Sweeping Civil Rights Lawsuit Alleges Racial Bias In Implementation Of California Climate Policies

By Michael Shellenberger : forbes – excerpt

Top civil rights leaders are suing California for climate policies they say disproportionately harm its poorest residents, particularly Latinos and African Americans.

“California politicians are using anti-racist and environmentalist words to hide the regressive impact of their climate policies on the poor and people of color,” said John Gamboa, the co-founder of The Two Hundred, a coalition of prominent civil rights leaders, which filed a lawsuit against the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in Superior Court…

“California’s climate leaders have decided to intentionally increase traffic congestion — to lengthen commute times and encourage gridlock — to try to get more people to ride buses or take other forms of public transit,” the legal complaint alleges…

Lefcoe, who is not involved in the case, said the lawsuit’s challenge to transportation policies is particularly powerful. “Automobiles are the survival mechanism for low-income people,” noted Lefcoe. “If you try to increase the cost of automobiles, you hurt low-income people...(more)

This is one of the most interesting lawsuits to come out that ties low and middle income earners to private vehicles. Given the new distancing guidelines and the importance of drive-through services this is an important case. Allegations of misuse of the cap and trade funds is an interesting component.

Opinion: Stay-at-home order points to traffic solution

Opinion By David Price : padailypost – excerpt

If there’s a bright side to the coronavirus stay-at-home order, it’s the empty freeways.

For years the public has been debating how to deal with increasing traffic on our roads. Most of the things local governments tried didn’t work. Carpool lanes, ramp metering, more mass transit. None of it reduced traffic.

And every year it seemed, there was another tax on the ballot to improve transportation. Residents, frustrated with traffic congestion, passed nearly all of the taxes. But these taxes never produced the relief the government promised even though the sales tax is 9%.

Now, finally, we have a solution. A solution we stumbled upon by accident…(more)

Many workers may choose to save taxpayers millions of dollars and themselves hours of commute time by working at home.

 

Banning cars on SF’s Market Street changes little. But Valencia Street is a different story

By Carl Nolte : sfchronicle – excerpt

The routine with a stethoscope at the doctor’s office is simple, but important. “Take a deep breath,” the doctor says. “Now hold it.”

That’s good practice for humans and good for cities. San Francisco just took a very deep breath — it banned private cars on the downtown portion of Market Street for the first time since Market became the city’s main drag 147 years ago…

You have to hand it to the bike advocates. Though only 4% to 5% of all trips to work in San Francisco are made by bicycle, groups like the Bicycle Coalition have been extremely effective in making their case. They are organized and get results, as you can see for yourself, on Market Street and soon a major street near you.

So what’s the solution? Should we close off streets like Valencia, or the Embarcadero, eliminate parking and declare war on private cars?

I think we should wait and see how Market Street works out, and then slowly and carefully work out a plan so that private cars, bikes and scooters can share the streets, which, after all, belong to all the people… (more)

With cars banned on SF’s Market Street, top official eyes next target: Valencia

By Rachel Swan : sfchronicle – excerpt

As the dream of banning cars becomes a reality Wednesday on San Francisco’s Market Street — an idea dating to when horse-drawn buggies jockeyed for space among puttering Ford Model Ts — one top transportation official is already pitching ideas for the next car-free thoroughfare.

During a San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency board meeting Tuesday, Chair Malcolm Heinicke called for automobiles to be purged from Valencia Street, a bustling strip in the Mission District.

“I’m not very patient here. I want the next one,” Heinicke told The Chronicle outside the meeting where he and the other six directors discussed themes for the coming year.

He predicts that Market Street sans cars will reap huge benefits for pedestrians, cyclists and buses. Analyses by SFMTA suggest that Muni’s buses and streetcars will run 15% to 25% faster. Planners also expect to substantially reduce collisions, providing a safe path for the 500,000 people who walk along Market Street daily.…

His pitch had activists cheering on social media. But the vice president of the Valencia Corridor Merchants Association was stunned.

“I personally think it would be devastating to our business,” said Jonah Buffa, co-owner of Fellow Barber at 18th and Valencia streets. Many of his customers arrive by car, whether driving their own vehicles or riding an Uber or Lyft… (more)

Let’s find out if Market Street merchants really pick up business as Heinicke expects before we role out the plan to further streets.

SF County Transportation Authority and Parking Authority Commission Meeting and presentation

Tuesday, January 28, 9 AM – ppt presentation on Workshop.

1455 Market Street, 22nd Floor SFCTA Conference Room
Special SFMTA Board and Parking Authority Commission
Presentations and discussions on future priorities and goals.
“State of San Francisco” Discussion Panel discussion with Sean Elsbernd, John Rahaim, Ben Rosenfield & Jeff Tumlin

RELATED:

Highlight’s of Today’s Big SFMTA “2020 Board Workshop” All-Day Meeting – LOOK HOW MUCH WE SUCK, BUT JUST GIVE US MORE MONEY ANYWAY – A Whirling Dervish of Self-Contradictory Transit Spin, 169 Pages

Here’s the PowerPoint they’re going to go through today at the
SFMTA 2020 Board Workshop:

With author’s comments on the presentation...(more)

San Francisco’s Market Street Is Going ‘Car Free’ Next Week — 7 Things You Need to Know

by Dan Brekke :  kqed – excerpt

Next Wednesday, Jan. 29, private vehicles will no longer be allowed to travel the busiest stretch of San Francisco’s Market Street, from near Van Ness Avenue all the way to the waterfront.

The prohibition on private vehicles marks the first tangible step in an ambitious city plan to remake its principal boulevard into a thoroughfare that will emphasize transit and feature a wide range of physical changes to make the street safe and user-friendly for pedestrians, cyclists and others who don’t happen to be moving through the city in cars…

For more information, we’ve got links:

Car-less wide empty streets are not the prescription for saving retail businesses on Market Street and the additional 1 cent sales tax increase being cooked up for the region should kill whatever is left if the voters approve that. There must be a plan for Market Street once they remove the cars and retail. Any hints on what that is are appreciated. Maybe there is a clue in the Plan 2040 or 2050 whatever year they are working on now.

Three Studies That Show Density Doesn’t Determine Car Travel

by Fanis Grammenos : opportunityurbanism – excerpt

These three works cover the gamut of geography: from international cities to U.S. urbanized areas to 60,000 census tracts and to specific community developments. In these works, we look at findings that relate specifically to the question of density and its association to commuting by car. This geographic range allows assumptions to be tested at all levels (theory to practice) and all scales (regional to local)…

Expected Differences and a Surprising Similarity
A paper by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University sets out to determine how three distinct definitions of “city” and “suburb” affect the outcomes of analyses and, ultimately, the quantitative representation of their characteristics. It offers an opportunity to examine any one of 29 characteristics (covering economic, socio-demographic and physical) using a large statistical base…(more)

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.

Chase Center: A giant roomba that is still a bad idea

By Stuart Schuffman : sfexaminer – excerpt

Given this incredible propensity for screwing up huge projects, none of us should be surprised that The City went ahead with this absurdly placed arena.

With the official opening of the Warriors’ new home, the Chase Center, just a few weeks away, I’d like to take this moment to remind the Bay Area what an absolutely stupid idea it was to build this thing. For a town that likes to pride itself on being on the forefront of everything, San Francisco is irredeemably shortsighted when it comes to urban planning…

Given this incredible propensity for screwing up huge projects, none of us should be surprised that the city went ahead with this absurdly placed arena, despite plenty of public outcry…

From when this arena was first announced, much of the opposition to it centered around not just the fact that we’ve somehow decided to make traffic even worse for 50+ extra days a year, but the question of “How can emergency vehicles get through.”… (more)

For the last 10 years the Port and the SFMTA have conspired to turn SF into Battery Park West. Nothing they have done to improve the Bay or access to it has improved anything. We now have complete gridlock as planned. And that is not just private vehicles we are talking about. Try moving on the T-Line, The L-Tarval, or the BART. People are tired of the game. What is going to happen if PG&E shuts down service for a day? Five days? Better have an exit plan. It will not be pretty.

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

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: