February 2007 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

movie ideas?
by John-Marc Chandonia 28 Feb '07

28 Feb '07

Hi, Eric and I were the only people tonight, so we postponed the MUNI discussion until next month. I'll also remember to put Kathy on the agenda. In the meantime, we decided to start showing movies related to transit and the rider's union. Can anybody suggest some possible titles? Once we have a couple movies in mind, we can proceed with planning the showings. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Important: Decision About March Agenda Item
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 28 Feb '07

28 Feb '07

By the way, the Newcomer schoolyard has been turned into a schoolyard 24-7, no parking at all. Sue -- "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> wrote: Looks I will NOT be able to make this meeting. Sue -- Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: I'd like to participate in this conversation. Kathy is right that Muni is expanding at a time when they don't have the funds to operate their current system, and this indeed puts the success of citywide public transit at great peril. The SFGP is already on record supporting Geary BRT and while light rail transit is usually better than BRT and is probably the better answer for Geary Blvd, it doesn't mean BRT there is a bad investment. Opposing Geary BRT would be like saying we're against bike lanes because what we really need is car-free cities. No comment on the record on the other capital investments Kathy is referring to! Dave At 6:43 AM -0800 2/27/07, Eric Brooks wrote: >I have no problem with a presentation. But how I feel is irrelevant, we >go by consensus. > >As long as there are no objections raised over email, or at tonight's >meeting, let's do your presentation next month. > >All on this list, does anyone have concerns regarding Katherine's >proposed Muni big ticket discussion (see below) being agendized in March? > >Eric B > >grrlfriday(a)mac.com wrote: > >> Eric -- >> >> I can't come tomorrow night. But I would like to discuss MUNI's >> big-ticket items -- the Central Subway, BRT, and the Transbay Terminal >> -- and see if they are really conducive to the best long-term plan for >> MUNI. MUNI is spending millions of dollars a year in Prop K money on > > engineering studies for these projects, bleeding money while the rest >> of the system languishes. Then they complain about shortfalls at >> every turn. My thinking is that if they weren't hemorrhaging so much >> money on pork they would have enough to run a decent system. The >> Green Party needs a comprehensive platform about these three issues, >> so we can educate the public about them. It is my opinion that MUNI >> is taking a wrong turn, and the only people who benefit are people > > like Stuart Sunshine, who is still making over $200 k/year, most of it >> paid for by MUNI, even AFTER he left his MUNI post. >> > > I would like you to look at a Web site called "Light Rail Now", and > > look at the "Myths" section. It explodes a lot of the myths about BRT >> and shows how it was mostly promoted by Republicans. Republicans hate >> transit because it shows that public systems can really work, which >> undermines their privatization agenda. By the same token, Peter >> Strauss has consistently underfunded surface transit on Stockton to >> make the Chinese community demand the Central Subway. These are >> things we ignore at our peril. If the Green Party won't focus on > > them, I don't know who will. > > >> Please let me know if you are willing to set this up for next month's >> meeting. If you are willing to study the Light Rail Now site, I have >> a friend who is a MUNI planner who would come and talk with us about >> these things. But he told me that unless people are willing to get >> some background on these issues he doesn't think it's worth it to >> come, because he won't be able to convince you anyway. Please let me >> know how you feel about this. I know some of these things are part of >> the official Transpo platform, but they haven't been revisited in >> awhile, and I think they have new resonance these days that bears >> taking a closer look. >> >> --Katherine >> >> "Let's have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck >> in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle." >> - Earl Blumenauer >> >> >> >> = > >_______________________________________________ >Transpo mailing list >Transpo(a)sfgreens.org >https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Important: Decision About March Agenda Item
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 28 Feb '07

28 Feb '07

Looks I will NOT be able to make this meeting. Sue -- Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: I'd like to participate in this conversation. Kathy is right that Muni is expanding at a time when they don't have the funds to operate their current system, and this indeed puts the success of citywide public transit at great peril. The SFGP is already on record supporting Geary BRT and while light rail transit is usually better than BRT and is probably the better answer for Geary Blvd, it doesn't mean BRT there is a bad investment. Opposing Geary BRT would be like saying we're against bike lanes because what we really need is car-free cities. No comment on the record on the other capital investments Kathy is referring to! Dave At 6:43 AM -0800 2/27/07, Eric Brooks wrote: >I have no problem with a presentation. But how I feel is irrelevant, we >go by consensus. > >As long as there are no objections raised over email, or at tonight's >meeting, let's do your presentation next month. > >All on this list, does anyone have concerns regarding Katherine's >proposed Muni big ticket discussion (see below) being agendized in March? > >Eric B > >grrlfriday(a)mac.com wrote: > >> Eric -- >> >> I can't come tomorrow night. But I would like to discuss MUNI's >> big-ticket items -- the Central Subway, BRT, and the Transbay Terminal >> -- and see if they are really conducive to the best long-term plan for >> MUNI. MUNI is spending millions of dollars a year in Prop K money on > > engineering studies for these projects, bleeding money while the rest >> of the system languishes. Then they complain about shortfalls at >> every turn. My thinking is that if they weren't hemorrhaging so much >> money on pork they would have enough to run a decent system. The >> Green Party needs a comprehensive platform about these three issues, >> so we can educate the public about them. It is my opinion that MUNI >> is taking a wrong turn, and the only people who benefit are people > > like Stuart Sunshine, who is still making over $200 k/year, most of it >> paid for by MUNI, even AFTER he left his MUNI post. >> > > I would like you to look at a Web site called "Light Rail Now", and > > look at the "Myths" section. It explodes a lot of the myths about BRT >> and shows how it was mostly promoted by Republicans. Republicans hate >> transit because it shows that public systems can really work, which >> undermines their privatization agenda. By the same token, Peter >> Strauss has consistently underfunded surface transit on Stockton to >> make the Chinese community demand the Central Subway. These are >> things we ignore at our peril. If the Green Party won't focus on > > them, I don't know who will. > > >> Please let me know if you are willing to set this up for next month's >> meeting. If you are willing to study the Light Rail Now site, I have >> a friend who is a MUNI planner who would come and talk with us about >> these things. But he told me that unless people are willing to get >> some background on these issues he doesn't think it's worth it to >> come, because he won't be able to convince you anyway. Please let me >> know how you feel about this. I know some of these things are part of >> the official Transpo platform, but they haven't been revisited in >> awhile, and I think they have new resonance these days that bears >> taking a closer look. >> >> --Katherine >> >> "Let's have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck >> in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle." >> - Earl Blumenauer >> >> >> >> = > >_______________________________________________ >Transpo mailing list >Transpo(a)sfgreens.org >https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Important: Decision About March Agenda Item
by Eric Brooks 27 Feb '07

27 Feb '07

I have no problem with a presentation. But how I feel is irrelevant, we go by consensus. As long as there are no objections raised over email, or at tonight's meeting, let's do your presentation next month. All on this list, does anyone have concerns regarding Katherine's proposed Muni big ticket discussion (see below) being agendized in March? Eric B grrlfriday(a)mac.com wrote: > Eric -- > > I can't come tomorrow night. But I would like to discuss MUNI's > big-ticket items -- the Central Subway, BRT, and the Transbay Terminal > -- and see if they are really conducive to the best long-term plan for > MUNI. MUNI is spending millions of dollars a year in Prop K money on > engineering studies for these projects, bleeding money while the rest > of the system languishes. Then they complain about shortfalls at > every turn. My thinking is that if they weren't hemorrhaging so much > money on pork they would have enough to run a decent system. The > Green Party needs a comprehensive platform about these three issues, > so we can educate the public about them. It is my opinion that MUNI > is taking a wrong turn, and the only people who benefit are people > like Stuart Sunshine, who is still making over $200 k/year, most of it > paid for by MUNI, even AFTER he left his MUNI post. > > I would like you to look at a Web site called "Light Rail Now", and > look at the "Myths" section. It explodes a lot of the myths about BRT > and shows how it was mostly promoted by Republicans. Republicans hate > transit because it shows that public systems can really work, which > undermines their privatization agenda. By the same token, Peter > Strauss has consistently underfunded surface transit on Stockton to > make the Chinese community demand the Central Subway. These are > things we ignore at our peril. If the Green Party won't focus on > them, I don't know who will. > > Please let me know if you are willing to set this up for next month's > meeting. If you are willing to study the Light Rail Now site, I have > a friend who is a MUNI planner who would come and talk with us about > these things. But he told me that unless people are willing to get > some background on these issues he doesn't think it's worth it to > come, because he won't be able to convince you anyway. Please let me > know how you feel about this. I know some of these things are part of > the official Transpo platform, but they haven't been revisited in > awhile, and I think they have new resonance these days that bears > taking a closer look. > > --Katherine > > "Let's have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck > in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle." > - Earl Blumenauer > > > > =

2 2

Re: [Transpo] Tuesday meeting?
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Feb '07

27 Feb '07

No proposed agenda items that I can recall -- and it looks like I can be there as the other event I was going to go to was postponed. Perhaps there are proposed agenda items that are in the minutes from the last meeting. Sue -- Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)netscape.net> wrote: Two positive responses (plus me) already, means we can make soup. Looks like we are on for the Transpo meeting this Tuesday, 7pm. Susan, can you remind us from your notes what our proposed agenda items were? Do people have other proposed items? peace Eric B jmc(a)sfgreens.org wrote: >I'll be there. > >JMC > > _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Tuesday meeting
by Jerry Path 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

I was hoping to make this meeting - but my Union's contract is up at the end of March and our employers have just hired a union busting firm. We are having a solidarity meeting on Tuesday and it is important that I be there. Best Jerry Path > [Original Message] > From: Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)netscape.net> > To: <transpo(a)sfgreens.org> > Date: 2/24/2007 8:54:35 PM > Subject: Re: [Transpo] Tuesday meeting > > I think there us enough interest, and will be enough attendance to have > the meeting. > > Are you others planning to show? > > Eric B > > susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > > >I will not be able to make the Tuesday TWG meeting, should there be one. > > > >Sue > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Transpo mailing list > >Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > >https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

3 4

Critical: Monbiot Climate Crisis Speech - New Figures - High Industrial Nations Must Cut CO2 Emissions 90% by 2030
by Eric Brooks 25 Feb '07

25 Feb '07

Hey gang, This is important. George Monbiot recently gave the best speech that I have heard yet (see web listening directions below), which brilliantly encapsulates what we must do do avert catastrophic climate change in our lifetimes. In the speech he indicates a new consensus building in Europe that our previous assumptions are wrong and that CO2 must be stabilized in the atmosphere at 400 parts per million by 2030. Previous consensus indicated 450ppm by 2050. This means that by 2030, high industrial nations like the U.S. and U.K. must reduce our CO2 emissions by 90% by 2030. Community Choice Energy then - is just the beginning phase. All of our electricity use and transport must be reduced in CO2 emissions by at least 90% (and more likely to zero) by 2030. Community Choice only gets us 25% of the way there at the half time mark. This is serious business, and we can no longer afford to lose the Community Choice campaign. It is imperative that we win, and then expand the program, and extend it to transit, such that San Francisco is an independently powered, zero emission city by 2030. That's a little less than 25 years people. Let's get to it... To listen to the speech, and it is critical all do so, so that we will all be rock solidly conversant on these points (including the question and answer period-which is vital), go to: http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=20477&nav=& and look for the download/play links at the bottom of the page. peace Eric B

1 0

Tuesday meeting
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 25 Feb '07

25 Feb '07

I will not be able to make the Tuesday TWG meeting, should there be one. Sue

2 1

Fwd: Healthy Saturdays moving forward
by Susan King 15 Feb '07

15 Feb '07

Begin forwarded message: > From: Ted Strawser <tedstrawser(a)yahoo.com> > Date: February 14, 2007 10:22:23 AM PST > To: funking(a)mindspring.com, dave snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> > Cc: leah shahum <leah(a)sfbike.org>, Ted Strawser > <tedstrawser(a)yahoo.com>, Mike Smith <skibu(a)smith.net> > > > Hey Davey/Sue > Great News: The City is finally going to release the long awaited > study of the impacts of Sunday Car Free Space in Golden Gate Park. > The study is expected to show that impacts on the neighborhoods are > far less than feared by some. This is our long awaited chance to > reframe this issue and gain the momentum we need for a big election > year win. We need some urgent action from you guys and the SF > Green Party in the next three days to take advantage of this > opportunity. Oh, in other good news, the Healthy Saturdays > Coalition recently received a $10,000 grant to work on Saturday Car > Free space (potential press event/rally this Sunday, stay tuned). > If we make the most of this momentum we can score a big win in the > coming weeks. > > Four actions we need from you and your organization: > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1) We need a message to go to Green Party membership this week. We > can help draft the message if you want. The message should ask for > action: Contact Bevan Dufty, Contact Mayor Newsom, Contact the > Other Supes. This is a big opportunity to finally win this elusive > victory, this is worthy of a separate letter from your leadership. > It will also help us reframe this issue as less about bikes and > more about the environment, social justice, public space, public > healthy > > 2) We need a press release to go out from the Green Party. I can > help draft the message if you want. Multiple press releases will > show momentum and also help reframe the issue. > > 3) We should review the information in the Study together. I am > proposing a Saturday Breakfast meeting at Velo Rouge Arguello @ > Cabrillo at 10am. RSVP to me directly if you can make it. If not > we will look at different options. > > 4) We need you to reach out to Bevan Dufty, personally. He is the > pivotal 8th vote. During his campaign for re-election he > repeatedly stated that he believed a solution can be reached. We > need to reach out to him with the following message: 1) Things are > different now (we have data you didnt have before), 2) It is > possible for a win/win here. Dufty can save the day and help the > city avoid a terrible fight, 3) It is possible for Dufty to > support a trial WITHOUT COMPROMISING anything he has said in the > past, if we work together. Please, personally, send Bevan a > letter and a call and request a meeting. > > Drop me a line with other ideas or to discuss. Please let me know > how I can help you make these four critical steps happen. > > Lets win this one! > Ted > 415.601.4217 >

1 0

free muni
by Dave Snyder 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

<http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/> It's time to get on the bus and free Muni San Francisco Business Times - February 2, 2007 by <http://www.bizjournals.com/search/bin/search?t=sanfrancisco&am=sanfrancisco…>Gabriel Metcalf It's counterintuitive, but maybe the best way for Muni to save money is to stop collecting it. It's one big idea in a list of big ideas that the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA), the quasi-independent department that controls our transportation system, should consider. Big new ideas are necessary because the old ideas to close the budget deficit, fare increases and service cuts, thrust Muni into a downward spiral that deepens its structural deficit and threatens to starve the system to death. Numbers add up First, let's look at the numbers. Muni's farebox recovery rate is 18 percent, or $122 million of a $678 million budget. That isn't much lower than is typical for transit systems: the Golden Gate Transit bus system, Portland's Tri-Met and Seattle's Sound Transit each get 22 percent of their revenues from fares. And after raising fares by 50 percent from three years ago, there's not much more room to squeeze transit riders. On the expense side, Muni could save $10 million directly by not collecting fares: maintaining equipment, counting and depositing money and enforcing proof of payment. More importantly, Muni wastes half a million hours each year waiting for people to stuff dollars and coins into the fare machines. This delay translates to a huge expense because fewer buses and drivers would be needed if buses could complete their runs, and get back out in revenue service, more quickly. In fact, there is probably no single easier operational change Muni could make to provide faster and more reliable service. When you take into account actual costs plus the monetized cost of time delay, Muni may be losing money by collecting it. If we were to make Muni free, there would be a great deal of questions to address. How do you keep the buses from becoming roving homeless shelters or teenage hangouts? How can we make sure people value what they don't pay for? Can Muni handle the extra passengers free Muni would attract? Where will Muni store the extra buses they may need to handle the added passenger load. If we consider Muni a public utility, what is the best way to fund it? There are systems to learn from. Small fare-free systems and large systems with fare-free zones abound. Portland's downtown "fareless square" was recently expanded to the adjoining Lloyd commercial district at the urging of the district's merchants, who chose to increase revenue from parking meters to pay for the move. Packaging big-idea reforms We encourage the MTA to look at this big idea and several others as an essential antidote to the downward spiral caused by years of small tinkering. Free Muni, or something close to it, might be a healthy sweetener as part of a package of big-idea reforms that should include route restructuring and stop consolidation. Speeding up service by 25 percent on the routes that carry 80 percent of Muni's passengers can reduce Muni's structural deficit by 75 percent, according to SPUR calculations. CalTrain, for example, in responding to their budget crisis, eliminated many stops but provided faster service for most customers. The result? They increased ridership by 25 percent. We're not sure free Muni is the way to go, but we are sure that yet another round of fare increases and service cuts is not the way to go. As the extreme opposite of the MTA's recent practice, free Muni and faster service is certainly worth a look. Gabriel Metcalf is executive director of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research.

1 0