March 2006 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

revised BRT letter
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 01 Apr '06

01 Apr '06

Based on the suggestions of Pi and Dave Snyder, I have revised the BRT letter. It's below and attached. In the attachment, there is something funny going on with the formatting that I can't figure out. Sue Jake.mcgoldrick(a)sfgov.org Jose_luis_moscovich(a)sfcta.org Pooja_jhunjhunwala(a)sfcta.org Merchants have been asking for an economic impact study not a bad idea Do a better job at looking at rail as an alternative do an analysis. Trains more expensive, rails more expensive, but the rolling stock lasts longer than buses Dear Commissioner McGoldrick: The San Francisco Green Party supports good local transit as an essential element]of a safe, healthy, attractive, and livable city. The Green Party also believes that enhancing current public transit service will provide San Franciscans with a positive alternative to driving and help fulfill our charter description as being a transit first city. In particular, the San Francisco Green Party supports the current San Francisco County Transportation Authority plans for Bus Rapid Transit along the Geary and Van Ness corridors. Part B. 1. of the SFGP Transportation Plank calls for the creation of a citywide bus rapid transit (BRT) network to ensure that people can reliably travel between most neighborhoods in half an hour or less. This would entail the development of a system of dedicated bus lanes and traffic lights controlled by Muni operators along major transit corridors. We have heard the arguments of businesspeople along the Geary Corridor who fear the loss of business due to the loss of parking and disruptions during construction. However, the disruptions due to construction will be minimal, and the gains for businesses that will now be served by more reliable transport will be considerable. We also think looming energy shortages and global warming compel San Franciscans to adopt means of transportation that are less energy intensive and less damaging to the immediate and global environment than personal cars. We favor designs with center lanes, which most effectively separate bus lanes from car lanes, and side or center boarding platforms. We also favor keeping the BRT lanes above ground wherever the San Francisco County Transportation Authority is now considering putting them below ground for example, at the intersection of Geary and Masonic and at the intersection of Geary and Fillmore. Aboveground transit is more accessible and thus more attractive - to transit riders who might otherwise drive. We also think whatever plans the SFCTA adopts should be rail ready. While BRT is less expensive in the short run, light rail is less expensive and more reliable in the long run. Part B.2 . of our Transportation Plank calls for the gradual replacement of the citywide BRT system with light rail. Light rail should then be expanded into neighborhoods that will benefit from improved rider experience and faster movement. Expansions that have the least per-rider cost and that help the lowest-income riders should be the first priority. Sincerely, Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia Co-chairs, Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party

4 3

Fw: Support for AB 2444 Needed from San Francisco Green Party
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 31 Mar '06

31 Mar '06

Please note: forwarded message attached Dear Susan, As you well know, a significant amount of funding is going to be needed in the next few decades to create a world-class public transportation system. TALC and members have spent the past year strategizing the best ways to gain funds to revitalize urban transit, integrate regional rail service, create safe routes to schools and transit, and promote healthy, sustainable travel. A prime strategy is Assembly Bill 2444, as authored by Assemblyman Klehs and sponsored by TALC. AB 2444 would create a $10 regional vehicle registration fee to fund safer roads, cleaner air and water, and public transit. With your help in passing AB 2444, we can turn a $10 vehicle registration fee into $50 million a year for priority transportation improvement and environmental protection projects - and link the costs that cars impose on us with funding for solutions. Please see the brief attachment outlining how AB 2444 works. Then, please consider sending a letter of support on your organization's letterhead to Assemblyman Klehs (and make sure to copy us on it!). I've attached a template letter. The more organizations we can quickly sign on in support of AB 2444, the more likely it is to sail through the Assembly. We would especially like to share your support of AB 2444 at an upcoming press conference if possible on April 11th, although I know for some organizations this is not enough time to gain necessary Board approvals. We are happy to get your organization's support after this date! I have copied Marta Anderson, a colleague at TALC who is working with me on AB 2444, on this email. You can email Marta at marta(a)transcoalition.org or call her at 510.740.3150. She will be following up to see if your organization can join us in supporting this important bill. Thank you so much for taking the time to learn a bit about AB 2444. I know we're all incredibly swamped, but I strongly feel that AB 2444 is worth speaking up on! Best, Stuart Marta Anderson Communications & Development Associate Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC) 405 14th Street, Suite 605 Oakland, CA 94612 510.740.3150 phone 510.740.3131 fax marta(a)transcoalition.org Dear Susan, As you well know, a significant amount of funding is going to be needed in the next few decades to create a world-class public transportation system. TALC and members have spent the past year strategizing the best ways to gain funds to revitalize urban transit, integrate regional rail service, create safe routes to schools and transit, and promote healthy, sustainable travel. A prime strategy is Assembly Bill 2444, as authored by Assemblyman Klehs and sponsored by TALC. AB 2444 would create a $10 regional vehicle registration fee to fund safer roads, cleaner air and water, and public transit. With your help in passing AB 2444, we can turn a $10 vehicle registration fee into $50 million a year for priority transportation improvement and environmental protection projects and link the costs that cars impose on us with funding for solutions. Please see the brief attachment outlining how AB 2444 works. Then, please consider sending a letter of support on your organizations letterhead to Assemblyman Klehs (and make sure to copy us on it!). Ive attached a template letter. The more organizations we can quickly sign on in support of AB 2444, the more likely it is to sail through the Assembly. We would especially like to share your support of AB 2444 at an upcoming press conference if possible on April 11th, although I know for some organizations this is not enough time to gain necessary Board approvals. We are happy to get your organizations support after this date! I have copied Marta Anderson, a colleague at TALC who is working with me on AB 2444, on this email. You can email Marta at marta(a)transcoalition.org or call her at 510.740.3150. She will be following up to see if your organization can join us in supporting this important bill. Thank you so much for taking the time to learn a bit about AB 2444. I know were all incredibly swamped, but I strongly feel that AB 2444 is worth speaking up on! Best, Stuart Marta Anderson Communications & Development Associate Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC) 405 14th Street, Suite 605 Oakland, CA 94612 510.740.3150 phone 510.740.3131 fax marta(a)transcoalition.org

1 0

BRT letter -- please review
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 31 Mar '06

31 Mar '06

Jake.mcgoldrick(a)sfgov.org Jose_luis_moscovich(a)sfcta.org Pooja_jhunjhunwala(a)sfcta.org Dear Commissioner McGoldrick: The San Francisco Green Party supports good local transit as an essential element]of a safe, healthy, attractive, and livable city. The Green Party also believes that enhancing current public transit service will provide San Franciscans with a positive alternative to driving and help fulfill our charter description as being a transit first city. In particular, the San Francisco Green Party supports the current San Francisco County Transportation Authority plans for Bus Rapid Transit along the Geary and Van Ness corridors. Part B. 1. of the SFGP Transportation Plank calls for the creation of a citywide bus rapid transit (BRT) network to ensure that people can reliably travel between most neighborhoods in half an hour or less. This would entail the development of a system of dedicated bus lanes and traffic lights controlled by Muni operators along major transit corridors. While we are sympathetic to the concerns of businesspeople along the Geary Corridor who fear the loss of business due to the loss of parking and disruptions during construction, we think looming energy shortages and global warming compel San Franciscans to adopt means of transportation that are less energy intensive and less damaging to the immediate and global environment than personal cars. We favor designs with center lanes, which most effectively separate bus lanes from car lanes, and side or center boarding platforms. We also favor keeping the BRT lanes above ground wherever the San Francisco County Transportation Authority is now considering putting them below ground for example, at the intersection of Geary and Masonic and at the intersection of Geary and Fillmore. Aboveground transit is more accessible and thus more attractive - to transit riders who might otherwise drive. We also think whatever plans the SFCTA adopts should be rail ready. While BRT is less expensive in the short run, light rail may be less expensive in the long run in that trains last longer than buses. Part B.2 . of our Transportation Plank calls for the gradual replacement of the citywide BRT system with light rail. Light rail should then be expanded into neighborhoods that will benefit from improved rider experience and faster movement. Expansions that have the least per-rider cost and that help the lowest-income riders should be the first priority. Sincerely, Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia Co-chairs, Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party

3 2

Mike Wyman's contact info
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 30 Mar '06

30 Mar '06

Who knows Mike Wyman's contact info? Can't find it on the web. Thanks Sue

1 0

Fw: LOS reform
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 30 Mar '06

30 Mar '06

This is something that Greg Hayes has been working on for a long time. We should get behind it. Sue ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- 1) L.O.S. REFORM FOR MORE BALANCED STREETS -- HEARING NEXT WEDNESDAY Even in green, "Transit-First" San Francisco, planning and implementing better, safer streets for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders is complicated by an over-sensitivity to automobile drivers' experience when evaluating costs and benefits. Moving more cars faster is the imperative over which all other transportation and land use concerns take a back seat. Ironically, environmental quality considerations, in the form of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, are often the biggest obstacles to making quality-of-life improvements to city streets, not because pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements contribute to air / noise / water pollution (they don't), but because taking pavement away from private motorcars can potentially diminish the "Level of Service" (LOS) experienced by auto drivers below a failing-grade threshold of convenience. Next Wednesday (4/5, 1:00 pm, City Hall, Room 263) the Board of Supervisors' Land Use Committee will be hearing a resolution brought by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi which asks whether auto LOS should be abandoned as a measure of significance for environmental review in San Francisco. This is an obscure but fundamental issue for the city's aspirations to a greener, healthier future, and anyone with an interest in better transportation and land use is encouraged to come out and participate in the process. For more information contact Andy Thornley at andy(a)sfbike.org. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Ten U.S. Cities Best Prepared for an Oil Crisis
by Susan King 30 Mar '06

30 Mar '06

> Subject: SFLCV: Ten U.S. Cities Best Prepared for an Oil Crisis > > > > SustainLane has published their research on which U.S. cities are best > prepared for an oil crisis. The results are very predictable -- the > densest, most convenient cities scored highest. These are also the > most > enjoyable and sought-after locations in the U.S., as judged by their > housing prices. For instance, homes in the northeast area of San > Francisco, > averaging 100 households per acre, sell at over 6 times per square > foot > what housing in SF's newer sprawling suburbs sell for. These areas > also > have the best public transit because residents of dense areas walk > more and > use more public transit. Folk are willing to pay thru the nose to > live in > these areas, and consequently they save energy. > > It's easy to change people's life styles -- give them better, more > attractive alternatives that allow and encourage more conserving > living. No > nagging to conserve. It happens automatically. Getting such healthy > communities built should be our primary campaign to cut energy use > and curb > global warming. > > 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 > > http://www.sustainlane.com/article/734//Ten+U.S.+Cities+Best > +Prepared+for+an+Oil+Crisis.html > > > Ten U.S. Cities Best Prepared for an Oil Crisis > > Did your life change when gas prices hit $2 or $3 a gallon last > summer? For > many people across the United States higher gas prices meant > cutting down > on unnecessary car trips or taking public transportation. Some even > sold > their gas-guzzling SUV, while others switched to alternative fuels > such as > biodiesel. > > So, what will you do when gas hits $4 or $5 or even $8 a gallon? Some > experts see pump prices in this range as being likely in the event of > numerous potential world political or climatic events, like a major > 2006 > Gulf Coast hurricane. SustainLane has looked at the largest 50 U.S. > cities > with this scenario in mind. We wanted to know which cities will be > the best > places to live and work if gas prices suddenly rise because of coming > events out of anybody's control. > > SustainLane has ranked the largest 50 U.S. cities based on recent city > commute practices, metro area public transportation, sprawl, traffic > congestion, local food and wireless network access (in order of > importance: > see chart). There are many other areas that rising oil prices will > affect: > construction, retail goods of all types, utilities (especially in the > Northeast, the one part of the nation where heating oil is used)— > virtually > every aspect of our economy will be hit. > > We looked at the areas most directly impacted: how people get > around, where > their food comes from, and how they work. > > New York City is the city most prepared to cope with a $100+ tank > of gas. > With its strong city and regional public transportation system, New > York > stands out above the rest. From New York City’s subways to the Tri > State > area’s suburban train lines, New York is truly the only American > city where > people are committed to riding over driving. > > "As the largest city in the country and the business capital of the > world > New York City must be prepared for what comes our way, and we are," > said > Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. "That New York City has been recognized by > SustainLane as the best prepared city to face a nation-wide oil > crisis is > testament to the resiliency and strength of our infrastructure." > > Boston, San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia also ranked high > for access > to public transportation and commute rates, though congestion was a > significant problem for The Bay Area and Boston in particular. > > The top ten cities also combine strong public transportation with > access to > locally grown fresh food, and most (with the exception of Honolulu) > have > significant access to local wireless networks for telecommuting. > Philadelphia leads the largest 50 cities in the U.S. with the highest > combined per capita rate of farmers markets and community gardens. A > homegrown system of local farmers and gardeners could prove to be a > better > alternative than the current system, where food is transported an > average > of 1500 miles to your dinner plate. > > Seattle is the national leader in wireless connectivity, followed > closely > by San Francisco, Oakland, New York and Portland. Telecommuting > could be an > important way for large numbers of people to work from home if gas > becomes > completely unavailable, as it was sometimes during the 1973-74 Oil > Embargo. > > Finally, the most prepared cities and their metropolitan areas are > relatively dense (except Portland) and had low sprawl, with the > exception > of Seattle. City services, jobs, shopping centers and entertainment > are > centrally located in all of these top ten cities. That is not the > case with > many other mid- to-large sized American cities that ranked lower in > our > analysis. > > One commonality each of these ten cities has--though this was not > used to > determine the ranking--is that each is a major port. Port cities > have the > natural advantage of receiving imported goods without the added > fuel needed > to send truck fleets across the nation to landlocked areas. Just as > it was > for hundreds of years before the twentieth century, a city's > geographical > location may once again become the most important factor keeping its > economy thriving. > > Regardless of where you live, it will pay to be aware of what public > transportation options are available in your community. If you’re > thinking > about moving to a different city or neighborhood, transportation > options > should be high on your list of considerations. > > Beyond buying local organic food, which uses less oil-based > fertilizer, and > is likely to become less expensive compared with conventional long- > distance > transported supermarket food, you should become familiar with what > you can > grow and make for yourself at home. Buying locally produced and > sourced > goods is also a way to balance dependence on the oil-intensive global > economy. SustainLane’s SLED offers a rich network of these small to > medium-sized businesses, many that may be in your community. > > Data for these rankings covers 2002-2006 and was collected from > U.S. Bureau > of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Smart Growth America, Intel > Corp., Texas Mobility Study/Texas A&M, and through primary research > with > U.S. cities. > > The top 10 Cities Best Prepared for an Oil Crisis > 1. New York City > 2. Boston > 3. San Francisco > 4. Chicago > 5. Philadelphia > 6. Portland > 7. Honolulu > 8. Seattle > 9. Baltimore > 10. Oakland > > > Ranking Criteria > > Greatest Weighting > * City commute-t0-work data > > Standard Weighting > * Regional public transportation ridership > * Sprawl (lack of) > > Reduced Weighting > * City freeway/surface street congestion > * Local food (farmers markets and community gardens per capita) > > Least Weighting > * Wireless network availability > > > > _______________________________________________ > sfleague mailing list > sfleague(a)lists.sflcv.org > http://lists.sflcv.org/listinfo.cgi/sfleague-sflcv.org >

1 0

possible BRT letter -- please review
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Mar '06

27 Mar '06

Jake.mcgoldrick(a)sfgov.org Jose_luis_moscovich(a)sfcta.org Pooja_jhunjhunwala(a)sfcta.org Dear Commissioner McGoldrick: The San Francisco Green Party supports good local transit as an essential element of a safe, healthy, attractive, and livable city. The Green Party also believes that enhancing current public transit service will provide San Franciscans with a positive alternative to driving and help fulfill our charter description as being a transit first city. In particular, the San Francisco Green Party supports the current San Francisco County Transportation Authority plans for Bus Rapid Transit along the Geary and Van Ness corridors. Part B. 1. of the SFGP Transportation Plank calls for the creation of a citywide bus rapid transit (BRT) network to ensure that people can reliably travel between most neighborhoods in half an hour or less. This would entail the development of a system of dedicated bus lanes and traffic lights controlled by Muni operators along major transit corridors. While we are sympathetic to the concerns of businesspeople along the Geary Corridor who fear the loss of business due to the loss of parking and disruptions during construction, we think looming energy shortages and global warming compel San Franciscans to adopt means of transportation that are less energy intensive and less damaging to the immediate and global environment than personal cars. According to the Executive Summary of a 2005 report prepared for the United States Department of Energys National Energy Technology Laboratory by Robert L. Hirsch, The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking. Furthermore, the summary states, Oil peaking will create a severe liquid fuels problem for the transportation sector, not an energy crisis in the usual sense that the term has been used. In addition, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 24, 2006, Scientists have been warning for decades that greenhouse gases from autos and industry are warming the planet and raising the seas, but the studies appearing today in the journal Science are the first to suggest that sea levels could climb as high as 20 feet as a result of global warming. The economic consequences for parts of the world at or near sea level including large swaths of San Francisco will be profound if Americans do not take steps now to begin to reduce their disproportionate contribution to climate change. We favor designs with center lanes, which most effectively separate bus lanes from car lanes, and side or center boarding platforms. We also favor keeping the BRT lanes above ground wherever the San Francisco County Transportation Authority is now considering putting them below ground for example, at the intersection of Geary and Masonic and at the intersection of Geary and Fillmore. Aboveground transit is more accessible and thus more attractive - to transit riders who might otherwise drive. Sincerely, Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia Co-chairs, Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party

1 0

Appeals Court Rules For Garage/Against Trees Not Cars
by Jym Dyer 24 Mar '06

24 Mar '06

=v= The appeals court ruled against us. Here's a story in the _Chron_ that appears to get the facts right, though it does neglect some crucial facts: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/23/BAGL1HSODF1.DTL =v= The _Examiner_ ran a pretty good Bay City News item, but they seem to be on a mission to make sfexaminer.com impossible to navigate, so here's a version of the same item: http://www.ktvu.com/news/8191567/detail.html Note especially the last paragraph, about how the latest Prop G made the appeal moot, just exactly as I'd warned. =v= I suggest that, in the future, activists take a better look at the things they're knocking themselves out to endorse and promote, and to maybe heed a warning or two. <_Jym_>

1 0

Fw: Car Free Talk 2 Airtime
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 24 Mar '06

24 Mar '06

Here's the lowdown on what happened to my show on March 17 and the second playback time: March 27, 4 p.m. Sue ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Sue, The first playback of Car Free Talk 2 was aired on the original time, however was delayed by 5 minutes. It'll be replayed again on March 27th at 4pm. -- Sam Long, Programming Coordinator San Francisco Community Television Corporation (CTC) Access San Francisco, Cable Channel 29 415-575-4946 - Direct 415-575-4945 - FAX sam(a)accessf.org

1 0

Transportation for a Livable City newsletter
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 24 Mar '06

24 Mar '06

---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Tom Radulovich <tom(a)livablecity.org> Sent by: News-bounces(a)livablecity.org 03/22/2006 07:03 PM "In a Society becoming steadily more privatized with private homes, cars, computers, offices and shopping centers, the public component of our lives is disappearing. It is more and more important to make the cities inviting, so we can meet our fellow citizens face to face and experience directly through our senses. Public life in good quality public spaces is an important part of a democratic life and a full life." —Jan Gehl DOWNTOWN PARKING REFORM REINTRODUCED! This Tuesday, Supervisor Aaron Peskin reintroduced a modified version of the downtown parking reform legislation vetoed by Mayor Newsom two weeks ago. The reform measure, which sought to reduce the amount of parking required in new downtown housing and protect downtown's major transit, pedestrian, and bicycle streets from traffic conflicts, enjoyed strong support by the City's Planning Director, Dean Macris, and was supported by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. In his veto message, Mayor Newsom supported most of the main principles of the legislation – elimination of minimum parking requirements, establishing a maximum of three spaces for every four units, protecting street frontages on the city's main transit, bicycle, and pedestrian streets from curb cuts, and requiring that new parking be located underground, or on the ground floor with active uses on all public frontages – but asked for "modifications" that would allow curb cuts and parking on upper stories under certain conditions. Supervisor Peskin's reintroduced legislation retains most of the provisions of the vetoed legislation, while allowing some exceptions for curb cuts and parking on upper floors, where specific conditions apply (like underground transit lines) and with special approval from the Planning Commission. Some of the exceptions 'sunset' after eight years. The bad news is that some stupid projects, like the proposed Nordstrom Garage near fifth and Market, may be able to proceed (although they can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors). The great news is that the new legislation retains most of the benefits of the old, and two provisions – the requirements for car-sharing and secure bike parking in new residential buildings – will now apply citywide! The legislation's next move is to the planning commission, where approval is expected; TLC will keep you informed. Check out our campaign page (http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/c3.html) for more information and updates. *** SUPPORT GEARY RAPID TRANSIT Geary Corridor Citizen's Advisory Committee Thursday, March 23 at 6 PM San Francisco Transportation Authority offices 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26th Floor Geary Boulevard, which runs is one of the most important transit corridors in the city, carrying an estimated 50,000 riders per day. Unfortunately, the 38-Geary buses are crowded, slow, and unreliable. Proposition K, the city's 2003 half-cent sales tax for transportation made rapid transit on Geary – either light rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) – a top priority. TLC strongly supports rapid transit service on Geary – the corridor's 50,000 daily riders deserve faster, more reliable service, and better service which would attract thousands of additional riders each day. We also support making Geary a "complete street", with streetscape improvements to make it a great walking street, and bicycle access, especially along the crucial middle portion of Geary through the Western Addition. The SF County Transportation Authority (TA) is working on a study of bus rapid transit alternatives for the Geary Corridor ( http://www.sfcta.org/geary.htm) Unfortunately, a small group of Richmond District merchants are trying to derail the entire study, in the hopes that the current status quo – a car-dominated Geary with slow and unreliable transit – will prevail. If you want to show your support rapid transit on Geary, please attend the Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting for the project this Thursday, and let the CAC know that you support a complete Geary Boulevard, with rapid transit and improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. *** URBANIST JAN GEHL IN SAN FRANCISCO "The People Dimension of Public Space: Jan Gehl and Allan Jacobs in conversation" Tuesday, April 4, 5-7 PM South Light Court, City Hall Jan Gehl, an architect, urban designer based in Copenhagen, is one of TLC's heroes. He oversaw the pedestrianization of much of Copenhagen's historic center, transforming city streets and underused plazas into vital public spaces through pedestrian-centered design. He has inspired a generation of urban designers around the world to convert town centers to "people-centered spaces", and restore public life to streets and squares dominated by the automobile. Mayor Ken Livingstone engaged Mr. Gehl to begin the transformation of central London along the lines he pioneered in Copenhagen. Check out his placemaker profile on the Project for Public Spaces web site: http://www.pps.org/info/placemakingtools/placemakers/jgehl . Mr. Gehl will be in conversation with San Francisco's own Allan Jacobs, another distinguished urbanist and author of Great Streets and The Boulevard Book. TLC will use the occasion of Mr. Gehl's visit to kick off our Livable Downtown Initiative, an effort to move San Francisco towards a livable, walkable, and greener downtown. Check out our Livable Downtown campaign page for an outline of the initiative ( http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/downtown.html) and stay tuned for more updates! *** SUPPORT CAR-FREE SATURDAYS IN GOLDEN GATE PARK A coalition of pedestrian, bicycle, open space, and children's advocates has advanced the Healthy Saturdays Initiative, which will expand the wildly successful car-free Sundays on Golden Gate Park's John F. Kennedy Drive to Saturdays as well. Supervisors Mirkarimi and Mc Goldrick have introduced legislation to start a six-month trial of car-free JFK drive this May. Contact the Mayor and your Supervisor and let them know you support the Healthy Saturdays proposal; check out the healthy Saturdays web site ( http://www.sfpix.com/) for more information. *** 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