- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Re: Meeting
by Tom Zych 30 Jul '04

30 Jul '04

Hi John-Marc, To clarify, I sent Sue some typos and wording changes I had noticed in draft 10, but in the process of looking for them I also noticed several more substantive points I thought we could address. So I sent Sue those as well, and I'll bring them up at the meeting. I should mention that I'm more interested in outreach, voter registration, electoral reform and such, so I probably won't want to get involved with Transportation on a regular basis. These are just things I happened to notice that could improve the plank. A quick summary of my points: A4: focus on effect (CO2) instead of causes B5: feasible on crowded buses? how do they do crowded trains? C3: how successful in other cities C14: on same block when possible - some blocks will be full C16: "careless" is more tactful D preface: less pollution per trip or mile, not per vehicle D7: clarify why stands are better for environment D9: all or all new? more details on changeover E6: how would DPT know? F7: "is it safe?" F9: move to own section, it's not just about bikes G10: my own pet peeve: motorcycles Cheers, -- Tom Zych freethinker(a)pobox.com susan vaughan wrote: > > I've forwarded this to John-Marc. We have agendas but > our meetings are pretty informal. > > These are my suggested items for the next meeting: > > 1) transportation platform, draft 11 > 2) bike plan update > 3) no right turn onto the Central Freeway from Market > Street going east, with ped bulbout. I suggest we > endorse this. Gonzalez is introducing this into > committee on AUgust 9, before our next meeting. JMC, > is there anyway we can endorse this as the TWG online > since this is coming up before our next meeting? The > PSAC has endorsed this.

1 0

Bike Plan Update
by Amy Panella 29 Jul '04

29 Jul '04

Hi! John-Mark, I hope you are doing well. I came and spoke to the transportation committee a little over a year ago about the Bike Plan Update. I am writing with an update about the Update. After this year long process, we have 20 top projects that are scheduled for further design and implementation. I'm writing because we are looking for letters of support from community members and neighborhood organizations to the Department of Parking and Traffic Bicycle Program and the Board of Supervisors. These letters will help keep these projects moving forward and relay the necessity of these improvements. I am hoping that the Working Committee will write a letter in support of these top 20 project to the bicycle network. There are other important chapters to the bike plan that are moving forward but I am looking specifically for support around these 20 projects. I've attached a sample letter. You can either choose specific designs and streets that you are in support of by looking it up at www.sfbike.org/bikeplan or by writing a letter in support of general bicycle improvements to these streets/intersections. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers! -- Amy Panella Community Outreach Coordinator SF Bike Coalition (415) 431-BIKE x. 27 http://www.sfbike.org/bikeplan

1 0

Reworking the Rework
by christine mcclintock 22 Jul '04

22 Jul '04

Hi, all. So, after the GM tonight - and waiting for MUNI for 20 minutes, I reworked the Background portion. Jerry - since you missed it - the plank did not pass tonight. I heard two concerns: 1) The platform is too heavy on the anti-car sentiment and 2) The platform in general does not do enough to really support the lower economic classes. While I think both of these points are uninformed and just false, I think there are a few simple things that we can do to make sure the platform gets passed at the next meeting so we can actually move forward and start making change happen. I don't think we should change anything about the platform, outside of the changes (which were minor) that were suggested and accepted at the meeting tonight. Now, on the first, anti-car point. I think that we shouldn't change that sentiment at all - I think that we're all pretty much on board that the root of the transportation problems in SF is the rampant car culture. Like I said, I don't think we should change anything, but perhaps just reinforce and further explain why we think think/how we are approaching the crisis. I have major concerns about the second point. Firstly because I don't think that an effective platform is based on a class system - it must be unilateral. Furthermore, there are repeated references in the platform about giving preference to the poorest neighborhoods and most disadvantaged. Anyway, here is my take on a rework of the Background section. BACKGROUND Our present transportation system has created a monopoly on a very basic need: mobility. Its primary function has been to nourish and coddle the massive energy and automobile corporations. This has resulted in a loss of power for the common person. Specifically, these industries have created false needs through advertising and manipulated figures in order to foster a fruitless competition for status at the expense of good transportation for all. Taking back the power to meet our own needs means we will have to overcome the addiction to the automobile as a symbol of our liberty and independence. This will be a process involving many different interconnected and interdependent factors which therefore need to be implemented in a coordinated fashion. This ever-evolving document outlines the local aspects of that process. It is a collection of policies intended to work in conjunction with each other to eventually create a perfect system of transportation that supersedes economic class and means. Furthermore, we speak to a deep crisis which our mainstream leadership refuses to honestly acknowledge. To do so would seriously jeopardize the status quo, which is the bedrock of the economic stability and gain of an elite few. Consequently, taking on this leadership means we are also taking on some hard and perhaps unpleasant challenges for many of us. However, to continue on our current path would be a slow suicide for us as well as the Earth over the next several generations. Oh, and I think that maybe we should change the word "citizens" in the first paragraph to "people." Thanks, Christine

1 0

Re: Transportation plank
by Chris Finn 22 Jul '04

22 Jul '04

At 04:54 PM 7/21/04 -0700, you wrote: >On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:06:28PM -0700, Chris Finn wrote: > > Under section A4 (local vehicle registration fee), while the various > > components are listed to make this possible, I would suggest stating > > clearly that one of the intentions would be to ensure this wouldn't be a > > regressive tax, since some poorer people might have older less > > fuel-efficient vehicles. > >Agreed... I'll bring revised language tonight. > > > Under section D.1.ii > > "License a fleet of privately owned medallion vehicles whose owners would > > pay a concession fee to the City. " > > Can you clarify this more - there have been concerns expressed about this > > throughout the City regarding the possibility of auctioning off > medallions. > > Who gets the licenses, who gets the medallions? How would this be an > > improvement to the existing system? This might just need more articulation. > >Can you suggest alternative language? I think the WG's intent >is not to try to address flaws in the current medallion system (as >this is more than we want to get into), but to bring drivers into >city health care, retirement, etc. It's not really clear what this is proposing. The way it's written, with the preamble, makes it sound as a proposal for change from what exists now. I know there has also been some talk - by Newsom I believe - about changing it in a way that could fit with this proposed language. I'm not sure of the exact proposal being discussed at City levels, but I think it had to do with being able to transfer medallions and therefore open them up to further privatization. If this paragraph isn't proposing something new, we don't need to add it into our plank. If it is, we should just clarify what it means. At this point, I would suggest dropping section ii and sticking with the explanation that we want to create a method for drivers to have city health care, benefits, etc. I think it's fine to put in our plank what we would ideally like to see. If we don't have a specific alternative to the existing system, we could simply add a point that states what you did above: "Create a plan whereby City taxi drivers are entitled to City benefits such as health care, retirement, etc." > > We also might want to add something under the taxi section regarding the > > election of a representative Taxi Commission. > >This one hasn't really been vetted; if you can come up with suggested >language, I could poll people on it tonight. If it isn't a big >deal, I'd rather save new items like this for future revisions. I think we could raise it tonight without it being very controversial - maybe with simple language calling for the Taxi Commission to be elected rather than appointed. As it stands now, the commission is appointed by the mayor (Guess where Gavin got his start - the Taxi Commission). I think we could easily raise the call for an elected commission without getting too deep into discussing whether it should be by District, half appointment - half elected, etc. Chris >JMC >-- >John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) >http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

county polling on Nader/Camejo
by John-Marc Chandonia 19 Jul '04

19 Jul '04

Sorry if anybody didn't get this already: please send responses to me (it's 1 question, not 2). We'll formally vote on this Wednesday night. JMC ----- Forwarded message from John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> ----- Proposal "The GPCA will both place David Cobb on the California Green Party ballot line pursuant to the Milwaukee convention, and endorse the signature-gathering and campaign of the Green Party's Peter Camejo and independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Nothing in this decision abrogates any county's right to endorse individually as it sees fit." ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Final (?) draft of Transportation platform
by John-Marc Chandonia 16 Jul '04

16 Jul '04

Here's the platform plank that the Transportation Working Group will present next Wednesday for ratification. I've edited the "background" section a bit for clarity and re-numbered things to fix the inserted or deleted items, but otherwise, it's as we consensed to tonight. In addition to normal questions and concerns, I plan to poll the GM on Wednesday to find out what they want to do about 2 sections: 1) the background section - include or not? 2) section F.7. - include or not? Proposed Transportation Plank Draft 10, 7/15/04 The San Francisco Green Party believes that a good place to begin changing our present transportation system is by striving for a safe, healthy, attractive, and liveable city through good local transit. Public transit should be an efficient, reliable and appealing option for all citizens, not just a last option for those who have no other choice. Walking and bicycling should be promoted as healthy and safe options for the able-bodied. Taxi service must be improved without compromising safety or livelihoods of the drivers. Cars should be accommodated gracefully in planning, but no longer given priority over other forms of transit. In particular, we advocate that drivers should pay more of the true costs of automobile operation and parking, which are currently subsidized at the expense of other means of transit. While transit improvements are necessary for all neighborhoods, the southeast neighborhoods bear a particularly high share of transportation costs in the form of air pollution from our freeways, and should be compensated by focusing on other transit improvements in these neighborhoods. Several of the following proposals require changes in state law; we ask that our local legislators and representatives attempt to change California law to enable San Francisco to control these aspects of our transit policy. Background Our present transportation system was primarily created and has been nourished to subsidize the needs of giant energy and automobile corporations. This has meant a loss of power for the common person. Specifically, these industries have created false needs thru advertising, and have fostered competition for status at the expense of good transportation. Taking back our power to meet our own needs means we will have to overcome this addiction to the car as a symbol of our liberty and independence. This will be a process involving many different interconnected and interdependent factors which therefore need to be implemented in a more or less coordinated fashion. We try to outline local aspects of this process in this document. We also speak to a deep crisis which our mainstream leadership refuses to honestly acknowledge because to do so would seriously jeopardize the status quo. Consequently, taking on this leadership means we are also taking on some hard and perhaps unpleasant challenges for many of us. However, to continue on our present path is suicide for us and for the Earth. This document is constantly evolving. We intend to take it out to the public and to argue for what we think is right, but to listen to peoples' concerns and make changes where necessary. However, our goal-which is to meet the needs of all people, especially the less privileged-will not change. A. Transit Justice Many of our current means of funding transit are regressive: a much higher share of the incomes of working class people is consumed through sales taxes and fixed fees. We advocate moving to more progressive forms of funding (e.g., income and property taxes). We support efforts to relieve the air pollution in the southeast neighborhoods of the city, which is caused in part by freeways with diesel trucks, and advocate for special attention to be given to improving transit in these neighborhoods. The San Francisco Green Party advocates: 1. Recruitment of neighborhood residents for a major share of the new jobs created by transit projects which have an impact on those neighborhoods, such as the 3rd Street Light Rail. 2. Employment by Muni of an increased number of San Francisco residents for jobs at all levels, so that income from these jobs stays in the City. 3. Conversion of Muni buses in the southeast neighborhoods to electric or less-polluting technology such as CNG (compressed natural gas), to mitigate air quality problems caused by the freeways and other sources such as power plants. Such conversion will reduce particulate pollution in these neighborhoods. 4. Creation of a local vehicle registration fee, based on the engine size, weight, fuel efficiency, and value of the vehicle. This fee would be partially offset by a transportation tax credit for all San Franciscans, including those who do not rely on cars for transit. The net effect will be to raise revenue, while rewarding non-drivers and drivers of smaller, less-polluting, and more efficient cars. 5. Gradual elimination of subsidies for commuters, such as free or below market rate parking in areas where commuters park. Current subsidies mask the true costs of commuting by car, encouraging driving over more environmentally and economically sustainable modes of transit. 6. Increasing the share of transit costs to be paid by developers at the time of new development, based on the anticipated impact of the development on public transportation costs (including street traffic). In addition, the Planning Department should aggressively collect all past unpaid fees from developers. 7. Increasing the amount that corporations which profit the most from our current car-oriented culture pay to fund other forms of transit. 8. Planning on a regional level that incorporates more dense housing development (see section G) along corridors rich in public transit. Planning should take into account the transit impact of commuters as well as residents: areas such as San Francisco, which have a higher daytime population due to commuters, should receive a higher share of funds and have greater representation on regional planning committees. B. Muni and Regional Transit In order to increase use of Muni, public transit needs to be safe, efficient, affordable, reliable, and appealing. Muni's performance should be improved to the point where it's an attractive option for most people going about their daily business, not just those commuting to and from work. Funding for Muni should be increased and operating costs should be shifted to sources other than the riders. Public transit should eventually be free to riders, funded by all citizens as are public parks, public schools, and public libraries. Increased Muni ridership benefits everybody: businesses get the added benefit of more mobile customers, drivers will benefit from less congestion, and everybody would get better air quality. The San Francisco Green Party advocates: 1. Creation of a citywide bus rapid transit (BRT) network to ensure that people can reliably travel between most neighborhoods in half an hour or less. This would entail the development of a system of dedicated bus lanes and traffic lights controlled by Muni operators along major transit corridors. 2. Gradual replacement of the citywide BRT system with light rail. Light rail should then be expanded into neighborhoods that will benefit from improved rider experience and faster movement. Expansions that have the least per-rider cost and that help the lowest-income riders should be the first priority. 3. Immediately roll fares back to $1 ($35 for Fastpasses) and make Muni free to youth, seniors, and the disabled. Continue to roll back fares towards zero as new funding sources become available. 4. Ensure that as long as riders have to pay fares, frequent riders receive a substantial discount for use of the Fastpass, which speeds boarding time and encourages casual ridership. 5. As long as riders have to pay fares, expand Proof of Payment to all Muni routes to decrease boarding times. 6. Expand programs which enable employees to pay for public transit with pre-tax earnings. 7. Maintain infrastructure in good repair so less money is spent on equipment failures and emergencies. 8. Eliminate redundant Muni stops on the same line that are only one block apart, except in hilly areas where this would pose a major inconvenience for riders. 9. Ensure faster service by allowing all Muni buses and trains to control traffic signals as they approach. Replace stop signs along the busiest Muni routes with controlled traffic lights. 10. Create clearer marking for transit priority corridors and lanes and enforce them more aggressively, especially parking violations in bus and rail lanes. Gradually designate more lanes as transit priority lanes. 11. Establish timed, no-wait transfers at key junctions between Muni lines. 12. Expand Nextbus or equivalent service to all lines. 13. Transition the Muni fleet to cleaner-fuel and electric buses, and buy new low-floor vehicles to ensure easier boarding. 14. Extend Caltrain downtown, electrify it, and coordinate Muni bus arrivals and departures with the Caltrain schedule. 15. Improve transfers between all public transit systems in the City: in particular, allow direct Muni-BART transfers at Civic Center and Embarcadero stations, and improve connections at Balboa Park and Glen Park stations. 16. Maintain 24-hour OWL service on major routes to ensure people can safely walk the distance to the nearest line. If ridership is low, run idle paratransit buses at night on these routes to save money. 17. Institute "class pass" programs at the city's colleges in which fares are prepaid as part of school fees, similar to the program at UC Berkeley. Institute student discounts on Fastpasses for all students, to cover those unable to participate in these programs. 18. Include the cost of a monthly Fastpass in residential parking permits to give drivers the option of taking Muni at no additional cost. 19. Improve transit service in the southeast part of SF. Specifically, build a new Caltrain station at Oakdale Avenue to better serve the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood. Improve the Bayshore station with direct connections to the Third Street light rail and Geneva Avenue buses to better serve the Visitacion Valley neighborhood. 20. Direct more regional funding toward Muni's operating costs rather than expensive capital projects. 21. Improve scheduling such that Muni drivers and other transit operators work shifts and hours they deem reasonable. In addition, all Muni employees who work split shifts (both rush hours), should be considered full-time and earn equivalent hourly rates and benefits. 22. Build the "G line" and run it from Market Street, up Church and then along the N-Judah line to 9th Avenue and into Golden Gate Park. Operate historic streetcars on this line. This would be relatively inexpensive compared to other new light rail projects, and provide a more convenient way to the park than driving for many people, especially those coming on BART from outside the City. 23. Mandate that BART charge for parking at all BART parking lots. C. Parking: Parking has a huge impact on our transportation system. Every car occupies space at its owner's residence and three to four spaces elsewhere. Space used for the storage of private automobiles amounts to vast acres of pavement and building space that could be used for parks, natural areas, public recreation, housing, retail, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, transit lanes, or many other public benefits. With 210 million square feet in San Francisco dedicated to car parking, even a reduction of 10 percent in the amount of space we need to store our cars would free up 21 million square feet! Providing so much parking also subsidizes car use by San Francisco residents and visitors and discourages use of transit, walking, and bicycling. Parking also reduces population densities, requiring people to travel greater distances to meet their needs, and obstructs efficient and safe travel by walking, bicycle, and transit. The San Francisco Green Party recommends that the City: 1. Allow conversion of garages in private homes to living quarters. In most areas of the city, current law forbids a homeowner from adding a housing unit unless the homeowner also adds a parking space. These "in-law" units, in converted basements, garages and carriage houses, will provide housing that will in most cases be less expensive than standard apartments and closer to jobs and transit than housing outside the City. Such units will also reduce the use of automobiles by reducing storage capacity, and thus reduce congestion on City streets. 2. Legally protect all existing "in-law" units and protect tenants who currently live in these units from eviction. 3. Prohibit new public parking facilities in the downtown district north of Townsend and Division, east of South Van Ness and Van Ness Avenues, and within 500 feet of a transit preferential street anywhere in San Francisco. A few cities in the U.S. and many in Europe have reduced parking in their downtowns as a means to reduce traffic and improve the alternatives to the automobile; San Francisco should do the same. 4. Increase the tax on commercial parking lot operators. Currently, a 25 percent tax on parking lot operators' receipts (which are exempt from the regular sales tax) generates roughly $50 million a year, not nearly enough to compensate for the impact of such parking facilities on public transit and urban livability. The tax should be increased substantially to devalue the use of land as parking lots, to discourage driving, and to generate public funds. Such taxes are progressive user fees, paid primarily by non San Franciscans who commute to high-paying jobs, offering collateral benefits to transit passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 5. Eliminate parking requirements for new housing, starting with affordable, senior, and SRO housing, and institute maximum parking limits for new housing. The specific maximum limits should vary by neighborhood, ranging from a high limit of one parking space per housing unit in less transit-friendly areas such as parts of the Sunset and Bayview, to a low limit of .25 parking spaces per housing unit in neighborhoods such as downtown, North Beach, and the Mission, which are densely populated, already congested with traffic, and well-served by transit. Parking requirements should never be an impediment to housing construction. San Francisco needs car-free housing. A reduction in the amount of parking provided for new housing will result in lower housing prices for consumers and higher profit margins for developers. Parking requirements in new housing are subsizided by developers for the private benefit of relatively wealthy housing consumers. 6. Allow non-independently accessible parking to meet parking requirements for new housing, until such requirements are eliminated. 7. Reform the residential parking permit program to provide parking for people who truly need it, and raise revenue by charging a fair price for that parking. Our current practice of giving a large number of permits to one individual at very low cost severely undervalues precious urban space. While it costs hundreds of dollars a month to store a few thousand pounds of private property, it's free in most neighborhoods to store a private car on the public streets. This is a disservice to people most in need of on-street parking and who should be willing to pay for it. People should pay market price for on-street parking. However, any transition to a system where people pay higher prices should protect current residents by grandfathering in current prices until people move. A good portion of the money generated by parking fees should remain in the neighborhood to be used for neighborhood amenities as advised by local committees. Parking in front of driveways should be permitted as reserved, personal parking, but users should pay a premium. 8. Convert certain public garages and lots to housing. Above-ground parking lots are a menace to lively street life and can cause great disruption to transit and bicycle traffic. The city should identify a few garages and parking lots and acquire the property, or otherwise cause the property to be converted to housing. 9. Mandate car-sharing parking pods in every neighborhood and in new developments, preferably in highly visible and accessible locations. Car-sharing permits residents to have access to cars without having to invest in permanent ownership. The pay-per-use system of car-share cooperatives and nonprofits saves residents money and reduces car use. 10. Encourage businesses to be "green." Free parking forces customers who do not drive to subsidize customers who do drive. The San Francisco Green Party encourages businesses to charge for parking or provide a financial benefit equal to the subsidized cost of parking to customers who do not drive. 11. Ban parking garages in city parks. Institute a moratorium on new municipal parking garages and lots. The city should meet transportation needs through balanced provision of alternatives to driving, and, in the short term, more intensive use of existing parking lots. 12. Charge market rates at all off-street parking facilities owned or operated by San Francisco in areas well served by Muni, with a few exceptions for spaces reserved for night shift workers, emergency personnel, or workers who are required to use their personal vehicles for their job. 13. Eliminate free VIP parking at the airport. 14. Dramatically increase the cost of new curb cuts to make way for new driveways to garages. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the elimination of public parking space, often in the removal of trees, and the transformation of sidewalk right-of-ways into driveways. The cost of new curb cuts should be proportional to the length of the cut, and increase with each tree removed. All trees removed should be replaced elsewhere on the same block. 15. Enforce existing zoning laws against the paving of front yards to provide parking. 16. Convert one car space at the forward-facing end of some city blocks to motorcyle-only parking, especially in areas in which motorcycle-parking is practically non-existent. Priority should be given in cases where a large car or SUV parked in the space would block drivers' vision and present a safety hazard to pedestrians and other drivers. Install physical barriers to protect motorcycles in such parking spaces from being hit by incompetent drivers. 17. Allow dedicated motorcycle parking on sections of curbs between driveways that are too small for cars. Many of these areas are currently painted red. These spaces should be illegal for cars, but legal for motorcycles, and different markings (e.g., striping on the curb or street) should be used to indicate this. D. Taxis and Paratransit Taxis account for a significant portion of the trips made each year in San Francisco. Taxis operate almost continuously; they therefore contribute less to most forms of air pollution than private automobiles, as cars produce more air pollution in the first half hour of operation. San Francisco's cabs should thus be acknowledged as a vital part of the city's Transit First policy. To this end, the SFGP recommends that the City: 1. Implement one of the following options: i. Municipalize the taxi system. Cabs would be owned by the City and driven by employee drivers. Under this system, drivers would be paid an hourly wage plus commission for any fares over 15 to 20 per shift; or, ii. License a fleet of privately owned medallion vehicles whose owners would pay a concession fee to the City. Either system would create a professional class of drivers, and under either system, drivers could be provided city-sponsored health care and other benefits. 2. Retain the cap on gate fees that companies charge drivers as long as taxis remain in private hands. 3. Establish centralized dispatch. Currently cab companies either have their own dispatch service or affiliate with one. However, because independent cab drivers (and not their passengers) are clients of cab companies who are responsible for dispatch, there is currently no direct incentive for cab companies to improve dispatch efficiency. 4. Subsidize taxis for the purpose of supplementing Muni. People who work unusual hours need dependable and affordable transportation. Taxis can fulfill this need; in many cases, this would be cheaper for the city than expanding bus service along certain routes at certain times. 5. Incorporate taxis into any future local and regional Translink pass systems to ease the transition from buses and BART to cabs. 6. Require taxi companies to take credit/debit cards. 7. Create cab stands at the termini of Muni lines, major transit junctions, commercial areas, and in parts of the city underserved by Muni OWL service and other forms of transit. Cab stands are good for drivers, riders and the environment. 8. Create transit-only streets that can be used by Muni and cabs. (see section G). 9. Require that all cabs be low-emission or zero-emission vehicles once such vehicles appropriate for taxi purposes become available. 10. Require that cabs be inspected a minimum of two times in the first year and thereafter four times a year. The average cab in San Francisco is driven about 100,000 miles per year, and cars that are tuned up generate less pollution. E. Pedestrians At some point in the day, almost everyone is a pedestrian. The advantages of walking are born out in both the health of pedestrians and the health of the environment itself. The San Francisco Green Party challenges the city to lower the number of households with cars from the current rate of about 30 percent. One part of our proposed solutions encompasses three main areas of pedestrian welfare: safety, health and access. Another part of the solution increases the number of retail stores, libraries, schools, restaurants and other services within each neighborhood - perhaps on the ground floors of buildings that once had garages - in such a way as to make every neighborhood self-sufficient or nearly self-sufficient. The San Francisco Green Party encourages the City to: 1. Require police and parking control officers to enforce laws which improve pedestrian safety and convenience. Aggressively enforce violations of pedestrian rights-of-way such as parking on sidewalks. 2. Dedicate more City funds to pedestrian projects such as safety awareness, zebra striping, lighted crosswalks, and countdown signals. Redesign crosswalks in high-density neighborhoods with many pedestrians (e.g., Haight Street, Chinatown, and others) to allow for diagonal crossing during a traffic signal cycle in which lights are red in both directions. 3. Combine doubling of speeding fines in problem areas, such 19th Avenue, with increased enforcement of speed laws. As success is achieved in these areas, step up enforcement in other parts of the City. 4. Make walking more attractive by planting more trees along sidewalks, ensuring their well-being, and enforcing laws to prevent them from being trimmed improperly and/or destroyed. Increase the number of benches on sidewalks, while complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 5. Encourage changes in state law such that pedestrian injuries and deaths as a result of moving violations result in much more severe penalties. Currently, unless intent can be proved, motorists are only charged with moving violations. 6. Tow vehicles that that block the right of way of pedestrians without waiting for anyone to call DPT. 7. Use level of service standards that account for pedestrians in motion, not just those waiting to cross streets at intersections or in pedestrian crosswalks when designing sidewalks. Such a change would encourage planners to design wider sidewalks. 8. Increase traffic-calming measures that improve safety for pedestrians. Such measures include narrowing streets, planting trees, and pedestrian bulbouts, among others. 9. Construct pedestrian bulbouts in such a way that bike lanes go through them, or in such a way that bikes waiting to go through intersections serve as a buffer between pedestrians in the crosswalks and cars (which wait behind the bikes). 10. Enforce existing laws regarding operation of motorized vehicles on sidewalks. The only legal vehicles are motorized wheelchairs traveling at eight miles per hour or less, and cars and motorcycles entering or leaving garages. F. Bikes Bicycling is quiet, clean, practically free, and personally healthful. Bicycling, like walking but to a lesser degree, is an antidote to alienation, encouraging interaction with and engagement in the public life of the streets. It provides independent, door-to-door transportation for every able-bodied person, and can even provide mobility for physically impaired people who find it difficult to walk. In a city where most trips are under five miles, bicycling should become a first-choice transportation means for at least 10 percent of all trips within the City. San Francisco should support all measures to remove the obstacles that prevent residents and visitors from enjoying easy, safe, and pleasurable bicycling to any destination in the City. The San Francisco Green Party recommends the following measures to accomplish this: 1. Allocate substantial funds over the long term to bicycle planning, infrastructure, and promotion. 2. Build a complete citywide bicycle network that provides separated bike paths, bike lanes, and streets on which it is safe to bicycle. 3. Create more and better bicycle parking. Sidewalk bike parking should be as ubiquitous as possible without blocking pedestrians or violating ADA requirements. Workplaces should provide bicycle parking indoors, and showers and lockers for bicycle commuters. Every parking garage should comply with the law requiring secure bicycle parking and the advertising of such, and the law should be strengthened to require monitoring of the bicycle parking area by a security camera or attendant. All major transit stations should provide secure, covered bicycle parking. 4. Improve design of bike racks and bicycle access on Muni, BART, and CalTrain. 5. Include bicycle safety information in driver education courses. Fund mandatory bicycle education, including safe operation and social aspects, in our schools for children age 10 to 12. 6. Provide funding for bicycle cooperatives that offer less expensive bikes for sale and rental to those who can not afford them. These co-ops would also provide a place to repair and learn about bikes - especially health and safety. Co-ops could also sponsor teach-ins which would strive to reach out to potential cyclists and anyone who wants to participate in making transportation better for all. 7. Instruct San Francisco police to deprioritize bicycle violations at stop signs and red lights where bicyclists yield the right-of-way, and urge the California legislature to amend the Vehicle Code to adopt the Idaho vehicle code's unique treatment of bicycle behavior at intersections: yield at STOP signs and STOP (then proceed) at red lights. 8. Establish bike patrols that ensure that bike lanes are clear during all times, especially commute hours. 9. Amend San Francisco's environmental review procedures, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), so that traffic changes that are a result of improvements to the environment for pedestrians, transit, and bicycle riding are not subject to lengthy and time-consuming environmental impact reports, provided that such improvements would not result in an increase in car vehicle miles traveled. G. Streets and Cars The San Francisco Green Party recognizes the need of many people to use cars for business and personal reasons. However: i. World fossil fuel supplies are dwindling and there is as of yet no viable, cheap alternative to gasoline or natural gas. ii. The number of dwelling units in San Francisco has increased by approximately 34,000 while the number of cars has increased by 165,000 since 1955, having a severe impact on the quality of street life in the city. iii. Obesity is becoming epidemic across all ethnicities, and especially in children, in some part due to the fact that Americans are in the habit of driving instead of walking or biking. The City and other entities should therefore: 1. Support nonprofit and cooperative car-sharing enterprises through parking policies that dedicate spaces specifically for vehicles owned in common (see section F). 2. Increase the price of parking a car, and allocate fewer development resources to building parking at the expense of housing (see section C). 3. Provide shared fleets of hybrid, electric and low-emissions vehicles at worksites for people whose jobs necessitate driving (e.g., building inspectors and visiting nurses). 4. Design ALL our streets to encourage slower and safer speeds and less competitive driving. This may include narrower street lanes (and wider sidewalks, bike lanes and more trees) so as not to give a freeway-like atmosphere to city streets. 5. Increase enforcement of traffic violations such as speeding and blocking intersections. 6. Support experimental programs such as "Way to Go Seattle" that paid families to leave their second car at home and only depend on one car or on alternative means of transportation. 7. Encourage state lawmakers to triple fines for any moving violation that occurs while the driver is talking on a cell phone. 8. Create more carfree areas and close JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park on Saturdays as well as Sundays. 9. Create more dedicated bus lanes (see section B), as well as zones (such as the downtown section of Market Street) with restrictions on private automobile use. Delivery trucks, public transit, taxis, paratransit, and bicycles would not be restricted in such zones. 10. Strictly enforce noise regulations for vehicles that violate noise pollution laws. 11. Turn most wide one-way streets in South of Market into two-way streets, and time the traffic lights to discourage speeding. Widen the sidewalks to reduce the total amount of space reserved for cars. This would transform the neighborhood into a much more pedestrian-friendly district of the city within easy walking distance of transit. Local businesses such as restaurants with sidewalk cafes would thrive as a result of this transformation of the neighborhood. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

MUNI Charter Amendent: Sandoval
by marc 13 Jul '04

13 Jul '04

http://sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/materials/040647.pdf

1 0

Fwd: DEN Alert: Urge Your Rep to Stop Unnecessary Road Kill
by Don Eichelberger 12 Jul '04

12 Jul '04

Dear SFGP Transportation WG, I thought you would want to know about this critical environmental issue. Congress is currently debating a six year, $300+ billion transportation bill that could have a major impact on the nation's remaining wildlife habitat. Sprawling development related to highway construction is destroying wildlife habitat at an alarming rate. The good news is that leaders in Congress have inserted modest provisions into the bill intended to assure that transportation planners account for wildlife and habitat when planning new roads. Unfortunately, the powerful highway and development lobbies want to pave over these common sense provisions and keep business as usual. WHAT YOU CAN DO: YOU can help protect wildlife habitat from bulldozers by going to Defenders of Wildlife's on-line action center at: http://www.denaction.org and send your representative or Senator a free fax urging him/her to support protections for wildlife habitat in the transportation bill. The bill may be completed as early as the week of JULY 12, so please send your message TODAY. Thanks for helping to protect America's wildlife from poorly planned road projects. Sincerely, Don Eichelberger

1 0

new Plank draft
by John-Marc Chandonia 10 Jul '04

10 Jul '04

Here's the new draft. Please don't edit it in Word... just send me corrections and concerns and I'll edit them in. At our meeting this Thursday, we reached concensus on everything up to B.6 (albeit with some planned renumbering). We'll meet again next Thursday at 7 to (hopefully) finish it off. JMC Proposed Transportation Plank Draft 9, 7/8/04 The San Francisco Green Party believes good transit policy is an essential part of creating a safe, healthy, attractive, and livable city. Public transit should be an efficient, reliable and appealing option for all citizens, not just those who have no other choice. Walking and bicycling should be promoted as healthy and safe options for the able-bodied. Taxi service must be improved without compromising safety or livelihoods of the drivers. Cars should be accommodated gracefully in planning, but not given priority over other forms of transit. In particular, we advocate that drivers should pay more of the true costs of automobile operation and parking, which are currently subsidized at the expense of other means of transit. While transit improvements are necessary for all neighborhoods, the southeast neighborhoods bear a particularly high share of transportation costs in the form of air pollution from our freeways, and should be compensated by focusing on other transit improvements in these neighborhoods. Several of the following proposals require changes in state law; we ask that our local legislators and representatives attempt to change California law to enable San Francisco to control these aspects of our transit policy. A. Transit Justice Many of our current means of funding transit are regressive: a much higher share of the incomes of working class people is consumed through sales taxes and fixed fees. We advocate moving to more progressive forms of funding (e.g., income and property taxes). We support efforts to relieve the air pollution in the southeast neighborhoods of the city, which is caused in part by freeways with diesel trucks, and advocate for special attention to be given to improving transit in these neighborhoods. The San Francisco Green Party advocates: 1. Recruitment of neighborhood residents for a major share of the new jobs created by transit projects which have an impact on those neighborhoods, such as the 3rd Street Light Rail. 2. Employment by Muni of an increased number of San Francisco residents for jobs at all levels, so that income from these jobs stays in the City. 3. Conversion of Muni buses in the southeast neighborhoods to electric or less-polluting technology such as CNG (compressed natural gas), to mitigate air quality problems caused by the freeways and other sources such as power plants. Such conversion will reduce particulate pollution in these neighborhoods. 4. Creation of a local vehicle registration fee, based on the engine size, weight, fuel efficiency, and value of the vehicle. This fee would be partially offset by a transportation tax credit for all San Franciscans, including those who do not rely on cars for transit. The net effect will be to raise revenue, while rewarding non-drivers and drivers of smaller, less-polluting, and more efficient cars. 5. Gradual elimination of subsidies for commuters, such as free or below market rate parking in areas where commuters park. Current subsidies mask the true costs of commuting by car, encouraging driving over more environmentally and economically sustainable modes of transit. 6. Increasing the share of transit costs to be paid by developers at the time of new development, based on the anticipated impact of the development on public transportation costs (including street traffic). 7. Increasing the amount that corporations which profit the most from our current car-oriented culture pay to fund other forms of transit. 8. Planning on a regional level that incorporates a combination of infill housing development along corridors rich in public transit. Planning should take into account the transit impact of commuters as well as residents: areas such as San Francisco, which have a higher daytime population due to commuters, should receive a higher share of funds and have greater representation on regional planning committees. B. Muni and Regional Transit In order to increase use of Muni, public transit needs to be safe, efficient, affordable, reliable, and appealing. Muni's performance should be improved to the point where it's an attractive option for most people going about their daily business, not just those commuting to and from work. Funding for Muni should be increased and operating costs should be shifted to sources other than the riders. Public transit should eventually be free to riders, funded by all citizens as are public parks, public schools, and public libraries. Increased Muni ridership benefits everybody: businesses get the added benefit of more mobile customers, drivers will benefit from less congestion, and everybody would get better air quality. The San Francisco Green Party advocates: 1. Creation of a citywide bus rapid transit (BRT) network to ensure that people can reliably travel between most neighborhoods in half an hour or less. This would entail the development of a system of dedicated bus lanes and traffic lights controlled by Muni operators along major transit corridors. 2. Gradual replacement of the citywide BRT system with light rail. Light rail should then be expanded into neighborhoods that will benefit from improved rider experience and faster movement. Expansions that have the least per-rider cost and that help the lowest-income riders should be the first priority. 3. Immediately roll fares back to $1 ($35 for Fastpasses) and make Muni free to youth, seniors, and the disabled. Continue to roll back fares towards zero as new funding sources become available. 4. Ensure that as long as riders have to pay fares, frequent riders receive a substantial discount for use of the Fastpass, which speeds boarding time and encourages casual ridership. 5. As long as riders have to pay fares, expand Proof of Payment to all Muni routes to decrease boarding times. 5b. Expand programs which enable employees to pay for public transit with pre-tax earnings. 5c. Maintain infrastructure in good repair so less money is spent on equipment failures and overtime. 6. Eliminate redundant Muni stops on the same line that are only one block apart, except in hilly areas where this would pose a major inconvenience for riders. 7. Ensure faster service by allowing all Muni buses and trains to control traffic signals as they approach. Replace stop signs along the busiest Muni routes with controlled traffic lights. 8. Expand the diamond transit-only lanes to prevent Muni buses from getting stuck in traffic. Clearly marked lanes such as those on the N-Judah between 9th and 19th Avenue will discourage cars from driving in transit lanes. 9. Establish timed, no-wait transfers at key junctions between Muni lines. {Sue: I can imagine what these are, but I�m not quite sure. Explanation needed.} 10. Expand Nextbus or equivalent service to all lines. 11. Transition the Muni fleet to cleaner-fuel and electric buses, and buy new low-floor vehicles to ensure easier boarding. 12. Extend Caltrain downtown, electrify it, and coordinate Muni bus arrivals and departures with the Caltrain schedule. 13. Improve transfers between all public transit systems in the City: in particular, allow direct Muni-BART transfers at Civic Center and Embarcadero stations, and improve connections at Balboa Park and Glen Park stations. 14. Maintain 24-hour OWL service on major routes, to ensure people can safely walk the distance to the nearest line. If ridership is low, run idle paratransit buses at night on these routes to save money. 15. Institute "class pass" programs at the city's colleges in which fares are prepaid as part of school fees, similar to the program at UC Berkeley. Institute student discounts on Fastpasses for all students, to cover those unable to participate in these programs. 16. Include the cost of a monthly Fastpass in parking permits, to give every driver the option of taking Muni at no additional cost. 17. Improve transit service in the southeast: build a new Caltrain station at Oakdale Avenue to better serve the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood. Improve the Bayshore station with direct connections to the Third Street light rail and Geneva Avenue buses to better serve the Visitacion Valley neighborhood. 18. Direct more regional funding toward Muni's operating costs rather than expensive capital projects. 19. Aggressive enforcement of violations of transit-priority corridors and double parking in bus/rail lanes. [JMC: merge with B-22] 20. Increase the percentage that Muni gets from a variety of sources, including parking fees and fines (see Parking section), and transit-impact development fees. In addition, the Planning Department should aggressively collect all unpaid TIDFs from developers. [Sue: I�ve changed the language in this but I�m not sure I�ve retained the original meaning. Also, do we want to say that the Planning Department should aggressively collect fines for unpaid TIDFs?] 21. Improve scheduling such that Muni drivers and other transit operators work shifts and hours they deem reasonable. In addition, all Muni employees who work split shifts (both rush hours), should be considered full-time and earn equivalent hourly rates and benefits. [Concerns this would be too expensive] Sue: everything we are proposing is expensive, but we consider these things worth it. 22. Designate more lanes as transit priority lanes. We call for more clear marking as well as more aggressive enforcement of these lanes. Sue: repetitive. This is addressed somewhat in B-19. [JMC: see also B-8] 23. Build the "G line" and run it from Market Street, across Church and then to 9th Avenue and into Golden Gate Park. Run historic streetcars on this line. This would be relatively inexpensive compared to other new light rail projects, and provide a more convenient way to the park than driving for many people, especially those coming on BART from outside the City. C. Parking: Parking has a huge impact on our transportation system. Every car occupies space at its owner's residence and three to four spaces elsewhere. Space used for the storage of private automobiles amounts to vast acres of pavement and building space that could be used for parks, natural areas, public recreation, housing, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, transit lanes, or many other public benefits. With 210 million quare feet in San Francisco dedicated to car parking, even a reduction of 10 percent in the amount of space we need to store our cars would free up 21 million square feet! Providing so much parking also subsidizes car use by San Francisco residents and visitors and discourages use of transit, walking, and bicycling. Parking also reduces population densities, requiring people to travel greater distances to meet their needs. Parking obstructs efficient and safe bicycle and transit travel. Garages on the ground floors of buildings also occupy space that could otherwise be used for retail, eliminating the need for people to travel in order to shop for some items. In addition, parking lots and garages create dead environments at the street level that penalize people who prefer to walk. [Sue: Dave, how does it penalize people who prefer to walk?] In order to reverse the trend toward provision of parking at the expense of walking, bicycling, and transit, the San Francisco Green Party recommends that the City: 1. Allow conversion of garages in private homes to living quarters. In most areas of the city, current law forbids a homeowner from adding a housing unit unless the homeowner also adds a parking space. Such ancillary, or "in-law" units, on converted basements, garages and carriage houses, will provide housing that will in most cases be less expensive than standard apartments and closer to jobs and transit than housing outside the City. Such units will also reduce the use of automobiles by reducing storage capacity, and thus reduce congestion on City streets. Parking requirements should never prevent the construction of housing. 2. Legally protect all existing ancillary units, and protect tenants who currently live in these units from eviction. 3. Prohibit new public parking facilities in the downtown district north of Townsend and Division, and east of South Van Ness and Van Ness Avenues; and within 500 feet of a transit preferential street anywhere in San Francisco. A few cities in the U.S. and many in Europe have reduced parking in their downtowns as a means to reduce traffic and improve the alternatives to the automobile; San Francisco should do the same. 4. Increase the tax on commercial parking lot operators. Currently, a 25 percent tax on parking lot operators' receipts (which are exempt from the regular sales tax) generates roughly $50 million a year, not nearly enough to compensate for the impact of such parking facilities on public transit and urban livability. The tax should be increased substantially to devalue the use of land as parking lots, to discourage driving, and to generate public funds. Such taxes are progressive user fees, paid primarily by non San Franciscans who commute to high-paying jobs, offering collateral benefits to transit passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 5. Eliminate parking requirements for new housing, starting with affordable, senior, and SRO housing, and institute new maximum parking limits, ranging from one parking space per housing unit in transit-poor locations to one parking space per four housing units in transit-rich areas. As noted, parking requirements should never be an impediment to housing construction. San Francisco needs car-free housing. A reduction in the amount of parking provided for new housing will result in lower housing prices for consumers and higher profit margins for developers. The provision of parking in new housing is a developer subsidy for the private benefit of relatively wealthy housing consumers. 6. Allow non-independently accessible parking to meet parking requirements until such requirements are eliminated. 7. Impose maximum parking limits on housing in particularly sensitive, densely-populated and transit-rich neighborhoods. The specific maximum limits should vary by neighborhood, ranging from a high limit of one parking space per housing unit in the less transit-friendly areas such as areas of the Sunset and Bayview, and a low limit of .25 parking spaces per housing unit in neighborhoods like downtown, North Beach, and the Mission, which are densely populated, already congested with traffic, and well-served by transit 8. Reform the residential parking permit program to provide parking for people who truly need it, and raise revenue by charging a fair price for that parking. Our current practice of giving a large number of permits to one individual at very low cost severely undervalues precious urban space. While it costs hundreds of dollars a month to store a few thousand pounds of private property, it's free in most neighborhoods to store a private car on the public streets. This is a disservice to people most in need of on-street parking and who should be willing to pay for it. People should pay market price for on-street parking. However, any transition to a system where people pay higher prices should protect current residents by grandfathering in current prices until people move. A good portion of the money generated by parking fees should remain in the neighborhood to be used for neighborhood amenities as advised by local committees. Parking in front of driveways should be permitted as reserved, personal parking, but users should pay a premium. 9. Convert certain public garages and lots to housing. Particular [can we name them?] above-ground parking lots are a menace to lively street life and in locations that cause great disruption to transit and bicycle traffic. The city should identify a few locations and acquire the property, or otherwise cause the property to be converted to housing. 10. Mandate car-sharing parking pods in every neighborhood and in new developments, preferably in highly visible and accessible locations. Car-sharing permits residents to have access to cars without having to invest in permanent ownership. The pay-per-use system of car-share enterprises saves residents money and reduces car use. 11. Encourage businesses to be "green." Free parking forces customers who do not drive to subsidize customers who do drive. The San Francisco Green Party encourages businesses to charge for parking or provide a financial benefit equal to the subsidized cost of parking to customers who do not drive. 12. Ban parking garages in city parks. The city should not build any more parking garages in city parks, or anywhere else for that matter. The city should meet transportation needs through balanced provision of alternatives to driving, and, in the short term, more intensive use of existing parking lots. 13. Charge market rates at all other off-street parking facilities owned or operated by the City and County of San Francisco, or by an agency thereof, whenever City employees work within 1,500 feet of a Municipal Railway stop. Except: a) Spaces reserved between 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. for night shift workers who must arrive or leave at times when public transit does not operate with less than one 21 minute headway; b) Spaces reserved for emergency personnel, and; c) Spaces reserved for employees required to use their personal vehicles for their work. [JMC: concern this is too detailed; describe exceptions more breifly] 14. Eliminate free VIP parking at the airport. [Sue: except for Senators and members of the Bay Area congressional delegation? I say no, but others might say yes.] [JMC: no exceptions] 15. Increase the cost of new curb cuts to make way for new driveways to garages. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the elimination of public parking space, often in the removal of trees, and the transformation of sidewalk right-of-ways into driveways. The cost of new curb cuts should be proportional to the length of the cut, and increase with each tree removed. Two suggestions for alternative language from Jym: No new driveway curb cuts should be approved except to accommodate residents with physical disabilities. New curb cuts should be very expensive: the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, and any trees removed must be replaced with multiple trees, the basal areas of which must add up to the basal area of the original tree. =v= If consensus can't be reached on that, Jym suggests this: No new driveway curb cuts should be approved if they will result in the damage or loss of a street tree, except to accommodate residents with physical disabilities. New curb cuts should be very expensive: the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, and any trees removed must be replaced with multiple trees, the basal areas of which must add up to the basal area of the original tree. [JMC: "basal area" is too technical; just say that a single mature tree should be replaced with multiple young trees. However, I have a concern that this would make the trees too close together.] 16. Enforce laws against the paving of front yards to provide parking. [JMC: are there such laws? zoning?] 17. Convert one car space at the forward-facing end of some city blocks to motorcyle-only parking, especially in areas in which motorcycle-parking is practically non-existent. Priority should be given in cases where a large car or SUV parked in the space would block drivers' vision and present a safety hazard to pedestrians and other drivers. Install physical barriers to protect motorcycles in such parking spaces from being hit by incompetent drivers. 18. Allow dedicated motorcycle parking on sections of curbs between driveways that are too small for cars. Many of these areas are currently painted red. These spaces should be illegal for cars, but legal for motorcycles, and different markings (e.g., striping on the curb or street) should be used to indicate this. 19. Encourage BART to charge for parking at all BART parking lots. [JMC: thinks this should go to the Transit section. Explain that no SF lots are free, so this means SF riders end up subsidizing suburbanites] D. Taxis and Paratransit Each taxi in San Francisco averages 18,200 trips per year for a cumulative total of 25 million rides. Taxis operate almost continuously; they therefore contribute less to most forms of air pollution than private automobiles, as cars produce more air pollution in the first half hour of operation. San Francisco's 1,381 cabs should thus be acknowledged as a vital part of the city's Transit-First policy. To this end, the SFGP recommends that the City: 1. A) Municipalize the taxi system. Cabs would be owned by the City and driven by employee drivers. Under this system, drivers would be paid an hourly wage plus commission for any fares over 15 to 20 per shift; or, B) Maintain a fleet of privately owned medallion vehicles whose owners would pay a concession fee. Either system would create a professional class of drivers, and under either system, drivers could be provided city-sponsored health care and other benefits. 2. Maintain the gate cap that companies charge drivers as long as taxis remain in private hands. 3. Establish centralized dispatch. Currently cab companies either have their own dispatch service or affiliate with one. But in that independent cab drivers (and not their passengers) are clients of cab companies who do dispatch, there is currently no direct incentive for cab companies to improve the efficiency of dispatch. 4. Subsidize taxis for the purpose of supplementing Muni. People who work odd hours need dependable and affordable transportation. Taxis can fulfill this need; in many cases, this would be cheaper for the city than expanding bus service along certain routes at certain times. 5. Incorporate taxis into any future local and regional Translink pass systems to ease the transition from buses and BART to cabs. 6. Require taxi companies to take credit/debit cards. 7. Create cab stands at the termini of Muni lines, major transit junctions, commercial areas, and in parts of the city underserved by Muni OWL service and other forms of transit. Cab stands are good for drivers, riders and the environment. 8. Create transit-only streets that can be used by Muni and cabs. [JMC: overlaps with G.10] 9. Require that all cabs be low-emission or zero-emission vehicles once such vehicles appropriate for taxi purposes become available. 10. Require that cabs be inspected a minimum of two times in the first year and thereafter four times a year. The average cab in San Francisco is driven about 100,000 miles per year, and cars that are tuned up generate less pollution. E. Pedestrians At some point in the day, almost everyone is a pedestrian. The advantages of walking are born out in both the health of pedestrians and the health of the environment itself. The San Francisco Green Party challenges the city to lower the number of households with cars from the current rate of 29 percent. One part of our proposed solutions encompasses three main areas of pedestrian welfare: safety, health and access. Another part of the solution increases the number of retail stores, libraries, schools, restaurants and other services within each neighborhood - perhaps on the ground floors of buildings that once had garages - in such a way as to make every neighborhood self-sufficient or nearly self-sufficient. The San Francisco Green Party believes the City should: 1. Fund education for Police and the Department of Education regarding enforcement of laws relating to pedestrians. 2. Dedicate more City funds to pedestrian projects such as safety awareness, zebra striping, lighted crosswalks, pedestrian scrambles, and countdown signals. 3. Aggressively enforce violations of pedestrian rights-of-way such as parking on sidewalks. 4. Combine double of speeding fines in problem areas, beginning with 19th Ave., with increased enforcement of speed laws. As success is achieved along 19th Avenue in calming traffic, step up enforcement in other parts of the City. 5. Plant more trees along sidewalks, ensure their well-being, and enforce laws to prevent them from being trimmed improperly and/or destroyed. Increase the number of benches on sidewalks as well, as long as they do not violate Americans with Disabilities Act regulations. [Stephanie: concern about noise from benches bothering residents] 6. Encourage changes in state law such that pedestrian injuries and deaths as a result of moving violations result in much more severe penalties. Currently, unless intent can be proved, motorists are only charged with moving violations. 7. Order that vehicles that block the right of way of pedestrians be towed without waiting for anyone to call DPT. 8. Use level of service standards that account for pedestrians in motion, not just those waiting to cross streets at intersections or in pedestrian crosswalks when designing sidewalks. Such a change would encourage planners to design wider sidewalks. 9. Increase traffic-calming measures that improve safety for pedestrians. Such measures include narrowing streets, planting trees, and pedestrian bulbouts, among others. 10. Construct of pedestrian bulbouts in such a way that bike lanes go through them, or in such a way that bikes waiting to go through intersections serve as a buffer between pedestrians in the crosswalks and cars (which wait behind the bikes). Jym: =v= San Francisco needs to engineer a new way of handling drainage at intersections, because the current approach is the exact opposite of a bulbout -- which encourages speeding cars to turn corners too fast and give pedestrians a longer journey from corner to corner. =v= A selling point: bulbouts could create more parking spaces, possibly motorcycle spaces, or possibly one car parking space where there wasn't enough room before. 11. Redesign crosswalks in high-density neighborhoods with many pedestrians (e.g., Haight Street, Chinatown, and others) to allow for diagonal crossing during a traffic signal cycle in which lights are red in both directions. 12. Enforce of existing laws regarding operation of motorized vehicles on sidewalks: the only legal vehicles are motorized wheelchairs traveling at eight miles per hour or less, and cars and motorcycles entering or leaving garages. F. Bikes Bicycling is quiet, clean, practically free, and personally healthful. Bicycling, like walking but to a lesser degree, is an antidote to alienation, encouraging interaction with and engagement in the public life of the streets. It's the most efficient means of transportation. [Sue: it is? Can we back this up with statistics?] It provides independent, door-to-door transportation for people too young or old to operate a car, and can even provide mobility for physically impaired people who find it difficult to walk. In a city where most trips are under five miles, bicycling should become a first-choice transportation means for at least 10 percent of all trips within the City. San Francisco should support all measures to remove the obstacles that prevent residents and visitors from enjoying easy, safe, and pleasurable bicycling to any destination in the City. The San Francisco Green Party recommends the following measures to accomplish this: 1. Allocate at least $120 million over the next 20 years to bicycle planning, infrastructure, and promotion. 2. Build a complete citywide bicycle network, that provides separated bike paths, bike lanes, and streets traffic-calmed to the prevailing speed of a relatively slow bicycle rider. 3. Create more and better bicycle parking. Sidewalk bike parking should be ubiquitous. Workplaces should provide bicycle parking indoors, and showers and lockers for bicycle commuters. Every parking garage should comply with the law requiring secure bicycle parking and the advertising of such, and the law should be strengthened to require monitoring of the bicycle parking area by a security camera or attendant. All major transit stations should provide secure, covered bicycle parking. Jym: New York City has bike racks that also protect trees. This is a great piece of street furniture, and an idea San Francisco should use. (New York also has tree guards that unintentionally work very well as bike racks, but only because New York bikers lock up with chains instead of U-locks.) [Sue: sidewalk parking should NOT be ubiquitous. Bike parking should be in buildings or on streets, and when there is bike parking on streets, it should be done in compliance with the ADA. There�s a statistic somewhere that something like 10 bikes can use the space of one car space.] 4. Improve design of bike racks and bicycle access on Muni, BART, and CalTrain. Sue: Call on airlines that use the San Francisco International Airport to better serve the needs of their biking patrons by providing safe, inexpensive and simple methods of bike transportation. 5. Restore optional driver education to our schools for students at the age of 16 or 17, and include bicycle safety information. Fund mandatory bicycle education, including safe operation and social aspects, in our schools for children age 10 to 12. 6. Design ALL our streets to encourage slower and safer speeds and less competitive driving. This may include narrower street lanes (and wider sidewalks, bike lanes and more trees) so as not to give a freeway-like atmosphere to city streets. 7. Provide funding for bicycle cooperatives that offer less expensive bikes for sale and rental to those who can not afford them. These co-ops would also provide a place to repair and learn about bikes - especially health and safety. Co-ops could also sponsor teach-ins which would strive to reach out to potential cyclists and anyone who wants to participate in making transportation better for all. Jym: =v= Perhaps the co-op approach could be combined with the Bikestation approach? (A Bikestation should be located somewhere other than Embarcadero BART, though.) 8. Instruct San Francisco police to deprioritize bicycle violations at stop signs and red lights where bicyclists yield the right-of-way, and urge the California legislature to amend the Vehicle Code to adopt the Idaho vehicle code's unique treatment of bicycle behavior at intersections: yield at STOP signs and STOP (then proceed) at red lights. 9. Establish bike patrols that ensure that bike lanes are clear during all times, especially commute hours. 10. Amend San Francisco's environmental review procedures, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), so that traffic changes that are a result of improvements to the environment for pedestrians, transit, and bicycle riding are not subject to lengthy and time-consuming environmental impact reports, provided that such improvements would not result in an increase in car vehicle miles traveled. G. Streets and Cars The San Francisco Green Party recognizes the need of many people to use cars for business and personal reasons. However: 1. World fossil fuel supplies are dwindling and there is as of yet no viable, cheap alternative to gasoline or natural gas. 2. The number of dwelling units in San Francisco has increased by 34,000 while the number of cars has increased by 165,000 since 1955, having a severe impact on the quality of street life in the city. 3. Obesity is becoming epidemic across all ethnicities, and especially in children, in some part due to the fact that Americans automatically drive places instead of walking or biking. The City and other entities should therefore: 1. Support nonprofit and cooperative car-sharing enterprises through parking policies that dedicate spaces specifically for vehicles owned in common. 2. Increase the price of parking a car, and allocate fewer development resources to building parking at the expense of housing (see section C). 3. Provide fleets of hybrid, electric and low-emissions vehicles at worksites for people whose jobs necessitate driving (e.g., building inspectors and visiting nurses). 4. Implement traffic-calming measures such as narrowing roadways, planting trees, pedestrian bulbouts at intersections, and zebra stripes at crosswalks (see section E) to improve the pedestrian ambiance and minimize the impact of automobiles. 5. Increase enforcement of traffic violations such as speeding and blocking intersections. Specifically, the SFGP supports state legislation to double the fine for speeding along 19th Avenue. The SFGP also supports stricter enforcement of sidewalk parking violations along 19th Avenue and other streets in conjunction with stepped up efforts to slow down traffic along 19th Avenue. Cars parked on streets, as opposed to sidewalks, are a traffic calming tool. 6. Increase density along major transit corridors and the development of truly livable - and therefore walkable and bikable communities - that have grocery stores, libraries, bookstores, parks, community gardens, clothing stores, restaurants, schools, medical offices and everything else that is necessary for healthy and joyful lives. Neighborhoods with a variety of amenities eliminate the need for people to get in cars and travel for their needs. 7. Support experimental programs such as "Way to Go Seattle" that paid families to leave their second car at home and only depend on one car or on alternative means of transportation. 8. Encourage state lawmakers to triple fines for any moving violation that occurs while the driver is talking on a cell phone. [Ted recommends for SUVs also] 9. Create more carfree areas and close JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park on Saturdays as well as Sundays. 10. Create more dedicated bus lanes (see section B), as well as zones (such as the downtown section of Market Street) with restrictions on private automobile use. Delivery trucks, public transit, taxis, paratransit, and bicycles would not be restricted in such zones. 11. Strictly enforce noise regulations for vehicles that violate noise pollution laws. 12. Turn most wide one-way streets in South of Market into two-way streets, and time traffic lights on them to discourage speeding. At the same time, sidewalks should be widened to reduce the total amount of space reserved for cars. This would transform the neighborhood into a much more pedestrian-friendly district of the city within easy walking distance of many other means of transit. Local businesses such as restaurants with sidewalk cafes could burgeon as a result of this transformation of the neighborhood. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Gruberg's platform comments
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

THere are mistakes in the latest draft I noticed after I had sent it out. SUe

1 0