Another anti-car "activist" appointed to MTA board
Mayor Lee has appointed Joel Ramos, an anti-car bike guy, to the MTA board, where he will join anti-car activist Cheryl Brinkman, who was appointed by Mayor Newsom. Ramos is from Transform, a "smart growth," "dense development" group. From today's Chronicle story:
The high-profile agency oversees Muni and San Francisco's parking, traffic control and taxi operations. And the seven-member governing board has a lot of work in front of it: directing management in contract negotiations with Muni operators, securing an agreement with the federal government to fund the Central Subway project and deciding whether to keep the agency's executive director, Nathaniel Ford..."He will bring his experience and passion for transportation issues to the board, and as a regular transit rider and daily bicyclist, Joel will bring a valuable perspective to the SFMTA board," Lee said Wednesday.
Yes, of course the city wants the feds to put up most of the money for the Central Subway, but let's not forget that San Francisco, a city with a chronically under-funded transit system, is also chipping in $300 million for that political deal disguised as a transportation project. A prog lemming like Ramos would never oppose the Central Subway. We already know that, like all good progressives, he supports the high-speed rail boondoggle. He also supported the discredited Berkeley BRT proposal.
Labels: Anti-Car, Central Subway, Muni, Right and Left
posted by Rob Anderson @ 12:53 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Transform is not a "one man" organization. That's a flat out false statement.
You're right. I stand corrected. But that they have Andy Thornley on their board of directors, along with folks from SPUR and the Sierra Club shows where they're at---all the usual "smart growth," dense development, high-speed rail prog twaddle.
This is a crime. How did they not nominate Rob Anderson!
Then we could have the kind of rational policy that Rob espouses along with Randal O'Toole
"The Reason Foundation has proposed to zero out transit funding altogether, thus returning to the pre-1983 system in which fees paid by highway users are dedicated to highways. Under Reason’s proposal, any federal money spent on transit would have to come from general funds, not dedicated shares of gas taxes."
This would allow us to basically defund the crooks at MUNI and dismantle the system, returning the roads 100% to more efficient private vehicles.
That's not necessarily irrational. I'm not sure I agree with it, but, come to think of it, how much does Muni get from the gas tax? More important sources of money for Muni and the city are parking revenue and the Prop. K tax money administered by the SFCTA, which is governed by the BOS. Alas, the city is pouring a lot of that money into the Central Subway.
You link a piece by Randal O'Toole gloating about how the high-speed rail money was cut in the budget deal. Good, I share his glee. Now, HSR really is an irrational policy. With O'Toole I hope it's dead. The Democrats looked particularly stupid on that issue.
I said it is RATIONAL.
Using parking meter money - and more ridiculously the obscenely high parking tickets - to pay for MUNI is also criminal. If we are to continue fining motorists for parking on PUBLIC property, those funds should go for the benefit of MOTORISTS - not bus riders.
In a RATIONAL system, the parking tickets would be lowered because motorists already pay their own way via gas taxes, and the fares on MUNI would be quadrupled - currently MUNI fares pay for 25% of the system cost - it should pay for itself or be dismantled, just like car drivers pay for 100% of their costs.
You don't have to look at the Central Subway to find a boondoggle, every line in the system is a drain on the taxpayers and motorists.
Okay, sorry I misread your comment. If course don't agree that paying for Muni is "criminal."
Like public schools, a public transportation system is essential. But we would have plenty of money for the present Muni system without City Hall's crackbrained mega-projects, like the Central Subway and the money the Feds are throwing at HSR, which, fortunately, will be a lot less after that budget agreement.
I agree that City Hall's anti-car policies are preposterous when you consider that motorists are paying a lot more than their fair share, while Muni can't even collect fares from passengers. New York's system collects 50% of its operating expenses via fares.
There is a perfectly good "public transit system" - they are called "ROADS". You drive your car on them.
If there is "plenty of money" it should be funneled back into the taxpayers pockets, not for corrupt MUNI to run buses full of crack whores and thugs around the city.
This is crude free market fundamentalism. The #5 Fulton buses jammed with people heading downtown every morning in my neighborhood aren't carrying "crack whores and thugs." They are carrying people going to work, and, according to the city's Transportation Fact Sheet, more than 30% of city workers rely on public transportation to get to and from work.
Maybe if we were funneling all that waste into parking lots instead of text messaging bus drivers, there would be somewhere to park downtown so those people would not have to ride the bus with smelly old men. And they could afford a car because they were not having their money spent on bus driver pensions.
And maybe I'm the Pope from Rome.
Atlas Shrugged is a book? Screw that, I'll watch the movie, I have better things to do with my time as an actual productive member of society.
"returning the roads 100% to more efficient private vehicles"
Hurr durr are you kidding or just stupid? I guess we can just ignore all of the negative externalities of single occupancy vehicles...
"This is a crime" <-- lolwut
"Central Subway to find a boondoggle"
Ya I guess you're right, let's just forget the fact that this was proposed in the ORIGINAL Muni metro plan in 1937. I guess having underground rail going to the most densely populated section of the city that draw tourists and has narrow streets is a terrible idea. And if I had wheels I'd be a wagon.
"York's system collects 50% of its operating expenses via fares"
FALSE - Their farebox ratio is more like 37% and that includes their rail network, so I would guess the bus is even lower. The rest of the income comes from tolls. I guess if we lumped our bridges, tunnels, Caltrian, BART, and Muni together we might be able to do that. At least look stuff up before spreading misinformation around.
"while Muni can't even collect fares from passengers"
I agree this does piss me off.
"there would be somewhere to park downtown"
You either a moron or a troll. Where would you like to build those parking lots? I think a more feasible solution would be to research how to transport our cars to another dimension when we don't need them. That way we have infinite storage space for your proposed public transport system.
You seem to think you're clever, but your the one who looks like a moron with your fact-free comment, which of course is why you're anonymous.
I'd sure like to see a scorecard with the opinions of all the Mayoral Candidates re the Central Subway...
[so I can vote against the ones who love it...]
As far as I know, not a single candidate opposes the Central Subway. We really live in a one-party town when it comes to issues. Not a single candidate opposes the Bicycle Plan, either. Or opposes the ludicrous, financially disastrous high-speed rail project.
And of course Mayor Lee, our liar-in-chief, supports all this bad policy. San Francisco: City of Lemmings!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about parking lot traffic control system.
Regards
Post a Comment
<< Home