- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

SF needs a block your own driveway permit program
by Jeremy Nelson 03 Jun '05

03 Jun '05

Jim Dyer wrote: Sell permits to park on the street in front of your own driveway. John-Marc Chadonia wrote: This would not add more car parking, because the cops already permit this, and it would be politically impossible to get the law enforced. This is basically a funding proposal, because state law limits the amount cities can charge for street parking. However, selling a special permit would get around that problem, allowing the city to charge market rate. It's also politically feasible, since people would be willing to pay for guaranteed parking (assuming they have 1 driveway and 1 car). Jeremy Nelson writes: Transportation for a Livable City has been advocating for DPT to pursue a "Block Your Own Driveway Permit" for about a year. It not only adds new revenue (charging for something we are currently giving away for free), but also does add some additional stet parking (because many people don't know they can block their own driveway because they think they'll get a ticket for this). This also eases and improves enforcement of parking violations, leading to increased citation revenue. Currently no one gets a ticket for a blocked driveway unless someone calls it in (in no one has complained, DPT's parking control officers (PCOs) assume that the car and the driveway belong to the same person). But by selling permits, you allow the DPT to shift from their current "cite/tow on complaint" enforcement model to a "cite/tow on sight" enforcement model (anyone blocking a driveway without a permit is not a resident and can be cited) which is more efficient and cost-effective enforcement model. Also, it's better customer service: if I'm a resident on my way to work or an appointment, and I come out of my home to find someone else blocking my driveway, I have to call in to complain, wait for the PCO to come and verify that this is my garage (they make you open the garage door), then wait for the PCO to call a tow truck. Depending on the time of day, this can take quite awhile. Much better to know that DPT has a system in place to keep driveways clear of cars that don't belong there but allow cars to park there that have a permit. Also, block your own driveway permits in Hermosa Beach are placards that are transferable to contractors and visitors, so in effect it creates a guaranteed "guest" parking spot, in exchange for a fee. The kicker is that state law forbids the City's current practice of allowing (or at least ignoring) people to block driveways willy nilly. The only way you can allow parking in a driveway under state law is to set up a Block Your Own Driveway Permit program, which is already specifically allowed in the law. In fact the City of Hermosa Beach already has such a program for residential areas near the beach that experience high parking demand. See below for more info. ======================================= Block-Your-Own-Driveway (BYOD) Street Parking Permit Program Transportation for a Livable City (www.livablecity.org) - BYOD permits are legal (but blocking a driveway without a permit is illegal). The enabling statute is California Vehicle Code, Section 22507.2: "Notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Section 22500 [Prohibited Stopping, Standing, or Parking], a local authority may, by ordinance, authorize the owner or lessee of property to park a vehicle in front of the owner's or lessee's private driveway when the vehicle displays a permit issued pursuant to the ordinance authorizing such parking. The local authority may charge a nonrefundable fee to defray the costs of issuing and administering the permits. A local ordinance adopted pursuant to this section may not authorize parking on a sidewalk in violation of subdivision (f) of Section 22500. (Amended Ch. 45, Stats. 1985. Effective January 1, 1986.) - Hermosa Beach's BYOD ordinance. Municipal Code Section 10.32.80, Permit Parking - Private Driveway: Parking in front of a private driveway shall be allowed only when a vehicle has prominently displayed on the front dashboard a valid parking permit which includes the address of the owner or a lessee of the private property, at which the vehicle is to be parked. Permits are valid only at the address contained upon the permit, and is effective while the holder owns or leases the property for which the permit is issued. Permits may be revoked without notice or hearing if it is determined that parking authorized by the permit creates traffic safely or other public health and safety problems. Vehicles creating a traffic hazard may be towed pursuant to Section 10.12.150(B). Permit does not authorize parking on a sidewalk in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22500(f). - The permits are a placard that is hung on vehicles' rearview mirror. - BYOD permits are driveway-specific but transferable among vehicles. The permits are only valid for the driveway associated with the address on the permit, but are transferable among owners', visitors', and/or contractors' vehicles. - Limit of 1 BYOD permit per household/driveway. - Approximately 500 BYOD permits have been sold citywide as of 2003. - Applicants submit: * Permit application (attached) * Proof of residency/ownership/business license at permit address - City verifies: * No outstanding paring violations for vehicle * Driveway is to a legal dwelling unit or commercial use * Parking in driveway will not cause a traffic or safety hazard * Additional details about Hermosa Beach's BYOD permit program. * Length of the vehicle(s) using the permit cannot extend beyond the width of the driveway at any point, measured as the length between the 'curb slopes' at street level. - Permit holder must follow all other street parking restrictions (i.e., street cleaning) and cannot block driveways for multiple space garages or driveways that front on narrow alleys.

1 0

SF needs a block your own driveway permit program
by Jeremy Nelson 03 Jun '05

03 Jun '05

Jim Dyer wrote: Sell permits to park on the street in front of your own driveway. John-Marc Chadonia wrote: This would not add more car parking, because the cops already permit this, and it would be politically impossible to get the law enforced. This is basically a funding proposal, because state law limits the amount cities can charge for street parking. However, selling a special permit would get around that problem, allowing the city to charge market rate. It's also politically feasible, since people would be willing to pay for guaranteed parking (assuming they have 1 driveway and 1 car). Jeremy Nelson writes: Transportation for a Livable City has been advocating for DPT to pursue a "Block Your Own Driveway Permit" for about a year. It not only adds new revenue (charging for something we are currently giving away for free), but also does add some additional stet parking (because many people don't know they can block their own driveway because they think they'll get a ticket for this). This also eases and improves enforcement of parking violations, leading to increased citation revenue. Currently no one gets a ticket for a blocked driveway unless someone calls it in (in no one has complained, DPT's parking control officers (PCOs) assume that the car and the driveway belong to the same person). But by selling permits, you allow the DPT to shift from their current "cite/tow on complaint" enforcement model to a "cite/tow on sight" enforcement model (anyone blocking a driveway without a permit is not a resident and can be cited) which is more efficient and cost-effective enforcement model. Also, it's better customer service: if I'm a resident on my way to work or an appointment, and I come out of my home to find someone else blocking my driveway, I have to call in to complain, wait for the PCO to come and verify that this is my garage (they make you open the garage door), then wait for the PCO to call a tow truck. Depending on the time of day, this can take quite awhile. Much better to know that DPT has a system in place to keep driveways clear of cars that don't belong there but allow cars to park there that have a permit. Also, block your own driveway permits in Hermosa Beach are placards that are transferable to contractors and visitors, so in effect it creates a guaranteed "guest" parking spot, in exchange for a fee. The kicker is that state law forbids the City's current practice of allowing (or at least ignoring) people to block driveways willy nilly. The only way you can allow parking in a driveway under state law is to set up a Block Your Own Driveway Permit program, which is already specifically allowed in the law. In fact the City of Hermosa Beach already has such a program for residential areas near the beach that experience high parking demand. See below for more info. ======================================= Block-Your-Own-Driveway (BYOD) Street Parking Permit Program Transportation for a Livable City (www.livablecity.org) - BYOD permits are legal (but blocking a driveway without a permit is illegal). The enabling statute is California Vehicle Code, Section 22507.2: "Notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Section 22500 [Prohibited Stopping, Standing, or Parking], a local authority may, by ordinance, authorize the owner or lessee of property to park a vehicle in front of the owner's or lessee's private driveway when the vehicle displays a permit issued pursuant to the ordinance authorizing such parking. The local authority may charge a nonrefundable fee to defray the costs of issuing and administering the permits. A local ordinance adopted pursuant to this section may not authorize parking on a sidewalk in violation of subdivision (f) of Section 22500. (Amended Ch. 45, Stats. 1985. Effective January 1, 1986.) - Hermosa Beach's BYOD ordinance. Municipal Code Section 10.32.80, Permit Parking - Private Driveway: Parking in front of a private driveway shall be allowed only when a vehicle has prominently displayed on the front dashboard a valid parking permit which includes the address of the owner or a lessee of the private property, at which the vehicle is to be parked. Permits are valid only at the address contained upon the permit, and is effective while the holder owns or leases the property for which the permit is issued. Permits may be revoked without notice or hearing if it is determined that parking authorized by the permit creates traffic safely or other public health and safety problems. Vehicles creating a traffic hazard may be towed pursuant to Section 10.12.150(B). Permit does not authorize parking on a sidewalk in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22500(f). - The permits are a placard that is hung on vehicles' rearview mirror. - BYOD permits are driveway-specific but transferable among vehicles. The permits are only valid for the driveway associated with the address on the permit, but are transferable among owners', visitors', and/or contractors' vehicles. - Limit of 1 BYOD permit per household/driveway. - Approximately 500 BYOD permits have been sold citywide as of 2003. - Applicants submit: * Permit application (attached) * Proof of residency/ownership/business license at permit address - City verifies: * No outstanding paring violations for vehicle * Driveway is to a legal dwelling unit or commercial use * Parking in driveway will not cause a traffic or safety hazard * Additional details about Hermosa Beach's BYOD permit program. * Length of the vehicle(s) using the permit cannot extend beyond the width of the driveway at any point, measured as the length between the 'curb slopes' at street level. - Permit holder must follow all other street parking restrictions (i.e., street cleaning) and cannot block driveways for multiple space garages or driveways that front on narrow alleys.

1 0

(no subject)
by ed 01 Jun '05

01 Jun '05

>Does it take more of the road? Both essentially take 1 dedicated >lane. I also view BRT as a step towards LRT on heavily used lines >(e.g., 14, 38). We say this in the platform, in the following point. >The rationale for going this way is that it's easier to make a >dedicated lane first (a political hurdle), then later convert it to >rail (a financial hurdle). Well according to the schematics drawn up by those working on the Geary BRT proposal, BRT would use the same anount of the road as LRT. So yes the dedicated lane would be the same width for both, and would be relatively easy to convert for LRT use in the future. Ed

1 0

Re: [Transpo] transpo policy paper
by John-Marc Chandonia 01 Jun '05

01 Jun '05

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 08:13:09AM -0700, Jym Dyer wrote: > =v= I'm not a fan of BRT, since it means more energy use, more > pollution, and takes more of the road than LRT. It has lower > initial cost than LRT, which makes it more politically feasible > in an era of diminished expectations, but maintenance (and > environmental impact) ends up costing more in the long term. > I think BRT is at best a step towards LRT. Does it take more of the road? Both essentially take 1 dedicated lane. I also view BRT as a step towards LRT on heavily used lines (e.g., 14, 38). We say this in the platform, in the following point. The rationale for going this way is that it's easier to make a dedicated lane first (a political hurdle), then later convert it to rail (a financial hurdle). > =v= Existing LRT that supposedly has the right of way on surface > streets is routinely blocked by car traffic. This should be > fixed, ideally by infrastructure where possible, otherwise by > some actual enforcement of the law (yeah, crazy idea, I know). That's also in our platform. I didn't put it in the policy paper because we want to focus on larger changes and law enforcement is obvious and minor. > | Sell permits to park on the street in front of your own > | driveway. This would not add more car parking, because the cops already permit this, and it would be politically impossible to get the law enforced. This is basically a funding proposal, because state law limits the amount cities can charge for street parking. However, selling a special permit would get around that problem, allowing the city to charge market rate. It's also politically feasible, since people would be willing to pay for guaranteed parking (assuming they have 1 driveway and 1 car). JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] transpo policy paper
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 01 Jun '05

01 Jun '05

Actually, I agree with Steve. While our plank does say that any new parking should be build underground, I would prefer not to highlight that. I would probably also want to emphasize bikes before parking -- I would reverse the order of categories. Parking would come last. Sue On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Stephen Willis <savegoldengatepark(a)yahoo.com> writes: > John-Marc, > > It seems that conversion of existing garages would be better > addressed on a case by case basis, rather than as a blanket > endorsement of conversion. For example, I imagine that few > businesses at 4th Street and Mission would welcome the conversion of > that City Garage. > > Whereas a garage that sits empty generating losses for the City in > the heart of Golden Gate Park may beg for conversion in just a few > short years. > > I thought that the TWG had already agreed to discourage and oppose > parking garages in general due to their impact on global warming, > and mass transit scheduling/congestion in our main traffic corridors > and enticement/subsidy to drive. There is nothing progressive about > a pollution filled underground garage either. > > Please, can we omit any reference to preferences for underground > garages? Conformance with the City's Transit First Policy, the > General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are > greater considerations in determining support/opposition for a > proposed garage, far more so than whether it is above or below > ground. > > Steve Willis > > . > > " Increase the tax on parking lots, and encourage conversion of > above-ground parking garages and lots to housing. Any new parking > should be built underground. > > > John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: > Please send comments; we need a final draft by the middle of this > week. I've attached a formatted RTF as well as pasting the text > below. > > Transit Policy Summary > The SF Green Party promotes social, economic, and environmental > justice through the expansion of inexpensive and appealing public > transit service, improved pedestrian areas, and safer bicycling, > especially in underserved and low-income neighborhoods of San > Francisco. This is a summary of major points from the Transportation > plank of our local platform, adopted in 2004. The full version is at > http://sfgreens.org/transpo.pdf. > > Transit (really) first! > " Immediately roll adult Muni fares back to 2003 levels, and make > Muni free to youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Continue > to roll fares back towards zero as new funding sources become > available. Public transit benefits non-riders also, and should be > free to the public just as public parks, libraries, and schools > are. > " Create a citywide Bus Rapid Transit network with dedicated bus > lanes, controlled traffic signals, and timed transfers, to ensure > rapid and convenient service. > " Pay for these improvements by raising parking costs to market > rate, charging developers for transit costs at the time of new > development, and taxes on large businesses, especially those that > benefit most from transit, such as the SF Giants. > " Increase meter rates to a price that opens up several free spaces > per block. Ease of finding parking would offset the pain of higher > prices for drivers, and encourage them to shop at local businesses > rather than driving to a suburban mall. This would raise money for > transit both directly and indirectly (more sales tax revenue). > > Housing, not Parking > " Legalize existing "in-law" units and conversion of garages to > living quarters. > " Eliminate parking requirements for new housing, and institute > maximum parking limits for new development, with lower caps in areas > well served by transit. > " Increase the tax on parking lots, and encourage conversion of > above-ground parking garages and lots to housing. Any new parking > should be built underground. > " Sell permits to park on the street in front of your own driveway. > Ticket other blocked driveways and sidewalk parkers without > requiring a citizen complaint. > > Bikes, Pedestrians, and Taxis > " Cut government bureaucracy that slows the creation of new bike > lanes. > " Create transit-only streets, allowing bikes, buses, taxis, > paratransit, and delivery. > " Increase traffic-calming measures such as pedestrian bulbouts, > trees, and wider sidewalks. Pleasant streets encourage people to > walk to local businesses. > > 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 > > > > "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - > Goethe > > > --------------------------------- > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site! > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

2 1

Re: [Transpo] transpo policy paper
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 01 Jun '05

01 Jun '05

This looks fine. I've printed it out and will make copies for Thursday if everyone agrees. Sue On Sun, 29 May 2005 12:24:27 -0700 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > Please send comments; we need a final draft by the middle of this > week. I've attached a formatted RTF as well as pasting the text > below. > > Transit Policy Summary > The SF Green Party promotes social, economic, and environmental > justice through the expansion of inexpensive and appealing public > transit service, improved pedestrian areas, and safer bicycling, > especially in underserved and low-income neighborhoods of San > Francisco. This is a summary of major points from the > Transportation plank of our local platform, adopted in 2004. The > full version is at http://sfgreens.org/transpo.pdf. > > Transit (really) first! > " Immediately roll adult Muni fares back to 2003 levels, and > make Muni free to youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities. > Continue to roll fares back towards zero as new funding sources > become available. Public transit benefits non-riders also, and > should be free to the public just as public parks, libraries, and > schools are. > " Create a citywide Bus Rapid Transit network with dedicated > bus lanes, controlled traffic signals, and timed transfers, to > ensure rapid and convenient service. > " Pay for these improvements by raising parking costs to > market rate, charging developers for transit costs at the time of > new development, and taxes on large businesses, especially those > that benefit most from transit, such as the SF Giants. > " Increase meter rates to a price that opens up several free > spaces per block. Ease of finding parking would offset the pain of > higher prices for drivers, and encourage them to shop at local > businesses rather than driving to a suburban mall. This would raise > money for transit both directly and indirectly (more sales tax > revenue). > > Housing, not Parking > " Legalize existing "in-law" units and conversion of garages > to living quarters. > te parking requirements for new housing, and institute maximum > parking limits for new development, with lower caps in areas well > served by transit. > " Increase the tax on parking lots, and encourage conversion > of above-ground parking garages and lots to housing. Any new > parking should be built underground. > " Sell permits to park on the street in front of your own > driveway. Ticket other blocked driveways and sidewalk parkers > without requiring a citizen complaint. > > Bikes, Pedestrians, and Taxis > " Cut government bureaucracy that slows the creation of new > bike lanes. > " Create transit-only streets, allowing bikes, buses, taxis, > paratransit, and delivery. > " Increase traffic-calming measures such as pedestrian > bulbouts, trees, and wider sidewalks. Pleasant streets encourage > people to walk to local businesses. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) > http://sfgreens.org/ >

1 0

transpo policy paper
by John-Marc Chandonia 30 May '05

30 May '05

Please send comments; we need a final draft by the middle of this week. I've attached a formatted RTF as well as pasting the text below. Transit Policy Summary The SF Green Party promotes social, economic, and environmental justice through the expansion of inexpensive and appealing public transit service, improved pedestrian areas, and safer bicycling, especially in underserved and low-income neighborhoods of San Francisco. This is a summary of major points from the Transportation plank of our local platform, adopted in 2004. The full version is at http://sfgreens.org/transpo.pdf. Transit (really) first! " Immediately roll adult Muni fares back to 2003 levels, and make Muni free to youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Continue to roll fares back towards zero as new funding sources become available. Public transit benefits non-riders also, and should be free to the public just as public parks, libraries, and schools are. " Create a citywide Bus Rapid Transit network with dedicated bus lanes, controlled traffic signals, and timed transfers, to ensure rapid and convenient service. " Pay for these improvements by raising parking costs to market rate, charging developers for transit costs at the time of new development, and taxes on large businesses, especially those that benefit most from transit, such as the SF Giants. " Increase meter rates to a price that opens up several free spaces per block. Ease of finding parking would offset the pain of higher prices for drivers, and encourage them to shop at local businesses rather than driving to a suburban mall. This would raise money for transit both directly and indirectly (more sales tax revenue). Housing, not Parking " Legalize existing "in-law" units and conversion of garages to living quarters. " Eliminate parking requirements for new housing, and institute maximum parking limits for new development, with lower caps in areas well served by transit. " Increase the tax on parking lots, and encourage conversion of above-ground parking garages and lots to housing. Any new parking should be built underground. " Sell permits to park on the street in front of your own driveway. Ticket other blocked driveways and sidewalk parkers without requiring a citizen complaint. Bikes, Pedestrians, and Taxis " Cut government bureaucracy that slows the creation of new bike lanes. " Create transit-only streets, allowing bikes, buses, taxis, paratransit, and delivery. " Increase traffic-calming measures such as pedestrian bulbouts, trees, and wider sidewalks. Pleasant streets encourage people to walk to local businesses. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

2 2

Fwd: Re: curbside parking
by susan vaughan 26 May '05

26 May '05

Thought we might be interested in some of these ideas. John Holtzclaw's comments are in capital letters through the letter (Howard Strassner wrote the letter). I have only glanced over this, I have not read it carefully. Sue > > > > White Paper - Nearly Universal SF Curbside Parking > Charges - First Rough > Draft for Discussion 5-05 -HS > > 1) Why Nearly Universal SF Curbside Parking Charges > would be good for San > Francisco's economy and environment: > > Global Warming and the proximity of Peak Oil > production are becoming > conventional wisdom. The price of gasoline is > approaching it’s historical > high, corrected for inflation, disadvantaging sprawl > areas where every trip > must be made by car. > > Professor Don Shoup published his guide for parking > planners - "The High > Cost of Free parking" which includes a section on > curbside parking fees > from a separate paper "The ideal source of Public > Revenue" [ELABORATE ON > HOW THIS RELATES TO SF] > > In order to protect our neighborhoods from outside > commuter parking, the SF > Planning Department has accepted the concept > limiting the number of > residential parking permits that can be issued in an > area. See appendix A. > > Voters recognized the need to limit parking by > passing Prop E, which > includes in SEC. 16.102. TRANSIT-FIRST POLICY 7. > Parking policies for > areas well served by public transit shall be > designed to encourage travel > by public transit and alternative transportation. > > Muni needs additional operating funds and is > proposing increasing meter > rates in neighborhood commercial areas to $1.50 - > $2.00 an hour. For spaces > close to busy commercial neighborhoods, the revenue > from one space might > (with current time limits) might be: 300 days/year X > 5 hours/day X $1.50 > /hour = $2,250/ year. If we add Sundays and > evenings: 360 X 7 X $1.50 = > $3780. > > 2) List the Difficulties to implementing Nearly > Universal SF Curbside > Parking Charges: > Sixty years of pro automobile propaganda leading to > over 70% of SF > households own at least one car and in general > household with cars are > wealthier than household without cars and are more > likely to vote. > > We are really trying to develop a method that > extracts money from those who > think that they should be able park at little or no > cost to themselves. Our > main purpose is to discourage car ownership. > > 3) Suggested Initial Possible Ordinance Types: > (thinking with my fingers > [WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?) > > A) DPT for the MTA could form voluntary partnerships > with commercial > district organizations and neighborhoods, adjacent > to the curb side parking > space and share the parking income, after the > initial cost of installing a > meter is collected. DPT should install one meter for > multiple spots when > eight or ten nearly contiguous property owners on > one side of a block or > around the corner agree. The agreement should > include: percentage of the > gross parking revenue collected that is shared; > parking fees and operating > times. DPT should install the most lucrative meters > first and have the > right to remove a meter with sixty days notice. The > first areas may have to > be non-RPPP [THIS IS THE FIRST MENTION OF RPPP, SO > DEFINE IT HERE] areas. > These are lower income neighborhoods [HOW DO YOU > KNOW?]. [These areas don’t > perceive severe parking problems during the day > caused by people from > outside the area. These areas will not be very > lucrative My hope is that > these are neighborhoods where people will clean > their garages or get rid of > an extra car for a few hundred dollars a year. Here > people with more cars > and no property will hate the people with property > and less cars. The MTA > revenue from these areas will not be too high. CLEAN > UP THESE. IT THIS TO > BE AN OFFICIAL SC DOCUMENT OR HOWARD'S STREAM OF > CONSCIOUSNESS??] > > B) Since a property owner has no special rights to > the parking space > adjacent to her property we might consider Shoup’s > suggestion: DPT could be > allowed to install meters for multiple spots and > share the revenue with the > neighborhood to improve the commercial district > and/or provide traffic > calming. > > C) If the meters are to be located in a RPPP area we > may have to allow > permit holder to park free (this will seriously > reduce income) or DPT only > installs meters where the RPPP area has converted to > a limited number of > permit areas The total of permit plus meter spaces > could be determined by > the area. Extra income from permits and meters could > be shared for > neighborhood uses - perhaps the many could be used > for affordable housing > with no parking. > > We need more discussion. > > Proposed Changes to Residential Preferential Permit > Parking (RPPP) 5-05 -HS > > Background: The Planning Code minimum parking > requirement was established > in 1955 in an attempt to preserve existing curb side > parking for existing > residents by requiring new residential construction > to provide at least one > new off street parking space for each new unit. > Since then there have been > some modifications. In some neighborhoods this did > not work well because > many curb side parking places were taken by visitors > or commuters. Thus > RPPP was established to insure that only > neighborhood car owners could use > the existing curb side spaces all day. RPPP works by > DPT granting everyone > who meets the requirements (has a car registered to > an address in the > neighborhood and pays a $27 annual fee) an annual > permit. (The permit fee > will soon be increased to $60 to cover the actual > cost of administering > RPPP. In some neighborhoods, this results in many > residents still having a > difficult time finding a parking space. SF has > always protected the "vested > parking rights" of existing residents and merchants. > > Proposed Change: The DPT counts the number of curb > side parking spaces in > each RPPP area and only issues permits for - 95% of > the available spaces. > Parking consultants say that drivers experience > parking difficulties when > over 95% of parking spaces are taken. (Don Shoup > says that this number > should only be 85 or 90% to make it really easy to > find a parking space.) > This number, like duration, days and hours, could be > set by each > neighborhood. There may have to be some > consideration of street cleaning. > Every one who now has a permit can continue forever > to get a permit for > their current or new car. People move, get rid of > their car or die and soon > an area will have less than the maximum. When this > happens, once a year in > each area, the DPT should auction off the newly > available permits. People > could bid the annual extra fee (over the basic > permit fee) that they are > willing to pay for a parking permit which they will > have forever. > > People selling a house or condo could transfer their > permit only for the > remainder of the year. City Carshare cars could get > permits no matter how > many permits were out. If the extra fee is not > allowed, a lottery or > waiting list could be used to distribute permits. > > Status: The Planning Department is proposing > something similar to the above > for their "Better Neighborhood" proposal for > Octavia. Supervisor Ammianno’s > offices did some work on this. The City Attorney had > some problems with > auctioning new permits - they say this is a tax and > needs a vote of the > people. I would say that this is a voluntary fee for > service. The Planning > Department wants this change because they want to > build new housing units > with less than one parking space per unit and > neighbors have opposed that > since 1955. If the extra fee becomes law half of the > funds go to Muni and > half goes to the General Fund per Prop ‘E’. > > Benefits: > > A) For existing residents: 1) They get a permit > forever; 2) The permit is > more useful because parking spaces are easier to > find. Now parking spaces > may be a long walk away after a long search. This > may be unsafe for > elderly, women or disabled. > > B) For Visitors and Service Providers: 3) Parking is > easier to find. This > will help contractors and delivery trucks. > > C) For Transit Users: 4) There are more operating > funds for Muni; > > D) For Transit Advocates: 5) There are fewer parking > spaces and therefore > lower car ownership and less driving; 6) DPT reports > that they issue about > 73,000 Permits a year down from a recent 80,000. If > ultimately drivers are > willing to pay $50 a month for 50% of these permits > the City will collect > about $24 million a year which would be used for > transit and discourage car > ownership. > > E) For Pedestrian Safety Advocates: 7) There should > be less parking on the > sidewalks and less driving. > > F) For Housing Advocates: 8) This will help reduce > the requirements for off > street parking in new construction and reduce the > cost of housing. > > F) For merchants: 9) There will be a few extra > parking spaces in > residential areas near commercial streets. > > Why is the Sierra Club Involved? We want to reverse > the unsustainable > downward spiral in which the number of cars > registered in San Francisco > increases every year and these cars get driven > increasing air pollution > green house gases and impeding transit. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

1 0

Our of Town
by christine mcclintock 25 May '05

25 May '05

Sorry - forgot to mention that I'm going out of town early tomorrow morning, and won't be at the meeting tonight.

1 0

Fwd: Green Party to endorse Class Pass?
by susan vaughan 24 May '05

24 May '05

yes, I'll do this Jeremy. Sue --- Jeremy Nelson <nelson.jeremy(a)comcast.net> wrote: > From: "Jeremy Nelson" <nelson.jeremy(a)comcast.net> > To: "Sue Vaughan" <susan_e_vaughan(a)yahoo.com> > CC: "Jennifer Olsen" <jennifer(a)livablecity.org> > Subject: Green Party to endorse Class Pass? > Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 07:33:01 -0700 > > Hi Sue- > > Can you ask Green Party if they would be willing to > endorse our campaign to > get MTA to expand Class Pass program to more > colleges and universities? > > Here are some materials on Class Pass: > > - Class Pass website: > http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/classpass.html > > - Class Pass fact sheet: > http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/FareFreeTransit-TLC.pdf > > - Here's the list of endorsing organizations and > individuals thus far: > * Transportation for a Livable City > * Rescue Muni > * Walk SF > * SF Bicycle Coalition > * MTA Citizens Advisory Council > * SF Youth Commission > * SFSU Student Affairs Committee > * Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC) > > Thanks and let me know if you have any questions - > Jeremy > > > Jeremy Nelson > Policy Director > Transportation for a Livable City (TLC) > NOTE NEW ADDRESS & OFFICE PHONE: > 995 Market St., Suite 1550 > San Francisco, CA 94103 > office: 415.344.0489 > cell: 415.425.9848 > fax: 775.540.9813 > e-mail: jeremy(a)livablecity.org > web: www.livablecity.org > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

1 0