- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

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

08 Jul '04

Everyone, Below and attached (a more readable copy I think) is an edited version of the latest draft. I've left most stuff in, but I may have inadvertantly deleted some items. Check against your originals. See you Thursday, 7 p.m., GP office. Sue On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:37:40 -0700 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > I've updated the platform plank with some new language mainly > contributed by Dave, and removed the reference to bikes on the > sidewalk. It's pasted here, and on my website (sfgreens.org) > > Our next TWG meeting (7/8) has been added to the SFGP website. > I'll be out of town for the next 2 weeks, but Sue said she might > want to call a meeting before then. Until then, control of the > draft is in her hands. > > Proposed Transportation Plank > Draft 7, 6/18/04 > 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 people 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 highways and other sources such as power plants. Such conversions will reduce particulate pollution in these neighborhoods; 4. Creation of a local car registration fee, based on the engine size, weight, fuel efficiency, and value of the car. This fee should be offset by a transportation tax credit to reward drivers of cheaper, less-polluting, and more efficient cars; [Dave: don't exempt contractors, as this would make the license program harder to administer and lead to abuse. Should be cost of doing business, just as the truck is now] {Sue: lower taxes for less polluting cars. Tax credits should go to those who do not drive and take public transportation or bike or walk instead.} 5. Commuter subsidies distort the true costs of modes of transit, encouraging car use over modes that are better for the environment and, ultimately, less economically sound. The subsidy of free and cheap parking, in particular, discourages the use of mass transit and also wastes a large proportion of mass transit funding. These subsidies should be dropped or shifted to encourage more responsible modes. {Sue: shouldn't we encourage people who visit SF for shopping to come on Golden Gate Transit, Samstrans or BART?} 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); {Sue: higher TIDF should apply in the downtown corridor in that most public transportation is routed to downtown where it is work intensive} 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 smart transit development. 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 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 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 from one neighborhood to another in half an hour or less. [Sue: Do we really think its possible to create a BRT system that would get people in BV/HP to Ocean Beach in under half an hour? Lets see: Third Street Light Rail to ???, then transfer to ????] 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. Support Commuter Check programs, with payroll tax write-offs, in which employers pay employees on a per month basis for not driving. {Sue: Massachusetts had some kind of a tax write-off for people who used public transportation as opposed to cars. We should encourage the passage of laws at the state level that permit tax deductions for people who buy Fastpasses.} 5. Maintain infrastructure in good repair, so less money is spent on equipment failures. 6. Eliminate redundant Muni stops on the same line that are only one block apart. 7. Ensure faster service by allowing 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 no-wait transfers at key junctions. {Sue: I can imagine what these are, bbut Im 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, and institute student discounts for all students on Fastpasses. {Sue: if everyone is paying for fastpasses through student fees, then why would they get further discounts? What would the discounts be for?} 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-only corridors and double parking in bus/rail lanes. 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: Ive changed the language in this but Im not sure Ive 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. 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 City leaders: 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. 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. Allow non-independently accessible parking to meet parking requirements until such requirements are eliminated. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.] 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. Enforce laws against the paving of front yards to provide parking. 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. 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. Encourage BART to charge for parking at all BART parking lots. 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 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, 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 completely block the right of way of pedestrians be towed without waiting for anyone to call DPT. Jym: Who decides what "completely block" means? I ask this because usually those parking on sidewalks and in crosswalks come up with a rationalization that they've left enough room. I don't think a platform should codify this rationalization to any degree: it's illegal to block *any* of the right of way. Sue: I agree with Jym. 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. Increase traffic-calming measures that improve safety for pedestrians. Such measures include narrowing streets, planting trees, and pedestrian bulbouts, among others. 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. Theres 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: Support nonprofit car-sharing enterprises, such as CityCarshare and neighborhood and community car-sharing cooperatives, 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). Provide fleets of hybrid, electric and low-emissions vehicles at worksites for people whose jobs necessitate driving (e.g., building inspectors and visiting nurses). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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] Create more carfree areas and close JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park on Saturdays as well as Sundays. 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. Strict enforcement of noise regulations for vehicles that violate noise pollution laws. 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. Sue: The following is a suggestion from Jym, but Im not longer sure where it goes. (E4) compliance with the law -- even by the DPW -- that their value in calming traffic is lost. Sue: not sure I included this and Im no longer sure where it goes: >> [C]12. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the >> elimination of public parking space and often in the removal >> of trees. Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or >> ticketing cars illegally blocking a driveway unless a >> resident of the property complains, a curb cut effectively >> turns the driveway into a private parking space. =v= The "because" clause is unnecessary, as this is true even if the resident isn't blocking the driveway: the very existence of the curb cut means a public parking space has been taken traded for one or more private parking spaces. =v= The root of the problem here is a huge misperception: the idea that adding off-street parking will free up room for more on-street parking. This never works. In fact, it always makes things worse, because by accommodating more cars, you get more cars.

1 0

Gruberg's platform comments
by John-Marc Chandonia 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

I've de-Worded the comments, and paste them here as text. This is also a reminder about our meeting to finalize the platform plank this Thursday evening; I know of at least one other event at the same time, but it's important we all show up to get this done before we get too far into campaign season. JMC Gruberg's comments follow: 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. The San Francisco Green Party supports: 1. Creating a professional class of drivers through one of two options. The first option would be the creation of a municipal taxi service in which cabs are owned by the city and leased to drivers. Under such a system, drivers would be paid an hourly wage plus commission for any fares over 15 to 20 per shift in order to encourage efficiency. Under this system, drivers could also be brought into the city's benefits system. The second option would maintain the fleet of privately-owned vehicles but would charge a concession fee to owners of medallions. Under either system, drivers could be incorporated into the City and County Health Services and retirement system. Currently, drivers are considered independent contractors and must pay for their own health insurance. Comments: Since you're talking about municipalizing the taxi system, paying drivers and hourly wage, etc., it would be more accurate to say "cabs are owned by the city and driven by employee drivers." Under your second option, it may not be possible to bring drivers into the city retirement system. It might be better to say "Under either system, drivers could be provided city-sponsored health care and other benefits." 2. As long as taxis remain in private hands, maintain the gate cap that companies can charge drivers who rent vehicles. 3. Establish centralized dispatch. Currently cab companies, which do not own cabs themselves, are responsible for doing dispatch. However, in cab companies collect fees from drivers on a per-shift rather than per-customer basis, there is currently no direct incentive for cab companies to hire more dispatchers. Comments: It's not accurate to say that cab companies do not own cabs themselves. Most do. Better to say something like: "Currently cab companies either have their own dispatch service or affiliate with one . . . there is currently no direct incentive for cab companies to improve the efficiency of dispatch." 4. The City should 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 taxis to take credit cards. Comment: So as to be clear that this burden is not falling on the driver, it might be better to say "Require all taxi companies to take credit 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. Requiring that all cabs in operation by 2015 be low-emission or zero-emission vehicles. Comment: 2015 may be way too long. How about: "Requiring that all cabs be low-emission or zero-emission vehicles once such vehicles appropriate for taxi purposes become available." (Or maybe there's a better way to phrase this.) 10. Requiring that cabs be inspected a minimum of four times a year. The average cab in SF is driven about 100,000 miles per year, and cars that are tuned up generate less pollution. Comment: Four times a year may be excessive for a new vehicle. How about: "inspected a minimum of two times in the first year and thereafter four times a year." -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

TLC Partner Groups: Parking Tax Endorsements
by Jeremy Nelson 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

Dear TLC partner groups & allies- Last week we sent out a request for your support of TLC's collaboration with senior and disabled groups, environmental organizations, and transportation advocates on a campaign to raise the parking tax. Raising the parking tax would generate $20 million per year for senior & disabled services and better Muni & paratransit service, and is the most socially-progressive and the only environmentally-beneficial revenue proposal under consideration that would help bridge the City's budget deficit. Unlike Mayor Newsom's proposed sales tax increase which will fall largely on San Franciscans and cannot be avoided except by shopping outside of San Francisco, surveys show that 1/2 to 2/3 of people who pay the parking tax are out-of-towners, and a large number of these are downtown office commuters who can 'beat the tax' simply by carpooling or taking transit to work. As promised in that earlier e-mail, I've attached the following materials to make it easy for your organization to endorse this concept and mobilize your members to lobby the Mayor and Board of Supervisors: 1) Endorsement Letter (template for you to modify to suit your organization's key issues/constituencies) 2) Endorsement Form 3) Fact Sheet: "Benefits & Feasibility of Raising the Parking Tax" The proposal to raise the parking tax will likely be heard at NEXT TUESDAY'S (6/13) FINANCE COMMITTEE (late morning/early afternoon, Room 263). You could have a huge impact by 1) coming to Tuesday's hearing to TESTIFY IN SUPPORT and 2) asking your members to CONTACT THE MAYOR AND BOARD (especially Finance Committee members DALY, PESKIN, and AMMIANO) by this Friday. Feel free to forward this e-mail to any other organizations/colleagues in your network that might be interested in supporting increasing the parking tax. Thank you in advance for you help, and please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best-Jeremy Jeremy Nelson Transportation for a Livable City (TLC) 1095 Market St., Suite 402 San Francisco, CA 94103 office: 415.431.2447 cell: 415.425.9848 fax: 775.540.9813 e-mail: jeremy(a)livablecity.org web: www.livablecity.org -----Original Message----- From: Tom Radulovich [mailto:tom@livablecity.org] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 6:11 PM Subject: Action Alert to TLC Partners: Parking Tax THE CAMPAIGN TO RAISE THE PARKING TAX. TLC has been working with several senior and environmental groups (aka, "Green & Gray Coalition") to build support for raising the parking tax from 25% to 35%. This proposal would generate $18-22M a year, to be divided Muni & paratransit and senior/disabled services. Raising the parking tax is the most socially-progressive and only environmentally-beneficial revenue proposal currently being considered as a way to address the City's $300M budget deficit. Surveys show that one-half to two-thirds of people who pay the tax are out-of-towners (who can't vote on it), unlike the other proposed tax increases, which fall largely or entirely on San Franciscans. Finally, transportation research shows that a 10% increase in the price of parking results in up to a 6% decrease in demand for existing parking spaces, meaning less cars on San Francisco streets, which in turn translates into safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, faster transit service, more incentive to build housing with reduced parking, and more people commuting without a car and using car share for work trips. The parking tax incentivizes an environment-friendly shift in behavior, simultaneously discouraging driving downtown while providing more operating funds for Muni service. NOW WE NEED YOUR HELP: 1) Ask your board to officially endorse the concept of raising the parking tax (Jeremy will send the endorsement form shortly). More details about the benefits of raising the parking tax are in the attached Fact Sheet, and Jeremy or I would also be happy to meet with you to further discuss this proposal and campaign. Please forward endorsements to Jeremy. 2) Contact the Board of Supervisors and tell them that you believe that a progressive, environmentally-friendly Board should support raising the parking tax. Supervisor Daly has asked for this proposal to be heard at the Finance Committee, so it is especially important to contact Daly and fellow Finance Committee members Ammiano and Peskin before FRIDAY, JULY 9TH. Please cc Jeremy (mailto:jeremy@livablecity.org). 3) Come out to testify in support this proposal, and ask your members to do the same. The proposal will be likely be heard at the FINANCE COMMITTEE, TUESDAY, JULY 13TH (late morning or early afternoon, TBD), ROOM 263. Please e-mail Jeremy (mailto:jeremy@livablecity.org) if you think you can make it to this hearing, and he'll update you once the time/date is confirmed.

1 0

Re: [Transpo] [junipers_hill@yahoo.com: Proposed Transportation Plank thoughts]
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

Hi Jennifer, I'm working on an edit, clean-up of the transportation platform now. I'm on page 7 of a 23-page document. As I'm doing this, I'm including the remarks of Jym Dyer, Dave Snyder, Jerry, yourself and others. I have been in touch with Josh Switsky of the Planning Department. He gave me some wonderful input which I hope to work into the platform. I hope his ideas will address some of the things you have brought up. Sue Vaughan On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:22:49 -0700 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > More feedback: > > ----- Forwarded message from Jennifer Donlon > <junipers_hill(a)yahoo.com> ----- > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:47:24 -0700 (PDT) > From: Jennifer Donlon <junipers_hill(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: Proposed Transportation Plank thoughts > To: jmc(a)sfgreens.org > > Hi John-Marc, > > How are you? I want to thank you and the whole group for putting the > plank together. I'm involved with the Housing and Land Use working > group and your working group has really set a great bar to reach. I > read throught the proposed plank and have a few thoughts. > > In either Section A or B I think it would be great to include that > transit planning especially for transit corridors should be > coordinated with the Planning Department. As far as I know > currently there is little if any coordination. > > In Section B Muni and Regional Transit #6 - would the elmination of > redundant stops on the same line pose a problem for disabled persons > especially in the more hilly areas of the city? > > Section D Taxis and Paratransit #6 - are check cards included as > credit cards? I think that businesses are charged more for offering > check card payment but there are many people who don't have credit > cards but do have check cards. > > Section E Pedestrians #5 - I think that along with expanding zebra > stripe crosswalks, the lighted striped crosswalks (like at City Hall > on Polk) should be expanded. I take night classes at City College > and on Phelan lighted crosswalks would really help. So many cars > leaving the campus and so many pedestrians cross the street from the > campus to the parking lot and to busstops at night is a recipe for > an accident. > > Section G Street Cars #11 - enforcement of noise regulations. Maybe > I just happen to live where motorcycles love to ride but it seems > they contribute to more noise pollution than any other motorized > vehicle. Would it be redundant to specifically mention motorcycles? > > Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions. And thanks > again to the whole group for putting this together! > > > -Jennifer- > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > -- > 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

Fw: Green taxi platform
by mark gruberg 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

----- Original Message ----- From: "mark gruberg" <mark1106(a)att.net> To: "John-Marc Chandonia" <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:29 PM Subject: Green taxi platform > John-Marc: > > I hope this is not too late. I'm attaching the Green taxi platform with > some notes for suggested changes that Ruach Graffis and I thought might be > of help. I should say that in general we like the platform very much. > > Mark Gruberg > > >

1 0

[junipers_hill@yahoo.com: Proposed Transportation Plank thoughts]
by John-Marc Chandonia 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

More feedback: ----- Forwarded message from Jennifer Donlon <junipers_hill(a)yahoo.com> ----- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:47:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Jennifer Donlon <junipers_hill(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Proposed Transportation Plank thoughts To: jmc(a)sfgreens.org Hi John-Marc, How are you? I want to thank you and the whole group for putting the plank together. I'm involved with the Housing and Land Use working group and your working group has really set a great bar to reach. I read throught the proposed plank and have a few thoughts. In either Section A or B I think it would be great to include that transit planning especially for transit corridors should be coordinated with the Planning Department. As far as I know currently there is little if any coordination. In Section B Muni and Regional Transit #6 - would the elmination of redundant stops on the same line pose a problem for disabled persons especially in the more hilly areas of the city? Section D Taxis and Paratransit #6 - are check cards included as credit cards? I think that businesses are charged more for offering check card payment but there are many people who don't have credit cards but do have check cards. Section E Pedestrians #5 - I think that along with expanding zebra stripe crosswalks, the lighted striped crosswalks (like at City Hall on Polk) should be expanded. I take night classes at City College and on Phelan lighted crosswalks would really help. So many cars leaving the campus and so many pedestrians cross the street from the campus to the parking lot and to busstops at night is a recipe for an accident. Section G Street Cars #11 - enforcement of noise regulations. Maybe I just happen to live where motorcycles love to ride but it seems they contribute to more noise pollution than any other motorized vehicle. Would it be redundant to specifically mention motorcycles? Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions. And thanks again to the whole group for putting this together! -Jennifer- --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

platform changes
by Jerry Path 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

Hi I have some further changes - additions which I would like to suggest for our platform. The 1st is under - "B. Muni and Regional transit." - point # 21. I would suggest changing the part - "including 6-hour days at the same rate of pay " - to read - "including 6-hour days with the same take home pay." I think that saying "the same rate of pay" might be taken to mean an overall reduction of pay - which is not our intent. The 2nd is under - " G. Streets and Cars." After the line - "The San Francisco Green Party therefore supports :" - I would add this - " and also neighborhood and community cooperative car-sharing" , so that the whole sentence would read - " Non-profit car-sharing enterprises, such as City-Carshare, and also neighborhood and community cooperative car sharing". Jerry Path pjrry(a)igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

2 1

Re: [Transpo] Curb cuts (plank section C 12)
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 21 Jun '04

21 Jun '04

Jim, Can you work this and the suggestions in the previous e-mail into the latest draft? If not, can you put paste each part into the right section and I'll work on it? Thanks Sue P.S. These are good suggestions. On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Jym Dyer <jym(a)econet.org> writes: > >> [C]12. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the > >> elimination of public parking space and often in the removal > >> of trees. Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or > >> ticketing cars illegally blocking a driveway unless a > >> resident of the property complains, a curb cut effectively > >> turns the driveway into a private parking space. > > =v= The "because" clause is unnecessary, as this is true even if > the resident isn't blocking the driveway: the very existence of > the curb cut means a public parking space has been taken traded > for one or more private parking spaces. > > =v= The root of the problem here is a huge misperception: the > idea that adding off-street parking will free up room for more > on-street parking. This never works. In fact, it always makes > things worse, because by accommodating more cars, you get more > cars. > > =v= San Francisco will in some circumstances approve of a curb > cut for a one-car garage, but a curb cut for a two- or more-car > garage will *always* be approved. The destruction of a tree is > always approved -- the process is simply a rubber-stamping -- > since the huge misperception takes priority. (They figure a > multi-car garage will free up more parking spaces, but instead, > it only adds more cars to the streets.) > > >> New curb cuts should be very expensive: the cost should > >> be proportional to the length of the cut, and increase with > >> each tree removed. > > =v= Abandon the huge misperception and something becomes clear: > a curb cut is always a private gain at public expense. Damaging > public property, especially a street tree, should only be done > for a compelling reason. > > =v= There's another wrench in the works, as well. The ecology > of the urban forest in San Francisco is suffering from a lack > of a good succession of trees of various ages. More mature > trees protect younger ones. When a driveway is put in, that > usually only leaves room for one street tree. So, when that > tree finally dies, its replacement can't have other mature trees > on either side, to protect it. It'll be surrounded by concrete. > > =v= One more thing: the current city policy of "per tree" > mitigation doesn't take the maturity of the tree into account. > You can destroy a 100-year old tree and "mitigate" that by > planting a twig (with a 50% chance of living, and which is not > likely to live more than 10 years in any event). So, instead > of a "per tree" penalty, I'd suggest we adopt a formula based > on the size of the tree. The standard measurement is called > the "tree basal area," which is the area ("pi-r-squared") of > a cross section of a tree at a point 4 feet from the ground. > > =v= So, given all of the above, *my* wording would be this: > > 12. 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, I can suggest this: > > 12. 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. > > <_Jym_> > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Re: [Transpo] plank update; more edits from Sue
by Jym Dyer 20 Jun '04

20 Jun '04

=v= I'm sorry I haven't had time to provide any input earlier. Mostly just a few things here and there, with simple copyedits in all caps. Plus a few paragraphs here and there, for what they're worth. (Preamble) "... should be compensated by focusing ON other transit improvements in these neighborhoods." (A1) "... transit projects which HAVE AN IMPACT ON those neighborhoods, ..." =v= (Impact, used as a verb, doesn't actually mean "have an impact on.") (A5) "More of the cost of transit should be paid by commuters: in particular, parking spaces used primarily by commuters should be extremely expensive." =v= I have two concerns with this. First, the "shoulds" are not really explained. I presume it has something to do with the "true costs of automobile operation" in the Preamble, but this doesn't explain why commuters are singled out here. =v= Second, I can certainly see these words, as written, being singled out and used against us. I can well imagine drive-time KGO DJs and their ilk, who seem to think they have a mandate to pander to anything that spews exhaust, using this to tell commuters that Greens hate them, personally. =v= Here's a stab at alternate wording: Commuter subsidies distort the true costs of modes of transit, encouraging car use over modes that are better for the environment and, ultimately, less economically-sound. The subsidy of free and cheap parking, in particular, discourages the use of mass transit and also wastes a large proportion of mass transit funding. These subsidies should be dropped or shifted to encourage more responsible modes. I don't know how to word the "lower rates on weekends" part. This goes back to the "market rate" issue again, and I suspect that without the subsidy, the supply-and-demand dynamics will come into play. (B4) > {Sue: Massachusetts had some kind of a tax write-off for > people who used public transportation as opposed to cars.} =v= The Bay Area has "Commuter Check," though it's implemented so that employers have to agree to the program, and the tax write-off is handled through their payroll system: http://www.commutercheck.com/cities/sanFrancisco.html (Note that it subsidizes BART parking, which it shouldn't.) It would be good to also have "Commuter Check" available to individuals. (C) "Every car OCCUPIES SPACE at its owner's residence ..." =v= Cars don't live. :-) My wording highlights the fact that storing cars actually decreases "living" space. (C1) "The law should also legalize existing ancillary units, and protect tenants who currently live in THESE units from eviction." (C12) =v= This is a big issue for me, the very one that led to the founding of Trees Not Cars. To keep this message from becoming too long, I've decided to post a followup solely about this one point. (C15) =v= C15 is identical to C12. One should be removed. (C New) =v= People are paving their front yards to park more cars. This is illegal, but it's going on with impunity. They should be stopped and the yards should be depaved. (D11) =v= I prefer any recommendation of alternative fuels and other eco-hyped technologies to be issued with caveats. One caveat is that the full lifecycle of the fuel be considered: the U.S. is mostly talking about schemes to make produce hydrogen fuels vis fossil fuels and nuclear power. Another caveat is whether these can be produced, cleanly, in enough quantity to really make a difference; as opposed to powering a handful of cars that only an elite can afford. Final caveat: the technologies should be prioritized for things such as mass transit rather than cars. =v= Or just remove this section? It's not a transportation infrastructure policy as such. (E4) "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 ..." =v= Maybe all that's too much to put into a tranportation plank, but it's all germane to the value of trees to transportation. Half the street trees planted die right away for lack of care. Many mature trees are trimmed too severely and often not in compliance with the law -- even by the DPW -- that their value in calming traffic is lost. (E7) =v= Who decides what "completely block" means? I ask this because usually those parking on sidewalks and in crosswalks come up with a rationalization that they've left enough room. I don't think a platform should codify this rationalization to any degree: it's illegal to block *any* of the right of way. (E10) =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. (F3) =v= 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.) (F6) =v= I'd mention street trees here, as well. Incidentally, I've seen the "freeway-like atmosphere" of some streets come into existence only after the DPW trimmed mature trees on them! (F7) =v= Perhaps the co-op approach could be combined with the Bikestation approach? (A Bikestation should be located somewhere other than Embarcadero BART, though.) (G Preamble 2) "... 1955, HAVING A SEVERE IMPACT ON the quality ..." =v= ("Impact" as verb again.) (G1) "NONPROFIT car-sharing ..." =v= (No hyphen.) <_Jym_>

1 1

Re: [Transpo] plank update; more edits from Sue
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 20 Jun '04

20 Jun '04

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:37:40 -0700 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > I've updated the platform plank with some new language mainly > contributed by Dave, and removed the reference to bikes on the > sidewalk. It's pasted here, and on my website (sfgreens.org) > > Our next TWG meeting (7/8) has been added to the SFGP website. > I'll be out of town for the next 2 weeks, but Sue said she might > want to call a meeting before then. Until then, control of the > draft is in her hands. > > Proposed Transportation Plank > Draft 7, 6/18/04 > > The San Francisco Green Party believes good transit policy is an > essential part of creating a safe, healthy, and attractive city. > Public transit should be an efficient, reliable and attractive > 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 the drivers' livelihoods. 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. The > Southeast neighborhoods of our city, which bear a high share of > transit costs in the form of air pollution from our freeways, > should > be compensated by focusing other transit improvements in these > neighborhoods. > > Several of these proposals would 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: > working > class people pay a much higher share of 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 Southeast neighborhoods of the city, which is partly caused 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. Ensuring that neighborhood residents get a major share of the > new > jobs created by transit projects which impact those > neighborhoods, > such as the 3rd Street Light Rail. > > 2. Muni should hire more local people for jobs at all levels, so > income from these jobs stays in the City. > > 3. Muni buses in the Southeast neighborhoods should all be > converted > to electric or less-polluting technology such as CNG (compressed > natural gas), to mitigate air quality problems caused by the > highways and other sources such as power plants. > > 4. We call for creation of local car registration fee, based on the > engine size, weight, fuel efficiency, and value of the car. > This > fee should be offset by a transportation tax credit to reward > drivers of cheaper, less polluting, and more efficient cars. > [Dave: don't exempt contractors, as this would make the > license program harder to administer and lead to abuse. > Should be cost of doing business, just as the truck is now] > {Sue: lower taxes for less polluting cars. Tax credits should go to those who do not drive and take public transportation or bike or walk instead.} > 5. More of the cost of transit should be paid by commuters: in > particular, parking spaces used primarily by commuters should be > extremely expensive. These costs could be lowered on weekends > when > there is less demand, to encourage people to come to town to > patronize local businesses. {Sue: shouldn't we encourage people who visit SF for shopping to come on Golden Gate Transit, Samstrans or BART?} > > 6. An increased share of transit costs should 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). {Sue: higher TIDF should apply in the downtown corridor in that most public transportation is routed to downtown where it is work intensive} > > 7. The corporations that profit the most from our current > car-oriented > culture should be asked to pay more of the costs of other > forms of transit. > > 8. Regional planning is necessary for smart transit development. > 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 representaion and funds. > > > B. Muni and Regional transit > > In order to encourage ridership, public transit needs to be > efficient, > affordable, and reliable. Muni's performance and reliability > should be increased to the point where it's an attractive option > for most people going about their daily business, not just > commuting > to and from work. We should increase funding for Muni and work to > shift the operating costs to other sources than the riders: public > transit should eventually be free to riders, funded by all citizens > just as public parks, public schools, and public libraries are. > 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 any neighborhoods of the > city in under half an hour. > > 2. After building the citywide BRT system, gradually replace BRT > with > rail and expand the rail system where such expansion provides > improved rider experience and better transit service, > prioritizing > the expansions that have the least per rider cost and help the > lowest-income riders first. > > 3. Immediately roll fares back to $1 ($35 Fastpass) 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. > {Sue: Massachusetts had some kind of a tax write-off for people who used public transportation as opposed to cars. We should encourage the passage of laws at the state level that permit tax deductions for people who buy Fastpasses.} > 5. Maintain infrastructure in good repair, so less money is spent > on > breakdowns and other emergencies. > > 6. Eliminate redundant Muni stops on the same line that are only > one > block apart. > > 7. Ensure faster service by allowing 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 no-wait transfers at key junctions. > > 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 and electrify it. > > 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, and institute student discounts for all > students on Fastpasses. > > 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 Third Street light rail and Geneva Avenue buses > to > better serve the Visitacion Valley neighborhood. > > 18. More regional funding should be directed towards Muni's > operating costs rather than expensive capital projects. > > 19. Aggressive enforcement of double parking in bus/rail lanes, or > violating transit-only lanes. > > 20. Muni should receive more funding from a variety of sources, > including parking fees and fines (see Parking section), an > increase in the TIDF (transit impact development fee), and > aggressive collection of unpaid TIDF fees from developers. > > 21. Muni drivers and other transit operators should have more > reasonable shifts, including 6-hour days at the same rate of > pay. > [Concerns this would be too expensive] > > 22. We call for more lanes in which buses are given priority. We > call for more clear marking as well as more aggressive > enforcement > of these lanes. > > 23. Build the "G line" by running historic streetcars from Market > Street up Church, out to 9th Ave via the N-Judah tracks, to a > new > branch up 9th Ave into Golden Gate Park. This would be > relatively > inexpensive compared to other new light rail projects, and > provide > a more convenient way to the park than driving for most people. > > > C. Parking: > > Parking has a huge impact on our transportation system. Every car > needs a space to live at its owner's residence and 3 to 4 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 > square feet in San Francisco dedicated to car parking, even a > reduction of 10% 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 transit, walking, and bicycling. Parking reduces > population densities, requiring people to travel greater distances > to > meet their needs. Parking gets in the way of efficient and safe > bicycle and transit travel. Parking lots and garages create dead > environments at the street level that penalize people who prefer to > walk. {Sue: garages on the ground floors of buildings also use space that could otherwise be used for retail, eliminating the need for people to travel in order to shop for some items.} > > The following recommendations will help to reverse the > ever-increasing > provision of parking at the expense of walking, bicycling, and > transit. The San Francisco Green Party supports: > > 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, built out of > basements > and garages and carriage houses, will provide housing, usually > low-cost housing, close to jobs and transit. It also reduces the > use of automobiles by reducing storage capacity. Parking > requirements should never prevent the construction of housing. > The > law should also legalize existing ancillary units, and protect > tenants who currently live in illegal units from eviction. > > 2. 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. > > 3. Increase the tax on commercial parking lot operators. Currently, > a > 25% tax on parking lot operators' receipts (which are exempt > from > 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 > disincentivize driving, and generate public funds. The tax is a > progressive user fee, paid primarily by non San Franciscans, > mostly > people who commute to high-paying jobs, with collateral benefit > to > transit passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. > > 4. 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 1 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. Reducing the amount of parking provided in new housing > will result in lower housing prices for consumers and higher > profit > margins for developers, allowing greater extraction of public > benefit. In other words, the provision of parking in new housing > is > a developer subsidy for the private benefit of relatively > wealthy > housing consumers. Until parking requirements are eliminated, > non-independently accessible parking should count toward meeting > parking requirements. In addition to eliminating the minimum > parking requirement altogether, the city should 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 1 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. > > 5. 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 permitting > relatively free and unregulated parking results in a severe > undervaluing of precious urban space. While it costs hundreds > of > dollars a month to store a a few thousand pounds of private > property, it's free to store a private car on the public > streets. > This is a disservice to people who most need on-street parking > and > would (should) be willing to pay for it. People should pay > market > price for onstreet 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. > > 6. Convert certain public garages and lots to housing. Certain > 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. > > 7. Mandate car-sharing parking spaces in every neighborhood and in > new > developments. Car-sharing permits residents to have access to > cars > without having to invest in permanent ownership. The resultant > pay > per use saves residents money while reducing car use. > Car-sharing > pods should be created in every neighborhood in the city, > preferably in highly visible and accessible locations. > > 8. Discourage businesses from providing free parking for their > customers who drive at the expense of their customers who > don't. This is not a suggestion for policy change but for > grassroots social change. Green businesses should charge for > parking, or provide a financial benefit to their customers who > do > not drive at least equivalent to the effective financial benefit > provided by the provision of free parking. > > 9. A ban on 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. > > 10. Eliminate free parking for city employees unless they are > required to use their personal vehicle for their job. > > 11. Eliminate free VIP parking at the airport. [Dave: has > never heard of this; need to clarify what that means. > We should take it out unless somebody provides a reference] {Sue: Denise D'Anne told me about this. I'll check with her.} > 12. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the > elimination > of public parking space and often in the removal of trees. > Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or ticketing cars > illegally blocking a driveway unless a resident of the property > complains, a curb cut effectively turns the driveway into a > private parking space. New curb cuts should be very expensive: > the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, and > increase with each tree removed. > > 13. Convert 1 car space at the end of some city blocks to > motorcyle-only parking, in areas in which motorcycle-parking is > practically nonexistant. 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 a physical barrier protecting motorcycles in the > parking > spaces from being hit by incompetent drivers. > > 14. Allow dedicated motorcycle parking on streets adjacent to > sections > of curb 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 a different > markings (e.g., striping on the curb or street) should be used > to > indicate this. > > 15. Curb cuts for new or widened driveways result in the > elimination > of public parking space and often in the removal of trees. > Because of the DPT's policy of not towing or ticketing cars > illegally blocking a driveway unless a resident of the property > complains, a curb cut effectively turns the driveway into a > private parking space. New curb cuts should be very expensive: > the cost should be proportional to the length of the cut, and > increase with each tree removed. > > > 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. > > The San Francisco Green Party supports: > > 1. Creating a professional class of drivers through one of two > options. The first option would be the creation of a municipal > taxi service in which cabs are owned by the city and leased to > drivers. Under such a system, drivers would be paid an hourly > wage > plus commission for any fares over 15 to 20 per shift in order > to > encourage efficiency. Under this system, drivers could also be > brought into the city's benefits system. The second option > would > maintain the fleet of privately-owned vehicles but would charge > a > concession fee to owners of medallions. Under either system, > drivers could be incorporated into the City and County Health > Services and retirement system. Currently, drivers are > considered > independent contractors and must pay for their own health > insurance. > > 2. As long as taxis remain in private hands, maintain or lower the > gate cap that companies can charge drivers who rent vehicles. > Lowering the gate cap could result in drastically reduced > prices. {SUe: change "prices" to "fares."} > > 3. Establish centralized dispatch. Currently cab companies, which > do > not own cabs themselves, are responsible for doing dispatch. > However, in that cab companies collect fees from drivers on a > per-shift > rather than per-customer basis, there is currently no direct > incentive for cab companies to hire more dispatchers. > > 4. The City should 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 taxis to take credit 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. Requiring that all cabs in operation by 2015 be low-emission or > zero-emmission vehicles. > > 10. Requiring that cabs be inspected a minimum of four times a > year. > The average cab in SF is driven about 100,000 miles per year, > and > cars that are tuned up generate less pollution. > > 11. Fund a pilot program for converting taxis to hydrogen power, > with refueling stations around the city, with hydrogen created > from solar or wind power. These stations could eventually > be used by buses and cars. [From Rob Arnow] > {Sue: Hydrogen? Right now one hydrogen car costs about $1 million, and there are many who think the hydrogen economy is a lot of hype. If we were to fund a pilot program, it could be tremendously expensive. How about biodiesel taxis instead? There are not enough fast food restaurants to supply the needs of the country if we want to kepp all our personal cars, but there might be enough to meet the needs of smaller fleets of municipal vehicles -- including taxis.} > > E. Pedestrians > > At some point in the day, almost everyone is a pedestrian. The > advantages of walking are bourne 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%. One part of our proposed solutions encompass > 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. > > [Sue: In this section we might also want to say something about the > creation of livable communities in which schools, grocery stores, > bookstores and libraries, etc., are plentiful enough to be within > walking distance of most residents (unlike most of the Sunset now)] > [JMC: this looks like good material for the intro, if somebody > would > draft language!] {Sue: ok I did it. I included it in the intro to the ped part.} > > The San Francisco Green Party supports the following measures: > > 1. Fund education for Police and DPT regarding enforcement of laws > relating to pedestrians. Enforcement of laws generates enough > revenue for the city to make these programs self-sufficient; > more aggressive enforcement would make the city safer and allow > more PCOs (parking control officers) to be hired. {Sue: enforcement of the laws pays for PCOs I think (we're trying to find this out at the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee). I don't know if education re. ped issues would be additional.} > > 2. Dedicate more City funds to pedestrian and bike projects. > > 3. Increases fines for violations that most affect pedestrians: > > a. Raise fines for parking on the sidewalk to the same amount as > for other violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act > (e.g., > illegal blocking of ramps or parking in spaces reserved for the > disabled). [Ted: concern that this is regressive. Dave: also > thinks current fine ($100) is OK, and we should just call for > more enforcement] {Sue: yes, more enforcement since state laws puts a cap on sidewalk parking fines at $100.} > > b. Double speeding fines in problem areas, beginning with 19th > Ave. > > 4. Plant more trees along sidewalks and increase the number of > benches > to prevent sidewalk parking of motorized vehicles. [Stephanie: > concern about noise from benches bothering residents] > > 5. Expand the number of pedestrian countdown signals and "zebra > stripes" in crosswalks. > > 6. Motorists must be held accountable for pedestrian deaths. > Killing > a pedestrian should be a much more serious penalty than a mere > moving violation. {SUe: this would require changes in the law at the state level.} > > 7. Vehicles that completely block the right of way of pedestrians > should be towed, without anybody having to call DPT. > > 8. When designing sidewalks, city planners should use Level of > Service > (LOS) standards which account for pedestrians in motion. > > 9. Increase traffic-calming measures that improve safety for > pedestrians. Such measures include narrowing streets, planting > trees and enforcement of sidewalk parking (cars parked curbside > narrow traffic lanes and force people to drive more slowly). > > 10. Bulbouts are good traffic-calming measures for pedestrians. > They > can be constructed 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). > > 11. In high-density neighborhoods with many pedestrians (e.g., > Haight > Street, Chinatown), we advocate redesigning the crosswalks to > allow diagonal crossing, and a cycle in which lights are red in > both directions. > > 12. Enforcement of existing laws regarding operation of motorized > vehicles on sidewalks: the only legal vehicles are motorized > wheelchairs, 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. > 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% 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. > > 4. Engineer better and provide more access for bicycles on Muni, > BART, > and CalTrain. > > 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 and bike lanes) so as not to give a > freeway-like atmosphere to city streets. > > 7. San Francisco should provide funding for bicycle cooperatives > that > would provide less expensive bikes for those who can not afford > them - and also less expensive rentals. 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. > > 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 CA 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. Bike patrols should ensure bike lanes are clear during all > times, > especially commute hours. > > 10. San Francisco's environmental review procedures, as required > under > the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), should be > amended > 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 could 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, severely impacting 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 San Francisco Green Party therefore supports: > > 1. Non-profit car-sharing enterprises, such as CityCarshare. > > 2. Increasing the price of parking a car, and allocating fewer > development resources to building parking at the expense > of housing (see section C). > > 3. Fleets of hybrid, electric and low-emissions vehicles at > worksites > for people whose jobs necessitate driving (e.g., building > inspectors and visiting nurses). > > 4. Implementation of traffic-calming measures such as narrowing roadways, > planting trees, pedestrian bulbouts at intersections, and zebra > stripes at crosswalks (see section E). > > 5. Increased enforcement of traffic violations such as speeding and > blocking intersections. Specifically, the SFGP supports > 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. Cars parked on > streets, as opposed to sidewalks, are a traffic calming tool. > > 6. Increased 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. > > 7. Supporting 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. Triple fines for any moving violation that occurs while the > driver > is talking on a cell phone. [Ted recommends for SUVs also] > > 9. The area of Golden Gate Park which is currently closed to cars > on Sundays is extremely popular. This closure should also be > done on Saturdays and holidays. {Sue: the creation of more car-free areas in the city such as JFK Drive on Sundays in Golden Gate Park.} > > 10. Support for 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. We recognize noise pollution as a form of pollution, and call > for > strict enforcement of noise regulations against motor vehicles. > > 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/ > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0