U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-12-2014, 10:55 AM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,888,695 times
Reputation: 2263

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...501367f076adff

If you haven't been to San Francisco, here's a google map of it. As you can see, it has highways. It also has higher property values. Kind of like the property values in pretty much all of Bay Area west of the Bay. Contrary to popular urbanista falacies, highways are actually good for property values. For the immediate area (1 block), they lower property value appreciation. Farther out than one block they increase it. Maybe. No clear consensus, to many variables to control for.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol4/downl...s_21102011.pdf

The property values specifically in San Francisco may actually be higher because there aren't enough freeways. With more freeways (or other infrastructure such as transit) it would arguably be less NIMBY about development. That could potentially mean more residents and more businesses. You're probably the only person in the world worried that San Francisco property values aren't high enough.

Problem with transit is who's going to pay for it? San Francisco has a eyepopping $7+ billion budget, $8,500+ per person. San Jose? Less than $3 billion, or $3,000 per person. Something like 80% of San Francisco's transportation budget goes to keeping its antiquated transit system rolling as it is and nobody wants to pay any more. Fleecing the drivers with another 10% in parking taxes (always a good go-to source in San Francisco) was rejected.
I've got to say that you are pretty off base in this case. Highway 101 stops at Market and Octavia. 280 becomes 80 and the Bay Bridge. Those highways cut off Bayview/Hunter's Point from the rest of the city, as well as Visitacion Valley and Excelsior. SoMa and the Mission are the only neighborhoods near these freeways that have comparatively high property values. I attribute that more to the tech boom in SoMa and its impact on Mission property values. Some of the value is certainly attributable to the ease of commuting to the Peninsula and SV by highway, I am sure. I don't think that intentionally devaluing property by building more highways is a good idea, though.

Highway 1 becomes a surface street at Brotherhood Way, near the south end of city limits. It is really only a highway up to the Daly City/SF border.

SF's transit budget is higher in absolute and per capita terms than San Jose's and its transit system is way better than San Jose's. Your budget numbers do appear to be off, though. In 2014, Muni's budget is $840.5 million. The city-wide budget is $4.5 billion for FY 2013-2014. I'm not sure where you are getting your $7 billion figure.
http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/...ocumentid=1951

San Jose's is more like $3.5 billion for FY 2013-2014.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/23407
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2014, 11:11 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,220,191 times
Reputation: 14811
San Jose is within Santa Clara County, which also provides some local services. San Francisco doesn't have a separate county government. Santa Clara County's 2013 budget was $2.23 billion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,108 posts, read 16,182,555 times
Reputation: 12736
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
San Jose is within Santa Clara County, which also provides some local services. San Francisco doesn't have a separate county government. Santa Clara County's 2013 budget was $2.23 billion.
It also has 1.8 million, more than double San Francisco. Adding in half of that ($1.1 billion) for county services, and it's still roughly half of what San Francisco City/County is spending per capita. That does provide a more apples to apples comparison, though.


Quote:
SF's transit budget is higher in absolute and per capita terms than San Jose's and its transit system is way better than San Jose's. Your budget numbers do appear to be off, though. In 2014, Muni's budget is $840.5 million. The city-wide budget is $4.5 billion for FY 2013-2014. I'm not sure where you are getting your $7 billion figure.
http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/...ocumentid=1951
Because I was talking about the SF budget, not the general fund. That's like saying San Jose has a budget of $1 billion because that's what its general fund is. And yeah, SF spends more taxpayer money on transit than Santa Clara County, which was kind of my point.

Last edited by Malloric; 03-12-2014 at 01:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 02:36 PM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,888,695 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
It also has 1.8 million, more than double San Francisco. Adding in half of that ($1.1 billion) for county services, and it's still roughly half of what San Francisco City/County is spending per capita. That does provide a more apples to apples comparison, though.




Because I was talking about the SF budget, not the general fund. That's like saying San Jose has a budget of $1 billion because that's what its general fund is. And yeah, SF spends more taxpayer money on transit than Santa Clara County, which was kind of my point.
I stand corrected on the SF budget--http://sfmayor.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=177

And I certainly agree that SF spends more on transit than SC county, but the service provided is way better. That's part of the reason that transit usage is so much higher in SF than SJ.

Muni's budget is in the ~$840 million range. Maintenance appears to be $17.6 million in 2012-13 and $29.1 million in 2013-14. Most spending goes to salaries, wages, and benefits (~550 million).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,170 posts, read 29,814,382 times
Reputation: 26692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
It also has 1.8 million, more than double San Francisco. Adding in half of that ($1.1 billion) for county services, and it's still roughly half of what San Francisco City/County is spending per capita. That does provide a more apples to apples comparison, though.

Because I was talking about the SF budget, not the general fund. That's like saying San Jose has a budget of $1 billion because that's what its general fund is. And yeah, SF spends more taxpayer money on transit than Santa Clara County, which was kind of my point.
I don't see that as a huge issue, considering in SF, many people use transit (and it supports the huge influx of workers day to day.) 34% of commuters use transit. That's pretty huge. And 70% of San Franciscans work in SF too (per city-data). Not sure of course, what percentage of non work trips are on Muni, but I imagine it is a lot as most of SF is a pain to park in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,108 posts, read 16,182,555 times
Reputation: 12736
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
I stand corrected on the SF budget--http://sfmayor.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=177

And I certainly agree that SF spends more on transit than SC county, but the service provided is way better. That's part of the reason that transit usage is so much higher in SF than SJ.

Muni's budget is in the ~$840 million range. Maintenance appears to be $17.6 million in 2012-13 and $29.1 million in 2013-14. Most spending goes to salaries, wages, and benefits (~550 million).
But what does that have to do with anything? Transit generally doesn't drive itself, schedules don't get done magically, buses don't fix or clean themselves. People do work, and in this country they are paid for doing it.

San Francisco spends a good chunk of its massive budget (more than 10%) on transportation, the vast majority of which comes from sources other than fees. San Jose spends far less to provide far less tranportation. San Francisco level transportation takes a lot money. San Jose is one of the few places that could really afford San Francisco levels of spending on transit if it chose to. The other 99% of the country, however, it's pretty absurd. Spending $1,000 per capita to operate transit here is nuts. You wouldn't even buy that good a system even with that level of investment because we're more spread out than San Francisco is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,108 posts, read 16,182,555 times
Reputation: 12736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I don't see that as a huge issue, considering in SF, many people use transit (and it supports the huge influx of workers day to day.) 34% of commuters use transit. That's pretty huge. And 70% of San Franciscans work in SF too (per city-data). Not sure of course, what percentage of non work trips are on Muni, but I imagine it is a lot as most of SF is a pain to park in.
Oh, I don't disagree. San Francisco's solution (kind of) works for San Francisco. Muni is basically on an extremely frayed shoestring budget (antiquated infrastructure which required lots of patching to even partially accommodate modern rail cars, runs buses older than a church youth group). That doesn't mean it's a good (or even really an option at all) for most of the country. We don't have San Francicso's money here, and even spending at the levels that San Francicso does wouldn't result in a transit system as good as San Francisco's. It's too spread out here.

A typical post-war suburb just isn't going to get the same results per dollar in transit investment as San Francisco can, and none of them really have the money San Francisco has to throw around either. Not even San Jose has even remotely close to as much public sector spending as San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 03:45 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,220,191 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post

San Francisco spends a good chunk of its massive budget (more than 10%) on transportation, the vast majority of which comes from sources other than fees. San Jose spends far less to provide far less tranportation. San Francisco level transportation takes a lot money. San Jose is one of the few places that could really afford San Francisco levels of spending on transit if it chose to. The other 99% of the country, however, it's pretty absurd. Spending $1,000 per capita to operate transit here is nuts. You wouldn't even buy that good a system even with that level of investment because we're more spread out than San Francisco is.
San Jose (or rather Santa Clara County) did spend on a rather expensive looking light rail system:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=san+j...,97.44,,0,-3.6

Which might be ok if its ridership wasn't so low.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,170 posts, read 29,814,382 times
Reputation: 26692
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
San Jose (or rather Santa Clara County) did spend on a rather expensive looking light rail system:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=san+j...,97.44,,0,-3.6

Which might be ok if its ridership wasn't so low.
I remember when it opened! It didn't even go to downtown at the beginning. We had a field trip to ride light rail. I have taken it a few times, but it isn't super convenient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2014, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,108 posts, read 16,182,555 times
Reputation: 12736
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
San Jose (or rather Santa Clara County) did spend on a rather expensive looking light rail system:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=san+j...,97.44,,0,-3.6

Which might be ok if its ridership wasn't so low.
Yup, it was one of the stupidest transit projects ever, which says a lot considering how stupid transit projects in general are. Still, it usually takes a decade (if not more) for a transit project to begin to actually make any sense. Most of the country has a lot more dollars for transit projects than it does projects that actually have current demand. It's usually big cities with already strong transit systems where that isn't the case. There's already demand there, and they spend so much money operating the transit there's not much left for capital improvements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top