[x0x0]

Well, many people are living in the housing that would have to be torn down, and replaced with non-rent controlled housing. They certainly oppose it. Others don't care to live across from heavy construction for a couple years, or see already heavily oversubscribed parking and public transport in their neighborhoods get significantly worse. Try getting a seat on bart at 24th st for most of the day. Or sometimes even getting on the busses in upper haight during commute hours.

As for cars, well, the difference between nyc and sf is that in the former, you can live without a car, and in sf, it is very difficult to live an adult life without a car. To list off many examples re sf: there are huge holes in public transportation, both temporally, safety wise (particularly for a petite woman), and geographically; there is not the same delivery culture for takeout, or laundry; grocery stores are far away from many places and don't deliver, though instacart helps some; there often aren't gyms or other services in reasonable (10 min) walking distance for large chunks of the city. We lived car-free in nyc and needed at least one car in sf. And once you have that car, and commit to the $600-$800/mo it costs, then you want to use it. Part of the reason to put up with occasional public transport headaches in nyc is you're saving the cost of a car. My take on public transport in sf is it would be worth it if the idiots that run what is, after all, a very rich city got their act together and improved public transport first rather than attempting to push people to not use cars in the vain hope that eventually muni and bart may be improved.

ps -- muni is wildly expensive compared to any other competent city, plus very slow

ps2 -- I dare say that most people who will disagree with my contention about transport in sf either haven't lived here or are young, able bodied, live in one of the few neighborhoods that are well-served, don't have kids, and often eat out or at work

[ripley12]

"muni is wildly expensive compared to any other competent city"

This is just so not true. Transit is much more expensive in both Tokyo and London.

Agreed about SF transit being awful though.

[x0x0]

combining the end-user and city-paid prices, it is

see, eg http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/the-muni-death-spiral/C...

   • Your Muni is slow. With an average vehicle speed of 8.1 mph, it is far and 
   away the slowest major urban transit system in the nation. While some of 
   this can be blamed on San Francisco's congestion and density, there are 
   myriad methods of speeding up service other agencies have adopted that Muni 
   hasn't. This isn't just an inconvenience for Muni's declining ridership; 
   it's a major financial drain on a beleaguered system. Slow vehicle speeds 
   force Muni to spend more money to provide less service. Muni's lethargy is 
   literally costing it millions.
   
   • For these and other reasons, Muni spends more to operate its vehicles than 
   virtually any comparable transit agency. For every mile Muni runs a bus in 
   this city, it spends $19.21; comparable agencies nationwide pay between $10 
   and $13. For every mile Muni runs a light-rail vehicle, it throws down 
   $24.37; comparable rail services spend between $12 and $22.

[ripley12]

That is an interesting link, thanks. I do wish it was better about providing sources though.