Yes. And it's currently illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk, as it probably should be. But in the perfect world, everyone is respectful of everyone else always, and safe, and in that perfect world, people ride their bicycles on the sidewalk for a few feet because there's absolutely no reason not to. I support a campaign to discourage riding on the sidewalk referring to all the bad ways people in this imperfect world badly ride their bicycles on the sidewalk. But let's be positive about that, and emphasize the benefits of bicycling and the need to do ten times more to encourage bicycling than we currently do. Let's not bring the police into it. --Dave
Come on, everyone. Bicyclists can ALWAYS walk their bikes on sidewalks.
Sue
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:55:43 -0700 (PDT) marc <marc@cybre.net> writes:
Folks,
If we are to raise barriers to non-motorized transportation by calling on the cops to enforce against bikes and peds, then we need to explicitly prioritize the ecology of violations that we want enforced as in 1) trucks and MUNI 2) cars, 3) motorcycles, 4) bikes, 5) peds.
I am not comfortable with a Green transit policy that ignores the fact that bike riding on the sidewalk can be the safest way to go in some circumstances and the least safe way to go in others. It is a barrier to cycling if we ask people to ignore common sense where there is no harm, thus no foul.
We should be (hell, the bike coalition in league with its ped allies should be) putting forth principles of sharing limited, contested and congested transportation resources such as sidewalks, amongst alternative transportation modalties rather than giving the SFPD and DPT a peg upon which to hang their distorted enforcement priorities which punish cyclists while ignoring motor vehicle violations.
No harm, no foul (as in stop signs should be yield signs) should be our guiding principle in addressing the potential for conflict.
-marc On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Teddy Strawser wrote:
good work john-marc
one final comment on the idea of calling for "enforcement of riding bicycles on sidewalks". this would only be ok if we also called for "enforcement of pedestrestrians jaywalking and called for a higher fine". it is very similar. jaywalking pedestrians are a HUGE public health issue (contribute to more than half of ped deaths) and they also slow down muni, and create conjestion which is bad for the environment.
however, i understand why including this would distract from the #1 priority: enforcement of cars. there's not enough enforcement to handle cars, bikes, and peds....so stick with cars as the priority and replan the streets so that we can get bikes safely off off the sidewalk and peds dont have to jaywalk.
but, with that said, if we are going to call for a crackdown on bicycles on sidewalks we should include a crackdown on peds jaywalking. i will go ahead and draft the language just in case we decide to keep the focus on enforcement against non cars (bikes, peds, mcs,etc)
will send the langauage later today. ted
John-Marc Chandonia wrote:
Hi,
Here's a copy of the proposed Transportation plank that the Transportation Working Group will be presenting tonight. We plan to present this platform plank for ratification at our July General Meeting (3rd Wednesday). In accordance with our rules on adding planks, it is being presented in "almost-final" form 1 month in advance, at the June GM, where there is no decision to be made on it. Please email concerns and suggestions as soon as possible to John-Marc Chandonia, jmc@sfgreens.org, or call 285-5696. At the July meeting of the TWG (2nd Thursday), we'll address all concerns raised to that point and finalize a plank to present to the GM in July. Of course, concerns may also be raised and addressed at that time, but the earlier we hear from you, the more thought we can put into addressing any concerns. The current draft may also be found at http://sfgreens.org/.
Proposed Transportation Plank Draft 6, 6/16/04
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, as well as exceptions for contractors who require trucks for their jobs.
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 to encourage people to come to town to patronize local businesses.
6. An increased share of transit costs should be paid by downtown businesses, which benefit tremendously by the ease of accessing downtown on transit.
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 network to ensure that people can reliably travel between any neighborhoods of the city in under half an hour.
2. Gradually replace bus rapid transit on the heaviest lines (such as along the Geary and Mission corridors with light rail to enable moving more people quickly and decrease boarding times. 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.
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.
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 smaller buses or vans 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.
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.
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, the transition to a system where people pay should protect existing low-income residents by providing discounted parking permits. 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. 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 intense 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]
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 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.
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.
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%. Our proposed solutions encompass three main areas of pedestrian welfare: safety, health and access.
[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!]
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.
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]
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.
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.
13. Enforcement of laws against riding bicycles on sidewalks, paricularly against adults. People should walk bicycles on sidewalks when they come to a part of the street which is unsafe for riding. [Ted has concerns about this: not our highest priority, plus discriminatory vs immigrants]
F. Bikes
In freeing ourselves from dependance on the automobile, the bicycle is an essential tool. To make it possible for the bicycle to become a dominant form of transportation, it must become easy, safe, pleasurable and affordable. San Francisco legislators should more aggressively support a goal of having 10% of all trips within the City made by bike.
The San Francisco Green Party recommends the following measures to accomplish this:
1. Allocate more resources to contine building the city-wide bike network.
2. Create more and better bicycle parking - on sidewalks for short term and in our workplaces for long term.
3. Engineer better and provide more access for bicycles on Muni, BART, and CalTrain. Advocate for the return of Driver Education to our schools with a special emphasis on safety and sharing the street with cyclists. Fund education efforts on the health and environmental benefits of cycling.
4. Design 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. Turn wide one-way streets in SOMA into two-way streets for the same reasons, and time traffic lights on to discourage speeding.
5. 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.
6. Create bicycle-priority routes in which bicycles are allowed to treat four-way stop signs as a yield, with special signing to indicate that this is legal.
7. Bike patrols should ensure bike lanes are clear during all times, especially commute hours.
8. Only one environmental impact report should be required for the entire citywide bike plan.
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. Implement 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.
10. We support 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.
-- Dave Snyder