are placards that are transferable to contractors and visitors, so in effect it creates a guaranteed "guest" parking spot, in exchange for a fee. The kicker is that state law forbids the City's current practice of allowing (or at least ignoring) people to block driveways willy nilly. The only way you can allow parking in a driveway under state law is to set up a Block Your Own Driveway Permit program, which is already specifically allowed in the law. In fact the City of Hermosa Beach already has such a program for residential areas near the beach that experience high parking demand. See below for more info. ======================================= Block-Your-Own-Driveway (BYOD) Street Parking Permit Program Transportation for a Livable City (www.livablecity.org) - BYOD permits are legal (but blocking a driveway without a permit is illegal). The enabling statute is California Vehicle Code, Section 22507.2: "Notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Section 22500 [Prohibited Stopping, Standing, or Parking], a local authority may, by ordinance, authorize the owner or lessee of property to park a vehicle in front of the owner's or lessee's private driveway when the vehicle displays a permit issued pursuant to the ordinance authorizing such parking. The local authority may charge a nonrefundable fee to defray the costs of issuing and administering the permits. A local ordinance adopted pursuant to this section may not authorize parking on a sidewalk in violation of subdivision (f) of Section 22500. (Amended Ch. 45, Stats. 1985. Effective January 1, 1986.) - Hermosa Beach's BYOD ordinance. Municipal Code Section 10.32.80, Permit Parking - Private Driveway: Parking in front of a private driveway shall be allowed only when a vehicle has prominently displayed on the front dashboard a valid parking permit which includes the address of the owner or a lessee of the private property, at which the vehicle is to be parked. Permits are valid only at the address contained upon the permit, and is effective while the holder owns or leases the property for which the permit is issued. Permits may be revoked without notice or hearing if it is determined that parking authorized by the permit creates traffic safely or other public health and safety problems. Vehicles creating a traffic hazard may be towed pursuant to Section 10.12.150(B). Permit does not authorize parking on a sidewalk in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22500(f). - The permits are a placard that is hung on vehicles' rearview mirror. - BYOD permits are driveway-specific but transferable among vehicles. The permits are only valid for the driveway associated with the address on the permit, but are transferable among owners', visitors', and/or contractors' vehicles. - Limit of 1 BYOD permit per household/driveway. - Approximately 500 BYOD permits have been sold citywide as of 2003. - Applicants submit: * Permit application (attached) * Proof of residency/ownership/business license at permit address - City verifies: * No outstanding paring violations for vehicle * Driveway is to a legal dwelling unit or commercial use * Parking in driveway will not cause a traffic or safety hazard * Additional details about Hermosa Beach's BYOD permit program. * Length of the vehicle(s) using the permit cannot extend beyond the width of the driveway at any point, measured as the length between the 'curb slopes' at street level. - Permit holder must follow all other street parking restrictions (i.e., street cleaning) and cannot block driveways for multiple space garages or driveways that front on narrow alleys.

1 0

SF needs a block your own driveway permit program
by Jeremy Nelson 03 Jun '05

03 Jun '05

Jim Dyer wrote: Sell permits to park on the street in front of your own driveway. John-Marc Chadonia wrote: This would not add more car parking, because the cops already permit this, and it would be politically impossible to get the law enforced. This is basically a funding proposal, because state law limits the amount cities can charge for street parking. However, selling a special permit would get around that problem, allowing the city to charge market rate. It's also politically feasible, since people would be willing to pay for guaranteed parking (assuming they have 1 driveway and 1 car). Jeremy Nelson writes: Transportation for a Livable City has been advocating for DPT to pursue a "Block Your Own Driveway Permit" for about a year. It not only adds new revenue (charging for something we are currently giving away for free), but also does add some additional stet parking (because many people don't know they can block their own driveway because they think they'll get a ticket for this). This also eases and improves enforcement of parking violations, leading to increased citation revenue. Currently no one gets a ticket for a blocked driveway unless someone calls it in (in no one has complained, DPT's parking control officers (PCOs) assume that the car and the driveway belong to the same person). But by selling permits, you allow the DPT to shift from their current "cite/tow on complaint" enforcement model to a "cite/tow on sight" enforcement model (anyone blocking a driveway without a permit is not a resident and can be cited) which is more efficient and cost-effective enforcement model. Also, it's better customer service: if I'm a resident on my way to work or an appointment, and I come out of my home to find someone else blocking my driveway, I have to call in to complain, wait for the PCO to come and verify that this is my garage (they make you open the garage door), then wait for the PCO to call a tow truck. Depending on the time of day, this can take quite awhile. Much better to know that DPT has a system in place to keep driveways clear of cars that don't belong there but allow cars to park there that have a permit. Also, block your own driveway permits in Hermosa Beach are placards that are transferable to contractors and visitors, so in effect it creates a guaranteed "guest" parking spot, in exchange for a fee. The kicker is that state law forbids the City's current practice of allowing (or at least ignoring) people to block driveways willy nilly. The only way you can allow parking in a driveway under state law is to set up a Block Your Own Driveway Permit program, which is already specifically allowed in the law. In fact the City of Hermosa Beach already has such a program for residential areas near the beach that experience high parking demand. See below for more info. ======================================= Block-Your-Own-Driveway (BYOD) Street Parking Permit Program Transportation for a Livable City (www.livablecity.org) - BYOD permits are legal (but blocking a driveway without a permit is illegal). The enabling statute is California Vehicle Code, Section 22507.2: "Notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Section 22500 [Prohibited Stopping, Standing, or Parking], a local authority may, by ordinance, authorize the owner or lessee of property to park a vehicle in front of the owner's or lessee's private driveway when the vehicle displays a permit issued pursuant to the ordinance authorizing such parking. The local authority may charge a nonrefundable fee to defray the costs of issuing and administering the permits. A local ordinance adopted pursuant to this section may not authorize parking on a sidewalk in violation of subdivision (f) of Section 22500. (Amended Ch. 45, Stats. 1985. Effective January 1, 1986.) - Hermosa Beach's BYOD ordinance. Municipal Code Section 10.32.80, Permit Parking - Private Driveway: Parking in front of a private driveway shall be allowed only when a vehicle has prominently displayed on the front dashboard a valid parking permit which includes the address of the owner or a lessee of the private property, at which the vehicle is to be parked. Permits are valid only at the address contained upon the permit, and is effective while the holder owns or leases the property for which the permit is issued. Permits may be revoked without notice or hearing if it is determined that parking authorized by the permit creates traffic safely or other public health and safety problems. Vehicles creating a traffic hazard may be towed pursuant to Section 10.12.150(B). Permit does not authorize parking on a sidewalk in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22500(f). - The permits are a placard that is hung on vehicles' rearview mirror. - BYOD permits are driveway-specific but transferable among vehicles. The permits are only valid for the driveway associated with the address on the permit, but are transferable among owners', visitors', and/or contractors' vehicles. - Limit of 1 BYOD permit per household/driveway. - Approximately 500 BYOD permits have been sold citywide as of 2003. - Applicants submit: * Permit application (attached) * Proof of residency/ownership/business license at permit address - City verifies: * No outstanding paring violations for vehicle * Driveway is to a legal dwelling unit or commercial use * Parking in driveway will not cause a traffic or safety hazard * Additional details about Hermosa Beach's BYOD permit program. * Length of the vehicle(s) using the permit cannot extend beyond the width of the driveway at any point, measured as the length between the 'curb slopes' at street level. - Permit holder must follow all other street parking restrictions (i.e., street cleaning) and cannot block driveways for multiple space garages or driveways that front on narrow alleys.

1 0

(no subject)
by ed 01 Jun '05

01 Jun '05

>Does it take more of the road? Both essentially take 1 dedicated >lane. I also view BRT as a step towards LRT on heavily used lines >(e.g., 14, 38). We say this in the platform, in the following point. >The rationale for going this way is that it's easier to make a >dedicated lane first (a political hurdle), then later convert it to >rail (a financial hurdle). Well according to the schematics drawn up by those working on the Geary BRT proposal, BRT would use the same anount of the road as LRT. So yes the dedicated lane would be the same width for both, and would be relatively easy to convert for LRT use in the future. Ed

1 0

Re: [Transpo] transpo policy paper
by John-Marc Chandonia 01 Jun '05

01 Jun '05

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 08:13:09AM -0700, Jym Dyer wrote: > =v= I'm not a fan of BRT, since it means more energy use, more > pollution, and takes more of the road than LRT. It has lower > initial cost than LRT, which makes it more politically feasible > in an era of diminished expectations, but maintenance (and > environmental impact) ends up costing more in the long term. > I think BRT is at best a step towards LRT. Does it take more of the road? Both essentially take 1 dedicated lane. I also view BRT as a step towards LRT on heavily used lines (e.g., 14, 38). We say this in the platform, in the following point. The rationale for going this way is that it's easier to make a dedicated lane first (a political hurdle), then later convert it to rail (a financial hurdle). > =v= Existing LRT that supposedly has the right of way on surface > streets is routinely blocked by car traffic. This should be > fixed, ideally by infrastructure where possible, otherwise by > some actual enforcement of the law (yeah, crazy idea, I know). That's also in our platform. I didn't put it in the policy paper because we want to focus on larger changes and law enforcement is obvious and minor. > | Sell permits to park on the street in front of your own > | driveway. This would not add more car parking, because the cops already permit this, and it would be politically impossible to get the law enforced. This is basically a funding proposal, because state law limits the amount cities can charge for street parking. However, selling a special permit would get around that problem, allowing the city to charge market rate. It's also politically feasible, since people would be willing to pay for guaranteed parking (assuming they have 1 driveway and 1 car). JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] transpo policy paper
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 01 Jun '05

01 Jun '05

Actually, I agree with Steve. While our plank does say that any new parking should be build underground, I would prefer not to highlight that. I would probably also want to emphasize bikes before parking -- I would reverse the order of categories. Parking would come last. Sue On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Stephen Willis <savegoldengatepark(a)yahoo.com> writes: > John-Marc, > > It seems that conversion of existing garages would be better > addressed on a case by case basis, rather than as a blanket > endorsement of conversion. For example, I imagine that few > businesses at 4th Street and Mission would welcome the conversion of > that City Garage. > > Whereas a garage that sits empty generating losses for the City in > the heart of Golden Gate Park may beg for conversion in just a few > short years. > > I thought that the TWG had already agreed to discourage and oppose > parking garages in general due to their impact on global warming, > and mass transit scheduling/congestion in our main traffic corridors > and enticement/subsidy to drive. There is nothing progressive about > a pollution filled underground garage either. > > Please, can we omit any reference to preferences for underground > garages? Conformance with the City's Transit First Policy, the > General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are > greater considerations in determining support/opposition for a > proposed garage, far more so than whether it is above or below > ground. > > Steve Willis > > . > > " 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. > > > John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: > 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/ > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > > > > "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - > Goethe > > > --------------------------------- > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site! > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

2 1