6 ms·

I 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 - are

I 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 ago
California 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 ago
  I 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.
  - niftich 10y ago
    As an outsider to Switzerland, I'd say the Swiss see quality-of-life (including things like education, transportation) as a national security issue, as a way to remain competitive and relevant in a globalized world where most people can underbid them, and therefore they invest strongly in projects that promote an educated, happy, productive, globally competitive populace. The Alpine tunnels and motorways are a part of this, as they ensure that Switzerland will remain an attractive option for cross-EU freight (instead of going around) but so are more local initiatives that improve conditions in the cities and cantons. EDIT: In many ways, the same applies to Japan. Meanwhile SF feels no such pressure. Plenty of people (and companies) are all-too willing to move there regardless. If/when at some point SF experiences a decline, these skipped investments will begin to be sorely missed.
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      I think you may have a point, although as a resident for a combined ~25y I tend to have less rose tinted glasses about Swiss government. Here's my take on it though: Swiss people do have comparatively high trust in their government. Not because they like the people sitting there, not because they are deemed very competent (in fact Swiss governments are almost by-design boring and just cogs in a machine), but: We feel safe in knowing that if they go just moderately crazy they can be shut down by popular vote within months. The social safety net is another huge factor I think, and probably a bigger one than the citizen rights: There's lots of comfort in knowing that if all goes wrong, you still have a comfortable apartment, your medical bills are covered and you can still send your kids to be best schools in the country - basically all that happens is that you can't take any vacations abroad and you can't go and buy expensive toys you don't need. This makes people much more relaxed, which in turn is often necessary when working together on big projects - if everyone is just in constant ass-covering-defense-mode, things like these will just either never happen or the cost will go through the roof. The thing is though, the US was by far the best nation at this just 50 years ago. The interstate system, the moon landing, Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, MIT... the US is still basically running on top of these efforts from back then. Was it just Reaganism that destroyed it, with later democratic presidents asleep at the wheel? (e.g. Bill Clinton pushed through and signed the money-for-work social program, destroying the old safety net)
alexhutcheson 10y ago
A couple factors (not exclusive): - Greater local control over government decision making. This cuts both ways, but there are a couple specific ways it makes transit projects hard to push through. First, it inserts lots of veto points into the process, which a determined minority can use to block the project. If the benefits are diffuse (a more transit accessible city), but the perceived costs are concentrated (they would tear up the street in front of my house, etc.), then it's hard to get the necessary political support to overcome all the vetoes. Second, the politicians making the decisions are accountable to the residents of that area, who aren't always the intended beneficiaries of the project. For example, a rail link that brings commuters to an area might be a huge benefit to the commuteers, but a net negative to the residents. - Infrastructure decisions are path-dependent. It's hard, both technically and politically, to introduce transit to a community that hasn't been previously dependent on it. Neighborhoods built with cars in mind might not have enough density to support great service, and built-up, expensive neighborhoods (where the jobs are) are often prohibitively expensive to build in. Politically, it's tricky because neighborhoods and regions are going to be mostly full of people for whom the existing infrastructure is already good enough - they wouldn't be there otherwise. New projects are more likely to benefit new people - people who relocate because the new service opens up lifestyle/commuting possibilities that weren't possible before. - High construction costs. There's ongoing debate about why this is (I won't get into it), but US cities generally have higher construction costs than other developed countries, even for similar projects. 2011 post with some concrete data: https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r...
- m_mueller 10y ago
  Holy crap... these numbers are absolutely nuts. 8.1 billion dollars for 2 kilometers of subway tunnel? What are they doing? Switzerland has just opened a 57km tunnel through the alps, some of the most difficult sediment to tunnel through, for ..... just over 10 billion. That's 175M/km or a factor of 23 less, in one of most high priced countries in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel So... too much veto power and too much corruption (construction lobbying) leading to enormously inflated prices?

oppositelock 10y ago

California 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 ago
I 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.
- niftich 10y ago
  As an outsider to Switzerland, I'd say the Swiss see quality-of-life (including things like education, transportation) as a national security issue, as a way to remain competitive and relevant in a globalized world where most people can underbid them, and therefore they invest strongly in projects that promote an educated, happy, productive, globally competitive populace. The Alpine tunnels and motorways are a part of this, as they ensure that Switzerland will remain an attractive option for cross-EU freight (instead of going around) but so are more local initiatives that improve conditions in the cities and cantons. EDIT: In many ways, the same applies to Japan. Meanwhile SF feels no such pressure. Plenty of people (and companies) are all-too willing to move there regardless. If/when at some point SF experiences a decline, these skipped investments will begin to be sorely missed.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    I think you may have a point, although as a resident for a combined ~25y I tend to have less rose tinted glasses about Swiss government. Here's my take on it though: Swiss people do have comparatively high trust in their government. Not because they like the people sitting there, not because they are deemed very competent (in fact Swiss governments are almost by-design boring and just cogs in a machine), but: We feel safe in knowing that if they go just moderately crazy they can be shut down by popular vote within months. The social safety net is another huge factor I think, and probably a bigger one than the citizen rights: There's lots of comfort in knowing that if all goes wrong, you still have a comfortable apartment, your medical bills are covered and you can still send your kids to be best schools in the country - basically all that happens is that you can't take any vacations abroad and you can't go and buy expensive toys you don't need. This makes people much more relaxed, which in turn is often necessary when working together on big projects - if everyone is just in constant ass-covering-defense-mode, things like these will just either never happen or the cost will go through the roof. The thing is though, the US was by far the best nation at this just 50 years ago. The interstate system, the moon landing, Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, MIT... the US is still basically running on top of these efforts from back then. Was it just Reaganism that destroyed it, with later democratic presidents asleep at the wheel? (e.g. Bill Clinton pushed through and signed the money-for-work social program, destroying the old safety net)

alexhutcheson 10y ago

A couple factors (not exclusive): - Greater local control over government decision making. This cuts both ways, but there are a couple specific ways it makes transit projects hard to push through. First, it inserts lots of veto points into the process, which a determined minority can use to block the project. If the benefits are diffuse (a more transit accessible city), but the perceived costs are concentrated (they would tear up the street in front of my house, etc.), then it's hard to get the necessary political support to overcome all the vetoes. Second, the politicians making the decisions are accountable to the residents of that area, who aren't always the intended beneficiaries of the project. For example, a rail link that brings commuters to an area might be a huge benefit to the commuteers, but a net negative to the residents. - Infrastructure decisions are path-dependent. It's hard, both technically and politically, to introduce transit to a community that hasn't been previously dependent on it. Neighborhoods built with cars in mind might not have enough density to support great service, and built-up, expensive neighborhoods (where the jobs are) are often prohibitively expensive to build in. Politically, it's tricky because neighborhoods and regions are going to be mostly full of people for whom the existing infrastructure is already good enough - they wouldn't be there otherwise. New projects are more likely to benefit new people - people who relocate because the new service opens up lifestyle/commuting possibilities that weren't possible before. - High construction costs. There's ongoing debate about why this is (I won't get into it), but US cities generally have higher construction costs than other developed countries, even for similar projects. 2011 post with some concrete data: https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r...

m_mueller 10y ago
Holy crap... these numbers are absolutely nuts. 8.1 billion dollars for 2 kilometers of subway tunnel? What are they doing? Switzerland has just opened a 57km tunnel through the alps, some of the most difficult sediment to tunnel through, for ..... just over 10 billion. That's 175M/km or a factor of 23 less, in one of most high priced countries in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel So... too much veto power and too much corruption (construction lobbying) leading to enormously inflated prices?