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.
Building new schools, roads, and other infrastructure increases costs in the "exurbs" in ways that aren't experienced with "infill" development but you usually can't "infill" on the same or even a comparable scale either due to independent ownership of the underlying property. What are you going to "infill" with - a condo building on a few adjacent lots? A tower shopping mall in the middle of a residential subdivision?
But that isn't really true. Since 1950, Contra Costa couny has added around 750,000 people. Hypothetically say half of that growth was in San Francisco instead of Contra Costa county. Well, kids still need to go to school. To some extent the existing schools could absorb that population as San Francisco has less kids than it used to, but not to that extent. There's already turf wars in parks because there aren't enough facilities for the existing population. I've stayed with my aunt who lives in the Sunset and taken N-Judah downtown during commute hours. Forty minutes packed onto a train to go about five miles.
You're simply not going to add another 325,000 people to San Francisco with the current infrastructure and adding infrastructure in San Francisco is extremely expensive. It costs about 4x as much to do 1.7 miles of light rail in San Francisco as it does the 10-mile BART extension out in Contra Costa county. Federal government is paying most of the Central Subway cost though with the state picking up most of what the federal government isn't paying for, so the local component is similar which is the only reason the Central Subway is getting built. Without the federal and state subsidies covering almost 80% of the cost, it wouldn't be built at all.
But that isn't really true. Since 1950, Contra Costa couny has added around 750,000 people. Hypothetically say half of that growth was in San Francisco instead of Contra Costa county. Well, kids still need to go to school. To some extent the existing schools could absorb that population as San Francisco has less kids than it used to, but not to that extent.
They still need schools (and it's the personnel, not the buildings, that are the lion's share of the costs). They still need water, they still need transportation, they still need electricity, etc. And there are diseconomies of scale as well as economies of scale in infrastructure.
But that isn't really true. Since 1950, Contra Costa couny has added around 750,000 people. Hypothetically say half of that growth was in San Francisco instead of Contra Costa county. Well, kids still need to go to school. To some extent the existing schools could absorb that population as San Francisco has less kids than it used to, but not to that extent. There's already turf wars in parks because there aren't enough facilities for the existing population. I've stayed with my aunt who lives in the Sunset and taken N-Judah downtown during commute hours. Forty minutes packed onto a train to go about five miles.
You're simply not going to add another 325,000 people to San Francisco with the current infrastructure and adding infrastructure in San Francisco is extremely expensive. It costs about 4x as much to do 1.7 miles of light rail in San Francisco as it does the 10-mile BART extension out in Contra Costa county. Federal government is paying most of the Central Subway cost though with the state picking up most of what the federal government isn't paying for, so the local component is similar which is the only reason the Central Subway is getting built. Without the federal and state subsidies covering almost 80% of the cost, it wouldn't be built at all.
Not sure I understand your point. Sounds like you are basically saying San Francisco and Contra Costa county are deadbeats and the people there need the rest of the state and the nation to subsidize their lifestyle? How is this related to the point you commented on?
How many "developments" are created in San Francisco? For how many of them does the developer build schools and roads? Zero?
When I was referring to costs, I was referring to the cost to the developer - because that's all that matters to the developer.
They still need schools (and it's the personnel, not the buildings, that are the lion's share of the costs). They still need water, they still need transportation, they still need electricity, etc. And there are diseconomies of scale as well as economies of scale in infrastructure.
Usually property taxes are covering the ongoing costs.
California in particular is very fee heavy since there's no way that property taxes can ever recoup those costs. Eg, Pleasanton charges $9,700 park fee, $25,000 water connection fee, $16,000 sewer connection fee $4,700 for public facilities, $6,000 in traffic mitigation fees (local and Tri-Valley), $16.75/square foot school impact fee ($16,850 for a 2,500 square foot home), impervious surface fee $1/sq ft. There's also location specific fees. Downtown has a $18,000 per space in-lieu of parking fee. Ruby Hill would pay an additional $7,600 in traffic fees and $40,000 to $60,000 in Vineyard Avenue Corridor fees. Basically houses are more profitable than wine but people like vineyards so you're paying for land preservation. Then you've got your building permit (inc. electrical/plumbing/mechanical) fees based on the valuation, typically around $10,000 for a the typical around million dollar home.
Other areas instead use Mello-Roos and have less fees. Particularly in the South Bay, a lot of cities are also adopting BMR housing fees. Mountain View is $10/sq foot, San Jose just adopted a $17/sq foot fee for that.
California in particular is very fee heavy since there's no way that property taxes can ever recoup those costs. Eg, Pleasanton charges $9,700 park fee, $25,000 water connection fee, $16,000 sewer connection fee $4,700 for public facilities, $6,000 in traffic mitigation fees (local and Tri-Valley), $16.75/square foot school impact fee ($16,850 for a 2,500 square foot home), impervious surface fee $1/sq ft. There's also location specific fees. Downtown has a $18,000 per space in-lieu of parking fee. Ruby Hill would pay an additional $7,600 in traffic fees and $40,000 to $60,000 in Vineyard Avenue Corridor fees. Basically houses are more profitable than wine but people like vineyards so you're paying for land preservation. Then you've got your building permit (inc. electrical/plumbing/mechanical) fees based on the valuation, typically around $10,000 for a the typical around million dollar home.
Other areas instead use Mello-Roos and have less fees. Particularly in the South Bay, a lot of cities are also adopting BMR housing fees. Mountain View is $10/sq foot, San Jose just adopted a $17/sq foot fee for that.
I'm not even gonna argue anything, just gonna say that was really informative.
I'm not even gonna argue anything, just gonna say that was really informative.
I'd just point out that's why I'm so critical of the general line that sprawl costs so much. Yes, it does. My point is that the people paying for sprawl are the people that live in it. You don't just go out and plop a house down in Pleasanton and then all the people in other parts of already developed Alameda county or the state as a whole pay for the cost of building the larger infrastructure that supports it. Also regardless those costs are just going to some extent be incurred. San Francisco has a lot of impact fees as well because that's just reality. You can't add people without adding infrastructure. Maybe you can in the rust belt where the infrastructure was built to support a population that has now greatly declined, but not in the Bay Area.
Sometimes you do. Alameda county passed BB in 2014 which was a further 1/2 cent sales tax. The earmarking of $400 million for the Livermore BART extension was somewhat controversial there but largely it's paying for transit and street repair. The money is collected at the county level and then passed through to local governments. If you had a case where the money was just predominantly going out to build roads and freeway expansions in Dublin/Livermore, sure fair point. That isn't the case though. So yes, BB funding is what's paying for the bulk of the funding for 580 HOT lanes. That's just what they chose to spend the money on. The State isn't paying a dime on 580 HOT lanes, some of it is coming from the federal funding. It's not a huge amount and it also isn't like the federal government isn't funding urban infrastructure.
Oakland with ~1/4 of the population is getting ~1/3 of Measure BB moneys. That's largely because Oakland has the highest transit usage which is what most of BB is funding.
I'd just point out that's why I'm so critical of the general line that sprawl costs so much. Yes, it does. My point is that the people paying for sprawl are the people that live in it.
Putting aside Alameda County for a moment, if we look at states in the mid-west and south we see that the state and the federal government dump a lot of money in to road construction--expressways, new or widened freeways, new interchanges--that is largely most beneficial to outer-suburbanites and exurbanites. Go look at Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, etc. Hell, even in California, take a look at the three decades of work done to 101 in Santa Clara County to help get people out of south SJ, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Los Banos, etc., to their jobs.
Putting aside Alameda County for a moment, if we look at states in the mid-west and south we see that the state and the federal government dump a lot of money in to road construction--expressways, new or widened freeways, new interchanges--that is largely most beneficial to outer-suburbanites and exurbanites. Go look at Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, etc. Hell, even in California, take a look at the three decades of work done to 101 in Santa Clara County to help get people out of south SJ, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Los Banos, etc., to their jobs.
Most of the work was done in the Bayshore stretch.
Drop in the bucket anyway. VTA light rail cost more and achieved less. BART Phase I (Berreyessa) $2.3, $900 million in federal funding. Phase II $4.6 billion unfunded as of yet. I can't seem to find any specific information on 101 aside from a bit on the 85/101 interchange. Either way, far more has been spent on rail than on 101 in the past few decades. Not saying that's right or wrong, it just is. Also, San Jose benefits just as much from exurban bedrooms as the bedrooms do from it. There's no where for all the jobs San Jose is creating to sleep at night and that imbalance shows no sign of abating. Whether the bed is in Morgan Hill or San Jose doesn't much matter. Incidentally, more of the beds have been in San Jose anyway. Morgan Hill/Gilroy have grown a lot, sure, but that much. You're talking about 50,000 people between the two versus San Jose alone adding more than 200,000 since 1990. Not sure how much of that was annexation since San Jose annexes everything before it develops, but Santa Clara County has grown about 360,000 since 1990, so most of it hasn't been in Gilroy/Morgan Hill or that area. There's really nothing else south of San Jose. South San Jose was mostly developed in the '50s to '80s.
My point there wasn't to compare against LRT (I'm actually on the same page as you on your point on VTA's LRT), but to point out that even in the Bay Area we've (city, county, state, and feds) spent significant sums helping people commute out from the edges, across whole cities, to jobs. Remember, I also, before I got to 101, pointed out several other states which have spent tens and tens of billions (of county, state, and federal dollars), collectively, on freeway projects to move more people faster from the outer suburbs and exurbs to the CBD. The case here is that the following isn't true:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
My point is that the people paying for sprawl are the people that live in it.
That's your unsubstantiated claim. I can't really address it as I can't find any information on how much was spent on the South Valley Freeway (101 from South San Jose down through Gilroy). Most of it was spent on the Bayshore portion (San Jose to SF), which is hardly the edges. The total amount is dwarfed by the federal investment in rail several times over and only a small portion was spent 101 to the edges.
Again, you have to look at where the money is coming from. Money goes into a giant pool with the sales tax and then comes back out. People living in Dublin or Pleasanton are paying sales taxes into that pool, and money from that pool comes back out to Dublin and Pleasanton. Money coming from the MTC and being spent on expanding 580 is no indication on its own the people living in the exurbs are getting anything they didn't pay for off the backs of others. You have to look at the dollars. Is more being spent in Dublin than is being collected? Using population as proxy, that's not what is happening. Livermore and Dublin are not getting a disproportionate amount of the Measure B and Measure BB moneys than their population would suggest is warranted.
Again, I can't speak to South Valley freeway. I don't know how it was financed or how much has been spent. Feel free to substantiate your claims though.
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.
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.
