January 2006 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Fw: TALC: Recommended Oppose Position to Governor's Transportation Bon ds
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 20 Jan '06

20 Jan '06

To: TALC Member and Affiliate Representatives From: Stuart Cohen, TALC Executive Director RE: Recommended Oppose Position to Governors Transportation Bonds Date: January 19, 2006 Please respond by Monday January 23 at 5 p.m. to the four questions below. Sorry for the short notice, but the need for TALC's leadership on this issue has only become apparent in the last few days. Summary Two large infrastructure bond proposals are now under consideration in Sacramento. The first of these efforts, developed last year, is SB 1024. This measure represents a first step by Senator Perata and Senator Torlakson in their effort to renew Californias commitment to infrastructure investment, and puts money into a variety of projects, including promoting affordable housing and transit oriented development. Governor Schwarzenegger recently announced his own infrastructure proposal: The Strategic Growth Plan. The Governor's proposal includes $107 billion in total funding for transportation related items over the next 10 years. $12 billion are in general obligation bonds, while much of the other revenue is either already anticipated from existing sources or depends on assumptions about new revenue sources such as high occupancy toll lanes (which are likely to happen anyway to some extent). In other words, the most important new component, and the one that will help to shape the transportation system significantly are the Governor's transportation bond proposals, which would be split between two election cycles: the first $6 billion in 2006 and the second $6 billion in 2008. A comparison of the Governor's bond proposals and SB 1024 is listed on the following page (as provided by MTC). While there are a few positive elements in the Governor's overall transportation plan, including some funding for intercity rail and token amounts of money for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, the vast majority of funding is for highway and port expansion. While the Governor has said this is just the beginning point for his proposal, and is planning two hearings on the matter, the overall plan is so oriented towards highways and long-distance travel that there is no way to see how this plan could be changed enough to promote sustainability instead of sprawl. It also should tap into sources such as gas user fees to help cover the cost of the bonds, instead of relying on the general fund. It is important for the environmental and social equity communities to make a clear and hopefully unified statement on the Governors proposal. All indications are that some significant infrastructure proposal will be put forward as early as February, after negotiations by leaders from the Senate, the Assembly and the Administration. Recommendation and Potential Action: At the January 24 TALC board of directors meeting this issue will be considered. If there is concurrence from member organizations, TALC will take a position of opposition to the Governor's transportation bond proposals. If such a position is taken, TALC staff would participate in, lead, or co-lead an effort to develop a letter of opposition for statewide distribution and sign-ons, and potentially other campaigns activities. Responses Needed 1. Is your organization comfortable with TALC opposing this plan (even if your organization has not yet taken a formal position)? 2. Would it be possible for your organization to take an oppose position and if so who should we contact? 3. Would your organization have any staffer volunteer resources to help with the campaign? 4. Are there any projects are principles your group like to propose (maintaining funding for high-speed rail, insuring additional funding for transit operations etc.) Please send your responses to Hoang Banh at Hoang(a)transcoalition.org For additional information please e-mail Stuart Cohen at Stuart(a)transcoalition.org Additional Description A general comparison of the transportation elements included in SB 1024 and the Governors proposal are as follows ($ in millions): Transportation Funding Categories ($ in millions)SB 1024Governors Proposal Transportation Funding Categories ($ in millions) SB 1024 Governors Proposal Repayment of Proposition 42 Loans to General Fund 2,300 N/A State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 1,500 1,500* High Speed Rail 1,000 N/A Highways N/A 5,600 Corridor Mobility Projects Performance Projects (state interregional focus routes and regional priorities) Transit/Rail N/A 700 Intercity passenger rail Pedestrian/bike paths and park and ride facilities Technology/Intelligent Transportation Systems N/A 200 Regional Housing and Community Growth 975 N/A Affordable Housing Incentive Program (for local street and road repairs) 425 N/A Transit Oriented Development Implementation 275 N/A Port Infrastructure/Trade Infrastructure 2,000 3,000 Port Emission Reduction Efforts (Carl Moyer Program) 400 1,000 Port, Harbor and Ferry Terminal Security 100 N/A Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation 100 N/A TOTAL $9,075 $12,000 * SHOPP (State Highway Operations and Protection Program) Link to the Governors Strategic Growth Plan Overview: http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release_2006/SGP_Overview.pdf Link to the Governors Working List of Proposed Transportation Projects: http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release_2006/SGP_Projects.pdf SB 1024 At this time, SB 1024 is a $10.3 billion General Obligation bond measure funding various infrastructure improvements to be placed before the voters at the November 2006 election. Approximately 78 percent of the total bond proceeds, or $8 billion, would be available for transportation improvements, including $2.5 billion for goods movement projects and related mitigation and security. The remaining $2.3 billion would be spent primarily on flood control, air quality and resource conservation projects. The Perata/Torlakson legislation includes funding for regional, general and specific planning. Regional agencies would administer a loan pool that would assist local governments in bringing their plans into conformance with regional transportation and land-use strategies (dubbed Regional Growth Plans in the bill). The regional plans would be prepared with State funding. As local governments bring their plans into conformance with the Regional Growth Plans, they will become eligible for state incentive funding: for transportation, parks and other urban infrastructure, for open-space conservation, for brownfield remediation, and for in-fill and affordable housing. Special funding is also proposed to assist Transit Oriented Development (TOD) projects and affordable housing. Of note, the Governors proposal includes no support for planning and no contingent funding for local governments. There are no infrastructure incentives for regionally appropriate development. To: TALC Member and Affiliate Representatives From: Stuart Cohen, TALC Executive Director RE: Recommended Oppose Position to Governor's Transportation Bonds Date: January 19, 2006 Please respond by Monday January 23 at 5 p.m. to the four questions below. Sorry for the short notice, but the need for TALC's leadership on this issue has only become apparent in the last few days. Summary Two large infrastructure bond proposals are now under consideration in Sacramento. The first of these efforts, developed last year, is SB 1024. This measure represents a first step by Senator Perata and Senator Torlakson in their effort to renew California's commitment to infrastructure investment, and puts money into a variety of projects, including promoting affordable housing and transit oriented development. Governor Schwarzenegger recently announced his own infrastructure proposal: The Strategic Growth Plan. The Governor's proposal includes $107 billion in total funding for transportation related items over the next 10 years. $12 billion are in general obligation bonds, while much of the other revenue is either already anticipated from existing sources or depends on assumptions about new revenue sources such as high occupancy toll lanes (which are likely to happen anyway to some extent). In other words, the most important new component, and the one that will help to shape the transportation system significantly are the Governor's transportation bond proposals, which would be split between two election cycles: the first $6 billion in 2006 and the second $6 billion in 2008. A comparison of the Governor's bond proposals and SB 1024 is listed on the following page (as provided by MTC). While there are a few positive elements in the Governor's overall transportation plan, including some funding for intercity rail and token amounts of money for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, the vast majority of funding is for highway and port expansion. While the Governor has said this is just the beginning point for his proposal, and is planning two hearings on the matter, the overall plan is so oriented towards highways and long-distance travel that there is no way to see how this plan could be changed enough to promote sustainability instead of sprawl. It also should tap into sources such as gas user fees to help cover the cost of the bonds, instead of relying on the general fund. It is important for the environmental and social equity communities to make a clear and hopefully unified statement on the Governor's proposal. All indications are that some significant infrastructure proposal will be put forward as early as February, after negotiations by leaders from the Senate, the Assembly and the Administration. Recommendation and Potential Action: At the January 24 TALC board of directors meeting this issue will be considered. If there is concurrence from member organizations, TALC will take a position of opposition to the Governor's transportation bond proposals. If such a position is taken, TALC staff would participate in, lead, or co-lead an effort to develop a letter of opposition for statewide distribution and sign-ons, and potentially other campaigns activities. Responses Needed 1. Is your organization comfortable with TALC opposing this plan (even if your organization has not yet taken a formal position)? 2. Would it be possible for your organization to take an oppose position and if so who should we contact? 3. Would your organization have any staffer volunteer resources to help with the campaign? 4. Are there any projects are principles your group like to propose (maintaining funding for high-speed rail, insuring additional funding for transit operations etc.) Please send your responses to Hoang Banh at Hoang(a)transcoalition.org For additional information please e-mail Stuart Cohen at Stuart(a)transcoalition.org Additional Description A general comparison of the transportation elements included in SB 1024 and the Governor's proposal are as follows ($ in millions): Transportation Funding Categories ($ in millions)SB 1024Governor's Proposal Transportation Funding Categories ($ in millions)SB 1024Governor's Proposal Repayment of Proposition 42 Loans to General Fund2,300N/A State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)1,5001,500* High Speed Rail1,000N/A HighwaysN/A5,600 Corridor Mobility Projects Performance Projects (state interregional focus routes and regional priorities) Transit/RailN/A700 Intercity passenger rail Pedestrian/bike paths and park and ride facilities Technology/Intelligent Transportation SystemsN/A200 Regional Housing and Community Growth975N/A Affordable Housing Incentive Program (for local street and road repairs)425N/A Transit Oriented Development Implementation275N/A Port Infrastructure/Trade Infrastructure2,0003,000 Port Emission Reduction Efforts (Carl Moyer Program)4001,000 Port, Harbor and Ferry Terminal Security100N/A Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation100N/A TOTAL$9,075$12,000 * SHOPP (State Highway Operations and Protection Program) Link to the Governor's Strategic Growth Plan Overview: http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release_2006/SGP_Overview.pdf Link to the Governor's Working List of Proposed Transportation Projects: http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release_2006/SGP_Projects.pdf SB 1024 At this time, SB 1024 is a $10.3 billion General Obligation bond measure funding various infrastructure improvements to be placed before the voters at the November 2006 election. Approximately 78 percent of the total bond proceeds, or $8 billion, would be available for transportation improvements, including $2.5 billion for goods movement projects and related mitigation and security. The remaining $2.3 billion would be spent primarily on flood control, air quality and resource conservation projects. The Perata/Torlakson legislation includes funding for regional, general and specific planning. Regional agencies would administer a loan pool that would assist local governments in bringing their plans into conformance with regional transportation and land-use strategies (dubbed Regional Growth Plans in the bill). The regional plans would be prepared with State funding. As local governments bring their plans into conformance with the Regional Growth Plans, they will become eligible for state incentive funding: for transportation, parks and other urban infrastructure, for open-space conservation, for brownfield remediation, and for in-fill and affordable housing. Special funding is also proposed to assist Transit Oriented Development (TOD) projects and affordable housing. Of note, the Governor's proposal includes no support for planning and no contingent funding for local governments. There are no infrastructure incentives for regionally appropriate development.

1 0

Fw: Re: Sustainable transportation strategy pow-wow: Wednesday, Januar y 25 2-4 pm
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 19 Jan '06

19 Jan '06

Hello Everyone, Tom Radulovich has called a meeting of the sustainabl transportation groups in the City. The meeting will be held in the TLC/SFBC office in the tall green building at the corner of Market and 6th Streets. TLC is on the 15th floor. The meeting is from 2 to 4 p.m. I'll go if I'm not working. Perhaps someone else from the TWG also wants to go. Let us and Tom know. Tom can be reached at tom(a)livablecity.org Sue ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- If I'm not working, I'll be able to make it. Otherwise I'll come late or not at all. I'll try to see if someone else from the TWG can go. Sue --- Tom Radulovich <tom(a)livablecity.org> wrote: > Scheduling this has been pretty complicated; there > isn't a day where > all of the invitees can make it. > > However, Wednesday the 25th from 2-4 pm is the day > when the most > organizations' representatives can make it, so > unless that no longer > works for any of the folks who responded > affirmatively earlier, let's > schedule it here at the TLC/SFBC conference room. > I'll send out an > agenda soon; if you have not already done so, please > let me know > which topics are most important and urgent for > discussion at a first > meeting. > > Best, > > Tom > > Tom Radulovich > Executive Director > Transportation for a Livable City > 995 Market Street Suite 1550 > San Francisco CA 94103 > 415 344-0489 > www.livablecity.org > tom(a)livablecity.org > > > > On Jan 10, 2006, at 9:36 PM, susan vaughan wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > Once a month definitely sounds like too much for > me as > > a representative of the Transportation Working > Group > > of the San Francisco Green Party. But it's a > > possibility if the seat could be rotated between > me > > and other members of the TWG. How about once > every > > two months? Also, you should check with Howard > > Strassner as he heads up the Joint Transportation > > Committee, through the Sierra Club. > > > > Friday, January 27, 4 to 6 p.m. is the only time > I'd > > be able to make a first meeting. > > > > Sue > > > > --- Tom Radulovich <tom(a)livablecity.org> wrote: > > > >> Happy 2006! Leah and I have been talking for some > >> time about creating > >> a regular meeting (monthly?) of sustainable > >> transportation advocacy > >> organizations to strategize together on issues > and > >> joint approaches. > >> All of us are busily working on transportation > >> issues, some with an > >> emphasis on a single mode, others with a more > >> multi-modal approach, > >> but I think all of us realize that the > sustainable > >> modes--walking, > >> bicycling, and public transit-- are all important > >> and complementary > >> of each other. I think we all tire of dealing > with > >> San Francisco's > >> Ptolemaic and innovation-resistant bureaucracy, > but > >> we are getting > >> things done; we could definitely do more if we > >> collaborate more > >> closely in our approach to specific issues and > >> corridors. DPW, > >> SFCTA, The Planning Department, MOED, > Redevelopment, > >> and the multiple > >> personalities of MTA are all stumbling over one > >> another to plan bits > >> of the transportation system, but they aren't yet > >> forming a coherent > >> whole, or even pulling in the same direction. The > >> more focused, > >> strategic, and comprehensive we are, the more we > can > >> help infuse > >> focus, strategic thinking, and multi-objective > >> planning into the > >> city's thinking about transportation. > >> > >> I wanted to check your availability for a first > >> meeting: > >> > >> Wednesday, January 18, 2-4 pm > >> Wednesday, January 18, 4-6 pm > >> Friday, January 20, 2-4 pm > >> Friday, January 20, 4-6 pm > >> > >> Wednesday, January 25, 2-4 pm > >> Wednesday, January 25, 4-6 pm > >> Friday, January 27, 2-4 pm > >> Friday, January 27, 4-6 pm > >> > >> Also, we there are numerous topics we could > discuss, > >> but we should > >> probably limit the agenda to 1, 2, or 3 items, > >> depending on their > >> size. Leah and I brainstormed a number of topics > as > >> being both > >> important AND relatively urgent, including: > >> > >> Issues: > >> * The Better Streets ordinance and complete > streets > >> standards; > >> * MTA budget, including revenue sources, service > >> changes, and > >> staffing levels in the MTA planning department; > >> * The controller's audit of MUNI and muni service > >> plan update > >> * modal planning (such as it is; Pedestrian > Master > >> Plan, Bicycle > >> Master Plan) and missing plans (Parking > management, > >> Taxis) > >> * state infrastructure bond(s) > >> * new revenue sources for street > >> resurfacing/pedestrian safety > >> capital (post Prop. B) > >> * LOS reform > >> > >> Corridors: > >> *Market Street > >> *Geary > >> *Van Ness > >> *Potrero/Bayshore/San Bruno > >> *Valencia/Mission > >> *3rd/Illinois > >> *16th/17th > >> *Masonic > >> *2nd/5th > >> > >> So also let me know your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd > >> priorities for discussion > >> at a first meeting. We want these meetings to be > >> facilitated and > >> focused on a specific agenda, and limited to an > hour > >> and a half. > >> > >> Also, please send me a short (once or two > sentences > >> per) summary of > >> what your organization's priorities are for this > >> year, and I will > >> collate them. > >> > >> Looking forward to hearing from you. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Tom > >> > >> Tom Radulovich > >> Executive Director > >> Transportation for a Livable City > >> 995 Market Street Suite 1550 > >> San Francisco CA 94103 > >> 415 344-0489 > >> www.livablecity.org > >> tom(a)livablecity.org > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

A Green Party for Peace -- save the date; January 26
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 16 Jan '06

16 Jan '06

A Green Party for Peace Start the year to end the war with Aimee Allison, Tommi Avicolli Mecca, Meghan Baker, Terry Baum, Garrin Benfield, Jello Biafra (tent.), Kevin Danaher, Rose Eger, Don Eichelberger, Krissy Keefer, Jane Kim, La Vache Enragee, Leopold and His Fiction, Ross Mirkarimi, John Rizzo, Mark Sanchez, Ahimsa Sumchai and DJs Andres Octavio (Tafatafa Sound), Space Invader (mk2/future trybe), and Daneekah (Australia). A San Francisco Green Party fundraiser to support its efforts on behalf of social justice, the environment, animal welfare, and peace. Where: Studio Z, 314 11th Street at Folsom When: Thursday, January 26 What time: 8 p.m. until closing $5 to $500, no one turned away for lack of funds Sponsored by the San Francisco Green Party, www.sfgreenparty.org

1 0

Fw: gas tax
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 15 Jan '06

15 Jan '06

Proposal from Howard Strassner of the SIerra Club. He would like to come to our meeting on January 24 in the hopes that we will endorse this. Sue ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- *Susan, * *This may duplicate part of some stuff I tried to send while I was having connection difficulties. Please distribute to your Green Group. * *Draft request for the Chapter Transportation Chairs to Request that the SC Board of Directors Implement: The Sustainable and Secure Energy Policy - 1/06 - HS* * * *Summary: The SC should request that Congress enact a Sustainable and Secure Energy Policy (SEP) which will help Americans pay for the increasing cost of energy they use in their homes with Petroleum Security Rebates (PSR) funded by a $5.00 per gallon user fee on all gasoline and diesel used for transportation. The fee amount represents a low side estimate of the subsidies provided to driving (Note 4). PSR will help develop a majority constituency to support this policy because if all of the user fees are returned equally to US households, then the greater number of households who drive less than the average will pay less in fees than their PSR and they will have extra money to pay for their other energy needs. (note 1)* * * *This is a populist approach to jump start the process that took over thirty years with cigarettes. We have reached the point, that this year in California there is a good chance that a ballot proposal to raise the tax on cigarettes by $2.60 a pack might actually pass. The discussion of the user fee will be like a national referendum in which the majority of households will ask Congress to impose fees so that they can net an extra $100 or $200 a month while we get all of the benefits of less driving. In addition when we reduce our consumption of gasoline the world wide price of crude oil will drop. This will be like the oil exporting nations (when compared to todays oil price) actually covering part of our energy bill. Using less petroleum is more sustainable because we will have more energy for a future. While needing less oil makes us more secure.* *Policy Details:* *All of the funds generated by the user fees should be rebated monthly to minimize economic impacts on families of modest means. The IRS could direct deposit the rebate monthly, based on actual user fee receipts.* *A full share should be returned to households with more than one person and half share to households with one person. (note 2)* *Fee impacts on the cost of gasoline and the shipment of goods should not be included in the Bureau of Labor Statistic Cost of Living because while the sudden increase in the price of gasoline in the seventies, caused by the rapid increase in the price of oil, resulted in the short term production of smaller more efficient cars, this ended when the higher cost of oil became part of our cost of living and then oil production increased which means that gasoline prices are still lower, when corrected for inflation, than they were in the seventies. (note 3). * * * *Policy Alternatives (not included) Which Need Further Study (to if they might assist passage):* *The user fee could be imposed more slowly with increments every year until energy consumption is reduced by a set amount. This may be necessary because the banks may be concerned that a sudden change could impact property values.* *The rebate could be reduced by 5% in order to provide some annual federal funding for transit improvements to help people drive less. On the other hand, if all of the fees are rebated a few more families will support the policy and each community can find the most suitable ways to improve their transit. * * * *Note 1) The US Census Bureau Historical Income Tables, Households for 1994 shows the median income was $39,389. The US Energy Information Agency shows that for 1994 that: Households (probably with cars) with incomes over $50,000 per year drove 27,700 miles per year; Households with $35 to $50,000 income drove 21,600 and households under $15,000 drove 13,800 miles per year. Households headed by a person over 6o years old (and they vote in highest percentages) drove least and households with teen age drivers drove the most. All US households drove 1,793 billion miles in 1994. There were 85 million households with a car and so the average household with a car drove 21,100 miles in 1994.* * * *Note 2) There are about 109 million households in the US in 2005. About 27 million of these households are persons living alone. (per the Bureau of the Census, Population Division, Current Population Reports p25-1129 1996 - Projection of the Number of Households and Families 1995 -2010) Single person households should only get a half rebate because: a) A full rebate would lower the rebate for all and make it more difficult for Congress to do anything; b) Most single person households will have ample reason to support this policy with a half rebate. * * Based on our consumption of 152 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel in 2004, (per the Petroleum Marketing Annual Report) the total user fees would be about $759 Billion a year and the per household rebate (with single households getting a half rebate) would be about $7,900 a year unless we greatly reduced consumption. * *Congress will probably exempt oil used by farm tractors.* * * *Note 3) This will be similar to the way that federal and state income taxes are not now considered part of our official cost of living. Logically, since the user fee will be rebated it will not really be a cost and should not be included in the cost of living. This is important because including the fee in the Cost of Living will over time minimize the economic impact and gasoline consumption will increase again.* Note 4) The subsidy amount is based on costs estimated from 1992 to 1996, without the cost of oil wars, taken from: www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/subsidies.asp <http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/subsidies.asp> * * *Proposed DRAFT SC Resolution Sustainable and Secure Energy Policy: * *Whereas, the creation of new fossil fuel resources takes billions of years, which indicates that we are consuming fossil fuels infinitely faster than they are being replaced by nature, and the Sierra Club has a policy of limiting energy consumption to sustainable levels and the United Nations definition of sustainable is: A sustainable society meets the needs of the present without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. and * *Whereas, consumption of this energy results in the production of green house gases which are know to be causing global warming which will result in vast environmental changes; and * *Whereas, the US, with only 5% of the worlds population is now consuming 25% of the worlds annual energy and about 50% of US consumption is used for transportation including: private vehicles, trucks and airplanes; and * * Whereas, US drivers are the beneficiaries of a subsidy of five dollars a gallon (note 4), based on costs assumed by society in general for: streets and highways, courts and police and hospitals and health impacts, and this reduces the apparent cost of gasoline and diesel to consumers which increases the amount of gasoline consumed; and * *Whereas, the Sierra Club has a policy of opposing sprawl because it reduces essential farm lands and open space and encourages additional driving and fuel consumption and supporting neighborhoods which encourage less driving, and * *Whereas, there are many ways for people to reduce their consumption of gasoline and diesel when costs increase, including: driving less and using a more efficient vehicle; car pooling or using transit; walking and bicycling more and living in community that makes it more practical to accomplish more tasks without driving; and * *Whereas, the sudden increase in the price of gasoline in the seventies, caused by the rapid increase in the price of oil, resulted in the short term production of smaller more efficient cars, but this ended when the higher cost of oil became part of our cost of living and oil production then increased and gasoline prices are still lower when corrected for inflation; and * *Whereas people will reduce their consumption of gasoline quickly if they believe that extremely high prices for gasoline are permanent, and imposing a user fee of $5 a gallon to eliminate the subsidy will nearly triple the price of gasoline, and * *Whereas studies show that lower income households generally consume less gasoline than higher income households (note 1), but even after lower income households apply all easily accomplished reductions in their consumption of gasoline they will be severely economically impacted by increased cost for gasoline and other energy needs, and * *Whereas, if all of the funds generated by a $5 per gallon user fee were returned equally to all households (note 2) lower income households would get more returned then they pay out in gasoline taxes and will reduce their gasoline consumption to further improve their standard of living while higher income households, who drive more, will also reduce their gasoline consumption in an attempt to maintain their standard of living, and * *Whereas, transit advocates regularly urge more federal funding for transit projects but these funds are only available for construction of large projects which generally have a significant component of congestion reduction for automobiles but if this resolution is enacted congestion will be reduced; and * *Whereas, transit mostly needs funds for operation and these funds are usually generated by the community providing the transit when the transit is demanded; * * * *Now, Therefore the Sierra Club:* *Resolves, to support the implementation of a Sustainable Secure Energy Policy (SEP) with a user fee on gasoline and diesel, for all transportation uses of $5.00 per gallon; and * *Further Resolves that all of the funds generated by the Tax be rebated monthly, with a full share to households with more than one person and half share to households with one person; and * *Further Resolves that the Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS) should extract the tax from the cost of gasoline and the increased cost of shipping goods, included in the cost of living (note 3). * * * * *

1 0

Fw: [Fwd: Fwd: Mayor's letter on C-3 Parking restrictions] and agenda for 1/24
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 13 Jan '06

13 Jan '06

Attached is the letter Newsom wrote opposing the very minimal restrictions imposed by Chris Daly's C-3 legislation. Newsom alludes to Alioto-Pier's legislation, but that is not included in the attachment. Possible agenda for 1/24 1) Howard Strassner would like to present a proposal for a user fee of $5 per gallon of gasline. I believe he will bring hard copies of his resolution, and I will try to remember to forward what he sends to me beforehand; 2) Tom Radulovich and Christina Olague have agreed to come and tell us what they think we should focus on for the upcoming year; 3) Pi Ra would like ot give and update on the Pedestrian Master Plan. Anything else? Sue Please note: forwarded message attached The appelants wanting to require environmental study of the C-3 parking reductions withdraw their complaint because they knew that the mayors letter was written. We will have to do a lot in oder to get some sort of parking reduction. Howard - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To get off the SFBAY-SFGROUP-EXCOM list, send any message to: SFBAY-SFGROUP-EXCOM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

1 0

Call for volunteers for Janaury 26
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 11 Jan '06

11 Jan '06

Hello Everyone, Let me know if you are willing to volunteer at Studio Z on January 26. We will need about four shifts of two people each at the door to collect money as people come in (so that's eight people from 7:45 or so until midnight or so). We will also need people to volunteer for a GROW table. Thanks Sue 668-3119

1 0

Fw: Protest at Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Town Hall Meeting Saturday, January 14, 2006
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 09 Jan '06

09 Jan '06

Protest Against Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Continuous Funding of the War in Iraq Saturday, January 14, 2006 9:30am Marina Middle School Auditorium 3500 Fillmore Street (between Bay and Chestnut) San Francisco, CA Stand with us as we say, "Nancy, Stop Funding War!" Nancy Pelosi will hold a Town Hall meeting the morning of Saturday January 14th to discuss National Security, meanwhile we'll be outside protesting her continuous support for a military war chest. While she has personally supported Rep. John Murtha's call for withdrawal from the ground war, she explicitly refuses to use her power as house minority leader to move the Democratic Party Caucus towards supporting even Murtha's resolution; she will not support HR 4232, the bill introduced by Representative James McGovern, to prohibit the use of funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. Nancy Pelosi consistently votes to spend billions of dollars per year on the war in Iraq while vital public services are being cut at home! * Nancy's record: 1) June 2002: Pelosi voted YES on HR 5010 - Vote to adopt a conference report on a bill that would provide $355.1 billion in appropriations for the Defense Department for fiscal year 2003, an increase of $37.5 billion from 2002. Highlights: $71.6 billion for procurement of aircraft, missiles, weapons, combat vehicles and shipbuilding - $114.8 billion for armed forces operations and maintenance - $7.4 billion for ballistic missile defense 2) June 2004: Pelosi voted YES on HR 4613 - Vote to adopt a Conference Report that would provide appropriate $417.8 billion for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 2005, and for other purposes. Highlights: $25 billion for emergency defense spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $120.6 billion for military operations and equipment maintenance, $77.4 billion for the procurement of new weapons 3) March 2005: Pelosi voted YES on HR 1268 - $81.4 billion emergency supplemental appropriations for Defense Department, war on terrorism, tsunami relief and other programs for fiscal year 2005. Highlights: $18.32 billion for procurement of aircraft, combat vehicles, missiles, weapons, and ammunition 4) June 2005: Pelosi voted YES on HR 2863 - A vote to pass a bill that appropriates $399 billion for defense spending in FY2006. Highlights: $116.09 billion for operation and maintenance, including $7.63 billion for ballistic missile defense 5) December 19, 2005: Pelosi voted YES on HR 1815 - Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. Highlights: Authorizes appropriations for FY2006 for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and Air Force for aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, shipbuilding and conversion, and other procurement Let us know that you'll stand with us as we say, "Nancy, Stop Funding War!" For more information email codepinkbayarea(a)riseup.net Voting record gathered from: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=H0222103

1 0

Please tell the supervisors to deny the C-3 CEQA appeal and to pass th e C-3 parking legislation
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 06 Jan '06

06 Jan '06

Hello Everyone, Chris Daly has introduced legislation that would eliminate minimum parking requirements in the C-3 part of downtown. The legislation would: 1) eliminate the min. parking requirement of one parking space per residential unit; 2) establish a parking maximum of one space per every four units; 3) establish a conditional use (CU) parking maximum of one parking space per every two units (though the Planning Commission has recommended that that parking maximum be increased to three spaces per every four units); and, 4) require one bicycle parking space per every two units with buildings up to 50 units and establish one bicycle parking space per every four units in buildings of more than 50 units. There are other details to this legislation that deal with porte cocheres, independently accessible parking, and the maintenance of sidewalk widths. We should support this legislation in concept and ask for more bicycle parking spaces and more parking spaces devoted to car share vehicles. The Union Square Association and BOMA-SF have appealed the legislation. The appeal will be heard at 4:30 at the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, Jan. 10. Daly's office is hoping the appeal will be denied and that the legislation will go right into the Land Use Committee hearing the next day. Rachel Redondiez, in Daly's office, told me that they need people to come out against the appeal and in support of the legislation (with suggestions such as those I have listed below in the letter) on both days (assuming that the appeal is denied on Tuesday). I don't know if I'll be able to make it -- but let me know if you can. We should try to organize. Sue 1028A Howard Street San Francisco, Ca. 94103 January 5, 2006 Aaron Peskin President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Room 244 San Francisco, Ca. 94102 Dear Supervisor Peskin: The Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party advocates for affordable and sustainable transportation policies. We therefore support the C-3 introduced by Supervisor Daly with certain modifications and believe that the Board of Supervisors should reject the CEQA appeal filed by the Union Square Association and BOMA-SF. The CEQA appeal rests heavily on the assumption that the majority of people especially those with children need or want cars. It argues that the failure to provide parking will encourage suburban development where there are fewer parking restrictions and will increase the competition for parking spaces in the C-3 area of San Francisco, parking spaces that merchants claim are needed by tourists and shoppers. However, environmentalists and urban planners know that well-designed urban centers are the closest thing that our nation has to utopian environmental communities. There is no question that a shortage of oil and natural gas is looming in the future. Quality of life if not survival of the species is going to depend on the biggest consumers of energy (Americans) making the decision to willingly consume less. The model for future residents of the C-3 District could be Manhattan. In Manhattan, 82 percent of residents travel to work by public transit, bicycle or foot. New York City, according to an October 18, 2004 New Yorker article, is more populous than eleven states; if it were granted statehood, it would rank fifty-first per capita in energy use. The TWG also believes that legislation should include a minimum of one bicycle-parking space per unit and that the fraction of parking spaces dedicated to car share vehicles should be significantly increased. In fact, the TWG believes that an increase in the fraction of spaces dedicated to car shares should be added to the legislation instead of amending the by right from .5 to .75 per unit, as recommended by the Planning Commissioners. The New Yorker article adds, By far the worst damage we Americans do to the planet arises not from the newspapers we throw away but from the eight hundred and fifty million or so gallons of oil we consume every day. We all know this at some level, yet we live like alcoholics in denial. As policy makers and political leaders we are counting on the Board of Supervisors to acknowledge the truth about the American way of life and begin to formulate policy that curbs the damage that we Americans do. Sincerely, Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia, Co-chairs, Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party

1 0

Please deny the C-3 appeal
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 06 Jan '06

06 Jan '06

1028A Howard Street San Francisco, Ca. 94103 January 5, 2006 Aaron Peskin President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Room 244 San Francisco, Ca. 94102 Dear Supervisor Peskin: The Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party advocates for affordable and sustainable transportation policies. We therefore support the C-3 introduced by Supervisor Daly with certain modifications and believe that the Board of Supervisors should reject the CEQA appeal filed by the Union Square Association and BOMA-SF. The CEQA appeal rests heavily on the assumption that the majority of people especially those with children need or want cars. It argues that the failure to provide parking will encourage suburban development where there are fewer parking restrictions and will increase the competition for parking spaces in the C-3 area of San Francisco, parking spaces that merchants claim are needed by tourists and shoppers. However, environmentalists and urban planners know that well-designed urban centers are the closest thing that our nation has to utopian environmental communities. There is no question that a shortage of oil and natural gas is looming in the future. Quality of life if not survival of the species is going to depend on the biggest consumers of energy (Americans) making the decision to willingly consume less. The model for future residents of the C-3 District could be Manhattan. In Manhattan, 82 percent of residents travel to work by public transit, bicycle or foot. New York City, according to an October 18, 2004 New Yorker article, is more populous than eleven states; if it were granted statehood, it would rank fifty-first per capita in energy use. The TWG also believes that legislation should include a minimum of one bicycle-parking space per unit and that the fraction of parking spaces dedicated to car share vehicles should be significantly increased. In fact, the TWG believes that an increase in the fraction of spaces dedicated to car shares should be added to the legislation instead of amending the by right from .5 to .75 per unit, as recommended by the Planning Commissioners. The New Yorker article adds, By far the worst damage we Americans do to the planet arises not from the newspapers we throw away but from the eight hundred and fifty million or so gallons of oil we consume every day. We all know this at some level, yet we live like alcoholics in denial. As policy makers and political leaders we are counting on the Board of Supervisors to acknowledge the truth about the American way of life and begin to formulate policy that curbs the damage that we Americans do. Sincerely, Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia, Co-chairs, Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party

1 0

Re: [Transpo] RE: letter re. C-3 leg
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 06 Jan '06

06 Jan '06

"fraction" -- you're right. Also, I should make it clear (and correct the letter that I wrote in case I got it wrong), that the CEQA appeal seeks to raise the conditional use (CU) maximum to 1.0 (one parking space to one unit). The Planning Commission, under pressure from all the usual suspects, voted to recommend that the CU be raised from .5 to .75. But in case I got that wrong, I'm CCing Tom Radulovich (can't find Christina Olague's e-mail ...). Sue -- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 05:10:40AM +0000, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > 1) the CEQA appeal be denied; > 2) that the # of required bike parking spaces be increased to one per unit minimum; and > 3) that the number of parking spaces devoted to car share vehicles be increased It's important to phrase that last goal as "fraction" of the parking spaces. Otherwise, they will just build more overall parking to accomodate the request for more car-share spaces. 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

1 0