Based on the suggestions of Pi and Dave Snyder, I have revised the BRT letter. It's below and attached. In the attachment, there is something funny going on with the formatting that I can't figure out. Sue Jake.mcgoldrick@sfgov.org Jose_luis_moscovich@sfcta.org Pooja_jhunjhunwala@sfcta.org Merchants have been asking for an economic impact study not a bad idea Do a better job at looking at rail as an alternative do an analysis. Trains more expensive, rails more expensive, but the rolling stock lasts longer than buses 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. We have heard the arguments of businesspeople along the Geary Corridor who fear the loss of business due to the loss of parking and disruptions during construction. However, the disruptions due to construction will be minimal, and the gains for businesses that will now be served by more reliable transport will be considerable. We also 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 is less expensive and more reliable in the long run. 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
I like the changes, Sue. Good job. dave
Based on the suggestions of Pi and Dave Snyder, I have revised the BRT letter. It's below and attached. In the attachment, there is something funny going on with the formatting that I can't figure out.
Sue
Jake.mcgoldrick@sfgov.org Jose_luis_moscovich@sfcta.org Pooja_jhunjhunwala@sfcta.org
Merchants have been asking for an economic impact study not a bad idea Do a better job at looking at rail as an alternative do an analysis. Trains more expensive, rails more expensive, but the rolling stock lasts longer than buses
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.
We have heard the arguments of businesspeople along the Geary Corridor who fear the loss of business due to the loss of parking and disruptions during construction. However, the disruptions due to construction will be minimal, and the gains for businesses that will now be served by more reliable transport will be considerable. We also 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 is less expensive and more reliable in the long run. 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
Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Description: BRTlettertoRichmondReView12-06-05 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BRTlettertoRichmondReView12-06-05"
Attachment converted: Dave's HD:BRTlettertoRichmondReVie#157C4E ( / ) (00157C4E) _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo
Again job of goodness. Pi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Snyder" <dave@livablecity.org> To: <susan_e_vaughan@juno.com>; "transportation working group" <transpo@sfgreens.org> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [Transpo] revised BRT letter I like the changes, Sue. Good job. dave
Based on the suggestions of Pi and Dave Snyder, I have revised the BRT letter. It's below and attached. In the attachment, there is something funny going on with the formatting that I can't figure out.
Sue
Jake.mcgoldrick@sfgov.org Jose_luis_moscovich@sfcta.org Pooja_jhunjhunwala@sfcta.org
Merchants have been asking for an economic impact study - not a bad idea Do a better job at looking at rail as an alternative - do an analysis. Trains more expensive, rails more expensive, but the rolling stock lasts longer than buses
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."
We have heard the arguments of businesspeople along the Geary Corridor who fear the loss of business due to the loss of parking and disruptions during construction. However, the disruptions due to construction will be minimal, and the gains for businesses that will now be served by more reliable transport will be considerable. We also 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 is less expensive and more reliable in the long run. 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
Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Description: BRTlettertoRichmondReView12-06-05 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BRTlettertoRichmondReView12-06-05"
Attachment converted: Dave's HD:BRTlettertoRichmondReVie#157C4E ( / ) (00157C4E) _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo
_______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 07:10:21PM +0000, susan_e_vaughan@juno.com wrote:
Based on the suggestions of Pi and Dave Snyder, I have revised the BRT letter. It's below and attached. In the attachment, there is something funny going on with the formatting that I can't figure out.
Looks great. I'd be happy to make you a formatted version on letterhead as a PDF, or you can just send it as text email if they prefer that. I'd also add a footnote with a link to our transportation plank (http://sfgreens.org/transpo.pdf) in both places where you refer to the plank. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
participants (4)
-
Dave Snyder -
John-Marc Chandonia -
Pi Ra -
susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com