February 2006 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Re: Fw: item for green party transportation committee from Greg Hayes
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 03 Feb '06

03 Feb '06

I'll put the "people's bike plan" on the agenda if you agree to come to the meeting and guide that part of it so that we know what to do -- and then lead in the creation of the "PBP". I know we crtitiqued the current BPU. Creating an alternative would be a massive undertaking -- especially when one of our goals this year is to start working on some legislation that would fulfill our plank. Please CC transpo(a)sfgreens.org in your response to that people can see what we are talking about. Sue -- Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: I think the idea of putting a "people's bike plan" on the agenda to discuss the role the SF Green Party could have in pushing for a bike plan that had a reasonable chance of achieving the stated goal of 10% of all trips by 2010 would be a good idea. It's true the SFBC's priorities do not reflect the values of the Green Party, in that they are more interested in supporting bicycling for tourists than for low-income San Franciscans. Dave >So do you think this should be on the agenda for the next TWG meeting? > >Also, who are the litigants? That's not clear to me. > >I tried to explain to Greg that the TWG had already weighed in on >the bike plan update, but I'm not sure that meant anything to him. > >Sue > >-- Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: >I've gone over this ad nauseum. The first bike plan was approved in >1997. For funding purposes, they must be renewed every five years. In >1999, we (the SFBC) secured a commitment to do a bike network plan so >that we could get a set of projects in the pipeline for the purposes >of more easily acquiring funding for the bike project. The city's >planners took so long in developing that "bike network" plan that the >"policy" plan was due for renewal by the time they began work on the >bike network plan. The SFBC sought to preserve the funding for the >bike network plan and asked that additional funding be found for the >policy plan. The city's planners decided to do the policy plan "in >house" to preserve the funding for consultants to do the bike network >plan. We supported that. > >The process for developing the bike plan--both parts--was terrible. >The author of the plan had no idea how to facilitate debate on key >elements of the plan, nor how to develop consensus from among various >interests with competing ideas. The policy document had one short >poorly advertised terribly facilitated public meeting before the BAC. >All other input into that document had to be submitted in writing, in >an utterly unadvertised process. To date, there has not been even one >public hearing on the network document. > >The grounds for the lawsuit against the bike plan are indeed the >severance of the plan into two parts, but not the "policy" part and >the "network" part. Rather, it was the division of the network >discussion into two parts, one mentioned in a chapter in the policy >document and the other developed separately. The litigants are >arguing that the bike plan mentioned specific streets in the network >chapter, but those are just a small part of the larger project that >should be analyzed. You can't, under CEQA, divide a project into >separate parts and analyze those parts separately. If the policy >document had not mentioned specific streets (as I advised the planner >who authored the document), then there would be no grounds for the >lawsuit. "Plans" do not require CEQA approval, only "projects" do. >Education, enforcement, encouragement, parking, etc., are exempt from >CEQA review. > >The bike plan is a sham. Neither the SFBC leadership nor even the >plan's author takes it seriously. For all intents and purposes, we >don't have a bike plan in this city. We have some planners and some >advocates who are working on whatever projects bubble to the top of >their priority list without reference to a strategic vision. The >plan's much-touted goal of 10% of all trips by 2010 is a complete >joke. > >I would love for the SF Green Party to launch a campaign to write a >proper bike plan, with open public debate, approved by the Board of >Supervisors'-appointed bicycle advisory committee and eventually by >the Board itself. > >Dave > > > > > >At 3:23 AM +0000 2/1/06, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: >>Please review for our next TWG meeting. >> >>Sue >> >>---------- Forwarded Message ---------- >>Proposed item for Geen Party Transportation Committee >> >>-Review of law-suit against the City for failure to >>follow CEQA requirements in regards to the City Bike > >plan >> >>-Review of actions that led to this law-suit. >>Specifically the removal from the Bike Plan of >>specific Bike Plan chapters required by state law, >>such as Enforcement and Education >> >>-Review of how these actions primarily advocated by a >>local non-profit corporation in order to promote its >>vision of a bike network only bike plan, led to the >>sectionalizing of the Bike plan into "network" and >>"policy" documents which eventually gave rise to one >>of the causes of actions in the law-suit, for >>"piece-mealing" or dividing the plan into sections so >>as to avoid complete environmental review >> >>-discussion of public speech and participation in >>public plans and of ways to avoid this sort of mess in >>the future. >> >>Basically how can we avoid this travesty of public >>process in the future. >> >>This is not an attempt to lay blame as much as to >>recognize that mistakes were made and give thought to >>how to avoid theses mistakes in the future. >> >>The people of the Green Party and the City at-Large >>deserve an open public planning process, that is not >>pre-restricted or co-opted by the desires of any one >>non-profit corporation. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Greg Hayes >> >> >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: transpo meeting
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 03 Feb '06

03 Feb '06

Great. We'll save the PBP (People's Bike Plan) for March 28. Will you be cool with having Greg Hayes come? Sue -- Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: I see that it's the fourth tuesday, feb. 28. I'll be in D.C. so I can't make it. Darn it. I'll be in town March 28, however, which would probably be a better time to discuss it, anyway, as I'll have more information about the process, including whether or not the SFBC supports it -- a key point. Dave

1 0

Re: Fw: item for green party transportation committee from Greg Hayes
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 03 Feb '06

03 Feb '06

The TWG meets at 7 p.m. the fourth Tuesday of every month at the SFGP office. Sue -- Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: when is the meeting? Dave >I'll put the "people's bike plan" on the agenda if you agree to come >to the meeting and guide that part of it so that we know what to do >-- and then lead in the creation of the "PBP". I know we crtitiqued >the current BPU. Creating an alternative would be a massive >undertaking -- especially when one of our goals this year is to >start working on some legislation that would fulfill our plank. > >Please CC transpo(a)sfgreens.org in your response to that people can >see what we are talking about. > >Sue > >-- Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: >I think the idea of putting a "people's bike plan" on the agenda to >discuss the role the SF Green Party could have in pushing for a bike >plan that had a reasonable chance of achieving the stated goal of 10% >of all trips by 2010 would be a good idea. It's true the SFBC's >priorities do not reflect the values of the Green Party, in that they >are more interested in supporting bicycling for tourists than for >low-income San Franciscans. > >Dave > > >>So do you think this should be on the agenda for the next TWG meeting? >> >>Also, who are the litigants? That's not clear to me. >> >>I tried to explain to Greg that the TWG had already weighed in on >>the bike plan update, but I'm not sure that meant anything to him. >> >>Sue >> >>-- Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: >>I've gone over this ad nauseum. The first bike plan was approved in >>1997. For funding purposes, they must be renewed every five years. In >>1999, we (the SFBC) secured a commitment to do a bike network plan so >>that we could get a set of projects in the pipeline for the purposes >>of more easily acquiring funding for the bike project. The city's >>planners took so long in developing that "bike network" plan that the >>"policy" plan was due for renewal by the time they began work on the >>bike network plan. The SFBC sought to preserve the funding for the >>bike network plan and asked that additional funding be found for the >>policy plan. The city's planners decided to do the policy plan "in >>house" to preserve the funding for consultants to do the bike network >>plan. We supported that. >> >>The process for developing the bike plan--both parts--was terrible. >>The author of the plan had no idea how to facilitate debate on key >>elements of the plan, nor how to develop consensus from among various >>interests with competing ideas. The policy document had one short >>poorly advertised terribly facilitated public meeting before the BAC. >>All other input into that document had to be submitted in writing, in >>an utterly unadvertised process. To date, there has not been even one >>public hearing on the network document. >> >>The grounds for the lawsuit against the bike plan are indeed the >>severance of the plan into two parts, but not the "policy" part and >>the "network" part. Rather, it was the division of the network >>discussion into two parts, one mentioned in a chapter in the policy >>document and the other developed separately. The litigants are >>arguing that the bike plan mentioned specific streets in the network >>chapter, but those are just a small part of the larger project that >>should be analyzed. You can't, under CEQA, divide a project into >>separate parts and analyze those parts separately. If the policy >>document had not mentioned specific streets (as I advised the planner >>who authored the document), then there would be no grounds for the >>lawsuit. "Plans" do not require CEQA approval, only "projects" do. >>Education, enforcement, encouragement, parking, etc., are exempt from >>CEQA review. >> >>The bike plan is a sham. Neither the SFBC leadership nor even the >>plan's author takes it seriously. For all intents and purposes, we >>don't have a bike plan in this city. We have some planners and some >>advocates who are working on whatever projects bubble to the top of >>their priority list without reference to a strategic vision. The > >plan's much-touted goal of 10% of all trips by 2010 is a complete >>joke. >> >>I would love for the SF Green Party to launch a campaign to write a >>proper bike plan, with open public debate, approved by the Board of >>Supervisors'-appointed bicycle advisory committee and eventually by >>the Board itself. >> >>Dave >> >> >> >> >> >>At 3:23 AM +0000 2/1/06, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: >>>Please review for our next TWG meeting. >>> >>>Sue >>> >>>---------- Forwarded Message ---------- >>>Proposed item for Geen Party Transportation Committee >>> >>>-Review of law-suit against the City for failure to >>>follow CEQA requirements in regards to the City Bike >> >plan >>> >>>-Review of actions that led to this law-suit. >>>Specifically the removal from the Bike Plan of >>>specific Bike Plan chapters required by state law, >>>such as Enforcement and Education >>> >>>-Review of how these actions primarily advocated by a >>>local non-profit corporation in order to promote its >>>vision of a bike network only bike plan, led to the >>>sectionalizing of the Bike plan into "network" and >>>"policy" documents which eventually gave rise to one >>>of the causes of actions in the law-suit, for >>>"piece-mealing" or dividing the plan into sections so >>>as to avoid complete environmental review >>> >>>-discussion of public speech and participation in >>>public plans and of ways to avoid this sort of mess in >>>the future. >>> >>>Basically how can we avoid this travesty of public >>>process in the future. >>> >>>This is not an attempt to lay blame as much as to >>>recognize that mistakes were made and give thought to >>>how to avoid theses mistakes in the future. >>> >>>The people of the Green Party and the City at-Large >>>deserve an open public planning process, that is not >>>pre-restricted or co-opted by the desires of any one >>>non-profit corporation. >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Greg Hayes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>>http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Fw: [TLC News & Alerts] Downtown Parking reform moves to the full Boar d* Support High-Speed rail and Transbay in the stateinfrastructure bon d * Carfree talk premieres on cable channel 29
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

DOWNTOWN PARKING REFORM MOVES TO THE FULL BOARD Board of Supervisors Tuesday, February 7, 2PM City Hall, Board of Supervisors' chambers The legislation reforming downtown parking was unanimously recommended to the full board of Supervisors at today's Land Use Committee hearing. 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. The legislation amended at the January 19th Land Use Committee hearing, where amendments were adopted that bring the legislation into line with the planning commission's recommendations. At today's hearing, Board President Aaron Peskin became the legislation's sponsor, with supervisors Chris Daly and Sophie Maxwell signing on as co-sponsors. The legislation moved forward more or less intact, although Supervisor Jake McGoldrick put forward an amendment allowing units greater than 1000 square feet and with two or more bedrooms to have one space per dwelling unit, rather than the three spaces for every four units proposed for smaller units. Units with two or more bedrooms represent about 10% of the units built in the downtown. This amendment allows the higher parking ratio for units smaller than TLC would like; our recommendation was that it only apply to units over 1500 square feet and with three or more bedrooms. This legislation is scheduled to go to the full Board of Supervisors on Tuesday. Please call, email, fax, or write the mayor and your supervisor to let them know you support the legislation, and urge them to support it, and to go no lower than the 3-unit, 1500 square-foot limit for higher parking ratios. The Mayor threatened to veto an earlier version of the legislation, so we want to get a veto-proof 8-vote majority. Contact information for Supervisors can be found on TLC's campaign page ( http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/c3.html) 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&PHPSESSID=73b558495834101c8b480a182f06f616 SUPPORT SUPERVISOR DALY'S RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN EXTENSION FUNDING IN STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS Author James Howard Kunstler called suburban sprawl "the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world". Governor Schwarzenegger seems determined to get in the running for the second-greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world with his abysmal "strategic growth plan", which calls for 1,200 new miles of highway lanes in the Golden State. The governor's proposal is one of four competing proposals for a massive statewide infrastructure bond to be placed on the June 2006 ballot, which include Democratic offerings An committee of the legislature was recently convened to draft a compromise proposal. Unfortunately, both the Governor and Democrats are talking about delaying the statewide vote on a $9.75 billion bond measure to build the California High Speed Rail system. This measure, originally scheduled for the November 2004 ballot, has already been deferred once by the legislature. The Caltrain Downtown Extension/Transbay Terminal project, which has twice received the mandate of over 70% of San Francisco voters, will serve as the Bay Area terminus for the high speed rail system, and is counting on $475 million from the high speed rail bond. Delaying the statewide bond yet again will delay full implementation of the project. SB 1024, the infrastructure bond option put forward by Senators Torkakson and Perata, includes $1 billion for project-specific level environmental studies, planning, engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of grade separations, bridges, and tracks in each of five proposed high-speed rail corridors across the state. To date, the Mayor and the Board of Supes have been silent on the city's priorities for a statewide infrastructure bond. Transit champion Supervisor Chris Daly has put forward a resolution at the Board of Supervisors that puts the city on record as saying that $1 billion of any infrastructure bond should be dedicated to High Speed Rail, and that, should the legislature decide once again to defer the vote on the full $9.75 billion high speed bond, that any bond this year should include the $475 million for Caltrain Downtown Extension/Transbay Terminal, in order to allow the project to move forward as soon as possible. Please take a few minutes to call, write, fax, or email the Mayor and Supervisors to let them know you support Supervisor Daly's resolution. The text can be found at http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/infrastructure.html. CAR FREE TALK PREMIERES Friday, February 3 7:30 PM Cable Channel 29 The first episode of Car-Free Talk, will air this Friday, February 3, at 7:30 p.m. on San Francisco Cable Channel 29. The show is hosted by the lovely Sue Vaughan, one of the city's leading car-free living advocates. Her first guest is Dave Room, policy director of the Post-Carbon Institute, based in Oakland and Vancouver ( http://www.postcarbon.org) and the subject will be the coming oil and gas peak. 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 DOWNTOWN PARKING REFORM MOVES TO THE FULL BOARD Board of Supervisors Tuesday, February 7, 2PM City Hall, Board of Supervisors' chambers The legislation reforming downtown parking was unanimously recommended to the full board of Supervisors at today's Land Use Committee hearing. 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. The legislation amended at the January 19th Land Use Committee hearing, where amendments were adopted that bring the legislation into line with the planning commission's recommendations. At today's hearing, Board President Aaron Peskin became the legislation's sponsor, with supervisors Chris Daly and Sophie Maxwell signing on as co-sponsors. The legislation moved forward more or less intact, although Supervisor Jake McGoldrick put forward an amendment allowing units greater than 1000 square feet and with two or more bedrooms to have one space per dwelling unit, rather than the three spaces for every four units proposed for smaller units. Units with two or more bedrooms represent about 10% of the units built in the downtown. This amendment allows the higher parking ratio for units smaller than TLC would like; our recommendation was that it only apply to units over 1500 square feet and with three or more bedrooms. This legislation is scheduled to go to the full Board of Supervisors on Tuesday. Please call, email, fax, or write the mayor and your supervisor to let them know you support the legislation, and urge them to support it, and to go no lower than the 3-unit, 1500 square- foot limit for higher parking ratios. The Mayor threatened to veto an earlier version of the legislation, so we want to get a veto-proof 8- vote majority. Contact information for Supervisors can be found on TLC's campaign page (http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/c3.html) 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&PHPSESSID=73b558495834101c8b480a182f06f616 SUPPORT SUPERVISOR DALY'S RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN EXTENSION FUNDING IN STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS Author James Howard Kunstler called suburban sprawl "the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world". Governor Schwarzenegger seems determined to get in the running for the second- greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world with his abysmal "strategic growth plan", which calls for 1,200 new miles of highway lanes in the Golden State. The governor's proposal is one of four competing proposals for a massive statewide infrastructure bond to be placed on the June 2006 ballot, which include Democratic offerings An committee of the legislature was recently convened to draft a compromise proposal. Unfortunately, both the Governor and Democrats are talking about delaying the statewide vote on a $9.75 billion bond measure to build the California High Speed Rail system. This measure, originally scheduled for the November 2004 ballot, has already been deferred once by the legislature. The Caltrain Downtown Extension/Transbay Terminal project, which has twice received the mandate of over 70% of San Francisco voters, will serve as the Bay Area terminus for the high speed rail system, and is counting on $475 million from the high speed rail bond. Delaying the statewide bond yet again will delay full implementation of the project. SB 1024, the infrastructure bond option put forward by Senators Torkakson and Perata, includes $1 billion for project-specific level environmental studies, planning, engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of grade separations, bridges, and tracks in each of five proposed high-speed rail corridors across the state. To date, the Mayor and the Board of Supes have been silent on the city's priorities for a statewide infrastructure bond. Transit champion Supervisor Chris Daly has put forward a resolution at the Board of Supervisors that puts the city on record as saying that $1 billion of any infrastructure bond should be dedicated to High Speed Rail, and that, should the legislature decide once again to defer the vote on the full $9.75 billion high speed bond, that any bond this year should include the $475 million for Caltrain Downtown Extension/ Transbay Terminal, in order to allow the project to move forward as soon as possible. Please take a few minutes to call, write, fax, or email the Mayor and Supervisors to let them know you support Supervisor Daly's resolution. The text can be found at http:// www.livablecity.org/campaigns/infrastructure.html. CAR FREE TALK PREMIERES Friday, February 3 7:30 PM Cable Channel 29 The first episode of Car-Free Talk, will air this Friday, February 3, at 7:30 p.m. on San Francisco Cable Channel 29. The show is hosted by the lovely Sue Vaughan, one of the city's leading car-free living advocates. Her first guest is Dave Room, policy director of the Post- Carbon Institute, based in Oakland and Vancouver (http:// www.postcarbon.org) and the subject will be the coming oil and gas peak. 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 _______________________________________________ TLCNews mailing list To unsubscribe, click here: mailto:News-request@livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe ListInfo: http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/news_livablecity.org

1 0

Fw: Resolution in support of Transbay and HSR funding in any state inf rastructure bond
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

>From Tom Radulovich, via John Holtzclaw, re. high-speed rail at the state level and the Transbay Terminal. Sue Please note: forwarded message attached This is one to weigh in in support of!!! John Holtzclaw 415-977-5534 John.Holtzclaw(a)SierraClub.org Senior Policy Advisor - Sierra Club Building Healthy Communities Campaign (stop Sprawl) Building Healthy Communities -- http://www.SierraClub.org/sprawl Healthy Growth Calculator -- density saves resources & reduces pollution -- http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/density/ also www.sflcv.org/density ----- Forwarded by John Holtzclaw/Sierraclub on 02/01/2006 06:02 PM ----- Tom Radulovich <tom(a)livablecity.org> 01/31/2006 04:20 PM All, Supervisor Daly introduced this resolution today at the Board of Supervisors. It was submitted for approval without committee reference, so should be heard at next week's BOS meeting. So far, San Francisco hasn't officially chimed in on the infrastructure bond discussion currently underway, and this would put us on record as supporting a full $1 billion for HSR statewide and at least $475 million for DTS/TBT. Any letters of support for the resolution from our member groups would be timely... Best, Tom (See attached file: Daly reso infra jan2006.doc) 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

Re: Fw: item for green party transportation committee from Greg Hayes
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

So do you think this should be on the agenda for the next TWG meeting? Also, who are the litigants? That's not clear to me. I tried to explain to Greg that the TWG had already weighed in on the bike plan update, but I'm not sure that meant anything to him. Sue -- Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: I've gone over this ad nauseum. The first bike plan was approved in 1997. For funding purposes, they must be renewed every five years. In 1999, we (the SFBC) secured a commitment to do a bike network plan so that we could get a set of projects in the pipeline for the purposes of more easily acquiring funding for the bike project. The city's planners took so long in developing that "bike network" plan that the "policy" plan was due for renewal by the time they began work on the bike network plan. The SFBC sought to preserve the funding for the bike network plan and asked that additional funding be found for the policy plan. The city's planners decided to do the policy plan "in house" to preserve the funding for consultants to do the bike network plan. We supported that. The process for developing the bike plan--both parts--was terrible. The author of the plan had no idea how to facilitate debate on key elements of the plan, nor how to develop consensus from among various interests with competing ideas. The policy document had one short poorly advertised terribly facilitated public meeting before the BAC. All other input into that document had to be submitted in writing, in an utterly unadvertised process. To date, there has not been even one public hearing on the network document. The grounds for the lawsuit against the bike plan are indeed the severance of the plan into two parts, but not the "policy" part and the "network" part. Rather, it was the division of the network discussion into two parts, one mentioned in a chapter in the policy document and the other developed separately. The litigants are arguing that the bike plan mentioned specific streets in the network chapter, but those are just a small part of the larger project that should be analyzed. You can't, under CEQA, divide a project into separate parts and analyze those parts separately. If the policy document had not mentioned specific streets (as I advised the planner who authored the document), then there would be no grounds for the lawsuit. "Plans" do not require CEQA approval, only "projects" do. Education, enforcement, encouragement, parking, etc., are exempt from CEQA review. The bike plan is a sham. Neither the SFBC leadership nor even the plan's author takes it seriously. For all intents and purposes, we don't have a bike plan in this city. We have some planners and some advocates who are working on whatever projects bubble to the top of their priority list without reference to a strategic vision. The plan's much-touted goal of 10% of all trips by 2010 is a complete joke. I would love for the SF Green Party to launch a campaign to write a proper bike plan, with open public debate, approved by the Board of Supervisors'-appointed bicycle advisory committee and eventually by the Board itself. Dave At 3:23 AM +0000 2/1/06, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: >Please review for our next TWG meeting. > >Sue > >---------- Forwarded Message ---------- >Proposed item for Geen Party Transportation Committee > >-Review of law-suit against the City for failure to >follow CEQA requirements in regards to the City Bike >plan > >-Review of actions that led to this law-suit. >Specifically the removal from the Bike Plan of >specific Bike Plan chapters required by state law, >such as Enforcement and Education > >-Review of how these actions primarily advocated by a >local non-profit corporation in order to promote its >vision of a bike network only bike plan, led to the >sectionalizing of the Bike plan into "network" and >"policy" documents which eventually gave rise to one >of the causes of actions in the law-suit, for >"piece-mealing" or dividing the plan into sections so >as to avoid complete environmental review > >-discussion of public speech and participation in >public plans and of ways to avoid this sort of mess in >the future. > >Basically how can we avoid this travesty of public >process in the future. > >This is not an attempt to lay blame as much as to >recognize that mistakes were made and give thought to >how to avoid theses mistakes in the future. > >The people of the Green Party and the City at-Large >deserve an open public planning process, that is not >pre-restricted or co-opted by the desires of any one >non-profit corporation. > >Thanks, > >Greg Hayes > > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Fw: item for green party transportation committee from Greg Hayes
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 01 Feb '06

01 Feb '06

Please review for our next TWG meeting. Sue ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Proposed item for Geen Party Transportation Committee -Review of law-suit against the City for failure to follow CEQA requirements in regards to the City Bike plan -Review of actions that led to this law-suit. Specifically the removal from the Bike Plan of specific Bike Plan chapters required by state law, such as Enforcement and Education -Review of how these actions primarily advocated by a local non-profit corporation in order to promote its vision of a bike network only bike plan, led to the sectionalizing of the Bike plan into "network" and "policy" documents which eventually gave rise to one of the causes of actions in the law-suit, for "piece-mealing" or dividing the plan into sections so as to avoid complete environmental review -discussion of public speech and participation in public plans and of ways to avoid this sort of mess in the future. Basically how can we avoid this travesty of public process in the future. This is not an attempt to lay blame as much as to recognize that mistakes were made and give thought to how to avoid theses mistakes in the future. The people of the Green Party and the City at-Large deserve an open public planning process, that is not pre-restricted or co-opted by the desires of any one non-profit corporation. Thanks, Greg Hayes __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1