6 ms·

Richly pertinent here is a recent post on the Muni by Bryan Goldberg. "As I’ve written before, and will write more about in the future, California and San Fran

by spitx 14y ago

Richly pertinent here is a recent post on the Muni by Bryan Goldberg. "As I’ve written before, and will write more about in the future, California and San Francisco suffer from “The Italian Complex”. Our state is a lot like the nation of Italy. It has a beautiful natural landscape and weather that most people would envy. It is geographically diverse — we enjoy great sunshine and great skiing in relatively close proximity. The people are culturally pleasant, love life, and you can strike up conversation with gentle strangers. We are intellectual and passionate about both arts and science. They gave us the Renaissance, and we gave the world the Digital Age. But for all the natural and cultural brilliance, we are held down by an incompetent and pathetic government. And if the city of San Francisco is at the heart of our political incompetence, then the Muni system is like the left and right ventricle. The problems with Muni are so tremendous and infuriating that I don’t even know where to begin. But here are a few points off the top of my head (with a little help from Google). Muni generates a mind-bogglingly small proportion of its own funding… Muni charges people fares to ride, and you would think that these fares could cover at least a meaningful portion of their immense operating costs. But no. They cover a measly $198 million of the $821 million budget. That’s not even one quarter of the cost. The biggest contributor to Muni’s budget is parking tickets and fines, which should surprise nobody. But this is really just an accounting gimmick to charge taxpayers for Muni, because in most cities parking tickets would be used to fund an array of services. Nobody is saying that Muni should operate at profit. Or that it should come even close to profit. But how about covering half of its costs through revenue from its users? In comparison, the NYC MTA generates over $7 billion from fares and tolls, which covers more than half of its $13.4 billion annual budget. The Chinatown political machine ensures that they get the lion’s share of the benefits The epicenter of Muni is on Stockton, Powell, and the other major arteries that run through Chinatown. By ‘coincidence,’ this is also where the new super-expensive subway will run. People who ride the bus know about the “Dirty 30” and “45” lines that needlessly take Marina and Pac Heights commuters through the congestion of Chinatown en route to their jobs downtown or in Soma. This is not because such routes and investments serve the people of San Francisco. It is because the Chinatown political machine controlled by Rose Pak — who basically put our mayor into office — decrees it to be the case. The political machine keeps rolling. The big infrastructure money goes to Chinatown. Naïve hipsters with high salaries have no idea it’s going on. And the virtuous cycle continues. But I’m sure that the camera shops, trinket stands, and street-side produce markets of Chinatown are the ones providing the city with most of its tax, jobs, and commerce income. Muni is basically useless, anyhow. Walking is better. Taking Muni is basically a waste of effort and money. You will be stunned by how little time you save by riding the bus vs. just walking. Riding a bike is so much more effective than taking the bus that it’s laughable. This is a tiny city, and you can walk from any one point to another in 45 minutes most of the time. But, back to walking. Anyone who is traveling in a North-South direction to commute (i.e. Marina to Downtown) knows that by the time the 30 or 45 bus gets to Chinatown, you can get out and walk faster, plus you don’t feel like a sardine. That walk is a no-brainer. But what about East-West commuters (i.e. Lower Haight to Downtown)? To illustrate, I will use my old commute and Google Maps. I used to live at Fillmore/Hayes, which was two full miles from my office at Kearny/Sutter. By San Francisco standards, this is a fairly typical distance from work. According to Google Maps, the walk will take 34 minutes. If you take the N-Judah, the absolute fastest you can do the ride is in 20 minutes, but that assumes no wait for the bus, which is unlikely. Throw in a reasonable wait for the bus, and now you save maybe five minutes door-to-door. Plus it costs money and you get way less exercise. And you may get sick from having twenty people within two feet of you. So there’s that cost too. In short, Muni is basically useless." I agree in full. Source: http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/29/muni-is-100-years-old-too-bad-it-wont-die-like-a-human-that-age/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/29/muni-is-100-years-old-too-b...

liber8 14y ago
Part of the problem is San Francisco's (and Phoenix/Tampa/etc/etc) fascination with rail. They spend billions and billions of dollars to construct and maintain rail systems that simply don't attract that many riders. And of course since the fares don't come close to covering the cost of the rail, the cities are forced to suck that money away from other areas like buses (which are far cheaper and have the added benefit of being more flexible). So, cities like San Francisco end up with monstrous rail costs and a resulting inability to fund fundamentally better transportation, like buses.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The problem isn't rail. Chicago and NYC have perfectly functional systems built on rail. The problem is that the rail doesn't go anywhere you want it to go.
  - jbooth 14y ago
    Yeah, SF should be able to do better with rail than Chicago, just because their geography and density are perfect for it. Execution matters.
  - mc32 14y ago
    This infuriates me to no end. No rail on Van Ness or Geary Blvd. And only half of Ocean/Geneva have rail. I can only dream of the day they put some modern monorail there, but it's not going to happen in SF.
  - usaar333 14y ago
    Gotta disagree here. Muni is centralized in downtown, which is where most want to be. It then shoots out to cover dense residential neighborhoods. Some possible lines may be missing, but other than maybe the T line, all existing ones are important.
  - liber8 14y ago
    You don't see this as a problem? I find that akin to saying "The Soviet Union had a perfectly functioning economy. The problem was just that half its citizens were starving." One of the best aspects of buses, aside from the cost, are they can go anywhere you want. If a lot more people move into the Mission, you can spend a few million dollars and double the number of buses (as opposed to literally billions of dollars to build a rail line). If people move away from the Tenderloin, you're not stuck with billions of dollars of infrastructure that now isn't needed. Just move the bus routes. Also, lets look at NYC, one of the most successful rail systems in the world. As OP states, it costs nearly $14B a year to operate and only generates $7B a year. That means people who don't use it are paying $7B/year to the people that do use it. I wouldn't call this "perfectly functional". And as I mentioned above, the more rail you build, inevitably the less resources you have for more efficient and economical transport.

by spitx 14y ago

liber8 14y ago

Part of the problem is San Francisco's (and Phoenix/Tampa/etc/etc) fascination with rail. They spend billions and billions of dollars to construct and maintain rail systems that simply don't attract that many riders. And of course since the fares don't come close to covering the cost of the rail, the cities are forced to suck that money away from other areas like buses (which are far cheaper and have the added benefit of being more flexible). So, cities like San Francisco end up with monstrous rail costs and a resulting inability to fund fundamentally better transportation, like buses.

rayiner 14y ago
The problem isn't rail. Chicago and NYC have perfectly functional systems built on rail. The problem is that the rail doesn't go anywhere you want it to go.
- jbooth 14y ago
  Yeah, SF should be able to do better with rail than Chicago, just because their geography and density are perfect for it. Execution matters.
- mc32 14y ago
  This infuriates me to no end. No rail on Van Ness or Geary Blvd. And only half of Ocean/Geneva have rail. I can only dream of the day they put some modern monorail there, but it's not going to happen in SF.
- usaar333 14y ago
  Gotta disagree here. Muni is centralized in downtown, which is where most want to be. It then shoots out to cover dense residential neighborhoods. Some possible lines may be missing, but other than maybe the T line, all existing ones are important.
- liber8 14y ago
  You don't see this as a problem? I find that akin to saying "The Soviet Union had a perfectly functioning economy. The problem was just that half its citizens were starving." One of the best aspects of buses, aside from the cost, are they can go anywhere you want. If a lot more people move into the Mission, you can spend a few million dollars and double the number of buses (as opposed to literally billions of dollars to build a rail line). If people move away from the Tenderloin, you're not stuck with billions of dollars of infrastructure that now isn't needed. Just move the bus routes. Also, lets look at NYC, one of the most successful rail systems in the world. As OP states, it costs nearly $14B a year to operate and only generates $7B a year. That means people who don't use it are paying $7B/year to the people that do use it. I wouldn't call this "perfectly functional". And as I mentioned above, the more rail you build, inevitably the less resources you have for more efficient and economical transport.