Wiener Moves to Make NACTO Street Design Guides Official Policy for SF

by : sf.streetsblog – excerpt

Supervisor Scott Wiener has introduced a bill that would make the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ guides for Urban Streets and Urban Bikeways official city policy. The SFMTA Board of Directors already adopted the NACTO guides in January, but Wiener’s legislation would establish them as official guidelines for other agencies to use, including the Department of Public Works, the Planning Department, and the SF Fire Department… (more)

We have Phil Ting’s AB 1193 to thank for this headache, and the lobbies hired by the SFMTA and the Bicycle Coalition who wrote and sold it to the state legislature.

Send inquires to the other city agencies that this legislation seeks to control, such as the Fire Department and other emergency responders. Find out how concerned they are about the narrow streets and other obstructions SFMTA is planning to fund with the Prop A Bond funds.

Let SF City officials know who you blame for gridlock and ask the state assembly candidates who they plan to support when they get to Sacramento.


Environmentalists question the wisdom of this state legislation

What do you think of giving particular vehicles, powered by electric batteries, special rights to to park on city streets, eliminating more spaces for non-electric vehicles ?
We are all for cleaning the air, but there isa state bill that is being discussed in committee to reserve on-street space for electric vehicles only.  If if passes SFMTA will be forced to comply with or amend their current ordinances to implement that. How will this affect the community? Does this discriminate agaisnt certain classes of people who can’t afford the luxury of buying an “electric vehicle”?  Will that also hurt more families and push them out of the city?  What percentage of the SF residents own “electric vehicles”?  What will be the impact should this state legislation pass and SFMTA adopt it? It’s OK for people who have OFF-street parking but what about those who cannot afford garage fees?
The gasoline powered vehicles will run out of parking spots even faster. Consider how this will effect the additional thousands of housing units that the city has agreed to take on as part of the (RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation) and you can see a real mess brewing.
This is meant to incentivize owners of gasoline powered vehicles to junk their cars and buy electric vehicles, but should this legislation pass, how many “electric vehicle”
spots will eat up the standard on-street parking spots. All very interesting when one looks at the many bills are being contemplated at the state level including some questionable CEQA reform bills — some nasty stuff there as well.

– Sent from a concerned environmentalist working on the SF CEQA legislation

An act to amend Section 21100 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
AB 1158, as introduced, by Assembly Member Waldron – Vehicles: on-street parking for electric vehicles.
Existing law authorizes local authorities to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding specified matters, including, among other things, regulating or authorizing the removal by peace officers of vehicles unlawfully parked in a fire lane
or on private property. This bill would expressly authorize local authorities to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding designating and enforcing on-street parking spaces for electric vehicles.

Bill Text: The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 21100 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
21100. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding all of the following matters: (q) Designating and enforcing on-street parking spaces for electric vehicles.

Comments welcome, especially from people who know the science behind the issues.