6 ms·

On the liberal side, many people are against public transit expansion because better public transit coverage in outlying areas makes housing more valuable, pric

On the liberal side, many people are against public transit expansion because better public transit coverage in outlying areas makes housing more valuable, pricing people out of their apartments. I live in a dead spot on the South Side of Chicago where, ~80 years ago, the neighborhood association actually had the El demolished over gentrification concerns. There is little liberal objection to improving public transit in already expensive downtown areas, but plans to improve commute times from the south and west sides of San Francisco will almost certainly be met with vigorous opposition. Even if they wouldn't cost anything.

codezero 11y ago
Do you have any links to articles or pieces highlighting liberal opposition to public transit in these areas?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ghaff 11y ago
  As others have said, the dividing line is more about income than whatever politics tend to align with income in a given area. Here's an example from Boston with the Red Line http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/the-red-line-stops-in-arlington-and-lexington.php http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/the-red-line-stops... (Arlington and Lexington, even at that time, were relatively upper income but would also have been fairly liberal--at least by national standards.)
Frondo 11y ago
I am not familiar with any liberal opposition to public transit...anywhere. I have lived in a number of liberal-leaning cities, all of which had extensive public transit. The opposition to those systems (their expansion, in some cases even just their operation) was universally from the right, because "run gubmint like a business, and if it doesn't make a profit, pull the plug!"
- refurb 11y ago
  Hmmm... BART was supposed to go up into Marin county and down to San Mateo county, but it was killed by the local populous. I guess it was all those right-wingers in Marin?
  - sundaeofshock 11y ago
    Actually, it was not killed by the local populous. The whole situation was not as simplistic as you imply. http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20100807/did-marin-lose-out-on-bart http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20100807/did-marin-lose-...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - knorby 11y ago
    Apparently it wasn't really killed by the local populace. There is narrative about how it would have caused sprawl-like development (certainly a conservative mindset in context). I couldn't find any references to that for Marin though. It seems what did it in for Marin at least was a campaign from the GG Bridge district, fearing a loss of power and money; there was strong support in Marin for BART (https://books.google.com/books?id=z56Ui3QFYPgC&lpg=PA136&ots=FvOprjIghn&dq=marin%20bart%20opposition&pg=PA136#v=onepage&q=marin%20bart%20opposition&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=z56Ui3QFYPgC&lpg=PA136&ots...). Edit: diction
    - chockablock 11y ago
      'populace' not 'populous'
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - marincounty 11y ago
    My father was an Electricain on BART. I remember those dinner conversations about bringing BART into Marin County. The reason it didn't come through Marin was cost. It might have been political, but I don't believe that was the case. It did seem seems like politicians were much more corrupt than they are today? We had absolutely no way of finding out what they were up to; except for good, honest newspaper reporters. At the time, the project was incredibly expensive to build. Every foot of track was scrutinized. The people of Marin would have loved to have BART go through their county, especially the SF commuters. My father's biggest grip was getting to a job site from Marin to San Francisco. He hated the commute, along with myself years later. I guess we were spoiled? The commute was only 45-60 from Marin to anywhere in the city. At the time, building BART was really a big deal. The enginneers would load materials into these huge round cylinders. Welders would then run beads around the circumfrence of the cylinders. Once everything was secured to to ocean floor, workers from the SF? side would cut into the new section. As a kid, I was allowed to go to work with my father once a year. I would drive electric golf carts up and down the tube. Times have certainly changed? For some reason, Electricians drank a lot back then? Actualy everyone drank a lot back then. It was not uncommon to see a Electricain drinking a beer down in those dark, dank, tubes--if they had a stationary boring job to do. I recall my father building a lamp from one of the third rail insulators, and I still can't get rid of a "Danger--3rd rail sign" he lifted. On the sign, right after Danger, they put in Pelligro. They actually debated whether it was necessary to put in any foreign language on the signage. It was a different time; Marin and San Francisco were 90% white, mutt, middle class, and Hispanic people were scarce. I do miss the man, but we had our differences. He always felt that because I went to college, I would turn into some pompous a-hole? I told him, "Dad, I'm going to a state college. I said, "It's actually kind of a joke, but I do want to graduate." He didn't have to pay a dime for my education, so I still don't know what his problem was? It's almost like he wanted me to be happy, but just not happier than himself? Well he won? I remember a christmas card he gave me that had a bunch of "PhD, Doctor, too many degrees, etc." before my name on a card. I went home, from that Christmas dinner, and had a nervous breakdown, and have never been the same. Thanks Dad! Different parenting skills back then?
chipsy 11y ago
Transit fights are usually a rich vs. poor issue with a streak of racism running through the middle, with different arguments used by the left and right as representatives of the rich, while the poor are largely uncourted(except as a minority group, which I will illustrate). In all cases the right will claim that roads and car ownership and home ownership foster independence and the solution is to build another highway to a far-flung suburb and to tear down the city. The arguments from the left are more interesting. The richest neighborhoods - in the suburbs - don't want transit. An unreliable once-an-hour bus is seen as a handout for the poors, an impractical feel-good project that cannot earn its way. A large transit development that aligns with a real neighborhood would upset the balance by making the surrounding area denser and busier. This is the position that the the western San Francisco neighborhoods have been in for the past generation - a bit too wealthy and a bit too suburban to break away from car usage, even as they are far denser than most suburbs. Many of the outlying BART stops, similarly, are large parking lots, a way of sealing in car dependence and transit as a last resort for commuters, rather than a benefit that makes the stop a destination. But then the reverse applies once you're in central cities and you're dealing with luxury condo residents: Anything less than a world-class rail system is deemed unsatisfactory, but the rails should, of course, go from one wealthy neighborhood to another. Getting the poor into the rapid system equates to more "criminals" or "thugs", and so you would get support for saturation coverage of an area that is already well-served, or a neighborhood that has undergone massive gentrification, but not underserved poor areas. This sort of thing contributes to transit system balkanization - a bad system for the poor, and a good one for the rich. In both density situations, minority political groups will get showcase wins if they can lock in by-the-doorstep bus coverage of their constituents that is too slow and indirect to be truly useful. This is something that SF and much of the East Bay has avoided, but maybe not for the right reasons. The areas that were historically lower-income got access to BART, but are simultaneously now the biggest targets for gentrification. They were intended to be handout zones, and then the rise of real estate prices ultimately flipped that idea upside down and turned BART into a gentrifying mechanism. And now we are in the situation where the system has to be developed for a plurality, rather than a handout - which is probably a good thing.
- superuser2 11y ago
  I think this is spot on for the most part. However, I think you're discounting "bedroom communities." Chicago does them quite well - you can own a reasonably priced home in an urban neighborhood at a comfortable level of density. Not the inner city, not downtown, but not exurban sprawl either. You get a backyard, but a small one. You may need a car for domestic life, but for work you can drive or bike to the train station and ride commuter rail like Metra to avoid freeway congestion. This, to me, is the best of both worlds - people get their quasi-suburban experiences, but the city still thrives and people don't waste their lives in traffic.

codezero 11y ago

Do you have any links to articles or pieces highlighting liberal opposition to public transit in these areas?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 11y ago
As others have said, the dividing line is more about income than whatever politics tend to align with income in a given area. Here's an example from Boston with the Red Line http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/the-red-line-stops-in-arlington-and-lexington.php http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/the-red-line-stops... (Arlington and Lexington, even at that time, were relatively upper income but would also have been fairly liberal--at least by national standards.)

Frondo 11y ago

I am not familiar with any liberal opposition to public transit...anywhere. I have lived in a number of liberal-leaning cities, all of which had extensive public transit. The opposition to those systems (their expansion, in some cases even just their operation) was universally from the right, because "run gubmint like a business, and if it doesn't make a profit, pull the plug!"

refurb 11y ago
Hmmm... BART was supposed to go up into Marin county and down to San Mateo county, but it was killed by the local populous. I guess it was all those right-wingers in Marin?
- sundaeofshock 11y ago
  Actually, it was not killed by the local populous. The whole situation was not as simplistic as you imply. http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20100807/did-marin-lose-out-on-bart http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20100807/did-marin-lose-...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- knorby 11y ago
  Apparently it wasn't really killed by the local populace. There is narrative about how it would have caused sprawl-like development (certainly a conservative mindset in context). I couldn't find any references to that for Marin though. It seems what did it in for Marin at least was a campaign from the GG Bridge district, fearing a loss of power and money; there was strong support in Marin for BART (https://books.google.com/books?id=z56Ui3QFYPgC&lpg=PA136&ots=FvOprjIghn&dq=marin%20bart%20opposition&pg=PA136#v=onepage&q=marin%20bart%20opposition&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=z56Ui3QFYPgC&lpg=PA136&ots...). Edit: diction
  - chockablock 11y ago
    'populace' not 'populous'
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- marincounty 11y ago
  My father was an Electricain on BART. I remember those dinner conversations about bringing BART into Marin County. The reason it didn't come through Marin was cost. It might have been political, but I don't believe that was the case. It did seem seems like politicians were much more corrupt than they are today? We had absolutely no way of finding out what they were up to; except for good, honest newspaper reporters. At the time, the project was incredibly expensive to build. Every foot of track was scrutinized. The people of Marin would have loved to have BART go through their county, especially the SF commuters. My father's biggest grip was getting to a job site from Marin to San Francisco. He hated the commute, along with myself years later. I guess we were spoiled? The commute was only 45-60 from Marin to anywhere in the city. At the time, building BART was really a big deal. The enginneers would load materials into these huge round cylinders. Welders would then run beads around the circumfrence of the cylinders. Once everything was secured to to ocean floor, workers from the SF? side would cut into the new section. As a kid, I was allowed to go to work with my father once a year. I would drive electric golf carts up and down the tube. Times have certainly changed? For some reason, Electricians drank a lot back then? Actualy everyone drank a lot back then. It was not uncommon to see a Electricain drinking a beer down in those dark, dank, tubes--if they had a stationary boring job to do. I recall my father building a lamp from one of the third rail insulators, and I still can't get rid of a "Danger--3rd rail sign" he lifted. On the sign, right after Danger, they put in Pelligro. They actually debated whether it was necessary to put in any foreign language on the signage. It was a different time; Marin and San Francisco were 90% white, mutt, middle class, and Hispanic people were scarce. I do miss the man, but we had our differences. He always felt that because I went to college, I would turn into some pompous a-hole? I told him, "Dad, I'm going to a state college. I said, "It's actually kind of a joke, but I do want to graduate." He didn't have to pay a dime for my education, so I still don't know what his problem was? It's almost like he wanted me to be happy, but just not happier than himself? Well he won? I remember a christmas card he gave me that had a bunch of "PhD, Doctor, too many degrees, etc." before my name on a card. I went home, from that Christmas dinner, and had a nervous breakdown, and have never been the same. Thanks Dad! Different parenting skills back then?

chipsy 11y ago

Transit fights are usually a rich vs. poor issue with a streak of racism running through the middle, with different arguments used by the left and right as representatives of the rich, while the poor are largely uncourted(except as a minority group, which I will illustrate). In all cases the right will claim that roads and car ownership and home ownership foster independence and the solution is to build another highway to a far-flung suburb and to tear down the city. The arguments from the left are more interesting. The richest neighborhoods - in the suburbs - don't want transit. An unreliable once-an-hour bus is seen as a handout for the poors, an impractical feel-good project that cannot earn its way. A large transit development that aligns with a real neighborhood would upset the balance by making the surrounding area denser and busier. This is the position that the the western San Francisco neighborhoods have been in for the past generation - a bit too wealthy and a bit too suburban to break away from car usage, even as they are far denser than most suburbs. Many of the outlying BART stops, similarly, are large parking lots, a way of sealing in car dependence and transit as a last resort for commuters, rather than a benefit that makes the stop a destination. But then the reverse applies once you're in central cities and you're dealing with luxury condo residents: Anything less than a world-class rail system is deemed unsatisfactory, but the rails should, of course, go from one wealthy neighborhood to another. Getting the poor into the rapid system equates to more "criminals" or "thugs", and so you would get support for saturation coverage of an area that is already well-served, or a neighborhood that has undergone massive gentrification, but not underserved poor areas. This sort of thing contributes to transit system balkanization - a bad system for the poor, and a good one for the rich. In both density situations, minority political groups will get showcase wins if they can lock in by-the-doorstep bus coverage of their constituents that is too slow and indirect to be truly useful. This is something that SF and much of the East Bay has avoided, but maybe not for the right reasons. The areas that were historically lower-income got access to BART, but are simultaneously now the biggest targets for gentrification. They were intended to be handout zones, and then the rise of real estate prices ultimately flipped that idea upside down and turned BART into a gentrifying mechanism. And now we are in the situation where the system has to be developed for a plurality, rather than a handout - which is probably a good thing.

superuser2 11y ago
I think this is spot on for the most part. However, I think you're discounting "bedroom communities." Chicago does them quite well - you can own a reasonably priced home in an urban neighborhood at a comfortable level of density. Not the inner city, not downtown, but not exurban sprawl either. You get a backyard, but a small one. You may need a car for domestic life, but for work you can drive or bike to the train station and ride commuter rail like Metra to avoid freeway congestion. This, to me, is the best of both worlds - people get their quasi-suburban experiences, but the city still thrives and people don't waste their lives in traffic.