- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

letter to MTA
by howard strassner 18 Jan '05

18 Jan '05

ÐÏà¡±á>þÿ þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÜ¥hcà eö+öjjjjjjj€€€€€€ ®€r*EŸÂÂÂÂÂÂÂC"E"E"E"\"üX&üT*·*X+vr*jÂ ÂÂÂÂr*jjÂŸÂÖjÂjÂC"ÐÿhóýÄ~jjjjÂC"« SIERRA CLUB SAN FRANCISCO GROUP 85 Second Street, Box SFG, San Francisco, CA 94105 January 18, 2005 Board of Directors Metropolitan Transportation Agency 401 Van Ness Avenue, FAX 554-4143 San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: December 7, 2004 Potential Actions Parking as a Funding Source for Muni - Better Parking Data Dear Directors, The Sierra Club is pleased to expand on our January 4, public comment and submit the following suggestions for improved parking data to assist the directors and the public to recommend viable changes in parking fees as a revenue source for Muni. 1) Present Historical Data of Meter Revenue for each Meter Rate Area: This should show how meter collection varied over the years and with increasing meter rates. Anecdotal data in my neighborhood indicates little or no drop off in parking use after the recent doubling of meter rates. But we need the facts in order to predict the actual revenue collected with each proposed meter rate increase from each area with different hourly rates. In a related issue: when the MTA considers operating meters on Sundays and later in the evening, as requested in our January 3, letter, predicted revenue increase can be estimated from (Meters) The Ideal Source of Local Public Revenue published by Professor Donald Shoup in 2004 Regional Science and Urban Economics. Dr. Shoup reported, in this paper, on page 778, that Pasadena collected an average of $1,826 per meter, including evenings and Sundays, at a dollar an hour. If the data showed the total collected along with the number of dollar per hour meters we could estimate the increase for the increased hours, recommended in our January 3, letter. The Shoup paper also shows, on page 754, that when curb side meter rates are lower than nearby parking garages people cruise for cheaper parking which causes congestion which impedes Muni service. Ron Szeto has a copy of this paper. This supports our January 3, recommendation for higher meter rates near downtown garages. 2) Show the History of Sales Tax Collection over Time: Sales tax is an essential revenue source for Muni capital spending and City services. There are those who claim that more and cheaper parking is essential for retail sales. If this history, over a long period of time, after adjustment for rate changes and inflation along with comments about employment levels, shows steady or increasing sales tax revenue than we can safely conclude that increasing parking fees has not harmed the business climate in San Francisco. Anecdotally we see that the Ferry building is prospering without their desired garage and that Bloomingdale will soon open without new parking. We also know that millions of square feet of office were constructed in San Francisco with little additional parking and in spite of steadily increasing parking fees. 3) Show the History of Net Revenue for Garages over a few Years: Similar to the above a couple of years data is not enough to make a decision on viable parking fees. A spread sheet showing parking fees for each garage and parking utilization, by long and short term parkers, over time will be useful. Prop E requires the MTA to follow parking policies to encourage travel by public transit and alternative transportation and therefore even if garage revenue is not greatly increased with higher fees, the may be good policy if sales tax revenues remain at least steady, because this means that people are using transit to get to places to spend their money. The last time the MTA raised parking fees the data included more complete information on long and short term utilization. History in this area is important because of congestion impacts during peak hours and will also be useful for more entrepreneurial operation. 4) Show Annual Operating Expenses and Parking Tax Collection for Garages: The December 7, information showed that some of the City garages have very low net income per space. Additional information may show operating problems or lead the MTA to replace some parking with commercial or residential space in order to increase net income. 5) Show Parking Fees for Nearby Private Garages: Thanks to your Interim Director of the Parking Authority, the writer has already accumulated some of this data for the MTA and will soon provide this information in a separate letter. We believe that all of the additional information requested is already available somewhere within the MTA or the City and we look forward to its release in an orderly format so the public and the Directors can make decisions that will increase revenue while bring San Francisco closer to Transit First. Very truly yours, Howard Strassner, Chair Transportation Committee 419 Vicente, San Francisco CA 94116, 661-8786, (h,w,fx) email: ruthow(a)juno.com cc: Michael Burns and Ron Szeto ¡ €Ð/¥à=Š § š© ª !"Ià !"+l|ÒÉO89ö"ü÷óîêüåüåüåüåüåüßüåüåüåüåüÝu ]cIU]c]c$U]c$]c U]c ]c"UVWhi| ÂÚÛ>?PRIJà á *+ÉÊ9:;MNOP¹ÐÑñòý$ý$~ý$©ý$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$ûÿ$_û$û$û$ûÿ$Š û$ûÿ$· û$ûÿ$Nû$ûÿ$<û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$û$-òóôöþ$þ$þ$K@ñÿNormala "A@òÿ¡"Default Paragraph Fontöÿÿÿÿ!ÿÿ ÿÿ ö¡"òö öW^š¬#'BFJO¢QUdiEIO [ 6=W`±·ÀÏëðø«howard strassner2C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking Revenue MTA.dochoward strassner2C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking Revenue MTA.dochoward strassner2C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking Revenue MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassner/C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.dochoward strassnerEC:\Documents and Settings\howard\Desktop\JTC\JTC\Parking data MTA.docÿ@FaxNe00:winspoolFaxFax`&ê odÈÈLetterDfaxFax`&ê odÈÈLettereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDfaxWW WVETimes New RomanSymbol&Arial"MS Sans SerifAÐGDÆŠFi Ÿ¢!$vBTestimony to Rec and Park Commission - 6-19-03 by Howard Strassnerhoward strassnerhoward strassner þÿÿÿýÿÿÿþÿÿÿ"þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRoot Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀFÚeü*ïûÄÐÿhóýÄWordDocumentÿÿÿÿ+CompObjÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿjSummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿ þÿÿÿ þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.6ô9²qþÿàòùOh«+'³Ù0Ü ìø ,< Xd € °ŒÄÌÔäCTestimony to Rec and Park Commission - 6-19-03 by Howard Strassnerhoward strassnerNormalhoward strasDocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÕÍÕ.+,ù®0àHP\dlt|ä !CTestimony to Rec and Park Commission - 6-19-03 by Howard Strassnersner8Microsoft Word for Windows 95@ÀZ@G5ñÄ@ÒçõÄ@ôóÕýÄŸ¢þÿÕÍÕ.+,ù®0àHP\dlt|ä !CTestimony to Rec and Park Commission - 6-19-03 by Howard Strassner

1 0

Automakers sue to toss smog law
by Patrick Villano 10 Jan '05

10 Jan '05

Some light reading for the Transpo folks: (The standard corporate excuse: "if we adhere to these anti-pollution standards, it won't reduce harmful effects by much, and it'll cost the industry a fortune and maybe put us all out of biz. blah blah." Statements proven throughout history to be false, of course.) Automakers sue to toss smog law Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Printable Version Email This Article The country's biggest automakers filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the California Air Resources Board, making good on their threat to try to overturn an innovative law that curbs tailpipe gases linked to global warming. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and some Central Valley car dealers filed the lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Fresno. The suit charges that the law limiting carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases from new cars, light trucks and SUVs pre-empts federal law setting fuel- economy standards. "There's no other way to eliminate carbon dioxide than to make a car combust less fuel,'' said Eron Shosteck, spokesman for Ford Motor Co., General Motors, BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota and four others. "This is fuel economy. Period. Fuel economy and CO2 emissions are synonymous.'' The 72-page lawsuit relies on the key arguments advanced by the auto industry in the debate over the nation's first law to control such emissions from passenger vehicles -- that the law will do little to improve health while increasing cost and limiting selection in the marketplace. The law requires that new vehicles' emissions of heat-trapping gases be cut by one-third by 2016. Scientists say the accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere is creating the effect of a greenhouse. "Global warming heats up the surface temperature of Earth and can result in higher (ground-level) ozone concentrations that can affect public health," said Jerry Martin, spokesman for the air board. "We see this as another emission rule, like our other emission rules, designed to protect the public health from air pollution.'' In addition to requiring cutbacks on carbon dioxide, Martin said the law also controlled nitrous oxide, methane and hydrofluorocarbons, three gases that are "1,000 times more damaging'' in their global warming effects. The state maintains that the federal Clean Air Act specifically allows California to set air pollution standards, which then may be followed by other states. Seven other states already have passed similar laws or have them in the works. The state has also joined 11 other states in a suit challenging a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision not to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. The law to curb tailpipe emissions was approved by the state Legislature in 2002. The state air board adopted the regulations to implement the law in September, and the law is to go into effect in 2006. The phase-in of new models starts in 2009. State officials, who hadn't yet reviewed the suit and couldn't comment on it, have argued that the law isn't aimed at changing fuel-economy standards -- although they agree that the improvements that will be required in transmissions, engines and other components will save on fuel. On Tuesday, California Controller Steve Westly joined with New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi in criticizing the automakers -- which included Mazda, Volkswagen, Porsche and Mitsubishi Motors -- for spending money to fight the law instead of investing in cutting-edge technology. Westly points out that he and his colleague sit on the boards of their state employee and teacher pension funds, which he says invest about $2 billion in stocks in the suing companies. CalPERS alone has $832 million in investments in the automakers. Both controllers say they intend to use those funds as leverage to bring industry representatives to the table next month for discussions. Conservation groups expressed disappointment over the suit, saying they had hoped the auto companies would recognize the consumer demand for clean cars. "It's especially disappointing to see Ford and Toyota filing suit, since they've been positioning themselves as environmentally sensitive manufacturers, '' said Jim Marston, attorney for Environmental Defense. Coincidentally, the Union of Concerned Scientists released its biannual ranking of automakers Tuesday and -- based on analyses completed in October, and without knowledge of the lawsuit -- named Honda as the world's greenest automaker. "Honda chose not to sue California today," said Jason Mark, the group's director of clean vehicles, "and we hope they use their engineers to comply and not their lawyers to fight the law.''

1 0

Re: [Transpo] [funking@mindspring.com: Transpo Working Group: MLK Resolution to be Approved ASAP by Your Group]
by Jym Dyer 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

=v= Kathy Roberts altered some of the wording so as to quote actual parts of Prop. J, and she suggested a few interesting "whereas" clauses at the end. I sent her stuff back to Josh Hart, but it's still early morning and I don't know what he's going to do with it all. At any rate, here's how it looks with those alterations, FWIW. <_Jym_> Resolution Opposing Garage Entrance Inside Golden Gate Park and the Widening of Martin Luther King Dr. to Four Lanes WHEREAS Golden Gate Park is intended to be "designed and managed to afford opportunities for all to experience beauty, tranquility, recreation, and relief from urban pressures" according to the Golden Gate Park Master Plan and WHEREAS the Golden Gate Park Master Plan states that "the order of priority should be to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles for the purpose of enjoying the Park" and WHEREAS one of the prime objectives of the Golden Gate Park Master Plan is to "minimize motor vehicle traffic" and WHEREAS the plan approved by the Concourse Authority and the Recreation and Park Commission to widen Martin Luther King Jr. Drive to four lanes will generate additional traffic within the park, as studies have shown that widening roads induces additional traffic* and WHEREAS increasing the number of travel lanes and removing parking along a roadway are generally understood by traffic engineering experts to increase vehicle speeds** and WHEREAS a widened MLK Dr. would be more dangerous for bicyclists because traffic speeds would increase without the provision of bike lanes, forcing cyclists to share a narrow lane with garage, Muni and right-turning traffic onto Middle Drive East and Academy Drive and WHEREAS the Golden Gate Park Master Plan dictates that "when modifications are made to park roads, the minimum travel lane width should be 16' (12' plus 4' for bikes)" yet the outside lanes in the plan for MLK would only be 12' and WHEREAS a widened MLK Dr. would have negative repercussions on park users, especially seniors, disabled, and small children, who would have to now cross 4 lanes of vehicular traffic, particularly dangerous when an intersection is only stop sign controlled, as intersections at 9th and MLK, Middle Dr. E and MLK, and Academy Dr. and MLK and Tea Garden Drive and MLK and WHEREAS a widened MLK would negatively affect the large and diverse commercial interests of the Inner Sunset, represented by the Inner Sunset Merchants Association, by worsening already gridlocked traffic conditions and WHEREAS a widened MLK would significantly add to the delay of transit in the Inner Sunset area, including the vital service provided by the N-Judah light rail line, the 44 O'Shaughnessy, and the 71 Noriega and WHEREAS the Concourse Authority's plan to widen MLK does not satisfy the Judge's order to provide a "dedicated entrance to the garage" as the word "dedicated" is defined as "set aside for special use," and the garage access lanes would be used by other vehicles without an intended destination to the garage and WHEREAS Proposition J, approved by voters in 1998, orders the Concourse Augthority to design "an entrance and exit (or entrances and exits) situated outside of the Park and dedicated exclusively for the underground parking facility," and the Authority has ignored this voter mandate prohbiting a second entrance inside the park, and Judge James Warren of the San Francisco Superior Court has ruled that the design of the second entrance within the park is illegal and WHEREAS locating an entrance to the parking garage in the middle of the Park will attract drivers into the Park, in violation of Prop. J's mandate that the design of the entrances "minimize the potential conflict between recreational enthusiasts and automobile traffic within the Park" and WHEREAS promotional materials and ballot arguments for Prop. J gave the strong impression that the Concourse would be closed to motor vehicles, and autos accessing the underground garage would be separated from recreational users of the Park in order to achieve a "pedestrian oasis" and WHEREAS numerous community leaders endorsed Prop. J, believing that garage proponents would hold true to the letter and spirit of the law, resulting in a park where the impact of the automobile is reduced while access for all is improved and WHEREAS many of those same community leaders have now joined the coalition opposing the entrance inside the Park and the widening of MLK and WHEREAS the new De Young museum is slated to open in October of 2005, and will attract hundreds of thousands of new visitors to the Park, while the only significant transportation improvements have been auto-related, which will result in unnecessary vehicle trips to the Park, directly undermining the Golden Gate Park Master Plan and WHEREAS the public process that has been led by the Concourse Authority in planning the new Music Concourse and surrounding area has been marked by a refusal to incorporate or consider comments from businesses and residents surrounding the Park, or from bicycle, pedestrian, and environmental protection groups and WHEREAS § 4.113 of the San Francisco City Charter requires Board of Supervisor approval of any nonrecreational substructure under a public park and WHEREAS MLK would be widened to create a dedicated entrance to the garage and WHEREAS the Supervisors have not yet approved this part of the overall plan THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT The undersigned San Francisco organizations and individuals request that the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor step in and stop the construction of the second entrance to the garage as well as the planned widening of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. * citation of studies to come

1 0

[funking@mindspring.com: Transpo Working Group: MLK Resolution to be Approved ASAP by Your Group]
by John-Marc Chandonia 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

----- Forwarded message from Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> ----- JMC and Sue, can you forward this to the Transportation WG to approve? I think we can approve this without going to the GM, since it is in the Transpo WG charter to address the issue of cars in GG Park. If you feel otherwise, feel free to bring this to the GM for approval. peace, susan Resolution Opposing Garage Entrance Inside Golden Gate Park and the Widening of Martin Luther King Dr. to Four Lanes ? WHEREAS Golden Gate Park is intended to be ?designed and managed to afford opportunities for all to experience beauty, tranquility, recreation, and relief from urban pressures? according to the Golden Gate Park Master Plan and ? WHEREAS the Golden Gate Park Master Plan states that ?the order of priority should be to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles for the purpose of enjoying the Park? and ? WHEREAS one of the prime objectives of the Golden Gate Park Master Plan is to ?minimize motor vehicle traffic? and ? WHEREAS the plan approved by the Concourse Authority and the Recreation and Park Commission to widen Martin Luther King Jr. Drive to four lanes will generate additional traffic within the park, as studies have shown that widening roads induces additional traffic* and ? WHEREAS increasing the number of travel lanes and removing parking along a roadway are generally accepted by traffic engineering experts to increase vehicle speeds** and ? WHEREAS a widened MLK Dr. would be more dangerous for bicyclists because traffic speeds would increase without the provision of bike lanes, forcing cyclists to share a narrow lane with garage, Muni and right-turning traffic onto Middle Drive East and Academy Drive and ? WHEREAS the Golden Gate Park Master Plan dictates that ?when modifications are made to park roads, the minimum travel lane width should be 16? (12? plus 4? for bikes)? yet the outside lanes in the plan for MLK would only be 12? and ? WHEREAS a widened MLK Dr. would have negative repercussions on park users, especially seniors, disabled, and small children, who would have to now cross 4 lanes of vehicular traffic, particularly dangerous when an intersection is only stop sign controlled, as intersections at 9th and MLK, Middle Dr. E and MLK, and Academy Dr. and MLK and Tea Garden Drive and MLK and ? WHEREAS a widened MLK would negatively affect the large and diverse commercial interests of the Inner Sunset, represented by the Inner Sunset Merchants Association, by worsening already gridlocked traffic conditions and ? WHEREAS a widened MLK would significantly add to the delay of transit in the Inner Sunset area, including the vital service provided by the N-Judah light rail line, the 44 O?Shaughnessy, and the 71 Noriega and ? WHEREAS the Concourse Authority?s plan to widen MLK does not address the Judge?s order to provide a ?dedicated entrance to the garage? as the word ?dedicated? is defined as ?to set aside for special use,? and the garage access lanes would be used by other vehicles without an intended destination in the garage and ? WHEREAS Proposition J, approved by voters in 1998, states that ?an entrance and exit, or entrances and exits (to the underground garage) will be located outside the park,? the Concourse Authority has ignored repeated requests from the community to eliminate this second entrance located INSIDE the park and Judge Warren of the San Francisco Superior Court has ruled that the design of the second entrance within the park is ?presently unacceptable? and ? WHEREAS locating an entrance to the parking garage in the middle of the Park will attract drivers into the Park, where there will be additional conflict with park users and ? WHEREAS promotional materials and ballot arguments for Prop. J gave the strong impression that the Concourse would be closed to motor vehicles, and autos accessing the underground garage would be separated from recreational users of the Park in order to achieve a ?pedestrian oasis? and ? WHEREAS numerous community leaders endorsed Proposition J, believing that garage proponents would hold true to the letter and spirit of the law, resulting in a park where the impact of the automobile is reduced while access for all is improved and ? WHEREAS many of those same community leaders have now joined the coalition opposing the entrance inside the Park and the widening of MLK and ? WHEREAS the new De Young museum is slated to open in October of 2005, and will attract hundreds of thousand of new visitors to the Park, while the only significant transportation improvements have been auto-related, which will result in unnecessary vehicle trips to the Park, directly undermining the Golden Gate Park Master Plan and ? WHEREAS the public process that has been led by the Concourse Authority in planning the new Music Concourse and surrounding area has been marked by a refusal to incorporate or consider comments from businesses and residents surrounding the Park, or from bicycle, pedestrian, and environmental protection groups and ? THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ? The undersigned San Francisco organizations and individuals request that the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor step in and stop the construction of the second entrance to the garage as well as the planned widening of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. ? ? ? *?citation of studies to come ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | __o SF BICYCLE COALITION ___ __0 | | _`\<,_ Promoting the Bike |___| _ \<,_ | | (*)/ (*) for Everyday Transport (*)+---(*)/ (*) | | | | 1095 Market St. #215 SF 94103 415.431.BIKE www.sfbike.org | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joshua Hart Program Director 415-431-2453 ext. 23 joshua(a)sfbike.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | __o SF BICYCLE COALITION ___ __0 | | _`\<,_ Promoting the Bike |___| _ \<,_ | | (*)/ (*) for Everyday Transport (*)+---(*)/ (*) | | | | 1095 Market St. #215 SF 94103 415.431.BIKE www.sfbike.org | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joshua Hart Program Director 415-431-2453 ext. 23 joshua(a)sfbike.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | __o SF BICYCLE COALITION ___ __0 | | _`\<,_ Promoting the Bike |___| _ \<,_ | | (*)/ (*) for Everyday Transport (*)+---(*)/ (*) | | | | 1095 Market St. #215 SF 94103 415.431.BIKE www.sfbike.org | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joshua Hart Program Director 415-431-2453 ext. 23 joshua(a)sfbike.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

[nelson.jeremy@comcast.net: Reminder: Geary TPS hearing Tues. (12/14) at 11am]
by John-Marc Chandonia 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

----- Forwarded message from Jeremy Nelson <nelson.jeremy(a)comcast.net> ----- Subject: Reminder: Geary TPS hearing Tues. (12/14) at 11am Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:54:24 -0800 Dear Geary/O'Farrell TPS supporters- Just a reminder that the TA hearing on Prop K funding for the Geary TPS project is TOMORROW (12/14), at 11 am in Room 250 of City Hall. The vote could go either way, so please be sure to attend this hearing and express your support of the project, which is a baby step towards a city-wide Bus Rapid Transit network. Since the respacing of bus stops to every other block (800 feet) instead of every single block (400 feet) has been controversial, TLC prepared the attached fact sheet to address many of the concerns raised by opponents of respacing these 5 bus stops. Please feel free to use this fact sheet during your testimony, as well as the talking points below. More info is at http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/Geary.html Best- Jeremy -------------------------------------- TALKING POINTS: 1) Respacing the bus stops is the core of the proposal, delivering 73% of the estimated time savings on Inner Geary and 38% of the estimated reliability gains for the entire corridor. 2) This is not a "take away" from the Tenderloin, nor is it a "service cut" for riders of the Local 38-Geary. The Tenderloin will disproportionately benefit from the travel time savings and from improved schedule reliability, and local riders will disproportionately benefit from improved schedule reliability, since wait times are a larger proportion of overall travel time on shorter trips. 3) The proposed bus stop spacing is to citywide and national standards and is being done throughout San Francisco. For example, MTA has removed 35 bus stops on 10 Muni lines in the just the past year. 4) We need more robust BRT, not less. The right "compromise" isn't to water down the time savings and reliability gains of this project by having the bus stop every single block. 5) Instead, a good compromise would be to first implement many of the streetscape and urban design improvements that should be part of a BRT project anyway (such as ped-scaled lighting, enhanced crosswalk treatments, traffic calming, street trees, enhanced bus shelters, facade improvements, etc). Once these neighborhood improvements are implemented, then these 5 bus stops should be eliminated. 6) Watering down the proposal sets a bad precedent. In implementing BRT in other corridors, there will be parochial battles over parking, bus stops, and the removal of traffic lanes. If we cave in now, others will insist that we give in to their demands, and San Francisco will end up with BRT in name only. 7) The Tenderloin does not have a higher percentage of seniors (14%) than the rest of the City (15%). The Tenderloin does have a slightly higher percentage of disabled residents than the City average, but it also has high levels of existing paratransit ridership. There may be a small number of folks for whom ambulating an additional 400 feet on a flat street is a burden, but these folks are likely already eligible for paratransit and Muni is federally-required to provide this door-to-door service to them. 8) Geary and O?Farrell are not steep. Grades on Geary and O?Farrell are under 3-3.5%, except the block of Geary between Jones and Leavenworth, where it is slightly over 5%. The ADA standard for permissible grade of wheelchair ramps is 10%. 9) Adding more Limited service retaining stops on every single block for the Local is not the answer. Adding more limited buses to this corridor would lead to more frequent bus bunching as buses wait to pull in and out of the shared local/limited bus stops. This bunching will increase travel times and reduce schedule reliability for both Local and Limited service. Also, if Local service were reduced to add more Limited buses, the remaining Locals would be less frequent and thereby overcrowded, resulting in longer waits and more pass-ups for Local riders. 10) I urge you to approve the project as proposed, require MTA to monitor impacts, and evaluate the impacts of the project in 6 months. The MTA Board has already required the Agency to do a 6-month evaluation of this project, and the TA Board can also hold hearings on that 6-month evaluation and can address any significant impacts if necessary. -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Nelson [mailto:nelson.jeremy@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:50 AM To: Amber Crabbe; Andrew Sullivan; apname-gov(a)yahoo.com; Bob Plantold; Bruce Livingston; Casey Hildreth; Cheryl Brinkman; chpederson(a)yahoo.com; Dan Krause; Daniel Murphy; Dave Snyder; David Baker; Elmer Tosta; ericrescue(a)yahoo.com; foster_marshall(a)yahoo.com; FTaylor(a)cmp.com; Gabriel Metcalf; Howard Strassner; Jason Henderson; Jay Primus; jenn(a)energy-solution.com; Joe Speaks; John-Marc Chandonia; jsfraser(a)aol.com; jswitzky(a)hotmail.com; Kate White; Keith Saggers; Leah Shahum; lene(a)teahousehome.com; Michael Alexander; Norm Rolfe; Peggy da Silva; Ron Miguel; Shannon Dodge; shuckkw(a)sbcglobal.net; Steve Boland; Suany Chough; Sue Vaughan; Tom Radulovich Subject: Geary TPS supporters: Take action today! Dear Geary/O'Farrell TPS supporters- You are receiving this e-mail because you have testified in support of the Geary/O'Farrell TPS project at prior hearings or sent e-mails of support in response to action alerts from TLC. At this busy time of year, we're asking you to please take action one more time in order to help ensure that this important transit project- which is the first step towards a city-wide Bus Rapid Transit Network- receives the funding it needs to move forward. WHAT'S AT STAKE: As you may already know, after several months of delay, the Transportation Authority (composed of the Board of Supervisors) will decide whether to approve Prop K funding for the Geary/O'Farrell TPS project at it's hearing next Tuesday, the 14th at 11am, in Room 250 of City Hall. TAKE ACTION: Here's how you can help: 1) Mark your calendar now to attend the hearing. A large turnout from supporters will be critical, and at this time a year, please don't count on someone else being there. 2) Send out an action alert to your organizations' membership. As an individual, send a reminder to like-minded friends and coworkers, especially if they live or work along the Geary corridor or are regular 38-Geary riders. Feel free to cut-n-paste language from our campaign website (http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/Geary.html) or just forward the link and tell them why it's important they take action. 3) Contact the Board of Supervisors personally and let them know that you and/or your organization supports this project. Even if you've already called or sent a letter, fax, or e-mail on this issue, please do so again: - E-mail the Supervisors at board.of.supervisors(a)sfgov.org or send a fax to 554-5163. - Even more helpful is to call each of the following Supervisors directly: Tom Ammiano (554-5144); Chris Daly (554-7970); Bevan Dufty (554-6968); Matt Gonzalez (554-7630); Sophie Maxwell (554-7670); Aaron Peskin (554-7450); Gerardo Sandoval (554-6975). 4) Print out the attached "pro-Geary TPS" flyers to distribute to passengers riding on the 38-Geary or waiting at the bus stops. If you are an organization, please recruit some of your members to volunteer to distribute flyers. If you are an individual who would like to distribute flyers, TLC will provide you with as many copies as you want, just call me at 425-9848 to arrange a time to pick some up. (Attached are Microsoft Word versions of a NEW outreach flyer and Matt Smith's SF Weekly article, formatted for reading on the bus - fits onto one double-sided 8.5" x 14" page). ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Re: should we tweak time of event?
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

We could do this, but having a panel discussion from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. is late for some people. We should check with Richard Heinberg since he is coming from Sonoma. Sue On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:49:55 -0800 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 03:58:29PM -0800, susan vaughan wrote: > > I'm thinking we should start the event at 6:30, but > > not do the screening until 7 p.m. I think we should > > do it this way to get people there so that we can fit > > in everything that we need to fit in: > > > > 1) refreshments (maybe) and socializing before we get > > started (6:30 to 6:50) > > 2) Announce and explain and introduce > > 3) Screening of The End of Suburbia > > 4) Panel discussion and an opportunity for Richard > > Heinberg to sell some books (perhaps he can also do > > this from 6:30 to 6:50) > > > > Remember, I think some people will leave after the > > screening, and a lot will leave after the panel > > discussion, leaving very few potential buyers for > > Richard Heinberg's book. > > I'd tweak things a bit so that people who work during the day > could get there at 7 and not miss anything. I'll have trouble > getting there before 7, unless I'm absolutely needed to help set > up. How about this? > > 6:45 - doors open, socialize and eat > 7:10 - intro > 7:15 - start movie > 8:45 - break to finish food, do SFGP pitch, sell books > 9:00 - panel discussion for 1 hour > > I've added the event to the website, with more details TBA. > Once we get more confirmed panelists (Matt and Medea were > non-committal), > we should add them to the flyer and do minor redesign to hilight > the name of the movie and the names of the panelists. The map and > movie awards could be removed or de-emphasized. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) > http://www.dolorespark.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Re: should we tweak time of event?
by John-Marc Chandonia 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 03:58:29PM -0800, susan vaughan wrote: > I'm thinking we should start the event at 6:30, but > not do the screening until 7 p.m. I think we should > do it this way to get people there so that we can fit > in everything that we need to fit in: > > 1) refreshments (maybe) and socializing before we get > started (6:30 to 6:50) > 2) Announce and explain and introduce > 3) Screening of The End of Suburbia > 4) Panel discussion and an opportunity for Richard > Heinberg to sell some books (perhaps he can also do > this from 6:30 to 6:50) > > Remember, I think some people will leave after the > screening, and a lot will leave after the panel > discussion, leaving very few potential buyers for > Richard Heinberg's book. I'd tweak things a bit so that people who work during the day could get there at 7 and not miss anything. I'll have trouble getting there before 7, unless I'm absolutely needed to help set up. How about this? 6:45 - doors open, socialize and eat 7:10 - intro 7:15 - start movie 8:45 - break to finish food, do SFGP pitch, sell books 9:00 - panel discussion for 1 hour I've added the event to the website, with more details TBA. Once we get more confirmed panelists (Matt and Medea were non-committal), we should add them to the flyer and do minor redesign to hilight the name of the movie and the names of the panelists. The map and movie awards could be removed or de-emphasized. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Flyer for Film Screening
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 12 Dec '04

12 Dec '04

This flyer is great Christine. Sue On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:42:52 +0000 "christine mcclintock" <chrismcclintock(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > Hi there, > > This is the flyer I've worked up for the screening. Feel free to > edit, > etc - not sure how well it can be emailed. As you see - I omitted > the > the panel discussion for now - until the speakers are all > confirmed. > > Thanks, > > Christine >

1 0

Flyer for Film Screening
by christine mcclintock 10 Dec '04

10 Dec '04

Hi there, This is the flyer I've worked up for the screening. Feel free to edit, etc - not sure how well it can be emailed. As you see - I omitted the the panel discussion for now - until the speakers are all confirmed. Thanks, Christine

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Screening of End of Suburbia
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

It looks like SUsan King is trying to have an anti-inaugural Green Party party on the 22nd so maybe it would be better to stay as far away from that date as possible. Monday, January 24th will not work for me as I have a meeting then. Thanks for doing this Christine. DOes the Off-Market Street Theater also have a screen and other equipment for screening a DVD? Sue On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:29:15 +0000 "christine mcclintock" <chrismcclintock(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > Hi, Everyone... > > So, I've gotten us a venue for the screening of The End of > Suburbia > (which I own, now, by the way). It's at the Off-Market Theater - > on > Mission between 5th and 6th... I have a few possible dates - > January > 23rd (Sunday) - January 24th (Monday) or January 26th > (Wednesday). I > checked with Richard and all of the days work for him. The only > conflict I see is the Energy Working Group, which might meet on > the > 26th - I called Don the other day about maybe doing multiple > showings > as the film really relates to energy and land use as well as > transpo. > ANyways - if I could get some feedback on this, I'd really > appreciate > it so I can get the date reserved with everyone - maybe we want > to > think about other speakers, too? More details at tomorrow's > meeting. > > > Take care, > > Christine > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0