Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

alexmedearis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#61

Post by dragonwriter »

m0th87 wrote: post #40
clauretano wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In New York you have MTA Metro North, PATH, MTA Subway, MTA Select Bus Service, NJ Transit, etc. Plus things like JFK AirTrain, Amtrak. It's not confusing though --different names for different things. commuter rail vs intra-city transportation. Metro North doesn't share ticketing with the subway even though they're both MTA

NYC and SF aren't comparable at all since NYC is so much larger. But even then, NYC is more well-organized. The majority of the services you mentioned move commuters between NYC and surrounding areas, so it makes sense that they don't fall under MTA. SF separates its bus system from its train system (at least in labeling), and there's more than one train service within the city alone. EDIT: Bear in mind it wasn't alw…

> But even then, NYC is more well-organized.

NYC is a single political entity and the primary metropolitan region of the state in which the city is located. The former is true of the City and County of San Francisco -- but that's, by itself, not even a particular big city -- but not the 9-county Bay Area which is smaller, in population, than NYC despite having more than 20 times the land area. And the latter isn't true of SF at all.)

> SF separates its bus system from its train system (at least in labeling), and there's more than one train service within the city alone.

San Francisco's bus and train service are both labelled "Muni".

BART also has stops in San Francisco but is a separate multicounty agency (the Bay Area Rapid Transit District) of which SF happens to be a member, it isn't SF's.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#62

Post by seanmcdirmid »

cloudwizard wrote: post #23

SF transit is poor partially because they have managed to make car movement so miserable that people feel compelled to use transit. By making all the alternatives worse, you can seem decent. Compared to cities outside the US, it is a mess.

Because car use in Europe is more convenient? I don't get the argument, cars are even more expensive to use in much of Europe than even NYC.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#63

Post by closetnerd »

bubbleRefuge wrote: post #51

Lets get real. The infrastructure problem in this country has to get solved at the federal level. Since we know here on HN that the federal government is an issuer of currency[1] and state and local government are users of the currency, like households and business, the only entity that can fund the massive infrastructure is said Federal Government. And, unlike China, all federal spending is underwritten by legislati…

I think federal level is definitely at fault but it shouldn't be.

We should have more understanding of our local governments, more insight and voting power. We put so much authority and responsibility at the federal level that by the time the system reaches to the local governments its just a mindfuck of bureaucracies that no one can deal with.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#64

Post by pdx6 »

Public transportation is bad within San Francisco for historical reasons. In the late 1940's, the voters passed an initiative to save the streetcars, but what happened was that Muni used revenue bonds to purchases buses in a sweetheart deal with the motorbus companies. As a result, the there was a voter backlash, and Muni lost the ability to issue revenue bonds.

Since the agency was now cash strapped, without a modern way to raise money, it could only do so through the general fund and fares. Being a public agency, it also became under the whim of the political motivations of whoever was mayor or in the board of supervisors. To help modernize the system, Muni put a parcel bond measure on the 1967 ballot. It failed.

In the 70's, Muni wanted to exit the streetcar business completely. The Bay Area Rapid Transit system was to replace Muni, and run nearly where all the light rail goes today. Again, politics and public backlash killed a planned system, and we have the strange Bart/Muni/Caltrain/SamTrans/Golden Gate/AC Transit fragmentation you see today. To further complicate things, all of these agencies battle each other for state and federal grants.

Things are changing. Under 2007's Prop A, the voters granted the SFMTA, or Muni as it was called before Prop K, to issue revenue bonds once again. At the end of this year, there will be a bond measure, which at no expense to parcel tax payers, will begin to reverse the nearly 80 years of deferred maintenance across the agency's infrastructure. Further, a ballot measure to increase the VLF (vehicle license fee) will be on the ballot, which will create a sustained revenue source to purchase new vehicles over time.

There is still billions of dollars of deferred maintenance and a legacy of poor planning, but with the boom and growth in the city, we'll see our public transportation system improve, at least in the city. Not too far from now, we'll have electric Caltrain. Is it too little too late? Certainly, but you can call and write your public representatives and let them know if they don't do anything, you'll vote them out for sure.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#65

Post by sjf »

jorde wrote: post #60

Can someone explain why on earth do busses and Muni trains need to stop on every single block? I get that this is convenient and there's probably some disability law behind it but it makes public transportation even slower in SF.

This is normal for any city I've lived in (London, UK and Dublin, IE). Doesn't make it any less annoying though. I noticed in London that the expected travel time by bus was reliably 2x walking speed and 1/2 driving speed.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#66

Post by closetnerd »

andys627 wrote: post #8
gooserock wrote: post #6

This is a great overview of the history of SF's mass transit systems, but honestly, it's really not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Was it better when the streetcars ran everywhere? Of course. But compared to cities like Boston or Dallas or Atlanta, SF's Muni and BART are amazing, though Caltrain is admittedly the weakest link of the system.

It really is terrible. What you're saying is like saying having 5 pennies is amazing compared to having 1 penny.

Agreed. The "americans should feel great about where they live because, hey, at least its not as bad as Sudan" argument.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#67

Post by al_gore »

harryh wrote: post #47
al_gore wrote: post #17

The common argument against overnight service in non-New York cities is "only two tracks! no time to do maintenance!": http://www.bart.gov/guide/latenight This seems to just completely ignore the existence of the 14th Street-Canarsie and Crosstown lines (L and G services), both of which are dual tracked, yet provide 24/7 service most of the time. The Second Avenue Subway will also be dual tracked (unfortunately).

Wait the 2nd ave subway will really only be two tracks? Why? How much could it have possibly added to the cost to make it four? Once you're digging the tunnel why no do it right? Blargh.

Billions of dollars of "studies" and such, I'm sure. NIMBYs hate cut and cover, so we end up digging absurdly expensive deep tunnels that are just worse to use once finished (they take forever to get into, compare deep stations in Washington Heights to Astor Place).

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#68

Post by closetnerd »

pdx6 wrote: post #64

Public transportation is bad within San Francisco for historical reasons. In the late 1940's, the voters passed an initiative to save the streetcars, but what happened was that Muni used revenue bonds to purchases buses in a sweetheart deal with the motorbus companies. As a result, the there was a voter backlash, and Muni lost the ability to issue revenue bonds. Since the agency was now cash strapped, without a moder…

I'm really skeptical about "we'll see our public transportation system improve, at least in the city".

Specially if I have the New York public system to look forward to. Its not exactly a success.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#69

Post by al_gore »

gooserock wrote: post #6

This is a great overview of the history of SF's mass transit systems, but honestly, it's really not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Was it better when the streetcars ran everywhere? Of course. But compared to cities like Boston or Dallas or Atlanta, SF's Muni and BART are amazing, though Caltrain is admittedly the weakest link of the system.

I think the MBTA is better than Muni + BART, the percentage of proper heavy rail rapid transit is much higher in Boston (just the meh Green Line, compared to every meh Muni line).

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#70

Post by discardorama »

There are multiple reasons, not just one. Each of them, like drops in a bucket, contributed to fill the bucket.

As has been alluded by the OP, till the 1940s SF actually had competing train operators. They would advertise their performance ("shortest time to inner sunset!"), for example, and riders voted with their dollars. Then all but 1 got consolidated/wiped-out, and we ended up with the MUNI (aka SFMTA). The problem is: as a monopoly, and a government-subsidised one to boot, they have absolutely no incentive to improve service. Regardless of how badly they fail, they know that the public can do A.B.S.O.L.U.T.E.L.Y. nothing! In 1999, the voters gave more resources to SFMTA, in return asking for a modest 85% on-time performance. 15 years later, we're still waiting for it[1]. I am not an anti-union guy, and I strongly believe that unions have been a huge boon to society as a whole. But even I feel that the various MUNI unions are an impediment to performance. The slightest change in working conditions must be approved by the union. And if you piss off the union people, there's hell to pay[2]. The MUNI drivers, with barely any qualifications other than having a drivers license, make as much as starting teachers in SF _excluding_ overtime. At one time, they got language into the City's Charter (basically, the constitution of the City) that they would be guaranteed to be at least the second-highest-paid operators in the country! Thankfully, this was repealed in 2012.

And let's not get started about BART. Their latest bargaining debacle with the unions[3] shows how inept the management is.

But the bigger question is: why are these agencies not accountable? The answer to that is: elections. Elections for the posts of politicians who are supposed to provide oversight are heavily influenced by the unions, who are a massive voting bloc. Every politician seeks out the unions' endorsement, and would not dare oppose them if s/he stands any chance of being re-elected. It's the fox guarding the chicken coop.

The solution, IMHO, is privatization (and again: I'm no libertarian or "small ogvernment" nut). But I see the service I get at the local grocery store by employees making minimal wage, and compare with the shitty attitude from the overpaid MUNI employees, and wonder if privatization is the answer?

[1] http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2010-11/muni-in-elusive-quest-...

[2] http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2009/02/18/waiting-for-th...

[3] http://www.contracostatimes.com/editorial/ci_25564767/contra...

Post reply on HN