Hi all, Probably most of you don't know me - I'm new. I emailed some suggestions to Sue and John-Marc and was delighted to see they were considered useful. So, here are some more :) * 4. Creation of a local vehicle registration fee, based on the engine size, weight, fuel efficiency, and value of the vehicle. This fee would be partially offset by a transportation tax credit for all San Franciscans, including those who do not rely on cars for transit. The net effect will be to raise revenue, while rewarding non-drivers and drivers of smaller, less-polluting, and more efficient cars. We want to ensure the net effect of this fee and credit is not regressive. [JMC: There were concerns that this should also directly reflect the pollution emitted by the vehicle. However, the tax needs to be something that can be computed without inspecting each individual vehicle. Does engine size do this, or is there a better way to phrase this? How about average C02 output for that model and year?] Good point. I was thinking in terms of the latter idea - measuring a sample of each model / year, then assuming all cars in that class generate the same amount of CO2. But also, I wanted the phrasing to make clear what we're addressing - CO2 emissions. I'm not sure we really need to address *how* we'd be measuring CO2 - that seems like more detail than we need here. Also, do automobiles create any greenhouse gases besides CO2? Regarding the issue of making it progressive, one issue I'm thinking of is poor people who need a car because of where they live, but can't afford any car except an old clunker with horrible mileage and emissions. They're polluting even more than SUV owners, but for them it's necessity, not choice. So I'd hate to slap them with the same kind of fee. I think we should somehow address the availability of inexpensive, low-emissions, *no-frills*, possibly subsidized vehicles for this class of drivers; or, viable mass transit alternatives for them, without many cracks for people to fall through. * 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. [JMC: moved from F, since it deals with multiple forms of transit] Agreed, this is the right place. For consistent phrasing it should read "Amendment of". E. Pedestrians * At some point in the day, almost everyone is a pedestrian. The advantages of walking are bourn out in both the health of pedestrians -----> borne -- Tom Zych freethinker@pobox.com