I found this quote interesting: "For all its scotch-soaked flaws, the city of yore did not suffer from these problems. While archaic and stridently antidemocratic by today's standards, the system of government cobbled together by a citizens' commission in 1931 largely did what our forebears wanted it to do — mind the store and eliminate rampant corruption."
I think municipal governments should be run by benevolent dictators. If you leave everything up to the market, you get disasters like Northern Virginia. If you go to the ballot for everything, you end up with disasters like San Francisco. No, benevolent dictators are the way to go. I'm a huge fan of Guilliani and Bloomberg's work in NYC. Love them or hate them, you'd rather live in NYC circa 2013 than NYC circa 1993. I have high hopes for Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago. He apparently came up with his last budget using a process for soliciting input from others in the government that boiled down to "fuck you!"
Benevolent dictators strike me as the best form of government at any level so long as they are capable, just, and benevolent - a rare combination it seems. National geographic had an article a few years ago on Singapore that provides some perspective on this - http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/singapore/jacobson... .
All that aside, I don't see why SF can't move in a more technocratic direction. There was apparently no lack of Google/Facebook/startup engineers and programmers willing to jump in and help out the Obama campaign on a massive scale - do those same people have no interest in local politics?
In my admittedly anecdotal experience, long-term San Franciscans can't stand startup employees -- the dot-com crowd is blamed for gentrification and high rents. Getting involved in local politics would be like hanging a 'vilify me, I'm an oppressor' sign on your back.
Indeed. The local SF Bay Guardian – mouthpiece of the local progressive left – ran this hit-piece against Ron Conway, for his growing involvement, recently:
Its ham-handed propagandizing is kind of funny. Look at the rapacious black eyes on the Conway cartoon monster we've drawn! Despite being born and raised in SF, he's a rootless carpetbagger! He's involved in "a long list of other shadowy [investment] businesses, all incorporated in Delaware for its lax tax and regulatory policies"! He supported measure E's tax breaks for tech companies! (Unmentioned: SFBG itself endorsed that same measure.)
In my admittedly anecdotal experience, long-terms San Franciscans can't stand anyone outside SF period. SF does everything it can to make the experience of visiting and doing business in that city as miserable as possible.
1. Affordable short-term housing or hotels? Yeah, you're going to be staying across the bay.
2. Parking is miserable and parking enforcement are total fascists. You can't even refill a meter.
3. Pandhandlers everywhere. EVERYWHERE. I'm not talking about just homeless, I'm talking about scientologists, 9/11 truthers, people raising money for Africa or the cat shelter or whatever. I've never been as harassed on the streets as I've been in SF. Just because I stopped for 3 seconds does not mean I want a pamphlet, dude.
SF loves being a self-imposed alternaculture concentration camp which is fine with me when I don't have to go there on business.
Totally agree on housing and hotels, but not on parking. Do you go to NYC on business and complain about the parking there? No, probably not because it's simply unnecessary. There is no reason that SF can't develop in that same direction.
The dot-com crowd is not the only people to blame. They just provide demand. If the long-term San Franciscans don't allow an increase in supply of housing (something which is totally possible in SF), then they are equally at fault.
I think it is a step in the right direction that the "tech transients", long deplored by the high priests of SF, are starting to talk about this unwarranted animosity toward them.
For too long, tech players - in denial - have swept this under the rug.
I have questions on how this would even work. Engineers played a large role in spreading the word and getting people out to vote via technological innovations.
But how would we apply technology to government? What would we do, technologically, to curb the massive addiction and homelessness problem in the city, and how would you use technology to bust unions down to size?
There are a lot of places technology fits in the world, but this particular one is purely political.
Actually, technology is being used to bust unions down to size. One specific technology is streaming web video, to make underhanded and reprehensible union tactics more visible.
When people compare public transit systems, one thing to keep in mind. The ones you usually compare as world class: NYC, Chicago, London were all originally built by private companies (and later made public), while the crappier ones out there SF, Atlanta, Baltimore were built with public money from the start. The DC subway is one of the few decent ones I can think of that was built with public money from the get-go, but it had an incredible budget, and still fell way short of it's original plan.
I don't understand how you assess the validity of your statement. Since you are talking about London as a world-class system, surely you should include Paris, Hong Kong, and Moscow. These were not "originally built by private companies."
A few days ago, CNN listed Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, London, Paris, Madrid, NYC, Tokyo, and Guangzhou as being in the top list of subway systems. At least some of those were started either by the government or by a government owned/funded company.
The US has a long history of preferring business solutions over government ones. Compare to 1800s France where large-scale engineering projects were seen as part of the government's domain. I therefore suspect that your observation reflects a US-centric view, where the default view seems to be that the government is incapable.
Also, there's a possible selection error. If all of the worst systems were "originally built by private companies" and only 40% of the world-class systems were done that way, then wouldn't that suggest that early government involvement leads to better systems?
Without that information, it's very hard to use your observation to make any sort of informed decision.
I don't think that the issue should be between public and private companies building these systems. I believe the lack of engineers in the public sector is more likely to blame for the incompetence of public engineering projects. How many scientists and engineers are in congress? Its hard to hire for a job you have never done.
We were talking about a US city (my fault for bringing in London), so yes, I'm not sure you can compare the type of government owned organizations that are common in Asia to how our governments and infrastructure work.
It's pretty fallacious to claim that the lines in NYC were built by private companies. They were built by the government and leased to private companies for administration.
I suspect the same is true for your other examples as well.. how do you "private sector" build something like a subway? The closest you could conceivably get would still be quasi-public, once you get done with all the right-of-way and eminent domain concerns.
You're oversimplifying. The original rail lines in nyc were largely built and run by private companies. Most of these lines were (and many still are) above ground. Later there was a lot of consolidation - smaller lines were bought up by larger lines that connected them together - prior to the era in which the government subsidized and then came to control the whole system. Part of why the subway system still works pretty well today is that these original routes - connecting the heart of the city to the outer boroughs - were designed to go where the demand was so they could pay back the investment quickly. Whereas when rail lines are built with too much government control often they end up ignoring or even deliberately avoiding the most useful and profitable routes in favor of politically motivated ones. (For instance, the monorail in Las Vegas didn't initially go to the airport because the cab companies don't want it to. And buses in San Francisco go through chinatown to please the chinatown merchants rather than the commuters trying to get past that area.)
The CTA train system does a very good job of connecting the places people actually want to commute through in Chicago. If you don't live here, the map might be misleading; you need to compare it to a population density map of the city. For instance, large parts of the southwest side of the city that appear to have minimal coverage are also heavily industrial. The red and green lines serve very large swathes of the poorest areas in the city, too.
The parts of the city that aren't directly served by train are served by a relatively effective bus system. I wouldn't say the CTA buses are beloved of anyone, but they're night and day compared to SF.
I don't think this is because private companies are inherently more competent. I think the reason for the discrepancy is that private companies aren't going to build in places where there isn't a very good chance of the project turning a profit.
The public ends up funding projects that might be valuable to society, but that won't turn a profit. Of course, this tendency needs to be monitored to make sure that the projects actually are of value, but I would say that public transit in San Francisco-- if nothing else, it brings down real estate prices-- is clearly in that category.
I do not intend to say that public projects are always well-managed, because that's demonstrably false. However, there are a large number of badly-managed private projects as well. In terms of turning a profit, though, the private sector almost always has better material to work with, because it takes the projects that are visibly likely to be profitable.
Yep, that's definitely part of it. Also government funded systems are still built by private companies, but instead of figuring out the best way to save money (as they would do if self-funded) they pad their margins and make the systems incredibly expensive to be built with public dollars.
Also, with publicly funded systems, there are always questions about alignment. Some local rep wants it to go thru her neighborhood, another thru theirs so they end up all sinuous/cicuitous (ala Seattle) whereas private entities don't have this issue.
While I wouldn't deny that there's a lot of bloat in the SF city government, I think it's important to take into account that SF is both a city and a county (a "consolidated city-county".) Hence, the SF budget has to make room for the functions would usually be left to the county, e.g., sheriff+jails, public works, parks, assessor, coroner, etc., and probably a whole bunch of other stuff I'm missing. That could explain some of the apparent budget inflation w/r/t Chicago.
Not quite an apples to apples comparison, though. Chicago is a prime example of purely flat, grid design; whereas SF has to contend with a geography of nightmares for public transit. It is tremendously easier to build transit systems in Chicago.
Almost none of the European city has a flat/grid structure as typical of more 'recent' American cities, yet they most have a much better public transit story, so I doubt that's a factor by itself.
Japan has no problems and look at a map of Tokyo. There are few straight streets in the entire city. It's also got plenty of hills. So does LA and they used to have an amazing transit system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric_Railway)
So no, you don't need a flat grid to have great public transit.
The Lausanne metro is fantastic. The M2 cuts straight through the hills and the M1 runs parallel to Lake Geneva and can get you to, say, EPFL in no time. On top of this there are the commuter trains which can get you to Geneva in about thirty minutes.
How fast can you get from 4th & King to the SJC?
Nevertheless, comparing San Francisco to Lausanne is unfair. Lausanne provides better infrastructure for a smaller population.
Tokyo is in no way even close to flat. It has some flat areas (e.g. landfill in Tokyo bay), but there are huge numbers of very hilly areas as well (including many popular commercial hubs and densely populated areas in the city center). Not gentle hills in many cases either, but quite steep.
[... and if you go to the outskirts, there are actual mountains within the Tokyo city limits!]
One difference with with SF, of course, is that Tokyo roads don't form a rigid grid that ignores the topography....
> Japan cities spend a lot more money on infrastructure than even American cities
Tokyo mass transit is overwhelmingly private (owned, run, and financed), especially if you're talking about rail.
I guess we have a different definition of flat since I hiked up and down Tokyo hills all the time. But even if it's not has hilly as SF it's streets are far more curvy.
LA is much flatter than SF. Although some live in the canyons and on the hills, most live on a single plain -- well, two plains if you count the San Fernando Valley as a separate plain.
LA at large may be flat but hello, the Santa Monica Mountains run directly through it. The trains that used to go through LA went all through the hills. The tunnels are still in many of them.
Flat cities with a rigid grid are kinda boring and often downright depressing (standing on a street in some of Chicago's neighborhoods, with ticky-tacky little houses marching uninterrupted into the distance as far as you can see, is a soul-sucking experience)...
Limited horizons and change make things interesting. You don't want complete chaos, because things also have to "make sense" to some degree (so complete randomness, like a stereotypical suburban cul-de-sac maze, tends to be bad), but variation is a good thing.
[A nice city to look at for interesting approaches to urban structure which are both somewhat regular, but more interesting that a grid, is Edinburgh, which has seen successive waves of fairly successful urban renewal over centuries, resulting in one of the most beautiful and fascinating cities in Europe. In the "new" parts (150-250 years old as opposed to the older and more organic medieval parts), Edinburgh streets have such features as small localized grids, sized as to with care to avoid large-scale monotony, occasional "circuses" acting as focal points, streets in gentle arcs which are practical for transportation, and yet maintain a constantly evolving street view and horizon, terraces along the sides of parks, etc.]
In defense of Chicago, its grid is amazing for being able to efficiently travel around the city. The street numbering makes it trivial for any local to find their way to an address like "X00 W Belmont" without a map, and obviously the lack of hills makes for easier biking and public transit. It skews more towards beautiful architecture than beautiful landscapes, and has its share of decrepit neighborhoods (as does SF), but I don't think many people would describe it as a "soul-sucking" place. Different strokes.
I didn't say Chicago was a soul-sucking place, but rather that certain areas in it are (apologies if that wasn't clear), and one of the main reasons they're that way is the incredible sense of monotony due in large part to the regularity of the grid (there are other reasons for monotony in those areas too, of course, e.g. the rather extreme lack of variation in housing stock, the complete lack of anything except houses, and the very flat geography).
It's a localized example of the effect urban structure can have, not a denigration of the entire city. So, please, don't take it as a dig against Chicago; I rather like Chicago in many ways, and much of my family lives there. I used the above example only because it's one of the more extreme cases I've encountered.
As for the "it's easy to find addresses!" argument in favor of large-scale grids, well, yes, but in my experience this is fairly unimportant for the actual residents of a city. Most people don't spend any significant amount of time travelling to completely random locations, and to the extent they do, every city evolves methods of way-finding that suit it. I think it's much more important for the residents that the city actually be a nice place to live, and part of that is being beautiful / interesting.
[For tourists, yeah, extremely simple way-finding can be a significant advantage, but I don't think cities should be designed for tourists over the needs of those who live there...]
It's a bit of a straw man there. The NYC street grid system was meant "to unite regularity and order with the public convenience and benefit and in particular to promote the health of the City ... [by allowing] a free and abundant circulation of air". ("Foul air" was thought to cause disease.)
Salt Lake City grid system was also not designed for tourists. It was designed for travelers, yes, and I believe it was part of the vision that SLC would be looked at as a model city, with a strong Cartesian/classical influence. According to Wikipedia, "In these western cities the streets were numbered even more carefully than in the east to suggest future prosperity and metropolitan status."
Also, a grid system made it easier to subdivide the land which was newly part of the US.
So to say that the grid system is influenced by tourists is a bit of an exaggeration.
Another important part of the New Town of Edinburgh (i.e. the 150-250 year old bit) are shared gardens, which are effectively private parks where locals pay a small amount per year. For example, here is the website for the gardens we use:
I agree that these are nice, but ... I lived in a number of flats in Edinburgh with nice (shared) gardens, but I don't think I ever used them even once. There are soooo many other cool and pretty places within easy walking distance...
[I lived there in the '90s, though, and I'm a bit scared to return for fear that the city has been ruined by its new-found position as a seat of "power" (haha); the sharp-suits crowd, "gotta pave over that park and widen those roads for my flash car!", etc...]
I am aware that you were making an like-to-like comparison with your selection of those Muni and CTA graphics. However, for those who don't know, Muni is more than just the light rail lines shown in that picture.
The equivalent CTA system maps seem to show just as much bus coverage as Muni's bus coverage. (Now, how many of those bus lines keep running after 23:00 is another question, entirely.)
How do you get from liking Guilliani and Bloomberg to thinking that "benevolent dictators are the way to go"?
You say you didn't like NYC as much pre-1993, which is when Koch left office after 12 years. But didn't the mayor then have much of the same powers as the mayor now? Doesn't that suggest that the 'benevolent dictatorship' then was the source of the problems?
In any case, and quoting Wikipedia: "Most major and large American cities use the strong-mayor form of the mayor–council system, whereas middle-sized and small American cities tend to use the council-manager system." And yes, San Francisco uses a 'strong mayor' system.
Which seems to imply that a benevolent dictatorship system can also lead to disaster.
(You suggest that the alternative is to leave things up to the market. That is not the case. There are other forms of municipal government.)
Therefore, I don't understand how your observations of recent NYC history can be applied to other large cities in the US.
> "But didn't the mayor then have much of the same powers as the mayor now? Doesn't that suggest that the 'benevolent dictatorship' then was the source of the problems?"
His train of thought is consistent. The idea is that benevolent dictatorships can either be a great force for good, or wildly incompetent. As compared to a market or ballot-based governments that are practically guaranteed to be incompetent. Lesser of the evils, if you will.
> "(You suggest that the alternative is to leave things up to the market. That is not the case. There are other forms of municipal government.)"
OP specifically cited North Virginia, with a market-based government, as a failure. How does that interpret as an endorsement of market-based government?
It's not the form of government, it's the willingness and ability of the mayor to rule with singular vision without getting bogged down with the concensus building. Not every mayor uses his power in that way.
What disasters in Northern Virginia? I'm curious to hear what you hold up an example of the failures of markets, being as you're about the most strident statist I can think of here.
Northern Virginia is pretty much all a disaster. There is zero urban planning. The streets are built randomly, not in a quaint way, which makes getting around impossible. The commercial areas are built as far as possible from residential ones, which makes running to the store for milk or going out to lunch a huge time sink. The traffic is horrible as a result, even though the area isn't really that densely populated.
Compare: Westchester County to Fairfax County, roughly similarly sized suburbs. Westchester has all these cute little downtowns with grid streets (ish) built around Metro North stations. Traffic is kept under control because a large fraction of people commute to the city by rail. Fairfax County sucks in comparison. No transit to speak of, awful traffic, etc. Its the result of urban planning that basically consists of (mark of a subdivision and let the developers do whatever they want).
Arlington is tolerable, but only because development sprung up around Metro lines. Ditto Alexandria, which at least has a centrally planned downtown core.
If you call that urban planning, then you can call Fairfax the worst example of "urban planning" I've ever heard of. It's a soul sucking mess of bland corporation towers, and distant developments of cookie-cutter cardboard houses squeezed onto tiny plots of land, with no way to escape to the outside air or to entertainment but by a 30 min drive on a traffic laiden freeway... No wonder their upper-class high-schools are chock full of heavy drugs, the poor kids can't escape.
So your exhibit A of how business and markets can make a mess of things is a county almost entirely dominated by government employers? It almost looks to me like when they have near total control over how an area evolves, they don't bother with much oversight or planning for it..
I've lived in Northern Virginia for most of my life, and have seen it go through a lot of growth. One thing to bear in mind is that, prior to World War II, Northern Virginia was almost all rural. Old Town Alexandria was pretty much the only city. All of the growth in Northern Virginia during and since World War II has been driven by the growth of the federal government, and much of the lousy urban planning has been because the federal government has been growing faster than any of the urban planners expected.
NOVA has horrendous traffic because of poor urban planning (e.g. too much sprawl), few successful small businesses (mostly just chains), a barely viable public transit system outside of Arlington County.
Yeah, I was curious about which areas he was referring to as well. Arlington and Alexandria are very well set up. My guess is he is talking about the sprawling surburbian hell-hole known as Fairfax and beyond.
Its not just the suburban aspect though. I was shocked to find that the suburbs in Chicago were a lot less "suburby" than Fairfax. Good commuter transit, walkable downtowns in many places. Grid streets all over.
My wife grew up in a town of 2000 people in Iowa. She hates Fairfax County for being so isolated. Her town was small and rural, but it had a walkable downtown with a little street grid. The town planners long ago made it that way in case it ever became a bustling megalopolis.
The budget comparison is totally not fair. SF is also a county, so I bet say Muni is in SF's budget. OTOH, Chicago is just a city. How much does Cook County spend in Chicago?
Fair point. Cook County's total budget is $3 billion. Half the population of Cook County is in Chicago, so add another 1.5 billion (total 7.8 billion).
> No, benevolent dictators are the way to go. I'm a huge fan of Guilliani and Bloomberg's work in NYC. Love them or hate them, you'd rather live in NYC circa 2013 than NYC circa 1993.
You wouldn't be saying this if you were a person of color living in the Bronx or parts of Brooklyn, because things have gotten worse for those folks due to policies of selectively enforcing vice laws and programs like stop and frisk that have become popular under Guilliani and Bloomberg.
When New York City's murder rate peaked at 2,262 homicides in 1992 (versus 414 in 2012), who do you think was getting killed? It wasn't white people on the upper east side.
That is true, but constantly policing populations of people who are predominantly not white isn't a great solution to lower the homicide rate.
Of course, why crime rates have generally fallen over the last couple of decades in cities like NYC isn't well understood and no one person or administration can claim that they are responsible. However, we do know that NYPD policies are enforced in a way that promotes racism and class disparity and that Bloomberg has been a supporter of those policies.
It is important to realize that a benevolent dictator doesn't really exist and having balance in government is necessary, otherwise the people who do get shafted by any given administration get even less of a voice and support.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Murder rates have declined comparable amounts in lots of cities that aren't systematically targeting minority residents for harassment.
> What do you want the police to do, patrol around Lincoln Park and Lakeview where all the wealthy white people are?
No, but city and state gov't should be responsive to the causes of these issues and be proactive about solving them. Usually that will mean looking at class and race disparity and implementing policy that will provide better opportunities for those people, as well as defeating existing roadblocks that prevent those people from taking control of their lives.
I didn't visit New York until the early 1990's, so I'm not sure what it was like in the 1980's, but my understanding is that violent crime peaked in 1990.
No one seems to be bothered by the call for dictators. I'm shaking my head.
Perhaps it's a problem with city governments trying to do everything under the moon. Cities that keep to the basics are usually well run and effective.
An occasional dictator is not bad. They are legitimate as long as they rule "by the consent of the governed". Sometimes you just need a Cincinnatus to get things done. I wouldn't generally recommend a hereditary monarchy though :)
> You can't get San Francisco running efficiently, because that would require large numbers of unionized city workers to willingly admit their redundancy and wastefulness. Inefficiency pays their salaries.
I predict we will all have this problem before too long. Every time you hear a politician talk about "creating jobs", this is what they are talking about: work as welfare. Gotta right to live, gotta work to live, so you gotta right to work-- never mind if, by working, you're actually damaging the economy.
Right now it's only a few obsolete unions and they sound crazy, but the robots will come for all of us eventually. We need to start working yesterday on a society that can conceive of supporting even those who contribute nothing, or I fear that the era of free food will see us all starve to death.
I think a lot of people will be more productive under basic income by working on things they're actually passionate about rather than compromising (with a 9-5 office job where they're paid mostly to show up and play the game of appearances) to pay the bills.
MUNI is just one of the problems with SF. There are many more.
Firstly: this is a city of transplants. You'd be hard-pressed to find a native SF'an in your daily interactions. (I know just a couple, and I've been here 6 years). As a result, many of them don't vote; or if they do, they don't have the context to see through the bullshit that is put out there. They'll take a politician's word, when a long-term resident will remember that that fucker has been lying for 20 years.
As a corollary to this, you can control the City if you can put together a decent-sized voting block. So, for example: the City has 25,000 employees. If you can get the City employees on your side, then their votes alone are enough to swing most elections in your favor. For example: many years ago, the MUNI drivers got the City Charter amended to guarantee that they would be at least the second-highest paid drivers in the nation! Can you even imagine the clout they had to modify a city's constitution? (Thankfully, this was repealed a couple of years ago).
Secondly: the City has a lot of money to spend. The people in power stay in power via a huge game of doing (and getting) favors. For example: the City spends over $500 million/year on various "non profits". Your non-profit won't get a dollar unless you employ "consultants" who will help you write the proposal; and these consultants are very well-connected people. And they get a ton of money for a few days work (it's not uncommon to see such consultants be on payroll making $300K at a non-profit, but noone ever sees them at work).
Thirdly: the City is exceedingly corrupt. If you know the right people, you can get away with anything. This is why you have leeches like (Slick) Willie Brown and Rose Pak running the show. They know how the system works, and make a living just by greasing the wheels and pulling strings.
This is why, during elections, I vote for the people who are the most removed from the corridors of power. Anyone who has had anything to do with the System doesn't get my vote. It may be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but the City needs an enema.
The homeless problem in the city is freaking insane, and I'm sorry to say, but the more they spend on it, the more they simply attract them from other places.
My mother is a chronically homeless drug addict. Obviously, despite attempts from my family over the years to help her, she is beyond our help. Money is poured into drugs, she refuses to work, and her mental illness contributes to the problem. One thing that she, and many, many homeless people I have encoutnered in my visits to shelters, are good at is finding cities that offer handouts and finding a way to get to these cities. My mother is a member of an entire counter/sub/culture which bounces from city to city, moving when the city's time limit on free handouts runs out. When conservatives criticize welfare dependency, this is what they point to. I don't agree with them, but this is a real problem.
San Fran draws homeless drug addicts like a moth to a flame. As a city, the thought is that these programs are a compassionate thing to do. Enabling drug addiction is not compassionate to the homeless, and it certainly isn't compassionate or caring to the citizens of the city who have to fund this ridiculous garbage. When you provide a soft landing to drug addicts, you are enabling them.
Its not just the Tenderloin. My first time in the city in many years, back in 2004, I got off the BART with my brother, who had never been to the city. Literally, within minutes of us arriving near Fisherman's Wharf, (I wanted to show him some sights) a drunk homeless man attempted to punch me in the face. He was much smaller than me, so it wasn't dangerous, but it certainly would have been bad for a smaller person or a woman.
My niece is in fashion school in the city, and has been groped and grabbed by homeless on multiple occasions. It is out of control, and it gives liberalism a bad name.
Are conservative cities assholes to homeless? Yes. Do they treat them like human beings? No. Do citizens of said cities get harassed? No.
Many cities have a middle ground, such as having zero tolerance for homeless intimidating/touching citizens. If you touch, you are no longer welcome.
There are many who would call me heartless. But when a mentally ill/drug addicted person becomes a predator, and attacks a loved one, they quickly change their tune, especially when they find out that the predator was attracted to their neighborhood by handouts purchased with their own tax dollars.
From your time observing the machinations here, what do you think accounts for the lack of any form of sustained opposition to these corrupt practices?
In one word? Apathy. Too few people are really invested in SF. If you're a resident of SF, you're busy working, partying, etc. Things aren't too bad and the money is flowing easily, so you don't care.
Things could be better if there was more home ownership and people put down roots here.
What you're saying makes sense. But it's kind of difficult to own a home when the cost of housing is so high and continuing to increase. From what I understand [1], there are laws that prevent high-rises (high-density residential buildings) from being built. With lots of people wanting to move there, simple supply-and-demand dictates that prices soar.
Detroit is extremely poor. It's not in the same class as cities like SF, Chicago or NYC in the sense that these cities have money and can spread it around to functional services.
For what it has, Detroit isn't run THAT poorly. Trash still gets taken out.
Detroit has the land area, housing stock, and general infrastructure for a peak population of 1,849,568. Only 713,777 people live there today. Consider for a minute that that's a very difficult problem.
Right, until they all move away to the suburbs in < 10 years because 'It's just a lot nicer out there, you know what I mean? Not so many homeless people.'
If you think this bubble is going to force any permanent change on San Francisco, youre delusional.
Philadelphia is so much worse. Bigger, poorer, more corrupt. There is good reason to believe that the political "ruling families" trade off power, and pay each other not to run.
Here's an example: City infrastructure like sewer pipes and water mains are owned by a private company, who doesn't appear to ever do maintenance. And when the 100+-year-old pipes inevitably break, causing sinkholes in major roads, the city pays the company to "fix" them. Which is why a major intersection 3 blocks from my house, in one of the busiest & most touristy parts of the city, has been closed for 4 months aaaand counting.
Comcast and other major corporations pay zero taxes.
Still a better place to live than SF though, if you ask me, but I avoid all talk about politics like the plague, and I take taxis and donate a car payment's worth to local DonorsChoose projects every month.
Sewer pipes and water mains in Philadelphia are owned and maintained by the Philadelphia Water Department, a government organization.
SEPTA bus, trolly, and train service is not too bad. There are parts of the city that are not well covered, but with Regional Rail, it's somewhat easy to get around.
I'll give you school funding, but Dilworth Plaza was a pretty awful place and the remodel looks nice.
Philly's not perfect, but with it's size, age, and location in the rust belt, it's not doing too bad.
Richly pertinent here is a recent post on the Muni by Bryan Goldberg.
"As I’ve written before, and will write more about in the future, California and San Francisco suffer from “The Italian Complex”.
Our state is a lot like the nation of Italy. It has a beautiful natural landscape and weather that most people would envy. It is geographically diverse — we enjoy great sunshine and great skiing in relatively close proximity. The people are culturally pleasant, love life, and you can strike up conversation with gentle strangers. We are intellectual and passionate about both arts and science. They gave us the Renaissance, and we gave the world the Digital Age. But for all the natural and cultural brilliance, we are held down by an incompetent and pathetic government.
And if the city of San Francisco is at the heart of our political incompetence, then the Muni system is like the left and right ventricle.
The problems with Muni are so tremendous and infuriating that I don’t even know where to begin. But here are a few points off the top of my head (with a little help from Google).
Muni generates a mind-bogglingly small proportion of its own funding…
Muni charges people fares to ride, and you would think that these fares could cover at least a meaningful portion of their immense operating costs. But no. They cover a measly $198 million of the $821 million budget. That’s not even one quarter of the cost. The biggest contributor to Muni’s budget is parking tickets and fines, which should surprise nobody. But this is really just an accounting gimmick to charge taxpayers for Muni, because in most cities parking tickets would be used to fund an array of services.
Nobody is saying that Muni should operate at profit. Or that it should come even close to profit. But how about covering half of its costs through revenue from its users?
In comparison, the NYC MTA generates over $7 billion from fares and tolls, which covers more than half of its $13.4 billion annual budget.
The Chinatown political machine ensures that they get the lion’s share of the benefits
The epicenter of Muni is on Stockton, Powell, and the other major arteries that run through Chinatown. By ‘coincidence,’ this is also where the new super-expensive subway will run. People who ride the bus know about the “Dirty 30” and “45” lines that needlessly take Marina and Pac Heights commuters through the congestion of Chinatown en route to their jobs downtown or in Soma.
This is not because such routes and investments serve the people of San Francisco. It is because the Chinatown political machine controlled by Rose Pak — who basically put our mayor into office — decrees it to be the case.
The political machine keeps rolling. The big infrastructure money goes to Chinatown. Naïve hipsters with high salaries have no idea it’s going on. And the virtuous cycle continues.
But I’m sure that the camera shops, trinket stands, and street-side produce markets of Chinatown are the ones providing the city with most of its tax, jobs, and commerce income.
Muni is basically useless, anyhow. Walking is better.
Taking Muni is basically a waste of effort and money. You will be stunned by how little time you save by riding the bus vs. just walking. Riding a bike is so much more effective than taking the bus that it’s laughable.
This is a tiny city, and you can walk from any one point to another in 45 minutes most of the time.
But, back to walking. Anyone who is traveling in a North-South direction to commute (i.e. Marina to Downtown) knows that by the time the 30 or 45 bus gets to Chinatown, you can get out and walk faster, plus you don’t feel like a sardine. That walk is a no-brainer.
But what about East-West commuters (i.e. Lower Haight to Downtown)? To illustrate, I will use my old commute and Google Maps. I used to live at Fillmore/Hayes, which was two full miles from my office at Kearny/Sutter. By San Francisco standards, this is a fairly typical distance from work. According to Google Maps, the walk will take 34 minutes. If you take the N-Judah, the absolute fastest you can do the ride is in 20 minutes, but that assumes no wait for the bus, which is unlikely. Throw in a reasonable wait for the bus, and now you save maybe five minutes door-to-door. Plus it costs money and you get way less exercise. And you may get sick from having twenty people within two feet of you. So there’s that cost too.
Part of the problem is San Francisco's (and Phoenix/Tampa/etc/etc) fascination with rail. They spend billions and billions of dollars to construct and maintain rail systems that simply don't attract that many riders. And of course since the fares don't come close to covering the cost of the rail, the cities are forced to suck that money away from other areas like buses (which are far cheaper and have the added benefit of being more flexible). So, cities like San Francisco end up with monstrous rail costs and a resulting inability to fund fundamentally better transportation, like buses.
I'd quibble a little with that, or maybe just clarify; there are two kinds of rail systems in the Bay Area -- local (MUNI in SF, VTA in Santa Clara) and regional (Caltrain, BART, Capitol Corridor). I really think regional rail serves a purpose. For all the tomatoes we tend to throw at BART (some of which it certainly deserves), it's a big contributor to keeping cars off the road -- or letting people get by without cars -- for trips that you really couldn't walk, such as between SF and Oakland. When I worked in SF and lived in Foster City, I was taking Caltrain in daily, and while that wasn't without problems it was a hell of a lot nicer than driving -- and once you figure in not only gas prices but parking fees, cheaper.
On the local level, as much as I've generally preferred to ride trains rather than buses, I think you're right -- although buses are helped immensely by having dedicated bus lanes for main arteries, and I'm not sure how feasible that would be in SF.
The problem isn't rail. Chicago and NYC have perfectly functional systems built on rail. The problem is that the rail doesn't go anywhere you want it to go.
You don't see this as a problem? I find that akin to saying "The Soviet Union had a perfectly functioning economy. The problem was just that half its citizens were starving."
One of the best aspects of buses, aside from the cost, are they can go anywhere you want. If a lot more people move into the Mission, you can spend a few million dollars and double the number of buses (as opposed to literally billions of dollars to build a rail line). If people move away from the Tenderloin, you're not stuck with billions of dollars of infrastructure that now isn't needed. Just move the bus routes.
Also, lets look at NYC, one of the most successful rail systems in the world. As OP states, it costs nearly $14B a year to operate and only generates $7B a year. That means people who don't use it are paying $7B/year to the people that do use it. I wouldn't call this "perfectly functional". And as I mentioned above, the more rail you build, inevitably the less resources you have for more efficient and economical transport.
It operates at a loss of $7B, but that $7B is buying at least one thing: people traveling underground instead of aboveground.
Does this reduce congestion, traffic, or pollution? Maybe it allows for increased density or more sensible housing/business districts? More reliable commutes?
Given that the population is roughly 8 million and the gdp is roughly $1 trillion, it seems possible that NYC is coming out ahead on that $7B.
"The rail doesn't go where you want it to go" comment is directed at Muni, not Chicago's or New York's system. Chicago's and New York's largely goes where people want it to go because development springs up around the transit.
The problem with buses is capacity. If you city is relatively sensibly laid out and commuters tend to follow certain predictable routes, you can get far more capacity on a rail line than on roads. Not only does a bus carry a lot fewer people (an NYC reticulated bus can carry about 120, a full NYC subway train about 2,000), but as a practical matter you can't run the buses as fast or as frequently as you can run trains.
Predictability is also a problem. Buses are at the mercy of street traffic. Trains run on a schedule. My commute from northern Virginia to d.c. by highway used to take anywhere from 40 minutes to 80 minutes depending on traffic. My commute from westchester to new york city by train (which is actually 2 miles longer) takes exactly 34 minutes almost every day. About once a month a train will be 5-7 minutes late (which is consistent with the ~95% on-time performance of Metro North). I can leave my house 5 minutes before the expected departure time (with a 3-4 minute walk to the station) because I can count that the train will arrive within a minute of its scheduled time. You can't replicate this by car or bus in a dense metro area.
Pollution is another problem. Air pollution has huge externalize costs in a city because of the density. With electric rail, you can build the power plants out in the country where the pollution affects fewer people. With buses, you're clogging up the air breathed in by several million people in close proximity. Buses are prime contributors to sulfurous and particulate pollution in cities.
Moreover, it's not like bus infrastructure is free. You have to build and maintain the roads, and if you want to replicate the capacity of trains you need to build isolated bus highways through the city. These are not cheap, and have a very damaging effect on the communities they run through by cutting them in half. Highway construction inside a city is an absolute terrible idea from an economic point of view.
It's wholly inappropriate to compare the operating costs of transit to revenues. First, the shortfall in the MTA isn't because it can't charge high enough fares, but because the ticket prices are kept artificially low ($100 for unlimited rides per month!) as a subsidy to low-income people. Second, transit infrastructure generates high positive externalities. You have to look at the net impact on the whole economy instead of looking at just a piece of it. E.g. consider the highway system. It brings in a few tens of billions in revenue each year via gas taxes. Is that the whole of the economic benefit of the system? Are people like me, who don't drive, subsidizing people who do? Imagine if we got rid of the highway system. What would be the impact on GDP? A hell of a lot more than a few tens of billions, I can tell you.
Exactly. If the commissions that regulat how many new housing units were both competent and not corrupt, I reckon the rail options would be far more profitable.
People don't move away from convenient transportation. One good transportation is built the rent around the stations goes up because of the desireability of being near public transportation. The only exception I know of where public transportation lines are shut down because demand for them dropped are in Detroit, and that has everything to do with people moving out of the city entirely and not just moving to a place across town.
Gotta disagree here. Muni is centralized in downtown, which is where most want to be. It then shoots out to cover dense residential neighborhoods. Some possible lines may be missing, but other than maybe the T line, all existing ones are important.
As any rider can attest, it gets pretty busy. Perhaps you are thinking of SF's southern neighbor, San Jose, as an example of a highly underutilized light rail system?
Also, a lot of muni metro is underground, which is essential for keeping in fast beneath the high traffic volumes above.
> This is a tiny city, and you can walk from any one point to another in 45 minutes most of the time.
as someone who has walked around sf a lot, this is patently ridiculous. for instance, from embarcadero to outer noe valley (a walk i do fairly regularly when the weather is warmer) takes me well over an hour, and that's a bit less than halfway across the city.
This person has clearly never been to Honolulu, as our system load and human capacity problems are evident even to tourists on a weekend-long stay. And yes, folks, it's directly the fault of the city and county of Honolulu for not creating infrastructure to accommodate the growth. It's a very backwards political system; one that dreams of a long-gone Honolulu from the 1940s. This island is pushing a million people, and our systems simply cannot withstand the amount of friction being applied to them. The whole system breaks down continually.
Oh, and this is a map of the Muni: http://0.tqn.com/d/sanfrancisco/1/0/U/N/-/-/sanfranciscomuni...
This is a map of the CTA elevated line: http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/maps/ctatrainmap.png
This is a map of Caltrain: http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/maps/Caltrain+Zone+Map.jpg
This is a map of Metra: http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/rrt/us/chicago/rr_chicago_m...
I found this quote interesting: "For all its scotch-soaked flaws, the city of yore did not suffer from these problems. While archaic and stridently antidemocratic by today's standards, the system of government cobbled together by a citizens' commission in 1931 largely did what our forebears wanted it to do — mind the store and eliminate rampant corruption."
I think municipal governments should be run by benevolent dictators. If you leave everything up to the market, you get disasters like Northern Virginia. If you go to the ballot for everything, you end up with disasters like San Francisco. No, benevolent dictators are the way to go. I'm a huge fan of Guilliani and Bloomberg's work in NYC. Love them or hate them, you'd rather live in NYC circa 2013 than NYC circa 1993. I have high hopes for Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago. He apparently came up with his last budget using a process for soliciting input from others in the government that boiled down to "fuck you!"