SAN FRANCISCO—In a sometimes raucous yet tightly-controlled debate at the Chinese Cultural Center on Wednesday, first eleven and then, with the addition of two late arrivals, thirteen mayoral hopefuls attempted to explain the advantages of their own particular plans for public spending, and how they would use the city government to massage the economy.
But the meat and potatoes of the debate came after the opening questions in the discussion of the Central Subway. And half the action was in the crowd. As things heated up—the air conditioning wasn’t working—a series of unrehearsed outbursts by members of the audience punctuated the debate, and several audience members drew attention to themselves through seemingly organized clapping and booing.
Moderator Kwokshu Leung of KTSF introduced the much-discussed project that has recently drawn a good deal of controversy. Among other questions, he asked: “Is there a racial bias against the project?”
The moderators went through the list of candidates, looking for succinct expressions of support or opposition; they got both, including suggestions of political corruption (real estate speculators are “licking their chops” one speaker said), arguments about the needs of the community, and serious questions about the fiscal sustainability of the scheme.
The mayoral hopeful John Avalos, who supports the project, said he got squeamish when he thought about the cost: $1.6 billion, which at around a billion dollars per mile of track makes the Central Subway an unusually expensive public infrastructure project, particularly for its estimated ridership.
After hearing several complaints about the design of the project Mayor Ed Lee, who has consistently supported it, said: “Let’s be very real about this. If it was badly designed, after years of review they would have rejected it. But time and time again it’s been reinforced as one of the best... transportation systems ever designed.”
The mayor’s views fly in the face of expert opinion. Tom Matoff, a consultant and authority on the subject who was commissioned to write a report on the project, didn’t agree with the mayor’s claim. He wrote in a report in 2007 that if the project went ahead as planned it might make travel more inconvenient for many and suggested a complete redesign. A Civil Grand Jury said the same thing in a July, 2011 report. The Wall Street Journal called the project “a case study in government incompetence and wasted taxpayer money.”
“We can’t afford to delay this,” Lee said. “How can those residents travel around the city otherwise? They can’t go on the surface on the streets anymore.”
“The experts are not the Civil Grand Jury,” Lee said.
In a question at the end of the panel The Epoch Times asked Lee why the Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) plan, a $9 million investment approved by voters in 2003 that would alleviate traffic congestion on Stockton street, was never enacted.
Critics of the Central Subway say the TPS plan would eliminate the congestion, which would end the justification for the Central Subway.
