web analytics

Letters: Why leave out Sonja Trauss from District 6 discussion?

Trending Articles

       
Former Planning Commissioner Christine Johnson, left, and San Francisco Bay Area Renters’ Federation founder Sonja Trauss are both running to represent District 6 on the Board of Supervisors. (Left: Emma Marie Chiang/Special to S.F. Examiner; right: Courtesy Sonja Trauss)

“Former Planning Commissioner Christine Johnson launches District 6 supervisor campaign,” On Guard, Jan. 19
Why leave Trauss out of discussion?

While I appreciate the Examiner’s coverage of this important local political race, I must take issue with the line that says of Christine Johnson’s candidacy: “Her lone major candidate in the race is Board of Education Commissioner Matt Haney, who aligned with The City’s progressives.” 

Anyone following local San Francisco politics will immediately recognize that this statement is categorically false. In fact, there is another major candidate already running in the District 6 election: Sonja Trauss.

Aside from being named one of the “Politico Magazine 50” for 2017, Trauss has already secured the endorsements of state Assemblymember David Chiu, as well as state Sen. Scott Wiener. In addition, she has raised more than $100,000 in campaign contributions.

To omit her name as not a “major candidate” in the District 6 race is a huge oversight by the Examiner.

Adam Mayer
San Francisco

‘Major’ candidates in D6

Columnist Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez does not mention that there is another major candidate in the race, Sonja Trauss, and that Christine Johnson is actually the third major candidate to enter the race.

It seems disingenuous to me to not recognize her has a major candidate when she has raised as much money as Matt Haney, and she has endorsements from major, popular San Francisco politicians.

Tom Hirschfeld
San Francisco

 

“S.F. will remove Muni stop near Safeway,” The City, Jan. 17
Data supports the SFMTA

As part of the the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) launched in 2008, Muni installed automatic passenger counters (APC) on its buses and railcars to determine which stops contribute to Muni’s goal of moving more people while reducing waiting and travel times.

With hard scientific evidence about how little-used stops just delayed service for the majority of the riders, Muni was freed of the usual bickering and politics from its planning decisions. With 10 years of data collection, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has carefully considered all the relevant factors before making a decision to start pulling up stops. The controversial stop on the L-Taraval line in front of the Safeway store is one of the many stops that APC data shows a definite need for removal.

There are hundreds of stops that should be removed or relocated. In addition to the removing little-used stops, there are entire bus lines that do not have enough riders, and under-utilized service should be reallocated to those lines with very high demand. This is a market-based approach to transit planning, which should aim to serve the greatest common good instead of catering to protests from a vocal minority.

Almost 10 years after the launch of the TEP, Muni still hasn’t implemented much of the needed changes to its bus and railstops, and service remains dismal as usual. Without major improvements in efficiency, Muni will remain stuck in rut, and the agency will be relegated to an hyper-expensive social service.

After 10 years of delays and endless stall tactics by a minority of neighborhood activists, the SFMTA must quickly move ahead with improvements that will serve the vast majority of The City’s neighborhoods.

Galen L. Dutch
San Francisco

Click here or scroll down to comment