It’s Time for Greater San Francisco

https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/09/07/its-time-for-greater-san-francisco/

by keiferski • 3 years ago

33 26 3 years 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

I'd love to hear peoples' thoughts who actually live or have lived in the Bay Area.

alephnerd• 3 years 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/

[1] https://www.valleylinkrail.com/

[2] https://www.caltrain.com/projects/electrification

heintje_ghulam3• 3 years 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• 3 years ago

I wonder if a "Greater San Jose" would be the more correct answer? Leave the city to its own devices.

syntheweave• 3 years 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.

JambalayaJim2• 3 years 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.

heintje_ghulam3• 3 years ago

Good point, thanks for the "reality check." :-)

I'm glad to hear the CA HSR is happening.

vlovich1233• 3 years 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• 3 years 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?

laurencerowe3• 3 years 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.

vlovich1233• 3 years 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• 3 years 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.

ejz2• 3 years 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.

a2xd942• 3 years 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.

ejz2• 3 years 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.

a2xd942• 3 years 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• 3 years ago

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

amadeuspagel• 3 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Francisco#%22Gr...

pipeline_peak• 3 years 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?

It’s Time for Greater San Francisco

Related Stories