February 2006 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

update to agenda
by John-Marc Chandonia 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Hi, I heard from Sue that Greg Hayes will not be coming tonight, so we'll have more time to address the other items (particularly what legislation we should work on this year). JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] more on gas tax, etc. -- shall we postpone discussion of this until March 28?
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

I propose that we postpone discussion of any gas tax proposals to March, since Jerry is interested in this issue and since he cannot be at tonight's meeting. What do people think? Sue -- "Jerry Path" <pjrry(a)igc.org> wrote: Hi again, Just to continue my comments on the proposal for a gas tax - One place I disagree with this proposal is where it says that " when we reduce our consumption of gasoline the world price of crude oil will drop. " This of course depends on a number of factors - one whether or not supply will drop even more rapidly than consumption and second what happens with the consumption of other countries. Then the proposal goes on to say " This will be like oil exporting nations (when compared to today's oil prices) actually covering part of our energy bill." I think the unfortunate implication of this is a denial that we are exploiting oil nation's resources. Yes, there is an elite - the Saudi family etc who are befitting, but there are millions of poor who are being deprived of social justice. The process for the national referendum in this proposal is something I'm having a hard time envisioning. The cigarette tax came about because it was, I think, pushed by health experts - mainly the AMA. I don't see the mechanism for this "national discussion" taking place. Certainly the corporate media wouldn't provide this mechanism. Another problem I see is that this is going to result in a huge bureaucracy. Its probably an unfortunate necessity - but I am especially concerned that this would also result in a lot of negative criticism. I have a suggestion which might somewhat address this - but it is only embryonic. Its kind of a mix between the transponders used for toll bridges - and the ATM bank card cash system. Drivers would each receive a card which they would use to purchase gas. The information of each transaction would be processed by a computer system which would record consumption over time. Everyone would start out paying the same price - but the program would gradually calculate higher prices for higher consumption - until the user reached a certain plateau - the price could decline from this plateau, but not go higher. Similarly for users who consumed less prices would decline - but not below a certain point. Non-users would also get cards and a credit for their non-use would be d! eposited in their accounts. It would basically be using a computerized system to cut down on all the steps in the rebate process - although the process would be the same. Just an idea. I hope I'm not being too negative - just seeing all these problems. I really appreciate that something is moving on this - I think we need some action desperately and I hope this can move forward. On Legislation that we should be proposing - probably this has already been talked about, but just in case it hasn't - the vehicle registration fee should be brought at least up to its prior level. Probably more funds should be dedicated to Public Transit - (I only say probably because I don't know the specifics on this I just strongly suspect that enough doesn't go to Transit). Best Jerry Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

2 1

Some thoughts on BRT
by Emily Drennen 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Hi all, I just wanted to throw my two cents in here since I won't be able to attend tomorrow night's meeting. Better, faster transit on Geary is a great idea. However, I am worried that BRT is not the right option for Geary. With between 55 and 75k riders/day now, BRT's capacity will be maxed out soon. Plus, BRT will never attract the extra ridership that rail will. I am usually all for saving as much money as possible on expensive city projects. However, on this one, I have to urge you all to ask the TA to consider rail as an alternative. Not only does the ridership now justify the investment of light rail, but heavy rail (subways) have been built on *much* less ridership. Just some food for thought before the meeting. Best, Emily __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

more on gas tax, etc.
by Jerry Path 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

Hi again, Just to continue my comments on the proposal for a gas tax - One place I disagree with this proposal is where it says that " when we reduce our consumption of gasoline the world price of crude oil will drop. " This of course depends on a number of factors - one whether or not supply will drop even more rapidly than consumption and second what happens with the consumption of other countries. Then the proposal goes on to say " This will be like oil exporting nations (when compared to today's oil prices) actually covering part of our energy bill." I think the unfortunate implication of this is a denial that we are exploiting oil nation's resources. Yes, there is an elite - the Saudi family etc who are befitting, but there are millions of poor who are being deprived of social justice. The process for the national referendum in this proposal is something I'm having a hard time envisioning. The cigarette tax came about because it was, I think, pushed by health experts - mainly the AMA. I don't see the mechanism for this "national discussion" taking place. Certainly the corporate media wouldn't provide this mechanism. Another problem I see is that this is going to result in a huge bureaucracy. Its probably an unfortunate necessity - but I am especially concerned that this would also result in a lot of negative criticism. I have a suggestion which might somewhat address this - but it is only embryonic. Its kind of a mix between the transponders used for toll bridges - and the ATM bank card cash system. Drivers would each receive a card which they would use to purchase gas. The information of each transaction would be processed by a computer system which would record consumption over time. Everyone would start out paying the same price - but the program would gradually calculate higher prices for higher consumption - until the user reached a certain plateau - the price could decline from this plateau, but not go higher. Similarly for users who consumed less prices would decline - but not below a certain point. Non-users would also get cards and a credit for their non-use would be deposited in their accounts. It would basically be using a computerized system to cut down on all the steps in the rebate process - although the process would be the same. Just an idea. I hope I'm not being too negative - just seeing all these problems. I really appreciate that something is moving on this - I think we need some action desperately and I hope this can move forward. On Legislation that we should be proposing - probably this has already been talked about, but just in case it hasn't - the vehicle registration fee should be brought at least up to its prior level. Probably more funds should be dedicated to Public Transit - (I only say probably because I don't know the specifics on this I just strongly suspect that enough doesn't go to Transit). Best Jerry Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Someone may come from the SFCTA or Muni on Tuesday
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

Great. If you want to work together with me (or someone else if a volunteer steps forward), that would be great. No confirmation yet on whether the SFCTA people are coming on Tuesday or not. Sue -- Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: I've seen this presentation. It's very informative about the project--and very objective. These two projects are very important for SF: they need to be built to a high degree of quality: truly much and more reliable transit, that's also beautiful and dignified. At this stage, we should encourage the planners to create the most aggressive brt as possible. The speed and reliability of transit should not be compromised by the preservation of parking or traffic flow. Bike lanes should be included wherever possible, especially on the stretch from Presidio or Steiner to Arguello, where Geary cuts between two major hills. I've seen the presentation and would be happy to work with someone from the transpo committee to write a support letter following the presentation. Dave At 7:32 PM +0000 2/25/06, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: >We may be getting a presentation from someone at the San Francisco >County Transportation Authority and/or Muni on BRT. I've said 30 >minutes, come at the beginning. > >What do people think? > >Sue > > >_______________________________________________ >Transpo mailing list >Transpo(a)sfgreens.org >https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: [Transpo] gas tax proposal, agenda
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

There are various versions of the Oil Depletion Protocol floating around out there on the Internet. The one I am familiar with and have copies of is the Uppsala ODP, written by Coln Campbell, former oil industry geologist. The ODP calls on importing nations to voluntarily reduce their oil imports be 2 percent annually, and for exporting nations to reduce their exports by 2 percent annually. Internally, nations could deal with the decline in oil through Domestic Tradable Quotas, or DTQs. All adults would receive oil rations, divided up equally, that they buy or sell. For consumers who use more "petro-units" than others (cab drivers, manufacturers of plastic products, etc.) that costs get passed onto secondary consumers. I'm assuming the gasoline tax/rebate system would work the same way. You can still take a cab -- but it's going to be more expensive. We can still enhance our soil with fossil fuels, but eating is going to be more costly (especially eating energy intensive food such as meat). Prices are going to go up eventually anyway. It's a matter of whether those prices are market "regulated" (i.e., private industry gets to gouge us) or whether we collectively manage those price increases. And personally, I probably favor a gas tax that's a percentage, rather than a set price. If we ask for $5 a gallon, we'll probably get less than one cent (what Schwarzenegger is currently proposing). But if we work for a percentage, like 2 percent, going up annually to 15 percent or something, the amount that is collected will increase as the price of gasoline goes up. Sue -- "Jerry Path" <pjrry(a)igc.org> wrote: Hi Everyone, I'm okay with the presentation from someone from Bart, although the agenda seems kind of full to me. I once again probably will be having a conflict with work again. I will do my best to attend, but it may not work out - hopefully this will not go on for too long. April looks good. At any rate, I have a number of things to say about the gasoline tax - rebate proposal. These are things I want to bring up in this context because I don't think we have the time to discuss them given our agenda constraints. These are things I would like everyone to consider, especially Harold Strassner. I agree with the proposal in general and think initiating this discussion is urgent - and would want to endorse it on this basis. Many essential specifics are not addressed - and I understand that there is a process to working these out. In this spirit I have some comments, criticisms, suggestions etc. You can do with what you will, I just want to get them out there. Let me begin by saying that at first I reacted to the idea of a $5.00 tax on gasoline - diesel because I thought that this would just alienate the "average person" right off the bat and would not get anywhere. But I read it thru - thought it over and decided that the idea does have merit. However, the "average person" probably would just react - and not read it through and think it over. The powers that be are very good at seizing at some superficial aspect of an idea and using it against us. This prevents people from ever getting past the surface of an idea, and we are defeated before we begin. I think it would be better to put the emphasis on getting the concept across - that Oil corporations have externalized their costs and that we have to pay and get the idea of a tax - rebate across first. 2. Concerning the automobile driver - there are a number of drivers who don't fit into the household category - such as taxi drivers, salespeople and such. These I think would have to be dealt with differently, I don't have any ideas as to how. 3. Trucking, goods transport - Corporations have successfully externalized costs unto drivers so that drivers are in a very precarious economic situation, partly because of this drivers are a good buffer for them - drivers should be our allies but they would be extremely difficult to win over. 4. Airlines - all of transportation is in serious difficulty, I think, but airlines are the most fragile. However this problem needs to be faced eventually because airlines I'm sure are among the biggest consumers of oil. Perhaps air travel needs to be rationed, by increasing tax rates for increased travel with rebates to those with less or no travel. Public consciousness is no where near where it would have to be for this to have a chance - but material reality will not wait for this consciousness to catch up. Here again the solution needs to be a process - just is way beyond me to address. 5. Military, Government - I won't even get into this for now, but clearly they do need to get covered. 6. Farm Equipment. Being a farm boy, I have a special hatred for agribusiness. they are also at the core of the problem - pushing people off of the land, polluting and destroying it - and externalizing their costs. We need to convert to small, more local and sustainable, less energy consuming farming. And we to recover the land will require a lot of work - so the many so-called redundant workers are our potential allies here - but this is also long term. The above are some specifics, all of which would require some program of conversion away from high energy use. I see the tax - rebate proposal as being a step toward such a conversion. We are very far away from a conversion program - but it seems we need to begin to think in these terms. However even trying to think in these terms makes me feel a little crazy - because it seems so far from possibility, I have some other points, but perhaps this is enough for now. Best, Jerry Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Someone may come from the SFCTA or Muni on Tuesday
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

We may be getting a presentation from someone at the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and/or Muni on BRT. I've said 30 minutes, come at the beginning. What do people think? Sue

2 1

gas tax proposal, agenda
by Jerry Path 26 Feb '06

26 Feb '06

Hi Everyone, I'm okay with the presentation from someone from Bart, although the agenda seems kind of full to me. I once again probably will be having a conflict with work again. I will do my best to attend, but it may not work out - hopefully this will not go on for too long. April looks good. At any rate, I have a number of things to say about the gasoline tax - rebate proposal. These are things I want to bring up in this context because I don't think we have the time to discuss them given our agenda constraints. These are things I would like everyone to consider, especially Harold Strassner. I agree with the proposal in general and think initiating this discussion is urgent - and would want to endorse it on this basis. Many essential specifics are not addressed - and I understand that there is a process to working these out. In this spirit I have some comments, criticisms, suggestions etc. You can do with what you will, I just want to get them out there. Let me begin by saying that at first I reacted to the idea of a $5.00 tax on gasoline - diesel because I thought that this would just alienate the "average person" right off the bat and would not get anywhere. But I read it thru - thought it over and decided that the idea does have merit. However, the "average person" probably would just react - and not read it through and think it over. The powers that be are very good at seizing at some superficial aspect of an idea and using it against us. This prevents people from ever getting past the surface of an idea, and we are defeated before we begin. I think it would be better to put the emphasis on getting the concept across - that Oil corporations have externalized their costs and that we have to pay and get the idea of a tax - rebate across first. 2. Concerning the automobile driver - there are a number of drivers who don't fit into the household category - such as taxi drivers, salespeople and such. These I think would have to be dealt with differently, I don't have any ideas as to how. 3. Trucking, goods transport - Corporations have successfully externalized costs unto drivers so that drivers are in a very precarious economic situation, partly because of this drivers are a good buffer for them - drivers should be our allies but they would be extremely difficult to win over. 4. Airlines - all of transportation is in serious difficulty, I think, but airlines are the most fragile. However this problem needs to be faced eventually because airlines I'm sure are among the biggest consumers of oil. Perhaps air travel needs to be rationed, by increasing tax rates for increased travel with rebates to those with less or no travel. Public consciousness is no where near where it would have to be for this to have a chance - but material reality will not wait for this consciousness to catch up. Here again the solution needs to be a process - just is way beyond me to address. 5. Military, Government - I won't even get into this for now, but clearly they do need to get covered. 6. Farm Equipment. Being a farm boy, I have a special hatred for agribusiness. they are also at the core of the problem - pushing people off of the land, polluting and destroying it - and externalizing their costs. We need to convert to small, more local and sustainable, less energy consuming farming. And we to recover the land will require a lot of work - so the many so-called redundant workers are our potential allies here - but this is also long term. The above are some specifics, all of which would require some program of conversion away from high energy use. I see the tax - rebate proposal as being a step toward such a conversion. We are very far away from a conversion program - but it seems we need to begin to think in these terms. However even trying to think in these terms makes me feel a little crazy - because it seems so far from possibility, I have some other points, but perhaps this is enough for now. Best, Jerry Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

1 0

Re: other items for the TWG on 2-28 -- parking garage at haight and st anya n
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

While I hear the objections people have to an underground parking garage, the Green Party transportation plank specifies that new parking should be below grade. We object to underground garages in parks. Sue -- Bruce Wolfe <Bruce(a)BruceWolfe.net> wrote: It is time to reactivate the D5Community listserv. I will do so. Bruce Ross Mirkarimi wrote: > It would be helpful if we can pull together a team of folks like yourselves > to help ascertain all current planning proposals and data so thatw e can > plot our next steps. > > Thanks, > Ross > > > > Bruce Wolfe > <Bruce@BruceWolfe > .net> To > John Rizzo <jrizzo(a)sprintmail.com> > 02/22/2006 10:32 cc > AM susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com, > transpo(a)sfgreens.org, > regina.dick-endrizzi(a)sfgov.org, > ross.mirkarimi(a)sfgov.org > Subject > Re: other items for the TWG on 2-28 > -- parking garage at haight and > stanya n > > > > > > > > > > > > Either way, there is an environmental issue here besides transit in that > the building is set to be demolished. My backyard is the back wall of the > building itself. Noise, debris, airborne particulates, etc., we are going > to be plagued by. > > We have been dealing with two solid years of non-stop street construction. > I am really getting sick of it and I mean to my personal health with > regards to noise and stress of how it affects the traffic patterns and > behavior (aka road rage) amongst drivers. > > I was thinking of activating the D5Community list on this matter so that we > can partner in the effort and make choices of what chain store we as a > community want there. We can thank Matt Gonzalez for the chain store > legislation for that with regards to Urban Outfitters. > > BTW, Cala is owned by the same owner as the Urban Outfitters location. > > Bruce > ===== > > > John Rizzo wrote: > > Just to clarify, the current Cala Foods has surface parking. A > parking > garage (with the Whole Foods proposal) would be new, as well as very > harmful. > > John > > > At our Sierra Club meeting tonight, Bruce Wolfe mentioned that > the Cala > on Haight at Stanyan is going to be demolished and replaced > with either > a Trader Joe's without a parking garage (but with surface > parking?) or > with a Whole Foods and an underground parking garage. I don't > know > > when > > this will be up before the Planning Commission, but we should > get the > details soon and get on this. > > Sue > > > > > > > >

2 1

other items for the TWG on 2-28 -- parking garage at haight and stanya n
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

At our Sierra Club meeting tonight, Bruce Wolfe mentioned that the Cala on Haight at Stanyan is going to be demolished and replaced with either a Trader Joe's without a parking garage (but with surface parking?) or with a Whole Foods and an underground parking garage. I don't know when this will be up before the Planning Commission, but we should get the details soon and get on this. Sue

1 0