=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_>