That second paragraph seems to agree with the merchants' concern that they'll lose business. In fact, BRT is essential to providing access to *more* people to the businesses on that corridor, improving the business prospects of the small merchants on the corridor. Their being upset about losing parking is more a knee-jerk pro-car concern than a thoughftul consideration of future business prospects. Additionally, construction impacts should be minor compared to Third St light rail. Just deleting that whole paragraph leaves a pretty strong letter. Dave At 7:52 PM +0000 3/30/06, susan_e_vaughan@juno.com wrote:
Jake.mcgoldrick@sfgov.org Jose_luis_moscovich@sfcta.org Pooja_jhunjhunwala@sfcta.org
Dear Commissioner McGoldrick:
The San Francisco Green Party supports good local transit as an essential element]of a safe, healthy, attractive, and livable city. The Green Party also believes that enhancing current public transit service will provide San Franciscans with a positive alternative to driving and help fulfill our charter description as being a transit first city. In particular, the San Francisco Green Party supports the current San Francisco County Transportation Authority plans for Bus Rapid Transit along the Geary and Van Ness corridors. Part B. 1. of the SFGP Transportation Plank calls for the creation of a citywide bus rapid transit (BRT) network to ensure that people can reliably travel between most neighborhoods in half an hour or less. This would entail the development of a system of dedicated bus lanes and traffic lights controlled by Muni operators along major transit corridors.
While we are sympathetic to the concerns of businesspeople along the Geary Corridor who fear the loss of business due to the loss of parking and disruptions during construction, we think looming energy shortages and global warming compel San Franciscans to adopt means of transportation that are less energy intensive and less damaging to the immediate and global environment than personal cars.
We favor designs with center lanes, which most effectively separate bus lanes from car lanes, and side or center boarding platforms. We also favor keeping the BRT lanes above ground wherever the San Francisco County Transportation Authority is now considering putting them below ground for example, at the intersection of Geary and Masonic and at the intersection of Geary and Fillmore. Aboveground transit is more accessible and thus more attractive - to transit riders who might otherwise drive.
We also think whatever plans the SFCTA adopts should be rail ready. While BRT is less expensive in the short run, light rail may be less expensive in the long run in that trains last longer than buses. Part B.2 . of our Transportation Plank calls for the gradual replacement of the citywide BRT system with light rail. Light rail should then be expanded into neighborhoods that will benefit from improved rider experience and faster movement. Expansions that have the least per-rider cost and that help the lowest-income riders should be the first priority.
Sincerely, Sue Vaughan and John-Marc Chandonia Co-chairs, Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party
_______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo