RE: [Transpo] Re: [SFGP CC] seeking Green Party endorsement
Hi, this campaign is a group of folks lobbying the Board of Supes to NOT support option 2A, which is what they will do unless we organize and act quickly. I was thinking that this is like the coalition for transit justice that needed a full GM vote to support. answers to your questions: The Gate option was shut down, so to speak, by environmentalists who thought they were ugly, plus the institutions did not like them either. The bollards can be raised and lowered by a transponder on the buses (the 44 line is the only one affected) and do not need to be monitored for operation. Ross proposal for NO concourse traffic (was option 3- voted down by the Concourse Authority and Rec and Park Commission) is in committee and is unlikey to make it to the full board. If it does, there are not the votes to pass it. The stop gap to keep 2A (that has no real enforcement to keep cars out) from being adopted is the proposal a group of us are promoting. We need as many folks behind this as possible, which is why we seek Green Party endorsement. I think the process for this is: The TWG can endorse this and recommend the GM endorse, oppose this and recommend the same to the GM, or take no position and let the GM decide. Of course, I am hoping that we sign on to the coalition effort, since it will make the coaltions approach stronger. We are meeting with Ross to get his support of this as well. peace, susan On Thu, Jul 7, 2005 at 2:46 PM, Dave Snyder wrote:
The bollards are much more attractive than a gate, and time-tested
technology throughout the world.
At 11:11 AM -0700 7/7/05, John-Marc Chandonia wrote:
Clarifying questions:
1) What happened to the gate option? This would presumably be cheaper and more well-tested than bollards? (The gate would work the same way, opening individually for any car/bus that comes up to it)
2) How is this different from Ross' proposal that the TWG has already endorsed?
3) Why do the presenters of this proposal need a SFGP endorsement instead of just a TWG endorsement? It seems like if there's no ballot measure or other such major campaign, we shouldn't waste GM time. If we want to lobby people to write letters or show up at a hearing to support the measure, we can just make an announcement.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo
-- Dave Snyder _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo
I suggested to John Rizzo that Ross' resolution require continuing Board authority over the operation and control of the Music Concourse Surface Circulation Plan, so that they can adjust or mitigate the policy impact in the future. Their authority over the SCP, as demanded by Board President Peskin in December, 2003, when the MCCP 35 year ground lease was approved, should remain in perpetuity, and NOT be relegated to either the Rec and Parks Commission, or the Concourse Authority/MCCP, or there will be no citizen controls over the future operation of the bollards. Chris Duderstadt strongly suggested that performance standards be created to measure the reduction of auto traffic in the Pedestrian Oasis, so that compliance with the mandate of Prop J is assured into the future, and so that ALL traffic can be shut out if the City so desires after the first two or three deaths due to speeding commuters. Also, another suggestion involves the speed limit of 15 MPH. Why not demand a 10 MPH limit, if the experience of visiting the Music Concourse is supposed to be enjoyed by all.? An enforced 10 MPH speed limit, will help mitigate the behavior of those who would othewise ignore any suggested optional detour around the Concourse, instead of through it. Steve Willis Save Golden Gate Park! funking@mindspring.com wrote: Hi, this campaign is a group of folks lobbying the Board of Supes to NOT support option 2A, which is what they will do unless we organize and act quickly. I was thinking that this is like the coalition for transit justice that needed a full GM vote to support. answers to your questions: The Gate option was shut down, so to speak, by environmentalists who thought they were ugly, plus the institutions did not like them either. The bollards can be raised and lowered by a transponder on the buses (the 44 line is the only one affected) and do not need to be monitored for operation. Ross proposal for NO concourse traffic (was option 3- voted down by the Concourse Authority and Rec and Park Commission) is in committee and is unlikey to make it to the full board. If it does, there are not the votes to pass it. The stop gap to keep 2A (that has no real enforcement to keep cars out) from being adopted is the proposal a group of us are promoting. We need as many folks behind this as possible, which is why we seek Green Party endorsement. I think the process for this is: The TWG can endorse this and recommend the GM endorse, oppose this and recommend the same to the GM, or take no position and let the GM decide. Of course, I am hoping that we sign on to the coalition effort, since it will make the coaltions approach stronger. We are meeting with Ross to get his support of this as well. peace, susan On Thu, Jul 7, 2005 at 2:46 PM, Dave Snyder wrote:
The bollards are much more attractive than a gate, and time-tested
technology throughout the world.
At 11:11 AM -0700 7/7/05, John-Marc Chandonia wrote:
Clarifying questions:
1) What happened to the gate option? This would presumably be cheaper and more well-tested than bollards? (The gate would work the same way, opening individually for any car/bus that comes up to it)
2) How is this different from Ross' proposal that the TWG has already endorsed?
3) Why do the presenters of this proposal need a SFGP endorsement instead of just a TWG endorsement? It seems like if there's no ballot measure or other such major campaign, we shouldn't waste GM time. If we want to lobby people to write letters or show up at a hearing to support the measure, we can just make an announcement.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo
-- Dave Snyder _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo
_______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe --------------------------------- Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
participants (2)
-
funking＠mindspring.com -
Stephen Willis