On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 08:13:09AM -0700, Jym Dyer wrote:

=v= I'm not a fan of BRT, since it means more energy use, more pollution, and takes more of the road than LRT. It has lower initial cost than LRT, which makes it more politically feasible in an era of diminished expectations, but maintenance (and environmental impact) ends up costing more in the long term. I think BRT is at best a step towards LRT.

Does it take more of the road? Both essentially take 1 dedicated lane. I also view BRT as a step towards LRT on heavily used lines (e.g., 14, 38). We say this in the platform, in the following point. The rationale for going this way is that it's easier to make a dedicated lane first (a political hurdle), then later convert it to rail (a financial hurdle).

=v= Existing LRT that supposedly has the right of way on surface streets is routinely blocked by car traffic. This should be fixed, ideally by infrastructure where possible, otherwise by some actual enforcement of the law (yeah, crazy idea, I know).

That's also in our platform. I didn't put it in the policy paper because we want to focus on larger changes and law enforcement is obvious and minor.

| Sell permits to park on the street in front of your own | driveway.

This would not add more car parking, because the cops already permit this, and it would be politically impossible to get the law enforced. This is basically a funding proposal, because state law limits the amount cities can charge for street parking. However, selling a special permit would get around that problem, allowing the city to charge market rate. It's also politically feasible, since people would be willing to pay for guaranteed parking (assuming they have 1 driveway and 1 car). JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/