San Francisco To Vote On Public Transit, Parking

2 August 2007 - 11:00am

The Board of Supervisors approved a ballot measure that would increase funding the city's maligned transit agency and head off another measure aimed at repealing the city's parking limits.

"A split San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to place a measure on the November ballot that backers say would provide crucial funding and management tools to improve the city's troubled Muni system.

No one is saying that the plan would fix Muni, "but it's certainly going to help," said board President Aaron Peskin, the measure's chief sponsor.

"It will show the city's commitment to improving public transit and reducing greenhouse gas emissions" by giving people a reason to get out of their cars, he said.

The proposed charter amendment is endorsed by a politically powerful coalition of organized labor, public transportation advocates and environmentalists. It is opposed by deep-pocket business interests upset with wording tucked into the ballot measure at the 11th hour to cement existing city policy that restricts the amount of parking allowed in new large residential projects.

If approved by voters, the supervisors' measure would trump a separate November ballot initiative backed by businessman and Gap Inc. founder Don Fisher that would allow more parking in the city."

"Muni, the most heavily used city service in San Francisco with nearly 700,000 riders a day, has long been a top concern among residents. Newsom is running for re-election this year.

The proposal would give Muni additional funding - at least $26 million a year more, according to estimates. It would also give Muni's top brass power to hire and fire more midlevel managers as well as the ability to negotiate work rules with the drivers' union - in effect, more closely linking pay with performance.

After initial opposition, the unions representing many of Muni's 5,000 employees signed on to the plan after most of their concerns over such issues as privatization and job protection were addressed during closed-door negotiations."

Source: The San Francisco Chronicle, August 1, 2007
Bookmark and Share
All of that only scratches the surface of what's wrong with this study. The idea that complex urban development patterns and human behavior can be meaningfully studied according to one primary criteria — density — is wrong from the start.