July 2007 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Live call-in show with Dave Snyder
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 30 Jul '07

30 Jul '07

Hello Everyone, Tune into Channel 29 on Tuesday, July 31, from 7 to 7:30 p.m. for a live call-in show. I will be interviewing Dave Snyder, former Executive Director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, on my show "Car-Free Talk" about transportation-related ballot measures and other issues. The number is 621-4472. What: Dave Snyder on Car-Free Talk When: Tuesday, July 31 What time: 7 to 7:30 p.m. Channel: 29 Number to call: 621-4472 Sue

1 0

reminder - Transpo meeting on Tuesday, 7-9
by John-Marc Chandonia 30 Jul '07

30 Jul '07

Hi, Reminder - this month's Transpo meeting is on Tuesday from 7-9. Dave Snyder is expected to stop by from 7:45-8:30. The plan is to finalize endorsement language for presentation to the GM on the MTA charter ammendment(s). There have been significant changes to Peskin's, so we'll need to examine those in more detail. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Draft language endorsing No on SFSOS parking initiative
by John-Marc Chandonia 21 Jul '07

21 Jul '07

Here's draft language for a No endorsement, which we'll be deciding on at our GM this week. Please send any comments and ammendments before then, so I can revise the draft. Prop Z (Gridlock for Neighborhoods) - NO The SF Green Party strongly endorses a NO vote on Prop Z. Prop Z is an initiative backed by Republicans and a parking lot development corporation that would slow MUNI service, increase housing costs, add to traffic gridlock, remove trees, and create dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Prop Z would require a minimum number of parking spaces to be built for each new housing unit, making housing more expensive and requiring that limited space be used to store cars instead of creating badly needed housing. Prop Z would even override neighborhood development plans that call for fewer parking spaces in dense and transit-rich neighborhoods. Most San Franciscans have supported these plans in order to preserve their community's livability and character. Prop Z would bring an influx of cars to all neighborhoods, resulting in traffic gridlock, dangerous conditions for cyclists, and even slower MUNI service. Worse, Prop Z would allow developers to add private driveways and garage entrances wherever they want, eliminating public on-street parking, MUNI stops, and sidewalk trees. More private driveways would make it harder to find on-street parking, and more cars pulling in and out of garages would be dangerous for pedestrians. Removal of many street trees would be a detriment to the character and beauty of our city. Prop Z is greenwashed with some minor concessions to car-sharing. Dont be fooled. The SF Green Party strongly urges you to vote NO on Prop Z. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 1

Fw: Re: [SFGP-A] Draft language endorsing No on SFSOS parking initiati ve
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 15 Jul '07

15 Jul '07

Please note: forwarded message attached Hi John-Marc, I'm confused -- I thought we were going to take up Prop Z on July 31 at the Transpo meeting? Otherwise, I like this (with one or two edits and the clarification that the "concessions to car-sharing" are illusoriy in that such concessions already exist in city code, I believe). We might even want to add in the opening paragraph that Prop Z would reduce on-street parking availability, although that is not something we address in our plank. Another point that I think it might be even more crucial to add in the opening paragraph is that Prop Z would override all neighborhood efforts to influence the planning for their own communities. Sue Please note: message attached Here's draft language for a No endorsement, which we'll be deciding on at our GM this week. Please send any comments and ammendments before then, so I can revise the draft. Prop Z (Gridlock for Neighborhoods) - NO The SF Green Party strongly endorses a NO vote on Prop Z. Prop Z is an initiative backed by Republicans and a parking lot development corporation that would slow MUNI service, increase housing costs, add to traffic gridlock, remove trees, and create dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Prop Z would require a minimum number of parking spaces to be built for each new housing unit, making housing more expensive and requiring that limited space be used to store cars instead of creating badly needed housing. Prop Z would even override neighborhood development plans that call for fewer parking spaces in dense and transit-rich neighborhoods. Most San Franciscans have supported these plans in order to preserve their community's livability and character. Prop Z would bring an influx of cars to all neighborhoods, resulting in traffic gridlock, dangerous conditions for cyclists, and even slower MUNI service. Worse, Prop Z would allow developers to add private driveways and garage entrances wherever they want, eliminating public on-street parking, MUNI stops, and sidewalk trees. More private driveways would make it harder to find on-street parking, and more cars pulling in and out of garages would be dangerous for pedestrians. Removal of many street trees would be a detriment to the character and beauty of our city. Prop Z is greenwashed with some minor concessions to car-sharing. Dont be fooled. The SF Green Party strongly urges you to vote NO on Prop Z. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] next TWG meeting - 7/31
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 06 Jul '07

06 Jul '07

Ok, I'm actually interviewing Dave Snyder on my show that night and I probably will not be able to get out of the studio until 8 p.m. at the earliest. Sue Hi, I'll be out of town for our regularly scheduled TWG meeting this month, so I'm proposing 7/31 (Tuesday night) at our usual time (7-9) as an alternative. I hope that works for everybody, since it's the 5th Tuesday of the month and therefore unlikely to conflict with other regularly scheduled meetings. Dave Snyder will come by to discuss the MTA amendments before we make a final recommendation to the GM. JMC

1 0

next TWG meeting - 7/31
by John-Marc Chandonia 06 Jul '07

06 Jul '07

Hi, I'll be out of town for our regularly scheduled TWG meeting this month, so I'm proposing 7/31 (Tuesday night) at our usual time (7-9) as an alternative. I hope that works for everybody, since it's the 5th Tuesday of the month and therefore unlikely to conflict with other regularly scheduled meetings. Dave Snyder will come by to discuss the MTA amendments before we make a final recommendation to the GM. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] [SFGP-A] Endorsement of MTA Charter Amendments
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 03 Jul '07

03 Jul '07

Do get Dave SNyder to weigh in in that in conversation with him recently, he expressed concerns about Jake's proposal. Sue Hi, The language I sent on the MTA amendments is my proposed draft language; sorry if that was not clear. The SFGP has not endorsed either measure. My draft language is based on my reading of the 2 measures, which I got from the Supervisors' aides, and on feedback from others at the May Transpo WG. If Dave or anybody else has concerns or amendments about the language, please email me and copy the Transpo WG list. Early feedback is better than waiting until the GM and trying to propose changes to the wording from the floor. I wouldn't propose the GM endorse these until they're officially on the ballot in any case. The main reason I posted this to the active list (besides wanting to get more input) is to get feedback on the idea of doing longer statements on the reasons behind our endorsements, in addition to just a yes/no endorsement. This will take some work, but a longer statement should make our position clearer to voters, especially in cases where we don't reach consensus on endorsement (e.g., recent bond measures and the gun control measure). If we do a newspaper, it will be very like the Alameda Greens' version (probably even using their template and printer). That means it will include a slate card for voters to take to the polls, as well as a fundraising pitch. We should discuss the newspaper idea at the CIWG meeting tonight. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org)

1 0

Endorsement of MTA Charter Amendments
by John-Marc Chandonia 03 Jul '07

03 Jul '07

Hi, This year, rather than issuing simple yes/no endorsements of propositions, I'd like to include language explaining our endorsement, which we can put on our web site or (if we're well organized) into a newspaper like the Alameda Greens produce. Here's my proposed language for the MTA props. Please send any concerns and amendments to the language. Also, there has been a suggestion that we ask both McGoldrick and Peskin to hold off introducing these until next year. If they're on the February (Primary) ballot, turnout will be higher and probably more progressive. What do others think of this strategy? Prop X (McGoldrick): YES Prop X would allow the Board of Supervisors and Controller to have more oversight of the MTA, the board of directors that runs MUNI and the Department of Parking and Traffic. Currently, the MTA is entirely appointed by the Mayor, and produces an anual budget that may include changes in service, MUNI fares, and parking rates. The Board of Supervisors may not modify this budget, and can only reject it by a 2/3 supermajority vote. In other City departments, the Board approves the budget by simple majority vote, and may make changes so long as the overall budget remains balanced. If Prop X passes, the Board of Supervisors would have the same authority over the MTA budget as they do over the proposed budgets of other City departments. This would give Supervisors the ability to respond to their constituents' concerns about proposed route changes or fare increases, by re-allocating money from other parts of the City budget. Prop X also gives the Controller the responsibility for negotiating contracts to evaluate the quality of MTA service. These contracts are currently negotiated by the MTA itself, so Prop X would allow a more independent and unbiased review. The SF Green Party encourages voters to vote YES on Prop X, as it would allow more independent oversight over the MTA, and more grassroots input into MUNI fare and service changes. Prop Y (Peskin): YES The MTA is a mayor-appointed board of directors that runs MUNI and the Department of Parking and Traffic. Their major functions include approving changes to MUNI service, fares, and parking rates in public garages. Prop Y will make a variety of changes to the MTA, described below: The most significant change is that all future increases in parking revenue (from meters, public garages, and parking tickets) will go to MUNI, rather than the current requirement that 50% be returned to the General Fund for other uses. This change would be an important increase in funding for public transit. The MTA would also be given more responsibility for installation of stop signs and traffic signals, which would allow them to install transit priority signals to allow buses and trains to move faster. This is a policy the SF Green Party has advocated for several years in the Transportation plank of our platform. Prop Y makes two major changes to MUNI salaries. Currently, the transit operators' wage scale is capped at the average of the two highest transit operators' wage scales at other major transit systems in the US. Under Prop Y, the operators' minimum salary would be calculated using this method (i.e., the salary cap would become a salary floor). Prop Y would also change managers' pay: at least 10% of the pay for the MUNI director and managers would be contingent on meeting service standards set by the MTA board. The SF Green Party has some concerns that the minimum salary for operators would leave little room for negotiating work rules and benefits, but we agree with linking managers' pay to performance. Finally, Prop Y would require the MTA to set goals to cut carbon emissions, by reducing private car trips and increasing bicycling. This provision is largely symbolic, as nothing in the measure would directly help to accomplish either goal. The SF Green Party encourages voters to vote YES on Prop Y, as directing increased parking revenues for the MUNI represents an important long-term investment in public transit, and because transit priority signals are one necessary condition for efficient MUNI service. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 1