- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

BV/HP redevelopment
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 10 Mar '06

10 Mar '06

Hello Everyone, A number of Greens were at the rally and Redevelopment Commission hearing on Tuesday, March 7. I could not stay for the entire meeting, but I took notes during the time that I was there. This is the timeline that the Redevelopment staff hopes for: 1) Before the Redevelopment Commission on March 7, all items passed unanimously 2) Introduce to the Board of Supervisors on March 14 3) Thirty day holding period 4) It goes to Land-Use on April 19 (maybe) 5) It goes to Finance on April 26 (maybe) 6) Budget Committee needs to review the tax increment element of the plan 7) There will be two or three readings before the Board of Supervisors in early May (three??? I've never heard of that. Has anyone else?) 8) The mayor signs the plan (assuming it passes the BofS) 9) It goes to Sacramento -- the cut off is July 20 (I'm assuming that is because that is when the fiscal year ends) I could summarize my notes here, but I think people would be better off going to the SF Redevelopment website (and I'm lousy at links ...) and scanning the documents there themselves. I DO think the SF Green Party should come out with a position on this, guided by Ahimsa, Charlene, and Maurice. Sue

1 0

Fw: Daly's Initiative to Change SF TJPA Membership MARCH 22 Deadline
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 10 Mar '06

10 Mar '06

Transpo Working Group people, We should take up Chris Daly's proposed amendment to the admin code regulating the appointment of members to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. We should understand it since the SFGP is going to be asked to take a stand on it. Sue Below is the text of Supervisor Daly's proposed legislation to change the selection of the City's three representatives to the TJPA Board. Under this legislation, the three city appointees would be the Mayor, the Supervisor who sits on MTC, and the Supervisor in whose district the terminal is located. No alternates would be allowed. We need every organization to support this important initiative, which will be on the June ballot. Please have your organization vote to support the initiative and place a ballot argument in the SF ballot book. The deadline for submitting paid ballot arguments is March 22 at 12 NOON at the Elections Dept at City Hall. Organizations should make their arguments clear and direct: The simple message is that this is a vital project to the City, and the City's representatives must be elected officials to ensure accountability. The other member agencies have placed elected officials on the TJPA Board, SF should do likewise. The Mayor should sit on this Board, just as the Mayor of LA sits on the MTA (Metro) Board in LA. RAFT, SFT and TransDef have both approved submitting ballot arguments. Here is the text of the ballot language: Submission to the voters of an ordinance amending Chapter 5 of the Administrative Code to add Article XXVII to designate and establish a procedure for appointing City's appointed members on the Board of Directors of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco: Section 1. The San Francisco Administrative Code is hereby amended by adding Article XXVII to Chapter 5, to read as follows: ARTICLE XXVII: TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Sec. 5.271. Findings and Purpose. (a) In November, 1999, the voters of the City adopted Proposition H which,among other things, called for the extension of the Caltrain commuter rail line to a new multi-modal regional transit station to be constructed on the present site of the Transbay Transit Terminal. (b) On February 12, 2001, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco adopted Resolution No. 104-01 authorizing the City and County of San Francisco (the "City") to form a joint powers agency for the purpose of developing, designing,constructing and operating a new intermodal transit facility on and adjacent to the site of the existing Transbay Terminal. (c) On April 4, 2001! , the City entered into that certain Joint Powers Agreement creating the Transbay Joint Powers Authority with the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Under the Joint Powers Agreement, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority is governed by a five (5) member board of directors, of which the City appoints three. (d) The People wish to designate certain City officials to be among the City's appointees to the Board of Directors of the Transba! y Joint Powers Authority and to establish a procedure for appointing one of the members in event of duplication. Section 5.272. Designating City Members to the Board of Directors. The City's three appointments to the Board of Directors of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority shall be the following officials: (a) The Mayor; (b) The member of the Board of Supervisors who represents the district in which the existing or new Transbay Terminal is located; and (c) The representative of the City and County of San Francisco appointed by the Board of Supervisors to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission or subsequent regional transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency, and, if such City representative is also the member of the Board of Supervisors representing the district in which the existing or new Transbay Terminal is located, then a person nominated by the Rules Committee of the Board of Supervisors and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Section 5.273. Amendments to Appointment Process. In the event that the members of the City's Board of Supervisors are no longer elected by district, the Board of Supervisors shall have the authority to amend this ordinance to modify the means of City's appointments to the Board of Directors of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. _______________________________________________

1 0

Meeting minutes from 2-28 TWG meeting -- attached and e-mail
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 03 Mar '06

03 Mar '06

Notes from the TWG meeting on 02-28-06 Present: JMC, Jerry Path, Sue Vaughan, Zabe Bent (SFCTA representative for Geary BRT) For next months meeting A. 1) Get Jeremy Nelson here, get help with figuring this out. 2) JMC Hermosa Beach, Santa Monica 3) Sue check out DPT surveys; find out number of driveways B. (Later) 4) Is market rate legal? Regina, John Avalos, Marc Salomon find out how we get a an opinion from a city attorney. Call Rosss office. 5) Get buy in from Greens? Call it charging a user fee. 6) Name Guaranteed Space Permit 7) Outreach C) Agenda for next months meeting (NOTE: I have included Emily Drennan) 1) BRT action item, discuss options, possible letters 2) Gasoline tax 10 minutes???? 3) Garage at Haight and Stanyan (maybe) 4) C-3 legislation 5) New parking legislation 6) Other big initiatives that we could be doing local gasoline tax???? 7) Emily Drennan running for BART Board in the Conservative C (not Toms district)? Here are Sue Vaughans notes on Zabe Bents BRT presentation: BRT five years out from the start of service, and thats only if its supported. Van Ness shorter time frame, not planning to acquire new vehicles, shorter distance (only two miles), state highway Now: presenting proposed conceptual designs, four workshops, presented three different options Agency partners including Geary Citizens Advisory Committee Most controversial: dedicated lane rubber tire tech no tracks Real time info Pre=pay system at important stops Cleaner quiter low floor buses with signal priority Cost effective and affordable Faster delivery than light rail Opportunities for improvements can be built in stages Built to light rail dimensions, rail ready package Goals How much faster? 30 percent faster (side might be 10 percent faster) How many more riders? No projection but yes Costs: $50 million from Prop K; $150 to $200 million How many fewer SOV trips? No projected numbers Where is the funding for BRT coming from? Prop K right? What is the projected cost of BRT on Geary? Length of time to implement? 2011 Will run later than the limited now. When does this go before the Board of Supervisors? Timeline? Next group of workshops in June, presenting results of refinements: gearybrt(a)sfcta.org, Julie Kirschbaum, project director www.gearybrt.org Late summer: present results of study to the board Interim: Geary CAC analysis of parking impacts 4th Thursday 6 to 8 p.m., at 100 Van Ness, 26th floor Maintain local and express, Limited becomes the BRT Widening trench underground at Fillmore for BRT suggested by Rescue Muni less than a minute of travel time savings; also Rescue Muni wants to ultimately replace it with an underground rail. 50,000 boardings on 38 Geary on daily basis, only one-third during commute hours About 65,000 drivers on Geary Goal cross no more than three lanes of traffic without ped refuge Not a significant amount of stop removal Center options more popular w/ people, stronger urban design feel But longer construction and heavier construction impacts JMC favors center with two separate platforms, wouldnt have to deal with double parkers

1 0

cost of permits in Hermosa Beach
by John-Marc Chandonia 01 Mar '06

01 Mar '06

Regarding the Hermosa beach driveway blocking permits, they're slightly more expensive ($38 vs $35 per year) than the regular permit (and you presumably need to buy both, since the driveway one is a hanger and the regular one is a sticker). Can anybody point me to the name or code for the state law that caps the cost of normal residential permits at the cost of operating the program? I'm having no luck googling for it. JMC ----- Forwarded message from Jodie Willison <jwillison(a)hermosabch.org> ----- Subject: RE: cost of driveway parking permit? Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 07:38:18 -0800 From: Jodie Willison <jwillison(a)hermosabch.org> To: jmc(a)dolorespark.org Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk(a)hermosabch.org> From: Finance Cashier To: John-Marc Chandonia The driveway parking permit is an application process. If approved, the permit is $38.00. The permit is valid as long as the owner or tenant are residing there, if they move the permit becomes void. If you have any questions please call me at 318-0223. Jodie Finance -----Original Message----- From: Jackie Drasco On Behalf Of City Clerk Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:40 PM To: 'John-Marc Chandonia' Cc: Jodie Willison Subject: RE: cost of driveway parking permit? I am forwarding your email to our Cashier's Office, which processes parking permits, for a response. Jackie Drasco Deputy city Clerk City of Hermosa Beach -----Original Message----- From: John-Marc Chandonia [mailto:jmc@dolorespark.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:37 PM To: City Clerk Subject: cost of driveway parking permit? Hi, I see from your website that a regular residential parking permit costs $35/year; can you tell me the additional cost for a driveway permit? Thanks, JMC ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

update to agenda
by John-Marc Chandonia 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Hi, I heard from Sue that Greg Hayes will not be coming tonight, so we'll have more time to address the other items (particularly what legislation we should work on this year). JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] more on gas tax, etc. -- shall we postpone discussion of this until March 28?
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

I propose that we postpone discussion of any gas tax proposals to March, since Jerry is interested in this issue and since he cannot be at tonight's meeting. What do people think? Sue -- "Jerry Path" <pjrry(a)igc.org> wrote: Hi again, Just to continue my comments on the proposal for a gas tax - One place I disagree with this proposal is where it says that " when we reduce our consumption of gasoline the world price of crude oil will drop. " This of course depends on a number of factors - one whether or not supply will drop even more rapidly than consumption and second what happens with the consumption of other countries. Then the proposal goes on to say " This will be like oil exporting nations (when compared to today's oil prices) actually covering part of our energy bill." I think the unfortunate implication of this is a denial that we are exploiting oil nation's resources. Yes, there is an elite - the Saudi family etc who are befitting, but there are millions of poor who are being deprived of social justice. The process for the national referendum in this proposal is something I'm having a hard time envisioning. The cigarette tax came about because it was, I think, pushed by health experts - mainly the AMA. I don't see the mechanism for this "national discussion" taking place. Certainly the corporate media wouldn't provide this mechanism. Another problem I see is that this is going to result in a huge bureaucracy. Its probably an unfortunate necessity - but I am especially concerned that this would also result in a lot of negative criticism. I have a suggestion which might somewhat address this - but it is only embryonic. Its kind of a mix between the transponders used for toll bridges - and the ATM bank card cash system. Drivers would each receive a card which they would use to purchase gas. The information of each transaction would be processed by a computer system which would record consumption over time. Everyone would start out paying the same price - but the program would gradually calculate higher prices for higher consumption - until the user reached a certain plateau - the price could decline from this plateau, but not go higher. Similarly for users who consumed less prices would decline - but not below a certain point. Non-users would also get cards and a credit for their non-use would be d! eposited in their accounts. It would basically be using a computerized system to cut down on all the steps in the rebate process - although the process would be the same. Just an idea. I hope I'm not being too negative - just seeing all these problems. I really appreciate that something is moving on this - I think we need some action desperately and I hope this can move forward. On Legislation that we should be proposing - probably this has already been talked about, but just in case it hasn't - the vehicle registration fee should be brought at least up to its prior level. Probably more funds should be dedicated to Public Transit - (I only say probably because I don't know the specifics on this I just strongly suspect that enough doesn't go to Transit). Best Jerry Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

2 1

Some thoughts on BRT
by Emily Drennen 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Hi all, I just wanted to throw my two cents in here since I won't be able to attend tomorrow night's meeting. Better, faster transit on Geary is a great idea. However, I am worried that BRT is not the right option for Geary. With between 55 and 75k riders/day now, BRT's capacity will be maxed out soon. Plus, BRT will never attract the extra ridership that rail will. I am usually all for saving as much money as possible on expensive city projects. However, on this one, I have to urge you all to ask the TA to consider rail as an alternative. Not only does the ridership now justify the investment of light rail, but heavy rail (subways) have been built on *much* less ridership. Just some food for thought before the meeting. Best, Emily __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

more on gas tax, etc.
by Jerry Path 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

Hi again, Just to continue my comments on the proposal for a gas tax - One place I disagree with this proposal is where it says that " when we reduce our consumption of gasoline the world price of crude oil will drop. " This of course depends on a number of factors - one whether or not supply will drop even more rapidly than consumption and second what happens with the consumption of other countries. Then the proposal goes on to say " This will be like oil exporting nations (when compared to today's oil prices) actually covering part of our energy bill." I think the unfortunate implication of this is a denial that we are exploiting oil nation's resources. Yes, there is an elite - the Saudi family etc who are befitting, but there are millions of poor who are being deprived of social justice. The process for the national referendum in this proposal is something I'm having a hard time envisioning. The cigarette tax came about because it was, I think, pushed by health experts - mainly the AMA. I don't see the mechanism for this "national discussion" taking place. Certainly the corporate media wouldn't provide this mechanism. Another problem I see is that this is going to result in a huge bureaucracy. Its probably an unfortunate necessity - but I am especially concerned that this would also result in a lot of negative criticism. I have a suggestion which might somewhat address this - but it is only embryonic. Its kind of a mix between the transponders used for toll bridges - and the ATM bank card cash system. Drivers would each receive a card which they would use to purchase gas. The information of each transaction would be processed by a computer system which would record consumption over time. Everyone would start out paying the same price - but the program would gradually calculate higher prices for higher consumption - until the user reached a certain plateau - the price could decline from this plateau, but not go higher. Similarly for users who consumed less prices would decline - but not below a certain point. Non-users would also get cards and a credit for their non-use would be deposited in their accounts. It would basically be using a computerized system to cut down on all the steps in the rebate process - although the process would be the same. Just an idea. I hope I'm not being too negative - just seeing all these problems. I really appreciate that something is moving on this - I think we need some action desperately and I hope this can move forward. On Legislation that we should be proposing - probably this has already been talked about, but just in case it hasn't - the vehicle registration fee should be brought at least up to its prior level. Probably more funds should be dedicated to Public Transit - (I only say probably because I don't know the specifics on this I just strongly suspect that enough doesn't go to Transit). Best Jerry Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Someone may come from the SFCTA or Muni on Tuesday
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

Great. If you want to work together with me (or someone else if a volunteer steps forward), that would be great. No confirmation yet on whether the SFCTA people are coming on Tuesday or not. Sue -- Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: I've seen this presentation. It's very informative about the project--and very objective. These two projects are very important for SF: they need to be built to a high degree of quality: truly much and more reliable transit, that's also beautiful and dignified. At this stage, we should encourage the planners to create the most aggressive brt as possible. The speed and reliability of transit should not be compromised by the preservation of parking or traffic flow. Bike lanes should be included wherever possible, especially on the stretch from Presidio or Steiner to Arguello, where Geary cuts between two major hills. I've seen the presentation and would be happy to work with someone from the transpo committee to write a support letter following the presentation. Dave At 7:32 PM +0000 2/25/06, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: >We may be getting a presentation from someone at the San Francisco >County Transportation Authority and/or Muni on BRT. I've said 30 >minutes, come at the beginning. > >What do people think? > >Sue > > >_______________________________________________ >Transpo mailing list >Transpo(a)sfgreens.org >https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: [Transpo] gas tax proposal, agenda
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

There are various versions of the Oil Depletion Protocol floating around out there on the Internet. The one I am familiar with and have copies of is the Uppsala ODP, written by Coln Campbell, former oil industry geologist. The ODP calls on importing nations to voluntarily reduce their oil imports be 2 percent annually, and for exporting nations to reduce their exports by 2 percent annually. Internally, nations could deal with the decline in oil through Domestic Tradable Quotas, or DTQs. All adults would receive oil rations, divided up equally, that they buy or sell. For consumers who use more "petro-units" than others (cab drivers, manufacturers of plastic products, etc.) that costs get passed onto secondary consumers. I'm assuming the gasoline tax/rebate system would work the same way. You can still take a cab -- but it's going to be more expensive. We can still enhance our soil with fossil fuels, but eating is going to be more costly (especially eating energy intensive food such as meat). Prices are going to go up eventually anyway. It's a matter of whether those prices are market "regulated" (i.e., private industry gets to gouge us) or whether we collectively manage those price increases. And personally, I probably favor a gas tax that's a percentage, rather than a set price. If we ask for $5 a gallon, we'll probably get less than one cent (what Schwarzenegger is currently proposing). But if we work for a percentage, like 2 percent, going up annually to 15 percent or something, the amount that is collected will increase as the price of gasoline goes up. Sue -- "Jerry Path" <pjrry(a)igc.org> wrote: Hi Everyone, I'm okay with the presentation from someone from Bart, although the agenda seems kind of full to me. I once again probably will be having a conflict with work again. I will do my best to attend, but it may not work out - hopefully this will not go on for too long. April looks good. At any rate, I have a number of things to say about the gasoline tax - rebate proposal. These are things I want to bring up in this context because I don't think we have the time to discuss them given our agenda constraints. These are things I would like everyone to consider, especially Harold Strassner. I agree with the proposal in general and think initiating this discussion is urgent - and would want to endorse it on this basis. Many essential specifics are not addressed - and I understand that there is a process to working these out. In this spirit I have some comments, criticisms, suggestions etc. You can do with what you will, I just want to get them out there. Let me begin by saying that at first I reacted to the idea of a $5.00 tax on gasoline - diesel because I thought that this would just alienate the "average person" right off the bat and would not get anywhere. But I read it thru - thought it over and decided that the idea does have merit. However, the "average person" probably would just react - and not read it through and think it over. The powers that be are very good at seizing at some superficial aspect of an idea and using it against us. This prevents people from ever getting past the surface of an idea, and we are defeated before we begin. I think it would be better to put the emphasis on getting the concept across - that Oil corporations have externalized their costs and that we have to pay and get the idea of a tax - rebate across first. 2. Concerning the automobile driver - there are a number of drivers who don't fit into the household category - such as taxi drivers, salespeople and such. These I think would have to be dealt with differently, I don't have any ideas as to how. 3. Trucking, goods transport - Corporations have successfully externalized costs unto drivers so that drivers are in a very precarious economic situation, partly because of this drivers are a good buffer for them - drivers should be our allies but they would be extremely difficult to win over. 4. Airlines - all of transportation is in serious difficulty, I think, but airlines are the most fragile. However this problem needs to be faced eventually because airlines I'm sure are among the biggest consumers of oil. Perhaps air travel needs to be rationed, by increasing tax rates for increased travel with rebates to those with less or no travel. Public consciousness is no where near where it would have to be for this to have a chance - but material reality will not wait for this consciousness to catch up. Here again the solution needs to be a process - just is way beyond me to address. 5. Military, Government - I won't even get into this for now, but clearly they do need to get covered. 6. Farm Equipment. Being a farm boy, I have a special hatred for agribusiness. they are also at the core of the problem - pushing people off of the land, polluting and destroying it - and externalizing their costs. We need to convert to small, more local and sustainable, less energy consuming farming. And we to recover the land will require a lot of work - so the many so-called redundant workers are our potential allies here - but this is also long term. The above are some specifics, all of which would require some program of conversion away from high energy use. I see the tax - rebate proposal as being a step toward such a conversion. We are very far away from a conversion program - but it seems we need to begin to think in these terms. However even trying to think in these terms makes me feel a little crazy - because it seems so far from possibility, I have some other points, but perhaps this is enough for now. Best, Jerry Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0