5 ms·

Given SF is more and more the center of the US, how is it that your public transport still falls victim to such neglect? I understand the lack of appreciation f

Given SF is more and more the center of the US, how is it that your public transport still falls victim to such neglect? I understand the lack of appreciation for most cities in the US (like mine) since we don't really prioritize, but SF should have its shit together given how dense of a city it has become.

Johnny555 10y ago
Politics.
pvg 10y ago
Given SF is more and more the center of the US It isn't. And Muni has been awful forever, admirably steadfast in awfulness through multiple booms and busts.
mahyarm 10y ago
Hahahaha, once you live here you realize the incompetence is pervasive. California and SF is a very mismanaged place.
burkaman 10y ago
Public transport sucks everywhere in America, and I have never heard SF described as the center of the US. What do you mean by that?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mulmen 10y ago
SF is not the center of the US. It's just a city in California.
- milesskorpen 10y ago
  There are two serious global cities in the US — NYC and SF. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the center of power/influence/whatever in the US is shifting to these cities over middle America.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > There are two serious global cities in the US — NYC and SF After New York each of Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Houston and D.C.'s metropolitan areas are more economically larger than San Francisco's [1]. SF is also relatively negligible as a global financial centre. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas_by_GDP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_ar...
    - milesskorpen 10y ago
      MSAs aren't great definitions of geographical areas — San Jose is part of the Bay Area. If you include San Jose in SF, then SF is the clear #3 in total — and per capita would be a step function ahead of any other American city apart from NY. Even beyond this, I don't think GDP is a good definition of "global city" — I don't think a city with massive commodity outflows could fit into the category, for instance.
      - pvg 10y ago
        If you include San Jose in SF, you're not really talking about SF. I've lived in SF on and off for many years and am very fond of the place. The notion it's a 'global city' in the same category as NYC or LA seems like quite a stretch.
  - kchoudhu 10y ago
    Um. Los Angeles. Chicago. Atlanta.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    There are many global cities in the US - NYC, Chicago, D.C, Dallas, Houston and S.F would maybe be a distant 6th or 7th. You might want go do some traveling and broaden your perspective. How can you say that the center of power and influence is shifting to New York and S.F? New York has been a center of power since the Dutch arrived. Besides a bunch of tech startups what is S.F the center of?
fennecfoxen 10y ago
San Francisco's Muni is not subject to neglect! It is meeting its objectives very well. It's just that its objectives don't actually include things like "actually moving people" and "cost control" (or even "revenue"). They are more like "advance the political career of whoever is in charge", at the highest levels, and "provide lifetime employment for everyone in the union with incredibly generous terms of work", for day to day operations. One of Muni's main problems with timeliness is drivers who don't show up, requiring either overtime work from other drivers (which they have trouble affording) or cancelling the bus. And if you think that's great, then just wait while the CALPERS pension fund (all state employees) collapses over the next few decades and no one has any money for transit anymore. It's not just the usual overpromise and underdelivering with a taxpayer guarantee on the difference. It's not even just a problem with corruption, explicit bribery, and pay-to-play campaign donations, though it has been wreaked with all of those scandals. Even when it's otherwise ostensibly on the level, it doesn't try to earn money for its employees' retirement so much as it tries, as the state treasurer once proudly put it, to "mobilize the power of the capital markets for public purpose". It'll likely make the bankrupt New York City of the 1970s look like a beacon of prosperity and fiscal responsibility. (There's other incompetence at work, of course.)
qubex 10y ago
That is an unwarranted assumption offhandedly disguised as a fact: San Francisco is not, nor will likely become, ”the center of the US” — and is even outranked by a multitude of supposedly second-rate urban areas in terms of economic relevance.
bogomipz 10y ago
>"Given SF is more and more the center of the US ..." How is a small city(124 km2) with a population less than 900K people, that sits on the extreme edge of the U.S the center exactly? Geography and population not withstanding, it's not the center for fashion, the arts, publishing, politics, finance or even tech as that distinction belongs to the peninsula. I don't believe the perception of S.F as the center of the U.S is even remotely common.

Johnny555 10y ago

Politics.

pvg 10y ago

Given SF is more and more the center of the US It isn't. And Muni has been awful forever, admirably steadfast in awfulness through multiple booms and busts.

mahyarm 10y ago

Hahahaha, once you live here you realize the incompetence is pervasive. California and SF is a very mismanaged place.

burkaman 10y ago

Public transport sucks everywhere in America, and I have never heard SF described as the center of the US. What do you mean by that?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mulmen 10y ago

SF is not the center of the US. It's just a city in California.

milesskorpen 10y ago
There are two serious global cities in the US — NYC and SF. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the center of power/influence/whatever in the US is shifting to these cities over middle America.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > There are two serious global cities in the US — NYC and SF After New York each of Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Houston and D.C.'s metropolitan areas are more economically larger than San Francisco's [1]. SF is also relatively negligible as a global financial centre. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas_by_GDP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_ar...
  - milesskorpen 10y ago
    MSAs aren't great definitions of geographical areas — San Jose is part of the Bay Area. If you include San Jose in SF, then SF is the clear #3 in total — and per capita would be a step function ahead of any other American city apart from NY. Even beyond this, I don't think GDP is a good definition of "global city" — I don't think a city with massive commodity outflows could fit into the category, for instance.
    - pvg 10y ago
      If you include San Jose in SF, you're not really talking about SF. I've lived in SF on and off for many years and am very fond of the place. The notion it's a 'global city' in the same category as NYC or LA seems like quite a stretch.
- kchoudhu 10y ago
  Um. Los Angeles. Chicago. Atlanta.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  There are many global cities in the US - NYC, Chicago, D.C, Dallas, Houston and S.F would maybe be a distant 6th or 7th. You might want go do some traveling and broaden your perspective. How can you say that the center of power and influence is shifting to New York and S.F? New York has been a center of power since the Dutch arrived. Besides a bunch of tech startups what is S.F the center of?

fennecfoxen 10y ago

San Francisco's Muni is not subject to neglect! It is meeting its objectives very well. It's just that its objectives don't actually include things like "actually moving people" and "cost control" (or even "revenue"). They are more like "advance the political career of whoever is in charge", at the highest levels, and "provide lifetime employment for everyone in the union with incredibly generous terms of work", for day to day operations. One of Muni's main problems with timeliness is drivers who don't show up, requiring either overtime work from other drivers (which they have trouble affording) or cancelling the bus. And if you think that's great, then just wait while the CALPERS pension fund (all state employees) collapses over the next few decades and no one has any money for transit anymore. It's not just the usual overpromise and underdelivering with a taxpayer guarantee on the difference. It's not even just a problem with corruption, explicit bribery, and pay-to-play campaign donations, though it has been wreaked with all of those scandals. Even when it's otherwise ostensibly on the level, it doesn't try to earn money for its employees' retirement so much as it tries, as the state treasurer once proudly put it, to "mobilize the power of the capital markets for public purpose". It'll likely make the bankrupt New York City of the 1970s look like a beacon of prosperity and fiscal responsibility. (There's other incompetence at work, of course.)

qubex 10y ago

That is an unwarranted assumption offhandedly disguised as a fact: San Francisco is not, nor will likely become, ”the center of the US” — and is even outranked by a multitude of supposedly second-rate urban areas in terms of economic relevance.

bogomipz 10y ago

>"Given SF is more and more the center of the US ..." How is a small city(124 km2) with a population less than 900K people, that sits on the extreme edge of the U.S the center exactly? Geography and population not withstanding, it's not the center for fashion, the arts, publishing, politics, finance or even tech as that distinction belongs to the peninsula. I don't believe the perception of S.F as the center of the U.S is even remotely common.