SFist: Transit Picnic, Yum!

Dave Snyder

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:17:22 -0800

It was a fun, if very mellow event. There were about 20 of us there, all told, over the course of the whole afternoon. I work at SPUR and am pretty sure we haven't taken a position on Community Choice Aggregation. It seems like a good idea to me, but that's just me talking: I'm the transportation policy person and don't speak for SPUR on energy issues. Which brings me to Geary BRT, in response to Mark's comment. I agree that on a purely technical basis, rail is a better solution for Geary than BRT, but for better or worse, decisions about transit expansions in San Francisco give great weight to community advocacy for and against specific projects. BRT is the transit expansion on Geary that had political support where rail did not, because BRT construction won't disrupt the street nearly as much. Everything they're doing to build BRT on Geary is necessary for rail, eventually, and nothing they're doing will preclude it (it's a rail-ready design). Converting BRT to rail may be wise at some point, but that project will compete for funding with the completion of the Central Subway and its essential extension into North Beach, the extension of Caltrain into downtown, decently paved roads, a complete bicycle network, and simply a fully-funded Muni. I think BRT may surprise people with its quality in terms of speed, comfort, and reliability, and that we, the public, may choose to use our limited funds to expand BRT to other neighborhoods before converting Geary BRT to rail.

andrew

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:13:46 -0800

Who CARES if SPUR opposes CCA? Only the Guardian and its biggest fans are so PG&E obsessed to even think about this. SPUR supports major mass transit improvements, which will save San Franciscans far more than any Bruce B. Brugmann endorsed public power scheme. Time is money!

MattyMatt

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:51:51 -0800

That's not a topic I know much about. Maybe you'd like to point me toward SPUR's statements about CCA? I can't find any on their site.

pinkocommie

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:34:38 -0800

okay, MattyMatt. How about SPUR's position on community choice aggregation-- what's the non-party reason to oppose CCA?

MattyMatt

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:51:42 -0800

Spur maintains balance between citizens, neighborhoods, AND corporate interests; but it's hard to think of a time that they've favored corporations over people, or towed a party line. The Geary BRT is a particularly bad example to cite if you're accusing Spur of favoring commerce over citizens. The (few) opponents to BRT are business owners; but the thousands of people who actually ride the 38 are greatly in favor of speeding it up.

CRS

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:03:11 -0800

There were like about 10 people at this picnic. SPUR, McG and a couple of cronies. pinkocommie (1) is on target: SPUR does not represent citizens and neighborhoods in their kneejerk party line blather.

Mark Ballew

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 00:30:18 -0800

It's like a train, but on a budget, welcome to BRT. "Bad Republican Transit" Sigh. At least it is better than what we have. I hope.

taran

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:11:22 -0800

(NOT in reference to commenter 1 above!)

taran

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:09:57 -0800

mattymatt, just a random thanks for your excellent and fun Muni coverage. And for being gentle with your Neanderthal commenters.

pinkocommie

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:35:21 -0800

"SPUR (the always-correct urban planning group)"... I guess, if you're into corporate-interest planning.