Re: [Transpo] plank update; more edits from Sue
=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_>
[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_>
participants (1)
-
Jym Dyer