Last week, I read a Mission Local questionnaire asking CA-11 candidates to name their top infrastructure priorities for federal funding. Chan listed “downtown rail extension and subway expansion” and wrote:

As a District 1 resident who rides public transit, you would think I would have been excited to see the Geary / 19th Ave subway on her list. But after having spent significant time researching previous Geary transit proposals, I don’t believe she has any actual interest in building it, only further studying it.

After being postponed many times, the final Geary / 19th Ave Report was presented at the June 9th SFCTA board meeting. Having written about the study as part of my “How SF Government Works” class, I was excited to attend in person to see the big presentation. I naively thought this is where something significant would happen that would impact my neighborhood, the Inner Richmond.

I was also very interested in what Connie Chan, my own supervisor, would have to say about the project at the meeting. Imagine my surprise when the meeting started and Chan wasn’t even there:

Of course, everyone runs a little late sometimes. But even nearly an hour in, as the Geary / 19th presentation was starting, she still wasn’t there. I watched while the SFCTA staff member proceeded to present information about previous studies, potential routes, ridership estimates, costs, and funding challenges. After the presentation, Melgar mentioned that there was no one on the roll to make comments. Since Melgar was the one who actually initiated the study, she went ahead and spoke about what the project would mean for her district, and the importance of supporting institutions like SF State University and Golden Gate Park.

Melgar then announced that the board needed a roll call because “we’ve been joined by Commissioner Chan.”, and I then noticed Chan was now in her chair. She voted yes to approve the study, but I was surprised she didn’t say anything about the project at all. If this were really one of Chan’s top infrastructure priorities, I would expect her to at least show up to the presentation on time and say something. She could have asked about the project’s funding or explained what it would mean for the Richmond, similar to what Melgar did for her district. But I suppose the record shows she “supported” the project nonetheless.

As I explained in my previous article, in 2003 voters approved Prop K, which funded bus rapid transit on Geary “designed and built to rail-ready standards,” and listed a $55 million Geary Light Rail line item designated as Priority 3.

While Chan represented District 1, BRT Phase 2 was downgraded from center-running to side-running in late 2021, and the “rail-ready” requirement was omitted from Prop L, the 2022 sales-tax renewal. Rather than fighting to preserve the rail-ready plan, Chan supported the downgraded side-running design and the reduction in programmed Prop K funding from roughly $33 million to $10 million. She made the motions approving the revised spending plan and project scope.

The side-running bus project was also controversial. Richmond merchants protested the parking it would remove, and Chan sided with the merchants. The project, she said, “promises to bring much needed reliable transit to the Richmond District, but we can do this without taking away from our small businesses.”

If Chan would not fight for Geary’s previous rail-ready plan when it encountered opposition over funding, construction and parking, why should voters expect her to champion a subway that would be vastly more expensive and disruptive?

The latest Geary subway concept would cost an estimated $20 to $30 billion. The project would require federal and local funding, more housing around the stations, years of construction, and politicians who are willing to defend the choices. This is why it’s important to look at her previous record. When earlier Geary projects involved costs or disruption, she supported scaling them back and delaying them. When the latest proposal was presented, she had no comments.

As I wrote in my history of Geary rail, politicians have studied and promised rail on this corridor for generations, but all we’ve gotten is a perpetual study of what we already knew decades ago. Making a project a priority means overcoming the obstacles along the way to getting something built. Chan says she supports the subway because it would connect “more residents to jobs and opportunities.” But transit needs to exist provide these benefits to its residents. You can’t commute to work on a study.