August 2008 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

(fwd) GP Alameda County endorses NO on Prop.1
by John-Marc Chandonia 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

Here's Alameda's analysis of Prop 1 - any thoughts? > We all believe in attractive alternatives to driving, especially sleek > electric trains designed in Europe, but the promises in Proposition 1 > are too good to be true. > > > The cogent reason for Greens to oppose the high-speed rail project is > that it is a public works fraud scheme specifically designed to appeal > to gullible environmentalists. If we vote for Proposition 1, as it is > currently on the ballot, the only guarantee is that billions of > dollars will be spent on engineering, land acquisition, demolition, > and construction of part of a guideway. > > > Out front, the promoters say this is a $45 billion system. The $9 > billion provided by the ballot measure for high-speed rail is only 1/5 > the project cost, and project proponents are likely to come back > asking taxpayers for additional tens of billions from taxpayers. There > is no guarantee that there ever will be a workable rail system, and > under current law, no consequences for project managers if they waste > every dime. The idea is apparently to start a very big hole in the > ground, then come back and ask for more bucks. Federal funding is as > imaginary as private investment, as Amtrak high speed rail funding > belongs to the 20 senators in Northeastern states. > > > The firm which has been prime contractor for all work authorized to > date by the High Speed Rail Authority is Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), > notorious for unsigned engineering drawings on sections of the > Wilshire Subway that caved in, and for choosing the wrong concrete > epoxy for the tunnel in Boston?s out-of-control Big Dig. The cost of > the Big Dig ballooned from $2 billion to $22 billion over the course > of the project, and the tunnel still leaks seawater. PB and other > firms were fined $450 million under their settlement with the > Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but the rest of the money is gone, with > not very many feet of highway to show for it. > > > PB also was responsible for the multi-billions of cost overruns on the > San Jose light rail line, the Wilshire Subway, and the BART-SFO line, > and their overall business model doesn?t seem to have changed much > since. For example, one of the most recent PB productions was a plan > for a $1 billion Sacramento airport line. > > > On the high-speed rail project, not only the cost figures are > ballooned beyond belief. The Rail Authority predicts an annual > ridership of 117 million passengers on the 24-station line. As a > reality check, France?s most popular high-speed train, the TGV- > Southeast carried 18 million passengers during its 10th year of > operation. Eurostar, the London-Paris high-speed train you may have > heard about, finally managed to carry more than 10 million passengers > for the first time last year, a decade and a half after it started > running. It is hard to believe that California trains will outperform > European routes with more population. > > > The Authority claims that the project will have no operating deficit, > but the Legislative Analyst has produced an opinion in the ballot that > the operating cost would be about $1 billion annually, and suggests > that some proportion of this would have to be covered by state > subsidies (likely in the hundreds of millions annually). This would > directly harm all transit service statewide. > > > The Rail Authority has been actively goosing the Merced County real > estate market with statements about the "new California gold rush" and > its selection of the Pacheco Route, a repeat of the UC Merced land > scam with the same participants. Stations in Gilroy and Palmdale will > be minutes from the Peninsula and Los Angeles, respectively, causing > huge incentives for new exurban sprawl. The staff says they won't > build a Los Banos station but Angelo Tsakopoulos and his investor > corporations have purchased 3500 acres of land there within three > miles of the proposed stop, so the station and sprawl are likely to > happen if the route is built. > > > Severe negative environmental impacts on the Pacific Flyway > (disruption of nesting and avian mortality from striking 220 mph > trains), and noise impacts on communities on the Peninsula, and in > Santa Clara County, Los Angeles County, and Orange County are also a > major concern. > > > Promised environmental benefits are questionable. According to British > studies, 220 mph trains do not produce greenhouse gas reductions or > energy savings, because of the exponential increase in energy > requirement of trains above about 120 mph. France has GHG reductions > from HSR only because the trains are 100% nuclear powered. The > proposal here will depend on additional coal-fired plants in the > Southwest. -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

4 4

Re: [Transpo] [SFGP-A] (fwd) GP Alameda County endorses NO on Prop.1
by John-Marc Chandonia 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

The bulk of Alameda's argument against Prop 1 is that all the money so far has gone to a corrupt contractor. However, the legislation does not require that contractor to actually build it; we could still approve the bond and then try to get our state reps to raise concerns about the contractor. Besides, if we blocked every government project built by corrupt contractors, we'd be living on sand dunes. I also agree that the promotional case for rail is overblown in terms of ridership, but we should look towards how many people will want to ride the rail after the effects of peak oil become more apparent, and the cost of driving or flying to LA becomes prohibitive. The power for an electric train can come from a variety of sources, and don't necessarily have to come from coal. It's much more likely to get something built if we start now, and not after gas becomes even more expensive (as that will raise costs for construction and materials, and voters who can't afford to drive to work will be even less likely to pass a bond). JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

2 1

Aug Sustain/Transpo Meeting Canceled
by Eric Brooks 26 Aug '08

26 Aug '08

Hi all, As we did last year, we've decided to cancel the August Transportation and Sustainability WG meetings in deference to the many other meetings in the next few weeks. See you in September. -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

2 2

Cancel Meeting This Month?
by Eric Brooks 25 Aug '08

25 Aug '08

Hi gang, I personally am overwhelmed right now with campaign work, and we have various endorsement meetings coming up in the next few weeks, so with everyone's ok, why don't we cancel this month's Transpo/Sustainability meeting, and meet in late September as usual. Cool? -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

Fwd: [GPCA-CCWG] GP Alameda County endorses NO on Prop.1
by Susan King 12 Aug '08

12 Aug '08

FYI... Begin forwarded message: > From: Bob Marsh <bob(a)marsh.name> > Date: August 11, 2008 8:48:47 PM PDT > To: GPCA-CCWG(a)cagreens.org > Subject: [GPCA-CCWG] GP Alameda County endorses NO on Prop.1 > > > FYI - this is not our official Voter Guide writeup yet, but the GPAC > Council > decided (based on these arguments) to say NO. > > **************** > We all believe in attractive alternatives to driving, especially sleek > electric trains designed in Europe, but the promises in Proposition 1 > are too good to be true. > > > The cogent reason for Greens to oppose the high-speed rail project is > that it is a public works fraud scheme specifically designed to appeal > to gullible environmentalists. If we vote for Proposition 1, as it is > currently on the ballot, the only guarantee is that billions of > dollars will be spent on engineering, land acquisition, demolition, > and construction of part of a guideway. > > > Out front, the promoters say this is a $45 billion system. The $9 > billion provided by the ballot measure for high-speed rail is only 1/5 > the project cost, and project proponents are likely to come back > asking taxpayers for additional tens of billions from taxpayers. There > is no guarantee that there ever will be a workable rail system, and > under current law, no consequences for project managers if they waste > every dime. The idea is apparently to start a very big hole in the > ground, then come back and ask for more bucks. Federal funding is as > imaginary as private investment, as Amtrak high speed rail funding > belongs to the 20 senators in Northeastern states. > > > The firm which has been prime contractor for all work authorized to > date by the High Speed Rail Authority is Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), > notorious for unsigned engineering drawings on sections of the > Wilshire Subway that caved in, and for choosing the wrong concrete > epoxy for the tunnel in Boston’s out-of-control Big Dig. The cost of > the Big Dig ballooned from $2 billion to $22 billion over the course > of the project, and the tunnel still leaks seawater. PB and other > firms were fined $450 million under their settlement with the > Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but the rest of the money is gone, with > not very many feet of highway to show for it. > > > PB also was responsible for the multi-billions of cost overruns on the > San Jose light rail line, the Wilshire Subway, and the BART-SFO line, > and their overall business model doesn’t seem to have changed much > since. For example, one of the most recent PB productions was a plan > for a $1 billion Sacramento airport line. > > > On the high-speed rail project, not only the cost figures are > ballooned beyond belief. The Rail Authority predicts an annual > ridership of 117 million passengers on the 24-station line. As a > reality check, France’s most popular high-speed train, the TGV- > Southeast carried 18 million passengers during its 10th year of > operation. Eurostar, the London-Paris high-speed train you may have > heard about, finally managed to carry more than 10 million passengers > for the first time last year, a decade and a half after it started > running. It is hard to believe that California trains will outperform > European routes with more population. > > > The Authority claims that the project will have no operating deficit, > but the Legislative Analyst has produced an opinion in the ballot that > the operating cost would be about $1 billion annually, and suggests > that some proportion of this would have to be covered by state > subsidies (likely in the hundreds of millions annually). This would > directly harm all transit service statewide. > > > The Rail Authority has been actively goosing the Merced County real > estate market with statements about the "new California gold rush" and > its selection of the Pacheco Route, a repeat of the UC Merced land > scam with the same participants. Stations in Gilroy and Palmdale will > be minutes from the Peninsula and Los Angeles, respectively, causing > huge incentives for new exurban sprawl. The staff says they won't > build a Los Banos station but Angelo Tsakopoulos and his investor > corporations have purchased 3500 acres of land there within three > miles of the proposed stop, so the station and sprawl are likely to > happen if the route is built. > > > Severe negative environmental impacts on the Pacific Flyway > (disruption of nesting and avian mortality from striking 220 mph > trains), and noise impacts on communities on the Peninsula, and in > Santa Clara County, Los Angeles County, and Orange County are also a > major concern. > > > Promised environmental benefits are questionable. According to British > studies, 220 mph trains do not produce greenhouse gas reductions or > energy savings, because of the exponential increase in energy > requirement of trains above about 120 mph. France has GHG reductions > from HSR only because the trains are 100% nuclear powered. The > proposal here will depend on additional coal-fired plants in the > Southwest. > ------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > gpca-ccwg mailing list > gpca-ccwg(a)cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-ccwg >

1 0

Transportation Grant Program - Request for Stakeholder Input
by ErikaSF＠aol.com 10 Aug '08

10 Aug '08

>From our Yahoo! account... Lifeline Transportation Grant Program - Request for Stakeholder Input Wednesday, August 6, 2008 5:42 PM From: "John Gahbauer" John.Gahbauer(a)sfcta.org To: lifeline(a)sfcta.org Dear Community Member, We are writing to invite you to share your ideas on how we can best spend $11 million this fall on transportation projects to improve mobility for low income San Franciscans. We have released a call for projects for the 2008 Lifeline Transportation Program, which can fund a wide range of transportation projects such as new or enhanced transit services, community shuttles, and improvements to transit stops. Projects must meet certain eligibility requirements, and applications must be submitted by the agency or sponsor that will eventually build or operate the project. Applications are due to the Authority by 5 p.m. on August 28, 2008. The Lifeline Transportation Program prioritizes projects that address the transportation needs most often raised by community members, so we are seeking your input on what those needs are. We invite you to attend a Lifeline Stakeholder meeting to learn more about the Lifeline Program and to share your ideas. Lifeline Transportation Stakeholder Meeting: Tuesday August 12, 2008 - 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. San Francisco County Transportation Authority South Conference Room 100 Van Ness Ave (at Fell St ), 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA We are located one block north of the Van Ness Muni Metro station, and three blocks west of the Civic Center BART station. If you plan to attend this meeting, please RSVP to lifeline(a)sfcta.org. For more information about the Lifeline Program and the call for projects, please visit the Authority's website (www.sfcta.org/lifeline) email us at lifeline(a)sfcta.org, or call us at (415)522-4800. Thank you very much, Amber Elizabeth Crabbe Senior Transportation Planner San Francisco County Transportation Authority **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )

1 0

MTA Now Considering Regular Automatic Muni Fare Increases!
by Eric Brooks 10 Aug '08

10 Aug '08

MTA Now Considering Regular Automatic Muni Fare Increases! Enough is enough! I saw them discussing this at the August 5th meeting.... We must start a free Muni campaign. Eric B -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

Clean Energy & Sustainability Carnival - Noon, Sat, Aug 16 - City Hall Plaza
by Eric Brooks 04 Aug '08

04 Aug '08

Hi all, Join the Saturday, August 16 carnival to celebrate and support: - The now qualified ballot measure for this November's election - the San Francisco Clean Energy Act - which will bring the City 100% clean and renewable electricity in just three decades! - The new organic Victory Garden in front of San Francisco City Hall, and - The launch of the Sustainable Living Road Show's national "Be The Change" Tour featuring: Eco-Carnival Games, Guided Tours of the Victory Garden, and a Bicycle Powered Stage! Join us for the fun, and to find out how you can both live a greener life, and help the San Francisco Clean Energy Act win in November! WHEN: Saturday, August 16, Noon WHERE: San Francisco Civic Center in front of City Hall (Polk Street side - from Civic Center BART/Muni at 8th & Market, cross United Nations Plaza to City Hall) See you there! Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator Our City http://our-city.org ### This alert sent by: Our City 1028-A Howard St. San Francisco, CA 94103 415-756-8844 For more information about Our City campaigns go to: http://www.our-city.org info(a)our-city.org

1 0

Mayor Pulls Fast One - His Transit Measure Still On Ballot
by Eric Brooks 03 Aug '08

03 Aug '08

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/02/BAVA12420H.DTL&… Mayor accused of going back on transit deal Heather Knight, Chronicle Staff Writer <mailto:hknight@sfchronicle.com> Saturday, August 2, 2008 San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom broke a promise to withdraw a measure from the November ballot that would change the makeup of the panel that oversees the city's transit system, a steaming-mad city supervisor charged on Friday. Supervisor Jake McGoldrick in May proposed a ballot measure to strip the mayor of some of his control over the Municipal Transportation Agency, which operates the city's programs for transit, parking enforcement and traffic control. The mayor countered with his own measure. McGoldrick said the men struck a handshake deal that the supervisor would withdraw his proposal before it reached the board for a vote if the mayor withdrew his ballot measure. But when the Department of Elections shut it doors at 5 p.m. Friday - the deadline for withdrawing ballot measures - Newsom's was still on it. That means voters will have their say on the mayor's proposal in November, but not on McGoldrick's. "The mayor is the most duplicitous elected official in the city of San Francisco," a fuming McGoldrick said Friday evening. "His word is not worth the breath it takes for him to expel it. He's a total phony who's fooled a lot of people for too long." McGoldrick and Newsom never had any such deal, said Nathan Ballard, the mayor's press secretary. "That's an absurd allegation," he said. At issue is who should comprise the seven-member panel that oversees the transportation agency. Currently, the mayor picks all seven, although the board can reject his picks. McGoldrick had proposed the mayor select three, the board select three and the city controller select one. Newsom at the time said the supervisor's plan was a power grab that voters had already opposed in a similar ballot measure in 2005. Newsom countered with his own measure making it a five-member panel comprising the mayor, the president of the Board of Supervisors, the city treasurer, and one member each appointed by the mayor and board president. It also urges the agency to adopt the ethics and public records law that applies to other city agencies and to bring in a financial expert to review budgets. "We don't understand why anybody would be against better coordination and oversight of transportation dollars," Ballard said. "This is a sensible measure and we look forward to enjoying the support of Supervisor McGoldrick and other members of the legislative branch." That doesn't seem likely. McGoldrick said he will "devote every waking minute" to quashing the mayor's ballot measure. "I'm beyond belief that anybody could be fooled by this man's toothy smile," he said of Newsom. "It's amazing I got fooled one last time." The mayor also left on the ballot a measure to create the Community Justice Center in the Tenderloin, a controversial court to prosecute misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies. The board was poised to reject funding the court in the 2008-09 budget, but McGoldrick introduced money for it and it was approved. Still, Ballard said the mayor's administration didn't want to take any chances that a new board after November's elections would withdraw money for the court. /E-mail Heather Knight at hknight(a)sfchronicle.com <mailto:hknight@sfchronicle.com>./ http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/02/BAVA12420H.DTL This article appeared on page *B - 3* of the San Francisco Chronicle -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0