<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: BART Responds to FTA Rebuke, Defends Minority and Equity Practices</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/01/21/bart-responds-to-fta-rebuke-defends-minority-and-equity-practices/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/01/21/bart-responds-to-fta-rebuke-defends-minority-and-equity-practices/</link>
	<description>Covering San Francisco&#039;s livable streets movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:15:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Krause</title>
		<link>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/01/21/bart-responds-to-fta-rebuke-defends-minority-and-equity-practices/comment-page-1/#comment-119391</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Krause</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=121611#comment-119391</guid>
		<description>If the equity compliant is not able to stop the project cold, it seems that  the last minute change in service standards (i.e. the speed and frequency) should force a supplemental EIR at a minimum. I wonder if anyone is pursuing this angle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the equity compliant is not able to stop the project cold, it seems that  the last minute change in service standards (i.e. the speed and frequency) should force a supplemental EIR at a minimum. I wonder if anyone is pursuing this angle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stev</title>
		<link>http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/01/21/bart-responds-to-fta-rebuke-defends-minority-and-equity-practices/comment-page-1/#comment-118081</link>
		<dc:creator>Stev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:35:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=121611#comment-118081</guid>
		<description>BART&#039;s response to Director Radulovich seems consistent to their ongoing profile of being the least transparent public agency in the S.F. Bay Area.   Just because, in their legal staff&#039;s opinion, the information he requested &quot;wasn&#039;t legally required,&quot; doesn&#039;t mean that there is not a public benefit in providing it.  Makes me think that BART is more interested in hiding its policy deliberations rather than seeing a Director&#039;s request as an opportunity to better explain to the public BART&#039;s work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BART&#8217;s response to Director Radulovich seems consistent to their ongoing profile of being the least transparent public agency in the S.F. Bay Area.   Just because, in their legal staff&#8217;s opinion, the information he requested &#8220;wasn&#8217;t legally required,&#8221; doesn&#8217;t mean that there is not a public benefit in providing it.  Makes me think that BART is more interested in hiding its policy deliberations rather than seeing a Director&#8217;s request as an opportunity to better explain to the public BART&#8217;s work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

