- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

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

27 Feb '06

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

2 1

gas tax proposal, agenda
by Jerry Path 26 Feb '06

26 Feb '06

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.

1 0

Re: other items for the TWG on 2-28 -- parking garage at haight and st anya n
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

While I hear the objections people have to an underground parking garage, the Green Party transportation plank specifies that new parking should be below grade. We object to underground garages in parks. Sue -- Bruce Wolfe <Bruce(a)BruceWolfe.net> wrote: It is time to reactivate the D5Community listserv. I will do so. Bruce Ross Mirkarimi wrote: > It would be helpful if we can pull together a team of folks like yourselves > to help ascertain all current planning proposals and data so thatw e can > plot our next steps. > > Thanks, > Ross > > > > Bruce Wolfe > <Bruce@BruceWolfe > .net> To > John Rizzo <jrizzo(a)sprintmail.com> > 02/22/2006 10:32 cc > AM susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com, > transpo(a)sfgreens.org, > regina.dick-endrizzi(a)sfgov.org, > ross.mirkarimi(a)sfgov.org > Subject > Re: other items for the TWG on 2-28 > -- parking garage at haight and > stanya n > > > > > > > > > > > > Either way, there is an environmental issue here besides transit in that > the building is set to be demolished. My backyard is the back wall of the > building itself. Noise, debris, airborne particulates, etc., we are going > to be plagued by. > > We have been dealing with two solid years of non-stop street construction. > I am really getting sick of it and I mean to my personal health with > regards to noise and stress of how it affects the traffic patterns and > behavior (aka road rage) amongst drivers. > > I was thinking of activating the D5Community list on this matter so that we > can partner in the effort and make choices of what chain store we as a > community want there. We can thank Matt Gonzalez for the chain store > legislation for that with regards to Urban Outfitters. > > BTW, Cala is owned by the same owner as the Urban Outfitters location. > > Bruce > ===== > > > John Rizzo wrote: > > Just to clarify, the current Cala Foods has surface parking. A > parking > garage (with the Whole Foods proposal) would be new, as well as very > harmful. > > John > > > At our Sierra Club meeting tonight, Bruce Wolfe mentioned that > the Cala > on Haight at Stanyan is going to be demolished and replaced > with either > a Trader Joe's without a parking garage (but with surface > parking?) or > with a Whole Foods and an underground parking garage. I don't > know > > when > > this will be up before the Planning Commission, but we should > get the > details soon and get on this. > > Sue > > > > > > > >

2 1

other items for the TWG on 2-28 -- parking garage at haight and stanya n
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

At our Sierra Club meeting tonight, Bruce Wolfe mentioned that the Cala on Haight at Stanyan is going to be demolished and replaced with either a Trader Joe's without a parking garage (but with surface parking?) or with a Whole Foods and an underground parking garage. I don't know when this will be up before the Planning Commission, but we should get the details soon and get on this. Sue

1 0

[ben@yourcallradio.org: [Carfreeliving] Your Call on KALW]
by John-Marc Chandonia 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

FYI... this message was originally sent to Dave Snyder, and forwarded to the CarFree list. If anybody from TWG wants to listen or call in, go ahead. JMC ----- Forwarded message from Benjamin Temchine <ben(a)yourcallradio.org> ----- My name is Ben Temchine, and I am a producer with Your Call, a daily political affairs call-in program broadcast on KALW-FM public radio in San Francisco. (For more information, see our website, <http://www.yourcallradio.org/>www.yourcallradio.org.) The program airs live from 10-11 a.m. Pacific/1-2 p.m. Eastern Time. On Thursday, February 23rd our topic will be transit in the Bay Area, but more broadly, designing a just transit system. As you know, a suit was filed by some AC Transit bus riders against the Metropolitan Transportation Commission alleging racial bias in their funding. Deciding between bus, train and BART, with scarce resources, and much of the money not fungible between Rail, BART and bus makes for an interesting conversation. We were hoping you might be able to listen into the show, and call-in. The call-in number is 415.841.4134. We do not have enough space to bring you in as a guest but we want to make sure your organization's point of view is heard on the show. If you are available or have any questions, please call me at 415.516.5971 Benjamin Temchine Producer Your Call KALW 91.7 San Francisco 415-516-5971 <mailto:ben@yourcallradio.org>ben(a)yourcallradio.org Benjamin Temchine Producer Your Call KALW 91.7 San Francisco 415-516-5971 <mailto:ben@yourcallradio.org>ben(a)yourcallradio.org _______________________________________________ Carfreeliving(a)livablecity.org mailing list to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF To unsubscribe: mailto:Carfreeliving-request@livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe or, for all options, go to: http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] agenda for Tuesday, 2-22-06
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

We should probably talk about BRT on the Geary and Van Ness corridors also and begin to plan our course of action (probably just a letter to the SFCTA in support of it). Sue -- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 06:34:16AM +0000, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > 1) Howard Strassner's $5.00 a gallon gas tax with rebates of $600 > (monthly?) per household even to those who do not drive. Action > item; Let's spend about 10 minutes on this since we discussed it extensively before. > 2) Discuss legislation we would like to see get passed this year to > fulfill our transportation plank; Here's an outline of my proposal: a) California Vehicle Code 22500(e) makes it illegal to park in front of ANY driveway, public or private: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22500.htm b) In SF, this is not enforced except on the request of a tenant or owner of the building, who must be a car owner and wanting to get in or out: http://www.sfgov.org/site/dpt_index.asp?id=13444 Not only do they admit to not enforcing the law, they put fake tickets on their website that residents are supposed to print out and put on other peoples' cars; several of these are linked from the page above. The assumption by DPT is that any car blocking a driveway belongs to a resident, but if a non-resident blocks a driveway the enforcement process can take several hours and results in major inconvenience for the resident as well as a large amount of DPT employee time (the employee has to wait for the tow truck to arrive, often for over an hour). c) There are ~450,000 cars (including trucks, vans) registered in SF: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/stats/regveh.htm Assume there are on the order of 1-200,000 separate driveways; DPT probably has a better statistic, but this is probably not off by a large factor. d) Proposal: SF will sell a market-rate permit to block a specific driveway. The permits may only be sold to residents or owners of the property accessible by the driveway, but they may be transfered. The permit would look like a rear view mirror hanger with the address of the driveway to be blocked. It would need to be renewed every year. Average market rate in SF is at least $100/month; if 50,000 such permits were sold, this would raise ~$50 million in new revenue. Such revenue would be applied directly to MUNI, with the condition that fares and services be restored to (at worst) year 2000 levels. If $100 million in permits were sold, we could use the money to provide free MUNI service (as the overhead of fare collection and selling passes would also be eliminated). Since the permits are for a special privilege (not general use), they would be exempt from the price cap that normally applies to residential parking permits. The question is whether it would be legal to do this without changing state laws, 22500(e) and the supposed fare-box limit for public transit (but then, how do other cities, including Emeryville and Santa Barbara, legally provide free service?) e) At the same time, all enforcement actions that currently require a call-in from a resident (sidewalk parking, blocked driveway) would instead be enforced on sight. This would result in cleaner sidewalks, and a small increase in revenue (and a significantly greater savings in DPT employee time, as they would no longer have to wait next to the illegally parked car for a tow truck to arrive). f) The plan should be supported by drivers as it would result in an increase in the number of legal parking spaces (benefitting even drivers who wouldn't get the permits) and it would prevent strangers from blocking your driveway. Any driver who's had to wait more than an hour to get in or out of their garage (as is currently the case) should support the idea of enforcement of blocked driveways without having to call first. > 3) Greg Hayes wants to come and talk about the Bicycle Plan Update. > I'm waiting for a proposal from him. 15 minutes since we already promised him. I think we've spent far too much time on this relative to what we'll actually accomplish. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: item, location?: Feb. 28, not Feb. 22
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 20 Feb '06

20 Feb '06

Greg, I was wrong about the date -- it's Tuesday, Feb. 28, not Feb. 22. Sue -- "g. haze" <gaze5(a)yahoo.com> wrote: The currnet bpu is in many ways a lost cause. the bike plans are funded every five years by the state. so i'm more concerned about the future. I percieve the problem to be more one of communication beween these different entities, i think just the idea of green transportation committee, bac and sfbc board all having a joint meeting would be a huge step forward in improving speech and process. just to meet each other and talk about how to communicate and work together more effectively. the problem with the bpu is the the sfbc and dpt basically privatized it. dave was working through the green committee to try to fix becuase ironically enough he set up the situation sfbc/dpt in total control where he could be excluded from it. this is what i percieve to be the problem (not dave individually, dave is skilled and concerned advocate) but a bike plan where sfbc and dpt staff had all meaningful input and actually worked to exclude the input of other advocates. sure they took public comment but the funded work-plan was pre-established and it excluded very important issues that ultimately led to the current problems. like the law suit, etc. for me personally this was a huge problem becuase this is what i work on and I consequently i ended up having to personally fund and do what should have been publicly funded work. for the movement at large it was even more disasterious because now all these huge issues are still unaddressed. this is also very ironic becuase the sfbc's goal the bike network is inextricably linked to these other areas of study figuring out ceqa/los etc. any rational legilsative body could have been convinced of this, but back to the problem there was no rational legislative body just dpt/sfbc staff doing only what they wanted, without realistically even the oversight of their own board. I started law school recently so i'm pretty much done with this in a way, but I would like to help the bodies that are there work together and avoid this in this future becuase it was totally unecessary and everyone lost. I think ultimately it was really a matter of communication, the sfbc board have no idea their staff are causing such problems, and the staff themselves don't even really percieve it. but no on eis benefiitting so the probolem needs to be fixed. i think this can be accomplished without saying sfbc/dpt staff bad, bad staff, by imporving speech and communication. sorry this is long but it like many of the other problems are complex issues that you have to work through or they will just keep being a problem, once again why there should be a more public process. as a final irony and another interesting aspect of this the problem of lack of legislative oversight, etc. is mirrored in the problems of street design at large. crazy huh? thanks, Greg --- "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> wrote: > Yes, we got the item, but I have to admit, we've > already been through this exercise, critiquing the > BPU. In fact, we've sent 11 letters, one to each > member of the Board of Supervisors, explaining the > overall weaknesses of the BPU, and specific problems > with it in their particular districts. So I don't > know why we are doing this again. > > Time: 7 p.m. > Date: Tuesday, February 22 > Place: 1028a Howard Street, between 6th and 7th -- > you can bring your bike inside. > > You'll have about 15 minutes. > > Sue > > -- "g. haze" <gaze5(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > you got he item? ok? > > what is the time and location? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [Transpo] agenda for Tuesday, 2-28-06
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 20 Feb '06

20 Feb '06

I had the wrong date. It's February 28. I'll e-mail Greg and let him know. JMC can you post your stuff on the website? Sue -- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 06:34:16AM +0000, susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > 1) Howard Strassner's $5.00 a gallon gas tax with rebates of $600 > (monthly?) per household even to those who do not drive. Action > item; Let's spend about 10 minutes on this since we discussed it extensively before. > 2) Discuss legislation we would like to see get passed this year to > fulfill our transportation plank; Here's an outline of my proposal: a) California Vehicle Code 22500(e) makes it illegal to park in front of ANY driveway, public or private: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22500.htm b) In SF, this is not enforced except on the request of a tenant or owner of the building, who must be a car owner and wanting to get in or out: http://www.sfgov.org/site/dpt_index.asp?id=13444 Not only do they admit to not enforcing the law, they put fake tickets on their website that residents are supposed to print out and put on other peoples' cars; several of these are linked from the page above. The assumption by DPT is that any car blocking a driveway belongs to a resident, but if a non-resident blocks a driveway the enforcement process can take several hours and results in major inconvenience for the resident as well as a large amount of DPT employee time (the employee has to wait for the tow truck to arrive, often for over an hour). c) There are ~450,000 cars (including trucks, vans) registered in SF: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/stats/regveh.htm Assume there are on the order of 1-200,000 separate driveways; DPT probably has a better statistic, but this is probably not off by a large factor. d) Proposal: SF will sell a market-rate permit to block a specific driveway. The permits may only be sold to residents or owners of the property accessible by the driveway, but they may be transfered. The permit would look like a rear view mirror hanger with the address of the driveway to be blocked. It would need to be renewed every year. Average market rate in SF is at least $100/month; if 50,000 such permits were sold, this would raise ~$50 million in new revenue. Such revenue would be applied directly to MUNI, with the condition that fares and services be restored to (at worst) year 2000 levels. If $100 million in permits were sold, we could use the money to provide free MUNI service (as the overhead of fare collection and selling passes would also be eliminated). Since the permits are for a special privilege (not general use), they would be exempt from the price cap that normally applies to residential parking permits. The question is whether it would be legal to do this without changing state laws, 22500(e) and the supposed fare-box limit for public transit (but then, how do other cities, including Emeryville and Santa Barbara, legally provide free service?) e) At the same time, all enforcement actions that currently require a call-in from a resident (sidewalk parking, blocked driveway) would instead be enforced on sight. This would result in cleaner sidewalks, and a small increase in revenue (and a significantly greater savings in DPT employee time, as they would no longer have to wait next to the illegally parked car for a tow truck to arrive). f) The plan should be supported by drivers as it would result in an increase in the number of legal parking spaces (benefitting even drivers who wouldn't get the permits) and it would prevent strangers from blocking your driveway. Any driver who's had to wait more than an hour to get in or out of their garage (as is currently the case) should support the idea of enforcement of blocked driveways without having to call first. > 3) Greg Hayes wants to come and talk about the Bicycle Plan Update. > I'm waiting for a proposal from him. 15 minutes since we already promised him. I think we've spent far too much time on this relative to what we'll actually accomplish. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

agenda for Tuesday, 2-22-06
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 20 Feb '06

20 Feb '06

Ok what should we have on the agenda? I have this so far: 1) Howard Strassner's $5.00 a gallon gas tax with rebates of $600 (monthly?) per household even to those who do not drive. Action item; 2) Discuss legislation we would like to see get passed this year to fulfill our transportation plank; 3) Greg Hayes wants to come and talk about the Bicycle Plan Update. I'm waiting for a proposal from him. Anything else? Sue

2 1

Re: item, location?
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 19 Feb '06

19 Feb '06

Yes, we got the item, but I have to admit, we've already been through this exercise, critiquing the BPU. In fact, we've sent 11 letters, one to each member of the Board of Supervisors, explaining the overall weaknesses of the BPU, and specific problems with it in their particular districts. So I don't know why we are doing this again. Time: 7 p.m. Date: Tuesday, February 22 Place: 1028a Howard Street, between 6th and 7th -- you can bring your bike inside. You'll have about 15 minutes. Sue -- "g. haze" <gaze5(a)yahoo.com> wrote: you got he item? ok? what is the time and location? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0