- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

September 20 and Richard Heinberg
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 10 Jul '05

10 Jul '05

The owner of the Bazaar Cafe (on California between 21st and 22nd avenues) has said I can have an event with Richard Heinberg on September 20, as we have already discussed. Richard is free that night, but unfortunately, he is now charging $250 per appearance. I want to go ahead and do this event outside of the Green Party. It's only $250, so I don't mind paying Richard to make an appearance and then asking for donations at the cafe to cover his appearance (I'm also asking other organizations to help sponsor his appearance -- the SFBC, TLC, Walk SF, the Sierra Club. One no, the rest no answers yet). The cafe owner has done this kind of thing before. Whatever money I would bring in beyond $250 could be donated to the charity of choice (the owner has had patrons vote on organizations of his choice before, including the SF Green Party -- which did not win). Christine and I ran into each other at an orientation for people who are thinking of doing television programs on public access TV (Channel 29). I've asked the owner if I could tape for broadcasting and I've asked Richard -- they are both cool with that. Let me know if you want to help out with this. Sue

1 0

new member
by John-Marc Chandonia 08 Jul '05

08 Jul '05

I've added Kathy Roberts to the list; you can email us at transpo(a)sfgreens.org, and should be able to catch up on old postings by following the link at the end of this message. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

RE: [Transpo] Re: [SFGP CC] seeking Green Party endorsement
by funking＠mindspring.com 08 Jul '05

08 Jul '05

Hi, this campaign is a group of folks lobbying the Board of Supes to NOT support option 2A, which is what they will do unless we organize and act quickly. I was thinking that this is like the coalition for transit justice that needed a full GM vote to support. answers to your questions: The Gate option was shut down, so to speak, by environmentalists who thought they were ugly, plus the institutions did not like them either. The bollards can be raised and lowered by a transponder on the buses (the 44 line is the only one affected) and do not need to be monitored for operation. Ross proposal for NO concourse traffic (was option 3- voted down by the Concourse Authority and Rec and Park Commission) is in committee and is unlikey to make it to the full board. If it does, there are not the votes to pass it. The stop gap to keep 2A (that has no real enforcement to keep cars out) from being adopted is the proposal a group of us are promoting. We need as many folks behind this as possible, which is why we seek Green Party endorsement. I think the process for this is: The TWG can endorse this and recommend the GM endorse, oppose this and recommend the same to the GM, or take no position and let the GM decide. Of course, I am hoping that we sign on to the coalition effort, since it will make the coaltions approach stronger. We are meeting with Ross to get his support of this as well. peace, susan On Thu, Jul 7, 2005 at 2:46 PM, Dave Snyder wrote: > The bollards are much more attractive than a gate, and time-tested > > technology throughout the world. > > > > > > At 11:11 AM -0700 7/7/05, John-Marc Chandonia wrote: > > >Clarifying questions: > > > > > >1) What happened to the gate option? This would presumably be cheaper > > >and more well-tested than bollards? (The gate would work the same > > >way, opening individually for any car/bus that comes up to it) > > > > > >2) How is this different from Ross' proposal that the TWG has already > > >endorsed? > > > > > >3) Why do the presenters of this proposal need a SFGP endorsement > > >instead of just a TWG endorsement? It seems like if there's no ballot > > >measure or other such major campaign, we shouldn't waste GM time. > > >If we want to lobby people to write letters or show up at a hearing > > >to support the measure, we can just make an announcement. > > > > > >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 > > > > > > -- > > Dave Snyder > > _______________________________________________ > > Transpo mailing list > > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo >

2 1

Re: [Transpo] seeking Green Party endorsement
by Katherine Roberts 08 Jul '05

08 Jul '05

=v= The following points are from Katherine Roberts, who doesn't have a computer. They're not her exact words; they're what I was able to scribble down over the phone. (1) The Green Party shouldn't endorse any plan that allows access by cars at all. She urges the TWG to give any car-access plan a resounding thumbs down. (2) Car access is incompatible with the concept of the pedestrian oasis. (3) If people are going to drive into the concourse, what is the garage for? (4) Who is going to operate these bollards, assure that they are raised when they're supposed to be, administer the system that lowers them only when they're supposed to be, and ticket violators? Enforcement would be yet another public expense. <_Jym_>

1 0

seeking Green Party endorsement
by Susan King 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Hi Transpo working group and Green Party County Council, I am on an ad hoc coalition working on the issue of the Golden Gate Park concourse area and the proposed circulation plan for drivers going into GG Park to visit the museums. This group is mobilizing to urge the Board of Supervisors (who have the final say on the circulation plans in the concourse) to approve a plan that will minimize auto travel through the concourse. We are seeking an endorsement from the SF Green Party for the proposal below. Ideally, the Transportation Working Group will vote online to forward this to the GM in July. We cannot wait until the next Transpo WG since the Board of Supervisors will be taking this vote up within the next month and we need to move rather quickly with this. We would like the Transportation Working group to have a chance to weigh in on this since it relates to Transportation and the working group has existing policy on Golden Gate Park issues. If you cannot do this online, then I ask the CC to please add it to the agenda for consideration this July. The proposal should be added to the GM for final approval (just as we did with the Coalition for Transit Justice). BACKGROUND: The original intent of Proposition J, (the Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act) passed by the voters in 1998, was to create a pedestrian oasis by removing autos from the surface of the concourse (the large plaza that the museums and the bandshell surround) by building an underground parking garage. Now that the garage is almost built, the garage backers (primarily the institutions and their well heeled supporters) want to allow auto traffic in the concourse. The plan being promoted by the garage proponents, the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority and others is a so called Option 2A compromise that provides some minimal discouragement to auto drivers to not use the concourse to cut through the park, but does nothing to actually prevent drivers from driving through what was supposed to be a pedestrian oasis. The SF Bicycle Coalition, Walk SF, the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, and other enviro/transpo groups are mobilizing in support of the proposal below. DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION July 6, 2005 The following groups {Who to include?: SFBC, Walk SF, SF Green Party, SF Sierra Club, others?} request that the SF Board of Supervisors modify the Concourse Authority¹s preferred option for design for Surface Vehicular Circulation in the Music Concourse area of Golden Gate Park, called Option 2A. The Concourse Authority¹s recommended design is not consistent with Proposition J¹s (Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act of 1998) mandate to: (1) Create a pedestrian oasis in the Music Concourse Area of Golden Gate Park; and (2) Take steps to reduce the impact of automobiles in the Park. Our organizations recommend a modified version of Option 2A, referred to here as Option 2B, in order to more fully meet the mandates of Proposition J. Option 2B includes all of the components of Option 2A in addition to several modifications (outlined below), which would more effectively restrict non-transit and non-emergency thru-traffic in the Concourse Area, as supported by the Concourse Authority (per 6/10/05 Concourse Authority meeting and resolution). Following are the recommended modifications for Option 2B: 1) Add bollards at the north entrance to the Music Concourse Area, which would be activated (raised) all hours and allow automatic access only to Muni busses and emergency vehicles, and would restrict general thru-traffic. 2) Add bollards at the south entrance to the Music Concourse Area, which would be activated (raised) only during the museums¹ non-operating hours (estimated before 9:30am and after 5:30pm and on days the museums are closed). This will allow for passenger drop-off access during the museums operating hours, as well as access for Muni busses and emergency vehicles at all hours. Attached: Research findings on general use, effectiveness and cost of bollards. (To come) Recap of the options considered: Option 1: Allow full auto access to the concourse (this is the option favored by the institutions) Option 2: Make the concourse accessible for drop off only via Marting Luther King Drive at the southern entrance as a one way loop (no way to drive through the park to the other side using the concourse). Option 3: No through traffic. This option was voted down, although it was the one favored by park advocates. Option 2A was created as a hybrid to forbid traffic with signs ("No through traffic") while allowing cars carrying passengers to drop off at the museums to do so. Autos may access the concourse from either the north or south and exit in the opposite side. SUMMARY: The problem with 2A is that there are no physical barriers to prevent anyone driving in the park from using the concourse to get to the other side of the park rather than going up to Stanyan or down to 19th Ave. The backers of this claim that the signs will deter most drivers, and that the prospect of slow moving traffic will be a deterrent to driving through. Park advocates are not so confident that drivers will be courteous enough to go around, especially when the museums are not open and there are no cars dropping off passengers. For these reasons, we are promoting an alternate to the alternate proposal, with physical barriers in place to prevent drivers from cutting through the concourse.

4 4

Re: [Transpo] meeting tomorrow
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

We sent letters to all the supervisors in favor of Ross's legislation. It is legislation, right? Sue On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Stephen Willis <savegoldengatepark(a)yahoo.com> writes: Sue, Ross' resolution for the commuter-free Pedestrian Oasis/Music Concourse is scheduled for a committee hearing in three weeks, apparently. I haven't heard anything from the TWG regarding a letters of support to lobby the full board on this issue. I'll work up a fact sheet on the issue and forward it for your use in drafting a letter to the Board, and the Mayor, in support of Ross' resolution. I won't be able to attend, but at least you'll have some facts to work with if there is support for doing this letter tomorrow. Steve Willis Save Golden Gate Park! susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: I have invited two people to come to the Transp. meeting about some issue that I no longer recall. I forwarded my invite to the TWG listserv -- does anyone remember what the issue was and who the people were? Unless, I've been in a deep sleepy dream (which is entirely possible) at least one of this people RSVPed positively. Sue On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:55:46 -0700 John-Marc Chandonia writes: > Reminder: tomorrow is the 4th Tuesday, so we have a Transpo meeting > at 7. Please forward agenda items to this list. I can think of: > 1) Any update to our movie showing plans? > 2) What recommendation should we make to the party regarding > endorsment of the transpo-related initiatives? (Have the MTA- > related ones qualified or will they qualify for the ballot?) > We may not be ready to make a decision without final text > of the bills, but we can at least discuss them. > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

2 1

new members subscribed
by John-Marc Chandonia 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

Welcome, Kathi and Eric. You can edit your message delivery options by following the link at the bottom of the message. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

2 1

050929 Charter amendment making the MTA accountable to the mayor and the baord of supervisors
by susan vaughan 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

Dear Supervisors, The Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party supports the the charter amendment (050929) introduced by Supervisor Sandoval. Sincerely, Sue Vaughan Co-chair of the Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

050818 Charter amendment dividing appointments to the MTA Board of Directors between the supervisors and the mayor
by susan vaughan 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

Dear Supervisors, The Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party, on behalf of the San Francisco Green Party, supports the charter amendment introduced by Supervisor Ammiano, distributing the power of appointment to the Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors between the mayor and the board of supervisors. We also support the other provisions of the amendment. Sincerely, Sue Vaughan Co-chair of the Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

1 0

Re: [Transpo] meeting tomorrow -- venues for TEofS
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

Pat Haughey -- a student at USF, said he would look into a space at USF for us. Krissy Keefer -- interested in doing an event on climate change and peak oil at her space, Dance Mission, at 24th and Mission streets. The Bazaar Cafe -- in the Richmond District, the owner says he's willing to let us use the space for an event in which we can fundraise. He does not have the equipment for a screening of The End of Suburbia but he says we can just bring a TV over and use someone else's DVD player. I know someone who teaches at the Urban School on Page Street in D5. This guy says that the auditorium is not available for the summer but that we might be able to use it once school starts again in the fall. Sue On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:55:46 -0700 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > Reminder: tomorrow is the 4th Tuesday, so we have a Transpo meeting > at 7. Please forward agenda items to this list. I can think of: > 1) Any update to our movie showing plans? > 2) What recommendation should we make to the party regarding > endorsment of the transpo-related initiatives? (Have the MTA- > related ones qualified or will they qualify for the ballot?) > We may not be ready to make a decision without final text > of the bills, but we can at least discuss them. > > 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 > >

2 1