In 2010, the NY Times published article on the Northern Alameda Chapter of the Sierra Club. It was not a flattering article, as it went into the group’s reluctance to embrace smart-growth policies. Many of its members were opposed to in-fill development in the downtown area (near the BART station). At the time, I pointed out that the group was endorsing candidates opposed to AC Transit BRT.
Now comes the 2014 election, and to judge from their endorsements it is clear nothing has changed. They again endorsed Councilmembers Worthington and Arreguin — even though both voted against BRT. As well, the Sierra Club endorsed the candidacy of George Beier, who organized neighborhood opposition to BRT.
Arreguin deserves special mention for sponsoring Measure R. It would reduce height limits and increase minimum parking requirements in the downtown. Groups such as Transform and Greenbelt Allliance are oppopsed to Measure R, but the Sierra Club is curiously silent on the matter.
If you visit the Sierra Club Transportation Policy web page, it states the following:
Walking and bicycling are best, along with electronic communications to reduce trips. Next are buses, minibuses, light rail and heavy rail (as corridor trips increase); electrified wherever feasible. Rail systems are most effective in stimulating compact development patterns, increasing public transit patronage and reducing motor vehicle use. Station access should be provided by foot, bicycle and public transit, with minimal, but full-priced, public parking. Accommodation of pedestrians, bicycles and public transit should be given priority over private automobiles.
Land use patterns should be designed to improve pedestrian access, encourage shorter trips, increase public transit use, enhance the economic viability of public transit and decrease private motor vehicle use (auto mobility). Therefore zoning, financing, land-use controls and other policies should concentrate employment near transit stations or stops, densify residential areas to allow shorter trips.
This a good transportation policy. What would it take for the National leadership to demand that local chapters adhere to it?
FWIW, Sierra Club’s Metro DC chapter was a leader in pushing smart growth and promoting it on a metropolitan basis. A report they published around 2000 on DC, called “Restore the Core,” was one of the spurs that got me involved, heavily as it turned out, in local civic affairs.
Perhaps that chapter is an exception. But the example could be used within Sierra Club as a way to stress the need for urban environmentally appropriate policies vs. exurban issues.
http://vault.sierraclub.org/sprawl/resources/overview.asp
https://web.archive.org/web/20070708012316/http://www.dc.sierraclub.org/conservation/rtc00.pdf
Similarly, in 2008, I pushed DC, in response to a request from Rails to Trails Conservancy to provide recommendations for what they would do with money that RTTC was advocating for, to promote an urban agenda in the context of trails development, as opposed to a more suburban and exurban agenda, which typifies a majority of RTTC projects.
Over time, RTTC has developed a much more defined urban appropriate trails agenda.
So change is possible.