14 ms·
I've been involved in San Francisco transit planning in various capacities for 11 years now. I'm here to tell you, in my opinion, these plans will never happen
by pdx6 10y ago
I've been involved in San Francisco transit planning in various capacities for 11 years now. I'm here to tell you, in my opinion, these plans will never happen for our generation.
San Francisco suffers from too many small town self-inflicted political wounds. While the Central Subway will open in a couple of years with it's new subway and light rail cars, it'll likely be the last one for us, perhaps even for our children. Political power brokers, such Willie Brown and the late-Rose Pak, only rolled in their power to give Chinatown a replacement for the Central Freeway that was torn down after the 89 quake.
Existing SFCTA members, which are also the Board of Supervisors, constantly squander transportation funds. Millions have been poured into funding pet political projects, such as free muni rides for youth and seniors, making Muni a system of handouts instead of pulling free ride funding from the Feds or the general fund. The latest axe swing was to delay the DTX, the Caltrain subway to the Transbay Tower, which the voters prioritized in 1999.
The existing anti-transit, anti-growth cabal of Kim, Peskin, Campos, Yee, Mar, and Avalos have been able to grab too much power, and will always vote to side with NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard) over modern urban growth and planning. Even the next cohort of supervisors will hold the same values, because the voters will put similar people into power once they term out, cutting more into the city's progress as a metropolitan powerhouse.
My educated predictions on this chart are: We'll see Geary BRT, Geneva BRT, 19th Ave Rapid, and the M extension to Park Merced. Maybe some new signals and bike lanes. That's it.
The SFMTA's 20 year vision does not include any subway or rail extensions otherwise. I have asked Nick Josefowitz, who's district would include a theoretical BART extension under Geary, and he says BART is too far behind on maintenance to even consider such an idea.
- wtvanhest 10y agoThe makeup of the city is changing and as it does, options that appear impossible today will work in the future. We can all make it go faster by simply ignoring that NIMBYs exist and shooting for small wins. A series of small wins over 10 years could probably get us in place to finally start subway construction out to sunset etc. It will happen and NIMBYs won't stop it.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago> It will happen and NIMBYs won't stop it. At least you're thinking about future residents of SF and not yourself, because no one here is going to see any of the proposed changes to drive transit progress for at least 20-30 years.
- BurningFrog 10y agoThe problem in SF is not that NIMBYs exist. They're everywhere. The problem is that in the SF legal system, NIMBYs are given enormous power to stop changes. The system defaults to "let's not do anything, to be safe".
- capkutay 10y agoThis. This whole study is actually based on the work of SF Supervisor Scott Wiener who is currently running for State Senate representing the Bay Area. If you want transit improvements in the Bay Area...vote for Scott Wiener.
- pdx6 10y agoScott is the supervisor in my district and has been responsive to my citizen requests (broken benches, crime, etc). I support him for Senate. As indicated earlier, Kim is not pro-transit. I have tried to collaborate with her on transportation advocacy and been unsuccessful. I'm not sure if that disqualifies her for Senate but it makes me unhappy.
- capkutay 10y agoHey pdx6...feel free to give me an email if you need help pressing this issue with city hall. I'm already a member of SF Transit Riders and would love to get involved. My email is in my hn bio.
- wtvanhest 10y agoThe thing is, government is slow, and we all know it takes time, but the fact that people can see a map and realize that a lot of people want what they want will help this move along. There likely won't be as many stops as people want and some neighborhoods will fight it. Ultimately it will be built and will allow easy access to the beach from downtown as well as to the financial district from peoples homes.
- choxi 10y agoWhat can we do about it? I like Voteplz because it demonstrates that tech can solve political problems too (i.e. not enough young potential voters turn up to vote -> let's make it easier for them to vote). As someone who has a vested interest in SF's future as a tech hub, I'd really love to contribute to something that will actually work but I don't know enough about the problem.
- pdx6 10y agoWe need to change how people think. The crux of the problem is that SF's voters still think they live in a sleepy town in Kansas when in reality many other cities look up to it as an example, "What is San Francisco doing? Let's copy them!" I'm not going to pretend to have a solution other than education and community outreach. Get organized. Voting isn't enough -- that's not exactly how this city works under the hood. Researched, practiced, trained, and available citizens need to show up to city meetings and be as loud as possible. How can we do this if we are bootstrapping our startup and working 12 hour days? Who is going to show up while we are at home making dinner for the kids? Something to noodle over.
- nostromo 10y ago"What is San Francisco doing? Let's copy them!" I'd honestly be surprised if this has ever been uttered out loud in America. San Francisco's governance problems are well-known across the country. http://archives.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-us/Content?oid=2175354 http://archives.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/the-worst-run-big-... The bay area economy is the envy of every city worldwide -- but the governance of SF sure isn't.
- pdx6 10y agoNo argument -- you could post articles all day like this. Things that other cities copy: Our classic street car system. Our bicycle network. Our fire suppression network. Our seawall system. Our water treatment system. How to get startups like San Francisco does! Failings aside, setting an example for other US cities should be San Francisco's goal. We have a lot of smart people here, and have historically (the TV was invented on Green St! SF has a history in avionics, oddly enough too).
- techtosser1 10y agoSo to be clear here, your reasons why these things will never happen are your opinion as well. Or to put it another way - in what capacity have you been involved in transit planning (as a lobbyist perhaps) and why should I treat your lengthy comment as anything more than heavily biased opinion?
- pdx6 10y agoFair question. RescueMuni Board - 2005 - Now SFMTA Citizen's Advisory Council - 2011 - Now (Appointment: Mayor Lee) SFMTA Customer Service and Operations Committee Chair - 2012 - Now Those are orgs I am active in. From time to time I participate in SPUR, Market Street Railway, and SFTRU.
- askafriend 10y agoThank you for your involvement! You seem like a reasonable person and the more reasonable people we have in these capacities, the better.
- hueving 10y ago>as a lobbyist perhaps Impressive. The OP gives a well thought-out comment and you basically respond with an accusation of being a shill because he/she wants more public transit.
- beambot 10y agoWhat would it take to get a federal project with eminent domain powers to circumvent local municipality NIMBYism?
- pdx6 10y agoThis idea is beyond my expertise, but I will say that SF gets a lot of money from the feds already for transportation projects. Applications are driven by SFMTA staff, and they have a lot of success (such as small starts grants) because the SFMTA matches many of the goals the Department of Transportation wants, such as reducing dependency on cars and reducing green house gasses. As an aside, one grant that the SFMTA didn't get, but you might think is a shoe-in, was the Smart Cities grant (http://smartcitysf.com/ http://smartcitysf.com/). This would have created a program to increase cycling by innovating around car and bus automation. With the saved space from the eliminated parking, the city could convert those areas to housing, community centers and parks. SF lost the grant and the funds went to Columbus, Ohio. The videos of the presentations are online if you search for them.
- rsync 10y ago"My educated predictions on this chart are: We'll see Geary BRT, Geneva BRT, 19th Ave Rapid, and the M extension to Park Merced. Maybe some new signals and bike lanes. That's it." So sad ... so sad and lame. BRT is such a half-assed, half-cracked solution.[1] What's even more lame is the fact that the one new subway built in 40 years is very short and doesn't extend to its obvious, natural limits - fisherman's wharf. Billions of dollars and 40 years later, you can finally walk downstairs, buy a ticket, wait a few minutes, ride a train, walk back upstairs all to avoid walking 6 blocks. [1] To be fair, I have seen it work in Boulder (hop/skip) and in the roaring fork valley (Aspen) but these are low density places where real public transit (subway and light rail) are not workable. Unlike San Francisco.
- chadgeidel 10y agoRespectfully, the Hop and Skip in Boulder (as well as the Flatiron Flyer) aren't BRT - they are just plain old busses. A crucial part of BRT is dedicated lanes. Don't get me wrong. I think transit here in Denver/Boulder is pretty good, but we don't have BRT (despite what RTD tells us).
- rsync 10y agoYes, I suppose they do not have dedicated lanes but the "every ten minutes" model of frequent arrival (as opposed to running on a typical bus schedule) I think puts them more in the category of BRT ... My other example - VelociRFTA in the Roaring Fork Valley (Glenwood to Aspen) also does not have dedicated lanes, but the state of CO and local agencies specifically refer to it as BRT ...
- remarkEon 10y ago>...making Muni a system of handouts instead of pulling free ride funding from the Feds or the general fund. Can you expand on this part, please? Are you saying that some of this is an accounting issue?
- pdx6 10y agoThere is no accounting issue. I review the SFMTA budget before it is approved by the mayor and board of supervisors every 2 years. In it, there are line items to fund the free Muni for Youth and low income seniors out of the SFMTA budget (iirc, $15m/yr). What I am saying is the programs to help those in need (low income, teens, low income seniors) come out of the budget to run the transportation network, but it would make more sense to take the money out of social services and school district funds. As an aside, the free Muni for youth program was paid for via a grant from Google for 2 years. After the grant expired, the SFMTA picked up the tab from their budget.
- remarkEon 10y agoGot it. Thanks for the detailed response (here and elsewhere in the thread).
- matchagaucho 10y agoExisting SFCTA members constantly squander transportation funds When faced with 2 BART related measures on the ballot this year, this thought kept haunting me. If they're asking for bonds to simply maintain the existing infrastructure, what are they doing with the operating capital? Bonds should be reserved for expansion.
- pdx6 10y agoThere is only one BART measure on the ballot, County measure RR. SF Ballot measures are J and K and only apply to the SFMTA (in terms of the transportation portions). See http://www.sfcta.org/revenue-measure http://www.sfcta.org/revenue-measure In my opinion, these bond measures would benefit bay area transportation projects.
- gameshot911 10y ago>The existing anti-transit, anti-growth cabal... have been able to grab too much power, and will always vote to side with NIMBYs over modern urban growth and planning. Even the next cohort of supervisors will hold the same values, because the voters will put similar people into power once they term out... Seems like the people of SF are getting a board that represents their desires. Is that not an example of functioning government? Seems to me it would be far worse if the board consistently voted _against_ the wishes of the populous.
- bufordsharkley 10y agoThis is completely correct. It's one more reason that the cure for our ills is not hoping for local governance to overcome NIMBYism but rather for reform in land-use policies which will achieve more fairness.
- gozur88 10y ago"Fair" is a pretty subjective concept. Is it fair for people who don't live in a place to decide how that place develops?
- delackner 10y agoIt is patently unfair that people who grew up in the bay area cannot afford to live here because of this anti-growth attitude. Democracy is not the freedom to step on other people, including dictating that others cannot build a multi-family dwelling on their own land. Real Estate NIMBY-ism is the antithesis of democracy, because it is a few entitled people saying they will control what other people do with their own private property.
- gozur88 10y agoIf you buy a piece of property in a place that puts certain restrictions on what you can do with it that's all baked into the price. I don't see that anyone has a right to live in any particular place, and much of what people like about the city is a result of "Real Estate NIMBY-ism". Also, it's hard to see how "a few entitled people" control what people are doing with their property, unless that's become new slang for "the majority of voters".
- m_mueller 10y agoI don't get why the US (and it seems similar in other anglophone countries) has so many problems in building up public transit in cities. Even politically - aren't US cities rather left leaning, like in Europe? Doesn't that lead to a preference of public transit and work against NIMBY groups?
- oppositelock 10y agoCalifornia is particularly bad in terms of laws preventing development. Opponents of development, even for approved plans, can delay them by years by claiming various review processes, particularly environmental, which take a long time. There are many processes in place to disapprove of something, but none to approve to counteract them.
- m_mueller 10y agoI just keep wondering what it is in particular though. Here's why: I'm Swiss. We have a strong conservative party (~30%, the largest party actually) that closely aligns with the NIMBYs. We have direct democracy, a strong tool to shut down any new law if people don't like it, and basically the main tool of opposition (our local and national governments are pretty much all shared between all larger parties, so there isn't really an opposition in the form of a party, rather it's the people's referendums). We also have very strong neighbourhood protection laws that make it such that modestly large hobby groups can get together and shut down large projects. Example: A football stadium project in Zurich was shut down this way. We also have very strong protection of 'historical sites', that goes as far as protecting 19th century industrial buildings in places (one such was actually moved by 20m to make way for a train track recently... absolutely nuts). So, in total, I don't really get how it could get any worse for large public projects. And yet Switzerland in general and Zurich in particular is opening up new tunnels, streetcar lines, local train lines, viaducts, you name it, every other year or so. Zurich's public transit network in particular is crazy dense. When I first saw SF main station I thought I must have gotten off by accident in some local backwater, that's how disparate the situation is. Honestly, my 10'000 people hometown's train station probably almost sees about as much foot traffic as SF main station. And that's not even talking about Japan, which is another level of crazy. Anyways, it still remains a mystery to me.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- eli_gottlieb 10y agoOk, now how do we take the protesters waving, "Techie yuppie scum get out" signs, and get them working against these NIMBY assholes?