Letters to the Editor

Editor:
Concerning the proposed closure of the eastern end of Golden Gate Park to traffic on Saturdays, like it currently is on Sundays, there needs to be consideration of the difference between the two weekend days.

Saturday is the day that many working people take care of family "business" that they are unable to do during the week.

Sunday, on the other hand, is the "downtime," or "family" day, the day people gravitate to our glorious park. An area of the park is already shut down on Saturday for walkers and cyclists. The demand for that area doesn't warrant further park closings.

"Real life" considerations should take precedent over special interest anti-automobile activists.
Curt Cournale
Cournale & Co.

Editor:
I believe that Clement Street between Arguello and Park Presidio boulevards should have four-way stop signs on every corner that does not have a traffic light.

Right now, some streets have four-way stop signs and some do not. The ones that do not have four-way stops confuse people new to the area. They often stop. People familiar with the area speed right through the intersection. Clement Street is not a thoroughfare.

There are lots of pedestrians on Clement Street, many of them young kids with their parents and students from various schools. Why not create the safest possible environment?

If a driver wants to get somewhere quickly, have them use Geary Boulevard or California Street.
Kristin Chu

Editor:
Over the last few months, I have been reading many critical articles about Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in your paper.

As a longtime resident of the Outer Richmond, I would appreciate more balanced coverage of the project.

I understand that some merchants have concerns about how the project might impact their businesses, but a large number of residents rely on the 38 Geary. Improving mobility is important to them. I take the bus to work every day.

Unfortunately, it's a normal occurrence when the bus is caught in traffic, overcrowded, or does not come for long stretches of time.

Like many residents, I rely on a safe and reliable bus system to get me to and from work. As many studies have shown, improving mobility is actually one of the keys to economic development. In other words, providing a safer and more reliable ride might actually benefit businesses in the area as people will be more likely to travel to the area.

One of the greatest priorities of the City should be to improve public transit options. I commend the Transportation Authority for its work on looking at better transportation alternatives for our neighborhood. I can tell you that many of my fellow riders look forward to riding a faster and more efficient Muni.
Clark Rasmussen

Editor:
Regarding the February meeting of the Geary Citizens' Advisory Committee (GCAC) actions and the Evaluation Framework for continuing the Transportation Authority's ongoing Geary Bus Rapid Transit study, I have a number of concerns with the continuing biases inherent in the conduct of this study.

We are already aware of the fatal flaws of the so-called study so far, but even after the outpouring of Richmond citizens and businesses identifying the flaws, it seems the Transportation Authority is determined to ignore us and continue attempting to steer this "study" to arrive at a conclusion it has already chosen.

The citizens and businesses of the Richmond must continue to remain vigilant and aggressively oppose these dictatorial tactics.

Most of the "benefits" presented for the BRT can be easily and inexpensively achieved by merely improving, adjusting and adding to the existing Muni system without any of the cost, disruption and chaos that would result from the installation of the BRT system. No doubt this approach would also provide a far superior end result. The following comments are directed toward the study's "Evaluation Framework:"

The responses need to be tabulated more precisely than "low, medium, and high; and we need to see a cost/benefit analysis for each option, including "no change." Some issues are far more critical than others. For example, a significant loss of auto capacity on Geary Boulevard, coupled with a loss of parking spaces, is certainly far more important than some unmeasurable "enhancement of the Muni experience."

This BRT proposal is a largely experimental, untested and untried transit option. Many places in Europe, where this has been tried, are abandoning their attempts. Why should we in San Francisco offer ourselves as guinea pigs for our "transportation experts" so they can tout themselves as innovative leaders for other cities?
Dr. Ronald Konopaski

Editor:
I would like to tell you about a plan that was not well thought out, and I think it could do some real damage to the people who live and work in the Richmond District. The proposition of the Bus Rapid Transit is a sham and a bureaucratic nightmare.

Bus Rapid Transit would dedicate one lane in each direction on Geary Boulevard solely for the use of Muni buses. The plan is to make it light rail ready to 33rd Avenue. This may sound great on the surface, but when you dig a little deeper you can see that this proposition has not been well thought out.

As we all know, there are about 50 avenues, which means the Outer Richmond will not benefit from light rail. This project will affect traffic all along Geary Boulevard and on the parallel streets. With 55,000 cars driving on Geary Boulevard, where will they all go when capacity is limited? I'll tell you where - into our neighborhoods - to Anza, Balboa and Clement streets. Those already busy streets will drown even more in automobile traffic that should have stayed on Geary Boulevard in the first place.

In addition to all that, hundreds of existing parking spaces could be lost and there would be years of construction and congestion. Many businesses will be affected. In closing, let me tell you - we've been duped.

Proposition K has been hijacked by a handful of politically-correct bureaucrats and transformed into the "neighborhood business elimination program."
David Heller
President, Greater Geary Boulevard Merchants Association