Why traffic laws are not being enforced

Comments from a concerned citizen

The city outgrew the infrastructure and LOS (level of service) some time ago. There are too few police, firemen, Muni drivers, teachers, 911 emergency call center operators, etc. for the current level of population. Not only do we have more people living in San Francisco, the population swells during the day making it impossible for the traffic control officers to do a proper job. To make matters more difficult, City Hall dedicates huge amounts of money to planning for future growth instead of fixing the problems we have today. SFMTA can’t hire and train enough operators but they did manage to push their PR department from 4 employees to 55 to try to convince you that you should be happy with “their service”. Are you?

Keeping police officers on the streets is one aspect of the development policy that the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) was supposed to take into consideration, and did until recently. Now they just create a record that shows they took CEQA into consideration and found that they could do nothing to mitigate the “harm” that might come from the new project under consideration and approve it anyway. You may thank your state government and the courts for overriding the local government laws and policies and protections our residents voted for to keep a healthy balance between growth and services. Now we just have forced growth.

If you are paying attention to local Planning Commission hearings you have heard residents and local neighborhood organizations warning about the lack of infrastructure growth to support the increased population. Instead of taking these concerns into consideration, our state representatives have rewritten laws to avoid slowing growth to match LOS (the level for service needed to serve the community.)

In the next few days you will see a number of street actions that are an attempt to bring this unbalanced growth to the attention of the public and an attempt to suggest a better plan going forward to return the city to a more pleasant standard of living. You will also see some new faces running for office that offer a different narrative.

If you don’t like the way things are, you might consider making some changes when you can.

L.A.’s Transit Guru, Denny Zane, Slams Sacramento for Targeting California’s Single-Family Homes

livableca

In this fascinating September interview by David Abel of The Planning Report, former Santa Monica city official Denny Zane, who is widely viewed in Los Angeles as the region’s biggest transit promoter, slams Sacramento for overstepping its role on housing, and creating anger, resentment and disgust in cities statewide:

Denny Zane: “We created a more attractive option with moderate density on the boulevards or in [Santa Monica’s] downtown. We got 3000 units built in our downtown, about one-third deed-restricted affordable. Neighbors have never opposed these projects.

“The state should try to learn from those strategies. Leave the R1 alone; there are better opportunities on the boulevards and in downtowns, especially as brick and mortar retail contracts from online shopping—And it’s closer to transit and less likely to risk displacement of existing renters.

“Look at the cities that have been effective, that have done it well, and try to encourage those strategies rather than a one-size-fits-all imposition that just makes everybody angry and resistant.”

State Legislature & Governor Approve 18 New Housing Bills & Eliminate Single Family Zoning

By Sharon Rushton : marinpost – excerpt

On October 9th, Governor Gavin Newsom signed 18 bills designed to promote housing production. A number of these housing bills take away local control of land use, substantially increase housing density and population potential, and establish streamlined ministerial approval processes for housing projects, thereby exempting these projects from public engagement and the California Environmental Quality Act approval process.

And SAY GOODBYE TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONING!

The subsequent housing densification and population growth will increase the risk of adverse impacts on the environment, public health and safety, traffic congestion, infrastructure, utilities (water supply), public services (schools), views, sunlight, privacy, neighborhood character, and quality of life.

The bills will create unfunded mandates due to the fact that there is no funding for dealing with the above listed significant impacts. Communities will be forced to substantially increase taxes to try to alleviate the adverse impacts, although many will be unavoidable… (more)

RELATED:

Newsom Rejects California Housing Bill that would have raised Billions for Projects

By Hannah Wiley : sacbee – excerpt

… The legislation would have, for the next 30 years, shifted millions of dollars from local property tax revenues to pay for a variety of affordable housing projects. Local jurisdictions would have applied for the funding, to be used for initiatives like transit-oriented development and infrastructure planning…

State Sen. Jim Beall, a San Jose Democrat and author of SB 5, said the legislation would have added financial urgency to the state’s housing crisis… (more)

This is relevant to the changes coming to our streets because the Land Use and Transportation are now being driven by a joint effort to force changes through transit controls. The Transportation Authorities are now in the Housing development and funding business. These bills are a part of the larger plan to divide, disrupt and control. Elect people you trust to listen to your needs when you can.

Gov. Newsom’s Executive Order Authorizing Theft of Voter-Approved Gas Tax Money

By Katy Grimes : californiaglobe – excerpt

Order violates Prop. 69, while eliminating highway expansion and repair projects

Through an Executive Order, California Governor Gavin Newsom has redirected gas tax money to fund railway systems and other projects. The gas tax revenue would have repaired and upgraded the state’s broken highways and roads.

Californians pay the highest gas prices in the nation, most of which is taxes…

Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-19-19 September 20, directing the already controversial gas tax money away from fixing local highways in favor of rail projects

Assemblyman Jim Patterson (R-Fresno) recently explained that in the 2020 Transportation Plan are two projects that would have increased stretches of Highway 99 from four to six lanes in the Central Valley. Patterson says that a Cal Trans’ report even notes the “bottleneck” created at these sections along this major freight corridor.

“Instead of building capacity on our highways to move people and freight, Governor Newsom is funding his pet rail projects throughout the state,” Patterson said. “This theft of funds meant to improve our roadways is a glimpse into the future of transportation in our state and Newsom continues to execute his September 2019 Climate Change Executive Order. The Central Valley is just the beginning. Other road projects will likely be next.” …

(more)

I have a question for the Governor regarding the emergency plans for evacuating people in an emergency who are completely reliant on the public transportation systems such as buses and trains. How does he expect them to get out of harms way in the event of a major fire without their own means of transportation? How does he expect them to haul out their precious documents, food and water and other supplies without a vehicle of their own?

We saw the results of complete streets that removed traffic lanes in Paradise. We are seeing the results now of a major breakdown in emergency response efforts brought on by the PG&E blackouts. How does funneling road and bridge repair money into a rail system aid the millions of people who rely on streets and roads for emergency response teams and evacuations? Why is our government destroying our greatest assets? The first thing emergency responders do when the power is off is drive out to warn people. They need roads to do that. You are not going to send buses and trains.

Assembly Bill 891 is on the Governor’s desk to sign now

cbslocal – excerpt (includes video)

All California Counties, Big Cities, May Need To Create Parking Lots For Homeless

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – California’s biggest cities, including Sacramento, and all 58 counties will need to provide safe parking locations for people who live in their cars, if a new bill becomes law.

Assembly Bill 891 would require cities with more than 330,000 people to establish a safe parking program by June 1, 2022. The Department of Transportation and Director of General Services would identify where those safe parking lots would be located. They’d look at state surplus properties and then post a lost of those properties on its website by June 1, 2020. Those properties would then be sold, exchanged, or leased to cities and counties.

Once the safe parking programs are established, cities and counties would work with local nonprofits to make sure those who live in their cars know about the option… (more)

This is one of many bills awaiting the governor’s signature. I want people to know how it may be handled. Please note the failure to sign the bill does not mean cities cannot pass their own legislation, and they well may.

 

Just how awful is the California Department of Motor Vehicles?

By Susan Shelley : whittierdailynews – excerpt

Just when you thought the news about the California Department of Motor Vehicles couldn’t get worse, it got worse.

In February, the state Legislative Analyst’s Office released its review of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s transportation budget. The report reveals that the state’s Motor Vehicle Account has an “operational shortfall” of $400 million in the current year and is projected to be insolvent two years from now.

The Motor Vehicle Account receives most of its revenue from fees for vehicle registration and driver’s licenses, and the money goes mainly to support the activities of the California Highway Patrol and the DMV.

The LAO reports that the governor’s budget includes proposals intended to help the Motor Vehicle Account’s bleak condition, including shifting some expenditures to the state’s general fund. But it won’t be enough. The administration’s own projection foresees a shortfall of $40 million in 2021-22 and $150 million in 2022-23…

Submit your guess, and your opinion, to your elected representatives in Sacramento.

If you don’t have them on speed-dial yet, go online to findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov and get their names and contact information… (more)

Credit cards, payment plans, shorter lines: California lawmakers move to fix DMV

By Bryan Anderson : sacbee – excerpt

Is this enough to fix the DMV problem?

California lawmakers are moving to address some of the biggest problems at the state Department of Motor Vehicles. A number of proposals aimed at reducing wait times and improving service have recently been introduced.

These are some of the bills worth watching:

  • CREDIT CARDS, PAYMENT PLANS: AB 867 (Jim Wood, D-Healdsburg)
  • CAR REGISTRATIONS: SB 460 (Jim Beall, D-San Jose)

(more)

Ask Ed Reiskin

What’s next at SFMTA? Tomorrow is your chance to call into KQED Forum and ask Ed Reiskin some of those questions you have been wanting to ask regarding the state of the SFMTA and his roll in making it what it is today. Ed is scheduled to be on KQED Forum Friday, March 8 at 10 AM and you may call in with questions at: 866 733-6786  or email the Forum program: forum@kqed.org

 

 

 

 

L.A. may tax Uber and Lyft rides to curb traffic congestion

By Laura J. Nelson : latimes – excerpt

Transportation officials are considering a tax on Uber and Lyft rides in Los Angeles County, saying the Bay Area tech companies don’t pay their fair share to maintain public streets and exacerbate congestion in a traffic-choked region.

The ride-hailing fee is in the early stages of discussion at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, along with more than a dozen other strategies to manage congestion and fund transportation projects before the 2028 Olympic Games.

Metro’s board of directors are scheduled to vote Thursday on whether to approve a study of the ride-hailing tax. The directors also will consider approving a study on congestion pricing, which would analyze the effects of converting more carpool lanes to toll lanes, taxing drivers on the number of miles they travel, or charging a fee for motorists to enter certain neighborhoods… (more)

Uber and the Ongoing Erasure of Public Life

By Nikil Saval : newyorker – excerpt

Uber has become a subsidized alternative to the public-transportation systems that it claims to support.

Last September, Uber rolled out a rebranding campaign. A new television commercial showed car doors being flung open and the young and the old crowding in, flying out, and ending up in a small open-air mercado or at a lake. Though there were a few drivers, the image presented was of ceaseless, liberating mobility for passengers, anywhere in the world. Uber changed its logo, too, to a demure sans-serif display—white against a black background, its only flourish a modest pair of mirrored stems attached to the “U” and the “b.” This was a significant change. Since 2016, the phone app and the stickers that identified Uber-enabled cars had enjoyed an image designed partly by the co-founder and then-C.E.O. Travis Kalanick: a circle bisected with a cord, placed against the background of a colorful tile. When tilted ninety degrees counterclockwise, some design and technology journalists noted, it looked unmistakably like a human bent over and seen from behind.

The era of what has been referred to as Uber’s “asshole” logo happened to coincide with the company’s longest stretch of bad press, including multiple reports of sexual abuse inside the company and by its drivers. In 2017, the company’s investors ousted Kalanick. His successor, Dara Khosrowshahi, has made considerable efforts to improve the company’s image in advance of a likely I.P.O. this year. Last October, Khosrowshahi, like many corporate leaders, pulled out of a summit held by Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, in Riyadh, following the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. (Uber still benefits from vast infusions of Saudi funding.)… (more)

Continue reading

California Autobahn? Long-shot bill proposes freeway lanes with no speed limit

By Alyssa Pereira : sfgate – excerpt

Motorists sick of idling in traffic on Interstate 5 in California would theoretically have another option, if a new bill introduced on Friday to the state legislature turns into a reality. But critics say that’s not likely.

State Senator John Moorlach (R-Orange County) introduced SB 319 as a way to ease congestion on I-5 and State Route 99. Moorlach pitched the idea as a way to ease greenhouse gasses from idling cars.

The plan calls for the Department of Transportation to build two additional traffic lanes on the north and southbound directions of both highways. Those lanes would not have speed limits, although drivers in the other pre-existing lanes would still need to abide by the official 65 miles per hour limit… (more)

Replacing High Speed Rail with a High Speed Highway, another bay crossing, and train electrification sounds like a cheaper, easier, faster solution to reducing traffic and congestion, if that is the goal. Without taking a position on any these options, we applaud the thinking outside the box on how to do more with less taxpayer transit dollars. Recent over-budget large public transit projects have not gone well. It is time to shift priorities and do more with less.