February 2006 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

[ben@yourcallradio.org: [Carfreeliving] Your Call on KALW]
by John-Marc Chandonia 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

FYI... this message was originally sent to Dave Snyder, and forwarded to the CarFree list. If anybody from TWG wants to listen or call in, go ahead. JMC ----- Forwarded message from Benjamin Temchine <ben(a)yourcallradio.org> ----- My name is Ben Temchine, and I am a producer with Your Call, a daily political affairs call-in program broadcast on KALW-FM public radio in San Francisco. (For more information, see our website, <http://www.yourcallradio.org/>www.yourcallradio.org.) The program airs live from 10-11 a.m. Pacific/1-2 p.m. Eastern Time. On Thursday, February 23rd our topic will be transit in the Bay Area, but more broadly, designing a just transit system. As you know, a suit was filed by some AC Transit bus riders against the Metropolitan Transportation Commission alleging racial bias in their funding. Deciding between bus, train and BART, with scarce resources, and much of the money not fungible between Rail, BART and bus makes for an interesting conversation. We were hoping you might be able to listen into the show, and call-in. The call-in number is 415.841.4134. We do not have enough space to bring you in as a guest but we want to make sure your organization's point of view is heard on the show. If you are available or have any questions, please call me at 415.516.5971 Benjamin Temchine Producer Your Call KALW 91.7 San Francisco 415-516-5971 <mailto:ben@yourcallradio.org>ben(a)yourcallradio.org Benjamin Temchine Producer Your Call KALW 91.7 San Francisco 415-516-5971 <mailto:ben@yourcallradio.org>ben(a)yourcallradio.org _______________________________________________ Carfreeliving(a)livablecity.org mailing list to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF To unsubscribe: mailto:Carfreeliving-request@livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe or, for all options, go to: http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] agenda for Tuesday, 2-22-06
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

We should probably talk about BRT on the Geary and Van Ness corridors also and begin to plan our course of action (probably just a letter to the SFCTA in support of it). Sue -- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 06:34:16AM +0000, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > 1) Howard Strassner's $5.00 a gallon gas tax with rebates of $600 > (monthly?) per household even to those who do not drive. Action > item; Let's spend about 10 minutes on this since we discussed it extensively before. > 2) Discuss legislation we would like to see get passed this year to > fulfill our transportation plank; Here's an outline of my proposal: a) California Vehicle Code 22500(e) makes it illegal to park in front of ANY driveway, public or private: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22500.htm b) In SF, this is not enforced except on the request of a tenant or owner of the building, who must be a car owner and wanting to get in or out: http://www.sfgov.org/site/dpt_index.asp?id=13444 Not only do they admit to not enforcing the law, they put fake tickets on their website that residents are supposed to print out and put on other peoples' cars; several of these are linked from the page above. The assumption by DPT is that any car blocking a driveway belongs to a resident, but if a non-resident blocks a driveway the enforcement process can take several hours and results in major inconvenience for the resident as well as a large amount of DPT employee time (the employee has to wait for the tow truck to arrive, often for over an hour). c) There are ~450,000 cars (including trucks, vans) registered in SF: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/stats/regveh.htm Assume there are on the order of 1-200,000 separate driveways; DPT probably has a better statistic, but this is probably not off by a large factor. d) Proposal: SF will sell a market-rate permit to block a specific driveway. The permits may only be sold to residents or owners of the property accessible by the driveway, but they may be transfered. The permit would look like a rear view mirror hanger with the address of the driveway to be blocked. It would need to be renewed every year. Average market rate in SF is at least $100/month; if 50,000 such permits were sold, this would raise ~$50 million in new revenue. Such revenue would be applied directly to MUNI, with the condition that fares and services be restored to (at worst) year 2000 levels. If $100 million in permits were sold, we could use the money to provide free MUNI service (as the overhead of fare collection and selling passes would also be eliminated). Since the permits are for a special privilege (not general use), they would be exempt from the price cap that normally applies to residential parking permits. The question is whether it would be legal to do this without changing state laws, 22500(e) and the supposed fare-box limit for public transit (but then, how do other cities, including Emeryville and Santa Barbara, legally provide free service?) e) At the same time, all enforcement actions that currently require a call-in from a resident (sidewalk parking, blocked driveway) would instead be enforced on sight. This would result in cleaner sidewalks, and a small increase in revenue (and a significantly greater savings in DPT employee time, as they would no longer have to wait next to the illegally parked car for a tow truck to arrive). f) The plan should be supported by drivers as it would result in an increase in the number of legal parking spaces (benefitting even drivers who wouldn't get the permits) and it would prevent strangers from blocking your driveway. Any driver who's had to wait more than an hour to get in or out of their garage (as is currently the case) should support the idea of enforcement of blocked driveways without having to call first. > 3) Greg Hayes wants to come and talk about the Bicycle Plan Update. > I'm waiting for a proposal from him. 15 minutes since we already promised him. I think we've spent far too much time on this relative to what we'll actually accomplish. 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

Re: item, location?: Feb. 28, not Feb. 22
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 20 Feb '06

20 Feb '06

Greg, I was wrong about the date -- it's Tuesday, Feb. 28, not Feb. 22. Sue -- "g. haze" <gaze5(a)yahoo.com> wrote: The currnet bpu is in many ways a lost cause. the bike plans are funded every five years by the state. so i'm more concerned about the future. I percieve the problem to be more one of communication beween these different entities, i think just the idea of green transportation committee, bac and sfbc board all having a joint meeting would be a huge step forward in improving speech and process. just to meet each other and talk about how to communicate and work together more effectively. the problem with the bpu is the the sfbc and dpt basically privatized it. dave was working through the green committee to try to fix becuase ironically enough he set up the situation sfbc/dpt in total control where he could be excluded from it. this is what i percieve to be the problem (not dave individually, dave is skilled and concerned advocate) but a bike plan where sfbc and dpt staff had all meaningful input and actually worked to exclude the input of other advocates. sure they took public comment but the funded work-plan was pre-established and it excluded very important issues that ultimately led to the current problems. like the law suit, etc. for me personally this was a huge problem becuase this is what i work on and I consequently i ended up having to personally fund and do what should have been publicly funded work. for the movement at large it was even more disasterious because now all these huge issues are still unaddressed. this is also very ironic becuase the sfbc's goal the bike network is inextricably linked to these other areas of study figuring out ceqa/los etc. any rational legilsative body could have been convinced of this, but back to the problem there was no rational legislative body just dpt/sfbc staff doing only what they wanted, without realistically even the oversight of their own board. I started law school recently so i'm pretty much done with this in a way, but I would like to help the bodies that are there work together and avoid this in this future becuase it was totally unecessary and everyone lost. I think ultimately it was really a matter of communication, the sfbc board have no idea their staff are causing such problems, and the staff themselves don't even really percieve it. but no on eis benefiitting so the probolem needs to be fixed. i think this can be accomplished without saying sfbc/dpt staff bad, bad staff, by imporving speech and communication. sorry this is long but it like many of the other problems are complex issues that you have to work through or they will just keep being a problem, once again why there should be a more public process. as a final irony and another interesting aspect of this the problem of lack of legislative oversight, etc. is mirrored in the problems of street design at large. crazy huh? thanks, Greg --- "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> wrote: > Yes, we got the item, but I have to admit, we've > already been through this exercise, critiquing the > BPU. In fact, we've sent 11 letters, one to each > member of the Board of Supervisors, explaining the > overall weaknesses of the BPU, and specific problems > with it in their particular districts. So I don't > know why we are doing this again. > > Time: 7 p.m. > Date: Tuesday, February 22 > Place: 1028a Howard Street, between 6th and 7th -- > you can bring your bike inside. > > You'll have about 15 minutes. > > Sue > > -- "g. haze" <gaze5(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > you got he item? ok? > > what is the time and location? > > __________________________________________________ > 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

Re: [Transpo] agenda for Tuesday, 2-28-06
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 20 Feb '06

20 Feb '06

I had the wrong date. It's February 28. I'll e-mail Greg and let him know. JMC can you post your stuff on the website? Sue -- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 06:34:16AM +0000, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > 1) Howard Strassner's $5.00 a gallon gas tax with rebates of $600 > (monthly?) per household even to those who do not drive. Action > item; Let's spend about 10 minutes on this since we discussed it extensively before. > 2) Discuss legislation we would like to see get passed this year to > fulfill our transportation plank; Here's an outline of my proposal: a) California Vehicle Code 22500(e) makes it illegal to park in front of ANY driveway, public or private: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22500.htm b) In SF, this is not enforced except on the request of a tenant or owner of the building, who must be a car owner and wanting to get in or out: http://www.sfgov.org/site/dpt_index.asp?id=13444 Not only do they admit to not enforcing the law, they put fake tickets on their website that residents are supposed to print out and put on other peoples' cars; several of these are linked from the page above. The assumption by DPT is that any car blocking a driveway belongs to a resident, but if a non-resident blocks a driveway the enforcement process can take several hours and results in major inconvenience for the resident as well as a large amount of DPT employee time (the employee has to wait for the tow truck to arrive, often for over an hour). c) There are ~450,000 cars (including trucks, vans) registered in SF: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/stats/regveh.htm Assume there are on the order of 1-200,000 separate driveways; DPT probably has a better statistic, but this is probably not off by a large factor. d) Proposal: SF will sell a market-rate permit to block a specific driveway. The permits may only be sold to residents or owners of the property accessible by the driveway, but they may be transfered. The permit would look like a rear view mirror hanger with the address of the driveway to be blocked. It would need to be renewed every year. Average market rate in SF is at least $100/month; if 50,000 such permits were sold, this would raise ~$50 million in new revenue. Such revenue would be applied directly to MUNI, with the condition that fares and services be restored to (at worst) year 2000 levels. If $100 million in permits were sold, we could use the money to provide free MUNI service (as the overhead of fare collection and selling passes would also be eliminated). Since the permits are for a special privilege (not general use), they would be exempt from the price cap that normally applies to residential parking permits. The question is whether it would be legal to do this without changing state laws, 22500(e) and the supposed fare-box limit for public transit (but then, how do other cities, including Emeryville and Santa Barbara, legally provide free service?) e) At the same time, all enforcement actions that currently require a call-in from a resident (sidewalk parking, blocked driveway) would instead be enforced on sight. This would result in cleaner sidewalks, and a small increase in revenue (and a significantly greater savings in DPT employee time, as they would no longer have to wait next to the illegally parked car for a tow truck to arrive). f) The plan should be supported by drivers as it would result in an increase in the number of legal parking spaces (benefitting even drivers who wouldn't get the permits) and it would prevent strangers from blocking your driveway. Any driver who's had to wait more than an hour to get in or out of their garage (as is currently the case) should support the idea of enforcement of blocked driveways without having to call first. > 3) Greg Hayes wants to come and talk about the Bicycle Plan Update. > I'm waiting for a proposal from him. 15 minutes since we already promised him. I think we've spent far too much time on this relative to what we'll actually accomplish. 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

agenda for Tuesday, 2-22-06
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 20 Feb '06

20 Feb '06

Ok what should we have on the agenda? I have this so far: 1) Howard Strassner's $5.00 a gallon gas tax with rebates of $600 (monthly?) per household even to those who do not drive. Action item; 2) Discuss legislation we would like to see get passed this year to fulfill our transportation plank; 3) Greg Hayes wants to come and talk about the Bicycle Plan Update. I'm waiting for a proposal from him. Anything else? Sue

2 1

Re: item, location?
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 19 Feb '06

19 Feb '06

Yes, we got the item, but I have to admit, we've already been through this exercise, critiquing the BPU. In fact, we've sent 11 letters, one to each member of the Board of Supervisors, explaining the overall weaknesses of the BPU, and specific problems with it in their particular districts. So I don't know why we are doing this again. Time: 7 p.m. Date: Tuesday, February 22 Place: 1028a Howard Street, between 6th and 7th -- you can bring your bike inside. You'll have about 15 minutes. Sue -- "g. haze" <gaze5(a)yahoo.com> wrote: you got he item? ok? what is the time and location? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

[Transpo] Fw: Re: agenda for Tuesday, 2-22-06: Greg Hayes's proposal
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 18 Feb '06

18 Feb '06

Here is Greg Hayes's proposal. Is this cool with everyone? I've told him he can have about 15 minutes to make his proposal. WHat do people think? Sue ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- --letter fom green party transportation committee to sfbc board --addressing bike plan situation --calling for the next bike plan to be more public --proposing a joint session of the sfbc board and the green party transportation committee to discuss how to have the process could be more public possibly this could be hosted by the bac. gentle, diplomatic...but also clear. I will likely discuss this idea with your committee. if they are into it i will draft a letter and if your committe approves it they can send it. thanks, --- "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> wrote: > Ok what should we have on the agenda? I have this > so far: > > 1) Howard Strassner's $5.00 a gallon gas tax with > rebates of $600 (monthly?) per household even to > those who do not drive. Action item; > > 2) Discuss legislation we would like to see get > passed this year to fulfill our transportation > plank; > > 3) Greg Hayes wants to come and talk about the > Bicycle Plan Update. I'm waiting for a proposal > from him. > > Anything else? > > Sue > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Downtown Parking reform goes to a final vote at the Board of Superviso rs: please e-mail Dufty and Newsom
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 14 Feb '06

14 Feb '06

SUPPORT DOWNTOWN PARKING REFORM Board of Supervisors' meeting Thursday, February 14, 2 PM Board of Supervisors' Chambers The groundbreaking legislation to reform parking and create livable streets in the city's downtown commercial (C-3) zoning districts will be back at the Board of Supervisors this Tuesday, February 14 at 2 PM for its second reading. On its first reading last Tuesday, it was approved by a 7-4 vote, with Supervisors Peskin, McGoldrick, Mirkarimi, Daly, Ammiano, Maxwell, and Sandoval in favor, and Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Ma, Elsbernd, and Dufty opposed. This legislation will help reduce traffic congestion downtown, improve the affordability of downtown housing, create more car-free housing downtown, and preserve and enhance the quality of downtown streets for walking, bicycling, and public transit; see our campaign page ( http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/c3.html) or the PDF version ( http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/C3%20Parking%20fact%20sheet.pdf) for more information about the legislation and how to get involved. There won't be an opportunity for public comment at the hearing, but please call, write, fax, or email Supervisor Dufty and Mayor Newsom and urge them to support the legislation. This legislation was endorsed by five planning commissioners (including by Mayor Newsom's appointee to the commission) and by Planning Director Dean Macris. It implements several key campaign promises made by then-candidate Newsom in 2003: build new housing while preserving the quality and character of adjacent residential districts and ensuring infill development strengthens the surrounding neighborhood; Make every street a great street that provides a safer, more livable public realm for everyone who uses bikes, cars and public transit; Move planning processes beyond politics. Despite the solid support this legislation received from the Planning Commission and Planning Director, Mayor Newsom is under pressure from certain downtown interests to veto the legislation. Supervisor Dufty's vote is critical to getting a veto-proof majority of the board. Please take a few minutes to contact them and let them know you support downtown parking reform and safer downtown streets. Mayor Gavin Newsom City Hall - Room 200 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 (415) 554-6141 - voice (415) 554-6160 - fax gavin.newsom(a)sfgov.org Supervisor Bevan Dufty City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 (415) 554-6968 - voice (415) 554-6909 - fax bevan.dufty(a)sfgov.org Our friends at the SF Bike Coalition have set up a web page that allows you to send a customized fax to your supervisor: https://www.sfbike.org/?c3reform 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

1 0

A red scarf was left at Studio Z
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

Hey everybody, I hope everyone enjoyed the fundraiser at Studio Z. We've already been invited back to do more events!! Thanks to everyone for helping to make it a very successful night. In the meantine, someone left a rust-red scarf on the GROW table at Studio Z. I have it. Sue

1 0

people's bike plan
by Dave Snyder 03 Feb '06

03 Feb '06

Hey folks, Before we have this conversation about a possible "people's bike plan" effort, I need to make something clear. I would hate for my complaints about the SFBC to disparage that organization unfairly. I think I overstated when I said they put tourists over everyday working people. The only reason I said that is because their main effort to increase funding for bicycle infrastructure is for the bay bridge multi-use path, while our everyday urban bicycling infrastructure is woefully underfunded. I'll defend them, as they probably won't bother to do because they have more important things to do. Their main effort at every level in their staff is to improve conditions for everyday residents. They spend a small fraction of their time on the bridge issue. And the bridge won't serve just tourists or recreational purposes, and even though that's it's primary purpose, isn't that important? It will be hugely popular, and is absolutely essential to supporting car-free living in the Bay Area. If the SFBC can work the politics to get a portion of the costs of that bridge funded with the governor's upcoming bond, the rest of the money is almost sure to follow, perhaps from revenue generated by the new development on Treasure Island (a revenue bond, say, funded by a parking tax or toll on T.I. car traffic). If the bay bridge path is funded, it will be the largest bicycle/pedestrian project in the history of the United States, and isn't that cool? I still would like to see more attention paid to the everyday bicycle network in S.F., I don't appreciate being insulted for criticizing the SFBC, though I can take it and dish it out both, so fair enough, and I still think you're a fucking freeloader if you ride a bike in S.F. and don't pay your dues to the SFBC, whether you agree with their every strategy or not. Dave

1 0