December 22, 2014

Contra Costa County Transportation Plan projects more driving

Photo courtesy of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

Photo courtesy of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

Transportation is the single-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the Bay Area, so it must be a key focus in our fight against climate disruption. Unfortunately, a new plan for transportation spending in Contra Costa County is projected to result in more driving, which would likely lead to an increase in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Each of the nine counties in the Bay Area has a “congestion management agency.” One of the goals of the Sierra Club Bay Chapter’s Transportation and Compact Growth Committee is to try to shift these agencies away from the hopeless cause of trying to manage congestion and towards beneficial work to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and light trucks.

In August, Contra Costa County’s congestion management agency, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, released a draft of its new 25-year Countywide Transportation Plan. The Executive Summary states: “By improving the transportation system, we can help address the challenges that a growing population, more jobs, and more traffic will bring. The [Countywide Transportation Plan] lays out a vision for our transportation future, the goals and strategies for achieving that vision, and the future transportation investments needed to promote a growing economy, advance technological changes, protect the environment, and improve the quality of life.” The Sierra Club contests the claim that this plan would protect the environment.

Alas, the Transportation Plan, which runs until 2040, states that it will result in a five percent increase in vehicle miles traveled per person—the opposite of the objective laid out by the Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan (“Plan Bay Area”), which calls for a ten percent reduction of vehicle miles per capita over the next 25 years. Greenhouse-gas emissions from cars are directly related to vehicle miles traveled, so the county’s Transportation Plan flies in the face of California’s goal of cutting the climate disruption-causing emissions.

The Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan (“Plan Bay Area”) contains a list of “performance targets.” Two of these are to “reduce per-capita carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 15 percent” and “increase non-auto mode share by 10 percentage points.” The County Transportation Authority does not disclose whether the Transportation Plan will achieve these targets, but given the projected increase in vehicle miles per capita, we can conclude that it would be incredibly difficult to do so.

As for congestion reduction, the County knows its Transportation Plan will not do much. The draft Plan notes, “Where feasible and beneficial, improve the throughput capacity of roadways while recognizing that these improvements will not, in the long run, eliminate congestion.” Despite this stated understanding, the Plan proposes to lay out $3.8 billion on building more freeway lanes. That money would be better spent on projects and programs that could lead to a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, such as  providing more frequent bus service or accelerating the Complete Streets program.

The Contra Costa Transportation Authority should withdraw its draft Transportation Plan and begin fresh on one with an overarching goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

—Matt Williams

Read more about Plan Bay Area in “Settlement puts Plan Bay Area back on track“.

Settlement puts Plan Bay Area back on track

Photo via

Photo via

On June 19, Communities for a Better Environment and the Sierra Club, together with Earthjustice as legal counsel, announced an agreement with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) over a lawsuit related to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), otherwise known as Plan Bay Area. This settlement is a victory for all Bay Area residents, ensuring that planning for the region’s transportation, housing development, and land management will meaningfully address the goals of reducing climate change; securing the health and safety of vulnerable communities; and promoting sustainable growth.

The litigation goes back to August 2013, when the social justice and environmental organizations filed a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act. Plan Bay Area (a 28-year, $292-billion master plan) was supposed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through smart growth programs and by improving transportation alternatives to driving. However, the plan did not provide information about the sustainability of the key smart growth programs, and did not assure adequate funding to maintain the region’s existing transit system. Plan Bay Area also took credit for reduced greenhouse-gas emissions for projects and programs unrelated to it, such as new statewide formulations for motor-vehicle fuels.

Further, there was no program for dealing with increased freight traffic, which poses health and safety risks for people living near busy truck and railroad lines (see “Oakland joins forces with neighboring cities to oppose dirty fuels by rail” on page xx).

Under the settlement, ABAG and MTC must be transparent about what the next regional transportation plan—likely to be adopted in 2017—will do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Bay Area residents have the right to know how and to what extent the plan secures their health and safety, and that of the environment.

Plan Bay Area’s smart growth program is based on Priority Development Areas (PDAs) targeted for sustainable housing growth. For example, West Oakland Transit Town Center will have more than 6,000 new housing units built during the life of Plan Bay Area. The settlement requires that the next regional transportation plan provide the public with information about whether or not each of the approximately two hundred PDAs will be successful and sustainable. For instance, residents will be told if a PDA will be adequately served by public transit, or if it may flood due to sea-level rise.

The settlement also requires that the next regional transportation plan have a transparent and effective strategy for reducing air pollution from trains and trucks moving through populated areas such as West Oakland.

Subsequent to the environmental settlement, an Alameda County judge dismissed a related lawsuit by the group Bay Area Citizens, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, claiming that Plan Bay Area was unnecessary and would reduce property values.

—Matt Williams, Chair of the Chapter Transportation and Compact Growth Committee

Agencies agree to disclose environmental impacts of Bay Area Transportation and Housing Plan—Settlement lays groundwork for robust regional planning

Photo by Brandon Doran,

Photo by Brandon Doran,

Today the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments reached an agreement with environmental and social justice groups on litigation relating to their latest regional transportation and development plan, Plan Bay Area.

Plan Bay Area’s stated purpose was to reduce climate change pollution by planning for transportation, smart housing development and land management in the nine counties surrounding the San Francisco Bay.

In August 2013, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and Sierra Club sued the agencies for failing to adopt a plan that would meaningfully achieve these goals. Earthjustice, which represented the groups and was co-counseled by CBE, challenged the agencies for failing to provide information about the viability of communities targeted for development, for ignoring the public health effects of increased freight shipments through vulnerable communities such as East Oakland, and for taking credit for reducing greenhouse gas emissions which actually resulted from other greenhouse gas abatement measures unrelated to Plan (such as California’s low-carbon fuel standards).

Today’s settlement provides concrete benefits to all residents of the region.  The settlement requires the agencies to:

  • More honestly account for the Plan’s effects on greenhouse gas emissions;
  • Provide the public with information on how the areas targeted for housing growth, the “Priority Development Areas,” will be able to grow successfully and sustainably into the future (i.e., whether they are adequately served by public transportation, whether they are susceptible to sea-level rise); and
  • Examine how freight movement in the area harms already vulnerable communities, and take measures to mitigate those harms.

“This settlement provides the public much-needed information and lays a solid foundation for a better version of Plan Bay Area, which is due in 2017,” said Irene Gutierrez, Earthjustice associate attorney. “Everyone who lives in the Bay is affected by Plan Bay Area. This settlement provides area residents with insight into how they will be served by the agencies’ plan, and how their communities are expected to grow and stay healthy over the coming years.”

“This settlement requires the agencies to create a real plan for reducing the harmful pollution from trucks and trains moving freight through already highly polluted communities,” said Maya Golden-Krasner, staff attorney for Communities for a Better Environment. “It sets the groundwork for the agencies to start planning how the Bay Area will move toward zero-emission trucks and trains.”

“Climate disruption threatens Bay Area families and businesses, and passenger vehicles are a leading cause of this disruption.  This settlement provides residents and policy makers with important information about whether the next Plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles,” said Matt Williams of the Sierra Club Transportation Committee.  “The settlement also provides the public with key information about the sustainability of priority development areas, which are at the heart of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring that area residents live near good public transit.”

Plan Bay Area is a multi-decade regional transportation and housing plan, covering transportation planning, housing development, and land management, for the nine counties around the San Francisco Bay.  The regional plan is meant to be revised every four years. The latest version of Plan Bay Area was approved by the agencies in July 2013. As mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Plan Bay Area was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Earthjustice represented the groups and served as co-counsel with Communities for a Better Environment in this lawsuit.  The groups challenged the agencies’ EIR for Plan Bay Area, alleging that the EIR for Plan Bay Area fell far short of providing the public with information needed to meaningfully participate in planning transportation and housing development in the Bay Area.

The settlement finalized today remedies those deficiencies by requiring the agencies to provide the public with more information about the environmental effects of the Plan.  The settlement provides the public with essential information about the effects of the Plan on transportation and land-use greenhouse gas emissions, the effects of freight transportation on public health, and the viability of communities targeted for development.  The gains achieved by the settlement lay the groundwork for a better regional transportation and housing plan in the future.

For more information about the Regional Transportation Plan, see “Sierra Club sues for better Regional Transportation Plan“.

SF Mayor Lee’s meter policy would make parking harder, congestion worse

If you’re the kind of driver who likes struggling to find a parking place, then you’re the kind of driver who San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee is trying to appeal to with his campaign against parking-meter enforcement on Sunday afternoons.

As mayoral appointees, Boardmembers of the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA), which governs the city’s transportation system under the mandate “transit first”, were forced to approve the proposal. The mayor, who expresses a concern not to aggravate drivers when he will need their votes for major funding issues this November, proposed dropping enforcement of parking meters on Sunday afternoons.

The change was opposed by a wide spectrum of the community, ranging from the Chamber of Commerce and the MTA Citizens Advisory Council to the Sierra Club. Muni can not afford to lose the $9 million a year in meter revenues and fines. The obvious alternative, raising fares faster than the cost of living, would be disastrous for lower-income residents, the ones who depend most on transit services.

Drivers, too, benefit from healthy transit attracting people who would otherwise drive. Forcing even a small proportion of Muni riders into cars would cause disproportionate increases in congestion on streets that are already close to their limits for comfortable vehicle movement.

Further, the meters have helped assure a turnover of parking spaces. Now drivers will be forced to resume cruising around looking for empty spaces. Businesses will lose revenue when drivers give up coming.

So who are the losers? Transit riders, drivers, local businesses, and the environment? Are there winners? That’s hard to say.


Write to Mayor Ed Lee at:

City Hall, #200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

and the MTA Board of Directors at:
Attn: Roberta Boomer
One South Van Ness Ave., Seventh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103

Encourage them to reinstate charging for meters all day on Sundays.

Howard Strassner, Executive Committee, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

SF Supervisors say no EIR on commuter buses

Three corporate shuttles at a Muni stop at Park Presidio and Geary. Photo by Sue Vaughan.

Three corporate shuttles at a Muni stop at Park Presidio and Geary. Photo by Sue Vaughan.

Update (May 9, 2014): On May 1 appellants filed suit challenging the policy.


Should San Francisco prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on its new commuter-bus policy (see April, page 7)? The Sierra Club thinks so, and so did the folks who filed an appeal of the Planning Department’s decision not to prepare an EIR, but on April 1 the Board of Supervisors rejected the appeal.

The Planning Department gave the project a Class Six “categorical exemption” from the requirement to do an EIR. “Class Six is a very limited exemption for data collection,” argued Richard Drury, attorney for the appellants. “Experimental management goes far beyond mere data collection, as does changing the law to make [the pilot] legal. [The administrators of the pilot] even admit to moving stops. That’s not mere data collection.”

The appellants’ attorney introduced evidence from the San Francisco budget and legislative analyst’s office that the private commuter buses may have impacts on infrastructure, bicycle and pedestrian safety, and socioeconomic displacement. He also introduced written testimony from a professional traffic engineer who claims there is a fair argument–a standard under the California Environmental Quality Act for requiring an Environmental Impact Report–that the Commuter Shuttle Policy and Pilot Program “may have adverse and significant environmental impacts.”

In addition, the California vehicle code prohibits any but common carriers from stopping in bus zones. “Does the city have the authority to tell shuttle operators that they don’t have to comply with the law?” Supervisor David Campos asked city attorneys repeatedly.

Other supervisors expressed concern about the impact of upholding the appeal on Vision Zero (see April Yodeler, page 7), a statement of purpose adopted by the Municipal Transportation Agency to improve street safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.

In the end, only Supervisors Campos and John Avalos voted to uphold the appeal.

The appellants have 30 days from the rejection of the appeal to sue. It is not known if they will do so.

Sue Vaughan, chair, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

Bike to Work Day 2014–Thursday, May 8

BTWD14_BannerThursday, May 8.

Take part in the San Francisco Bay Area’s 20th annual Bike to Work Day, a part of National Bike Month.

“Energizer stations” will be located along commute routes, where bicyclists can stop for refreshments, giveaways, and bicycling information or simply to be ‘cheered on’ by fellow participants. Energizer stations will be open during morning commute hours and some will even re-open during the evening commute.

More than one million Bay Area residents live within five miles of their workplace, an ideal distance for bicycling. The work commute only represents 23% of all trips; you also may be able to bike to shop, to school, for errands, and for social events. In a world concerned with climate change, pollution, congestion, and wasted time, the question should really be: why not bike to work? We expect hundreds of thousands of people to bike to work in the Bay Area, with many being first time bike commuters. Will you be one of us?


For more details about energizer-station locations, sponsorships, Bike to Work Week activities, and Bike to Work Day “after-parties”, see:

Alameda, Contra Costa:


San Francisco:

Too many buses, too little information–SF needs to study shuttle buses and tour buses

Three corporate shuttles in a row at a Muni stop. Photo by Sue Vaughan.

Three corporate shuttles in a row at a Muni stop. Photo by Sue Vaughan.

Update (March 25, 2014): The appeal of the categorical exemption for the shuttle-bus pilot program will be heard at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, April 1, 2014.

Controversy has been raging in San Francisco over the private commuter shuttle buses that ferry workers from San Francisco to South San Francisco and points south. The San Francisco Group of the Sierra Club calls for the city to enforce the law prohibiting private shuttles from pulling into Muni bus stops, as these buses have been doing for many years now, but also to find alternative stops for such private buses, charging the corporations or schools that operate the shuttles for the expenses.

In the meantime, the Club has also called for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the pilot program and policy adopted by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) on Jan. 21. Key questions include:

  • do the buses serve a vital environmental purpose by getting cars off the road–or do they undermine Muni and Caltrain by diverting riders–or both?
  • how significant is the buses’ competition for curb and street space with Muni, Golden Gate Transit, and SamTrans?
  • do the buses contribute to skyrocketing rents, increasing evictions, and displacement of average to low-income San Franciscans to auto-centric suburbs?
  • what about the buses’ diesel emissions?

Without solid facts how can the city respond effectively? That’s why the city needs to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, under the California Environmental Quality Act, to assess the true impacts of these buses.

We do know that these shuttles–often large, sleek buses with tinted windows, and sometimes double-decker–have been pulling illegally into bus stops on Park Presidio, Haight, Divisadero, Fillmore, Van Ness, Mission, Valencia, and Noe for several years now, and seemingly in increasing numbers. This has happened as the Bay Area tech sector has been surging without a commensurate increase in housing near tech work centers such as Cupertino, Mountain View, Menlo Park, and South San Francisco.

The shuttles operate on behalf of Google, Apple, Facebook, LinkedIn, eBay, Box, Genentech, and other companies. Some shuttles also serve educational institutions, such as the Academy of Art University and the University of California in San Francisco. Some serve businesses within San Francisco.

Under the new program, the SFMTA will hold a few public hearings, restrict the private shuttles to about 200 stops, and charge the companies operating the shuttles $1 per stop per day. The Board declared that this pilot program is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

On Feb. 19 attorney Richard Drury filed an appeal of this declaration on behalf of appellants including Sara Shortt of the Housing Rights Committee, the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, the League of Pissed Off Voters, and the Service Employees International Union. The appeal will be heard at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, April 1. The Sierra Club believes that the city needs an EIR to gather the kind of information needed for a sound decision.

Google has announced that it is donating about $6.8 million for two years of free Muni passes for low- and middle-income youth–a program that the Club supports–but this does not compensate for the ongoing obstruction of Muni service by the buses. And Google is just one of the many companies running the buses.

The extent of the problem

The SFMTA estimates that the private shuttles currently provide about 35,000 person-trips per weekday (about 5% of Muni ridership). Many of the trips are within the city, but a survey by the Regional Planning Department at UC Berkeley estimates that about 7,000 people use the buses to commute from San Francisco to the Silicon Valley, that about 20% of those riders would otherwise use public transportation if the private shuttles were not available, and that the availability of the buses–and the absence of adequate housing in the Silicon Valley–are influencing rider decisions to live in San Francisco. Close to 50% of those surveyed said they would drive alone if the commuter buses were not available, and another 40% said they would move somewhere closer to their jobs.

The UC Berkeley study also found that most of the people who use the buses to commute out of San Francisco make $100,000 or more, and are drawn to San Francisco’s walkability and cultural amenities.

In the meantime, housing prices in San Francisco have skyrocketed (up 10.6% in December 2013 over the previous year according to Trulia), and evictions are increasing. In particular, owner move-ins and speculator use of the Ellis Act to evict tenants are both going up. The Ellis Act is a state law, passed in 1985, that permits landlords, without necessarily selling their property, to evict tenants and get out of the business of renting. The Ellis Act was little used until the late 1990s and the start of the first tech boom. Ellis Act and owner-move-in evictions skyrocketed and then dropped back down a little after 2000 and the first dotcom bust. Now, both Ellis Act and owner-move-in evictions are going back up. In 2012 – 2013, according to San Francisco Rent Board statistics, Ellis Act evictions went up 81%, for a total of 116. Speculators who purchase a building with rental units frequently evict tenants under the Ellis Act and then sell the building at a vastly increased price to a group of people who share the mortgage under a tenancy-in-common.

Unknown are the numbers of tenants who are accepting speculator “buy-outs” not regulated by the Ellis Act or local ordinance. When tenants are threatened with Ellis Act evictions, they often accept buy-outs, getting more displacement money than when Ellis Acted out of their homes.

Tour-bus update (bus encounters of the third kind)

In October the San Francisco Group called for the initiation of a planning process to regulate tour buses throughout San Francisco (see Dec., page 4). The SFMTA, however, adopted a plan just for Alamo Square (similar to existing plans for other neighborhoods such as Seacliff and the Marina). It did not address the need for citywide planning.


Write to the clerk of the Board at and/or to your individual supervisor at:

City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #244
San Francisco, CA 94102

or through Urge them to prepare an EIR on the shuttle buses, and to study the problems of tour buses throughout the city. Your letter needs to be received before the appeal is heard on April 1.

Sue Vaughan, chair, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

Vision Zero: no pedestrian and bicycle deaths in San Francisco

Muni vehicle slowed down by auto traffic. Photo by Lydia Gans.

Muni vehicle slowed down by auto traffic. Photo by Lydia Gans.

Last year in San Francisco, drivers killed 21 pedestrians and four bicyclists, and injured about 900 pedestrians. That’s why city leaders are devising a new vision–Vision Zero–for safety and zero deaths on city streets.

The Police Department has already responded with a change of vocabulary: instead of calling these occurrences ‘accidents’ (as if there were no human cause), police are calling them ‘collisions’.

More substantively, Supervisors Jane Kim, Norman Yee, and John Avalos are writing a resolution, Vision Zero, to lead the city to zero deaths by traffic within 10 years.

Vision Zero is already being implemented in New York and many cities in Europe.

Vision Zero so far has three main components:

  • engineering to fix the dangerous streets where most of the collisions occur, including better lighting, crosswalks, and bicycle lanes;
  • enforcement against the major driver failures of running red lights, driving too fast, and not yielding to pedestrians; police should be specially on the lookout for distracted driving, including drivers using cell phones and texting;
  • education for drivers, including direct training for city employees; this should include teaching police to be aware of pedestrians and bicyclists, and media outreach to the general public.

The Sierra Club San Francisco Group strongly supports the Vision Zero concept, but the city needs to go further. A key means towards safer streets is to reduce driving, and that requires making public transit more reliable and appealing. Whenever the city makes street improvements, a key component should be improvements that help Muni run faster and more reliably. Combining Muni projects with bike and pedestrian projects is the most cost-effective way to spend money on our streets.


Contact your supervisor at:

City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, #244
San Francisco, CA 94102

or through Urge them to:

  • add Muni to Vision Zero;
  • pass Vision Zero;
  • once it’s passed (since it’s only a resolution), act substantively to implement it.

Howard Strassner, Executive Committee, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

San Ramon needs to plan transportation before building

The Sierra Club is urging San Ramon to prepare a transportation master plan to figure out how to solve our transportation problems for the coming decades–before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on projects that may not help in the short term and that may close off long-term solutions. (There is a 2009 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, but it doesn’t really do the job.)

For example, the city is studying building on- and off-ramps for high-occupancy vehicles in the middle of I-680 at the Norris Canyon overpass. The ramps might shave three minutes off commute times for about 500 bus passengers a day using the Walnut Creek and Dublin BART stations–but at a cost of $101 million dollars. Unfortunately, because the freeway right-of-way is limited, the ramps would require reducing the number of freeway lanes, thus turning what is now a congested stretch of freeway into an absolute bottleneck. The ramps would replace the current Norris Canyon Road overpass, which provides a safe path for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians between neighborhoods on the west side of the city and the schools and parks on the east side. Even worse, the ramps would preclude other future freeway traffic solutions.

Also, San Ramon’s 2030 General Plan designates the downtown as a Priority Development Area (PDA), as confirmed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The PDA encompasses the North Camino San Ramon Specific Plan Area on the north and the Bishop Ranch City Center Development Plan Area on the south. The purpose of a PDA is to encourage transit- and pedestrian-friendly development in areas with good transit connectivity. We fear, though, badly thought-out development here that might generate more traffic.

Before building ramps, before building out the PDA, before planning any other individual projects, we need a transportation plan for San Ramon and the region around it. Such a plan would look at the overall transportation needs and how potential solutions would work together.

For example, one potential solution might be a 25-year plan to install a north-south light-rail system in the middle of the freeway, along with local shuttle service throughout the city core. New local transit stations near the Crow Canyon and Bollinger I-680 exits could allow regional buses to remain on the freeway alignment while passengers would transfer at the stations onto local city buses looping into the business core, or onto shuttles to Bishop Ranch and other commercial centers. Such a system is already required in the City Center Master Plan. Before we build expensive projects that would use up the limited right-of-way, we need to make sure that they don’t foreclose such a more effective long-term solution.

An Environmental Impact Report on the ramp project is expected in March. We have been told that the report will cover just the narrowest transportation impacts of the project, not the regional impacts or even the impacts on all of San Ramon. This would flout the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires comprehensive study of all impacts, including the cumulative impacts of all foreseeable projects.

The Sierra Club urges San Ramon to prepare a long-term transportation master plan–before moving ahead on transportation projects that might block future solutions.

Jim Gibbon, Executive Committee, Sierra Club Mount Diablo Group

Club calls for limiting tour buses in San Francisco

Tour bus at Muni bus stop. Photo courtesy Erinne Morse of the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association.

Tour bus at Muni bus stop. Photo courtesy Erinne Morse of the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association.

San Francisco needs to undertake a planning process to regulate tour buses. In the interim, because of concerns about air quality and climate change, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency should restrict the operation of tour buses in Alamo Square.

The number of tour buses traversing the city has increased dramatically over the past three to five years. They are banned from many neighborhoods–such as the Marina, Sea Cliff, and parts of Pacific Heights–but they are not banned from Alamo Square and its iconic view of gingerbread houses in front of downtown.

A February – June 2013 study counted one tour or commuter bus arriving at Alamo Square every 7.5 minutes. Neighbors complain that tour bus operators drive too slowly or too quickly, stop to discharge and pick up passengers in mid-block, double-park, and sometimes pull into bus stops illegally. These activities obstruct the operation of the 21 Hayes Street bus. The high volume of these large buses also endangers bicyclists in the bicycle lanes running both directions on Fulton Street.

In addition, the large number of tour buses exacerbates air pollution. One bus may meet air-quality standards, but eight per hour increases the cumulative impacts. Studies just released from the World Health Organization have now classified air pollution as a whole (as opposed to individual pollution components) as carcinogenic to humans, with data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer indicating a strong connection, to lung cancer and also to bladder cancer, adding to the list of diseases including heart disease and asthma. This pollution particularly endangers children, whose lungs are still developing, the elderly, and those with already-weakened hearts and lungs.

The Sierra Club strongly supports the unimpeded flow of mass transit and the safe passage of bicyclists and pedestrians as some of the best methods for combating air pollution and climate change.

The Sierra Club San Francisco Group has also spoken out for reducing the amount of parking to be allowed in proposed projects at 555 Fulton St.  and 1634-1690 Pine St. The same principle applies: building too many parking spaces at one location encourages driving, climate change, and air pollution. The Fulton Street plan would include more parking than allowed in the Market and Octavia Plan, and Pine Street is an exceptionally transit-rich neighborhood.

Sue Vaughan, Executive Committee,
Sierra Club San Francisco Group