5 ms·

It’s Time for Greater San Francisco

33 points by keiferski 3y ago

pipeline_peak 3y ago
Leaving is the best, most effective thing you can do today. NYC in the 70s was a pretty bad tale. The cleaned it up nicely, I’m sure tourism had a lot to do, but NYC used to be affordable. SF is so incomparable, the only shared qualities are increasing rent and young culture. Everyone wants to move to sf but what couldn’t you find elsewhere?
heintje_ghulam 3y ago
Really interesting article. I don't live in the Bay Area but I would seriously consider moving there if I knew, for example, that the transit plan mentioned in the article were being adopted: https://www.seamlessbayarea.org/vision-map https://www.seamlessbayarea.org/vision-map I'd love to hear peoples' thoughts who actually live or have lived in the Bay Area.
- syntheweave 3y ago
  Given how long they take to implement, transit plans should not be the biggest factor in where you move. The biggest transit things actually taking place locally are CA HSR(which is happening, and Caltrain is currently shovels-in-ground electrifying track which will improve speeds and frequencies in the next year or two) and the continued expansion of the ferry system, which was displaced by the Bay Bridge and BART and then rediscovered after 1989 as emergency transport following the Loma Prieta earthquake. WETA, the "Water Emergency Transportation Authority" has some exciting projects that they are able to deploy relatively quickly and cheaply. The X-factor is the robotaxis. They are currently "just" taxi, and priced like one, but people are using them to get around the city successfully. Cutting down the price and scaling access, which Cruise is set on doing, will have dramatic effects on transport as a whole, and not necessarily in a bad way, because the profitability of a robotaxi system, unlike private auto sales and cab drivers, converges with transit's goals - energy use, vehicle size, availability, etc. While SF city and county is now actively fighting against them, the potential is there for every city where they're being deployed.
  - JambalayaJim 3y ago
    > converges with transit's goals - energy use, vehicle size, availability, etc. What about noise pollution, congestion, pedestrian/cyclist safety? My big worry with robots is is that just like Uber, they actually result in a lot more cars on the road.
    - 0xfaded 3y ago
      Robotaxis are likely already safer for cyclists. The interesting part will be when parked cars start being removed as people give up car ownership. That will introduce much more space for interesting options like pedestrian streets and bike infrastructure.
    - rahimnathwani 3y ago
      Higher congestion is good for pedestrian safety. I felt much safer crossing streets in London or Beijing, than I do in San Francisco.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        I get London, but having seen a cyclist die before in Beijing, I’m going to disagree and raise an eyebrow on that claim. Yes, congestion means drivers go more slowly, but there are plenty of roads in Beijing that aren’t congested enough (eg Dongzhimen wai on a Sunday afternoon), and drivers tend to have no inhibition against speeding if they can. You are 10x more likely to die in some sort of auto accident (as a pedestrian, cyclist, or car occupant) in China than in the USA, and Beijing by Chinese standards is pretty bad (Shanghai and most southern cities have better traffic). Given a lack of guns, safety in china for tourists centers mostly around avoiding getting hit by a car.
      - JambalayaJim 3y ago
        Higher congestion where I live means irritable drivers, drivers blocking intersections after being caught by red lights, etc. You can have slow speed limits and low congestion.
  - heintje_ghulam 3y ago
- alephnerd 3y ago
  The Seamless Bay Area vision is very SF-centric. Even though SF is the cultural capital of the region, the majority of the population and economy resides in Santa Clara County (San Jose, Apple, FB, Google, Stanford, SLAC), Contra Costa County (Cheveron, Toyota, ATT), Alameda County (UC Berkeley, LLNL, LBL, Port of Oakland), and San Mateo County (South San Francisco, the entire biotech industry). All those counties are working with the State Govt to build a unified mass transit system connecting Sacramento, Modesto, East Bay, and South Bay into a single public transit region [0][1][2], especially because most of the labor class lives in the Sacramento region and the Modesto/San Joaquin Valley region. Furthermore, the City and County of San Francisco often jeopardizes Bay Area unity by threatening to withhold funding to Caltrain or BART due to SF Supervisors internal conflicts. Given the (relative) lack of major private employers in San Francisco after the 2008 economic crisis, all the other counties prefer to make their own deals together and independent of SF. This is why Livermore pulled out of the BART Extension project which caused the entire system to teeter financially because Half a Billion dollars were reallocated to a separate project. And honestly, even though I have lived in SF for a massive portion of my life, it could die and no one would care less in the Bay Area. San Jose has always been the primary engine for the Bay Area, especially after the Port of SF, the SF Financial Industry, and most non-tech companies left by 2010. [0] - https://www.sjrrc.com/valley-rail/ https://www.sjrrc.com/valley-rail/ [1] - https://www.valleylinkrail.com/ https://www.valleylinkrail.com/ [2] - https://www.caltrain.com/projects/electrification https://www.caltrain.com/projects/electrification
  - heintje_ghulam 3y ago
    Thank you so much for that overview and explanation! The single public transit region sounds exciting; I had no idea there was such a project. I hope they can get it to completion and that it's functional (I'm so unimpressed with most transit in the U.S.).
  - jdougan 3y ago
    I wonder if a "Greater San Jose" would be the more correct answer? Leave the city to its own devices.
vlovich123 3y ago
One major downside not mentioned is that corruption at scale becomes easier. If you’re looking to influence political policy for the entire Bay Area, it’s easier, cheaper, and more likely to succeed if you only have one set of politicians to negotiate with. I feel like all the problems mentioned have better solutions. For the “single purchaser” efficiency argument, I would instead like to see collective bargaining agreements where the cities agree to participate and be bound to the agreement. That way it doesn’t even need to be limited to neighbors. For things like managing transit, I think a regional transit authority needs to be established by the state that works with cities within some framework but cities have no power to otherwise interfere. Housing is being solved through state level legislation that’s forcing cities to build a realistic plan for increasing residential capacity or lose zoning privileges alltogether.
- kemotep 3y ago
  Interestingly the article says the New York consolidation was allegedly one of the ways the city politicians were able to buck Tammany Hall. Obviously that was a different time and situation but why does that argument work for consolidating a city and not a state?
- laurencerowe 3y ago
  > One major downside not mentioned is that corruption at scale becomes easier. I don’t think this is the case. Corruption seems to be far easier at smaller scales where there is insufficient scrutiny of the people running departments. Larger cities may at least be able to support a few reporters looking into local government business. But I think the way government is organised makes a huge difference too. California seems to break things down into little fiefs of control which seems resistant to real scrutiny.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Reporters are not so good at investigating corruption where you just choose to allocate resources between priorities differently or neglect some issue. Then it’s a “both” sides thing. Certain kinds of corruption are easier at smaller scales, other kinds of corruption (potentially worse) happen at larger scales (think about the kind of money that goes into federal politics). I don’t think journalism would do a better job with a single Bay Area government vs reporters in each individual city as now. It is all trade offs, but I think there are better structural solutions that don’t create a quasi government covering the a good chunk of the Bay.
about3fitty 3y ago
This without a mention of Clipper is odd. The Clipper Card system is the most likely target for expansion of the current infrastructure. Considering I can’t even go into BART and come out the same station moments later without being charged $6, which is non refundable unless I give my name and address, I have little hope for this idea. I know one member of the relatively new Clipper software team, which was brought in with a mandate to consolidate and expand functionality, and it doesn’t sound like they are exceptionally skilled or productive.
- ejz 3y ago
  I didn’t have room to mention everything. I had to cut a lot! But Clipper is a cool example. Clipper is a nice interface for transit consolidation but making that the centerpiece is, in my opinion, very unambitious.
a2xd94 3y ago
Greater San Francisco would mean that San Franciscans would have to give up their beloved polarized politics in favor of more moderate (for the Bay Area) and functional takes. I don't think this will ever happen - some people take too much pride in calling themselves a San Francisco Progressive to allow real progress for the greater metro area to take place.
- ejz 3y ago
  Unclear which way it would go. I hope that would happen. But either way it would solve a major incentive misalignment. Even if SF stays just as progressive it will be much more functional.
  - a2xd94 3y ago
    I think the last several years have clearly proven that SF's polarized politics are absolutely no good at solving any problems and quite good at creating countless new ones, so it would be ridiculous for the rest of the Bay Area to follow them.
maceart 3y ago
They tried this in 1912. Every county except San Mateo and Marin voted down for the idea.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Francisco#%22Greater_San_Francisco%22_movement_of_1912 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Francisco#%22Gr...

33 points by keiferski 3y ago

Leaving is the best, most effective thing you can do today. NYC in the 70s was a pretty bad tale. The cleaned it up nicely, I’m sure tourism had a lot to do, but NYC used to be affordable. SF is so incomparable, the only shared qualities are increasing rent and young culture. Everyone wants to move to sf but what couldn’t you find elsewhere?

heintje_ghulam 3y ago

Really interesting article. I don't live in the Bay Area but I would seriously consider moving there if I knew, for example, that the transit plan mentioned in the article were being adopted: https://www.seamlessbayarea.org/vision-map https://www.seamlessbayarea.org/vision-map I'd love to hear peoples' thoughts who actually live or have lived in the Bay Area.

syntheweave 3y ago
Given how long they take to implement, transit plans should not be the biggest factor in where you move. The biggest transit things actually taking place locally are CA HSR(which is happening, and Caltrain is currently shovels-in-ground electrifying track which will improve speeds and frequencies in the next year or two) and the continued expansion of the ferry system, which was displaced by the Bay Bridge and BART and then rediscovered after 1989 as emergency transport following the Loma Prieta earthquake. WETA, the "Water Emergency Transportation Authority" has some exciting projects that they are able to deploy relatively quickly and cheaply. The X-factor is the robotaxis. They are currently "just" taxi, and priced like one, but people are using them to get around the city successfully. Cutting down the price and scaling access, which Cruise is set on doing, will have dramatic effects on transport as a whole, and not necessarily in a bad way, because the profitability of a robotaxi system, unlike private auto sales and cab drivers, converges with transit's goals - energy use, vehicle size, availability, etc. While SF city and county is now actively fighting against them, the potential is there for every city where they're being deployed.
- JambalayaJim 3y ago
  > converges with transit's goals - energy use, vehicle size, availability, etc. What about noise pollution, congestion, pedestrian/cyclist safety? My big worry with robots is is that just like Uber, they actually result in a lot more cars on the road.
  - 0xfaded 3y ago
    Robotaxis are likely already safer for cyclists. The interesting part will be when parked cars start being removed as people give up car ownership. That will introduce much more space for interesting options like pedestrian streets and bike infrastructure.
  - rahimnathwani 3y ago
    Higher congestion is good for pedestrian safety. I felt much safer crossing streets in London or Beijing, than I do in San Francisco.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      I get London, but having seen a cyclist die before in Beijing, I’m going to disagree and raise an eyebrow on that claim. Yes, congestion means drivers go more slowly, but there are plenty of roads in Beijing that aren’t congested enough (eg Dongzhimen wai on a Sunday afternoon), and drivers tend to have no inhibition against speeding if they can. You are 10x more likely to die in some sort of auto accident (as a pedestrian, cyclist, or car occupant) in China than in the USA, and Beijing by Chinese standards is pretty bad (Shanghai and most southern cities have better traffic). Given a lack of guns, safety in china for tourists centers mostly around avoiding getting hit by a car.
    - JambalayaJim 3y ago
      Higher congestion where I live means irritable drivers, drivers blocking intersections after being caught by red lights, etc. You can have slow speed limits and low congestion.
- heintje_ghulam 3y ago
alephnerd 3y ago
The Seamless Bay Area vision is very SF-centric. Even though SF is the cultural capital of the region, the majority of the population and economy resides in Santa Clara County (San Jose, Apple, FB, Google, Stanford, SLAC), Contra Costa County (Cheveron, Toyota, ATT), Alameda County (UC Berkeley, LLNL, LBL, Port of Oakland), and San Mateo County (South San Francisco, the entire biotech industry). All those counties are working with the State Govt to build a unified mass transit system connecting Sacramento, Modesto, East Bay, and South Bay into a single public transit region [0][1][2], especially because most of the labor class lives in the Sacramento region and the Modesto/San Joaquin Valley region. Furthermore, the City and County of San Francisco often jeopardizes Bay Area unity by threatening to withhold funding to Caltrain or BART due to SF Supervisors internal conflicts. Given the (relative) lack of major private employers in San Francisco after the 2008 economic crisis, all the other counties prefer to make their own deals together and independent of SF. This is why Livermore pulled out of the BART Extension project which caused the entire system to teeter financially because Half a Billion dollars were reallocated to a separate project. And honestly, even though I have lived in SF for a massive portion of my life, it could die and no one would care less in the Bay Area. San Jose has always been the primary engine for the Bay Area, especially after the Port of SF, the SF Financial Industry, and most non-tech companies left by 2010. [0] - https://www.sjrrc.com/valley-rail/ https://www.sjrrc.com/valley-rail/ [1] - https://www.valleylinkrail.com/ https://www.valleylinkrail.com/ [2] - https://www.caltrain.com/projects/electrification https://www.caltrain.com/projects/electrification
- heintje_ghulam 3y ago
  Thank you so much for that overview and explanation! The single public transit region sounds exciting; I had no idea there was such a project. I hope they can get it to completion and that it's functional (I'm so unimpressed with most transit in the U.S.).
- jdougan 3y ago
  I wonder if a "Greater San Jose" would be the more correct answer? Leave the city to its own devices.

vlovich123 3y ago

One major downside not mentioned is that corruption at scale becomes easier. If you’re looking to influence political policy for the entire Bay Area, it’s easier, cheaper, and more likely to succeed if you only have one set of politicians to negotiate with. I feel like all the problems mentioned have better solutions. For the “single purchaser” efficiency argument, I would instead like to see collective bargaining agreements where the cities agree to participate and be bound to the agreement. That way it doesn’t even need to be limited to neighbors. For things like managing transit, I think a regional transit authority needs to be established by the state that works with cities within some framework but cities have no power to otherwise interfere. Housing is being solved through state level legislation that’s forcing cities to build a realistic plan for increasing residential capacity or lose zoning privileges alltogether.

kemotep 3y ago
Interestingly the article says the New York consolidation was allegedly one of the ways the city politicians were able to buck Tammany Hall. Obviously that was a different time and situation but why does that argument work for consolidating a city and not a state?
laurencerowe 3y ago
> One major downside not mentioned is that corruption at scale becomes easier. I don’t think this is the case. Corruption seems to be far easier at smaller scales where there is insufficient scrutiny of the people running departments. Larger cities may at least be able to support a few reporters looking into local government business. But I think the way government is organised makes a huge difference too. California seems to break things down into little fiefs of control which seems resistant to real scrutiny.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Reporters are not so good at investigating corruption where you just choose to allocate resources between priorities differently or neglect some issue. Then it’s a “both” sides thing. Certain kinds of corruption are easier at smaller scales, other kinds of corruption (potentially worse) happen at larger scales (think about the kind of money that goes into federal politics). I don’t think journalism would do a better job with a single Bay Area government vs reporters in each individual city as now. It is all trade offs, but I think there are better structural solutions that don’t create a quasi government covering the a good chunk of the Bay.

about3fitty 3y ago

This without a mention of Clipper is odd. The Clipper Card system is the most likely target for expansion of the current infrastructure. Considering I can’t even go into BART and come out the same station moments later without being charged $6, which is non refundable unless I give my name and address, I have little hope for this idea. I know one member of the relatively new Clipper software team, which was brought in with a mandate to consolidate and expand functionality, and it doesn’t sound like they are exceptionally skilled or productive.

ejz 3y ago
I didn’t have room to mention everything. I had to cut a lot! But Clipper is a cool example. Clipper is a nice interface for transit consolidation but making that the centerpiece is, in my opinion, very unambitious.

a2xd94 3y ago

Greater San Francisco would mean that San Franciscans would have to give up their beloved polarized politics in favor of more moderate (for the Bay Area) and functional takes. I don't think this will ever happen - some people take too much pride in calling themselves a San Francisco Progressive to allow real progress for the greater metro area to take place.

ejz 3y ago
Unclear which way it would go. I hope that would happen. But either way it would solve a major incentive misalignment. Even if SF stays just as progressive it will be much more functional.
- a2xd94 3y ago
  I think the last several years have clearly proven that SF's polarized politics are absolutely no good at solving any problems and quite good at creating countless new ones, so it would be ridiculous for the rest of the Bay Area to follow them.

maceart 3y ago

They tried this in 1912. Every county except San Mateo and Marin voted down for the idea.

amadeuspagel 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Francisco#%22Greater_San_Francisco%22_movement_of_1912 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Francisco#%22Gr...