I wrote about this topic a couple days ago but today the NY Times has published an opinion piece by Farhad Manjoo which is basically special pleading to preserve San Francisco’s expensive, oversized mass transit system at the expense of state taxpayers who don’t live there. Even many of his readers aren’t buying it but we’ll get to that in a moment.

The starting point here is that California is facing a $32 billion budget deficit which means it’s time to cut spending. But, oh no! How can we cut spending on transportation by $2 billion when San Francisco needs that money to keep its largely empty trains and buses running? Manjoo tries to present this as if it’s a statewide problem requiring a statewide solution but it quickly becomes clear that he’s largely talking about San Francisco.

“It’s just a totally self-inflicted wound that California needs to avoid,” State Senator Scott Wiener, a Democrat from the San Francisco Bay Area, told me.

Wiener and some of his Senate colleagues have outlined a sensible plan to fund California’s transit systems. They’re calling for upward of $5 billion to be taken, over five years, from various piles of money in the budget — among them, unallocated funds from the state’s carbon cap-and-trade program and revenue from the tax on diesel fuel. In a $306 billion annual budget, their request would be a blip.

What Manjoo doesn’t mention is that even if Sen. Wiener gets his $5 billion it won’t be enough. His plan suggests we may need new taxes on cars and to tap federal funds for highways, redirecting that money to prop up trans and buses in the cities.

Because the above request would not fully meet the statewide need for the transit agencies, in addition to the California Transit Association’s request, I also believe the state should explore additional opportunities for flexible state and federal sources to address capital and operations expenses. Specifically, the state could explore an increase to the Transportation Improvement Fee for higher-valued vehicles. Also, to better align statewide transportation spending with our climate goals, I support a limited term redirection of a portion of California’s increase in federal highway funding to mitigate serious potential cuts for transit agencies. Because California is receiving over $1 billion annually more than anticipated in federal highway funds, there’s plenty of highway funding to support this flexibility.

Getting back to Manjoo and San Francisco.

Without additional funds, transit systems will be forced to scale back service: BART, the Bay Area’s commuter train service, has warned it would need to reduce the frequency of trains to once per hour, cut service on nights and weekends, close stations and shut down some routes entirely.

Jeffrey Tumlin, the director of transportation of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which oversees Muni, the city’s bus and light rail system, told me that he would need to cut about one line per month. Those cuts could start as soon as this summer…

Cutting service will endanger that recovery and could also trigger transit agencies’ worst nightmare — the transit “death spiral.”

This is where it starts to get really pathetic. You see, fellow Californians, San Francisco built this city on rock and roll. No wait, that’s wrong. They built this city on public transportation and if that fails the city is screwed. Did I mention this was all about San Francisco?

In San Francisco, buses and trains are also integral to civic life. “It’s critical,” Larry Baer, the chief executive of the San Francisco Giants, told me. Oracle Park, the Giants’ stadium, was built in the 1990s to take advantage of transit — its plans call for half of attendees coming in via methods other than driving. “It’s just foundational — we’ve got to have public transportation operating at high efficiency, high reliability, and also safe and clean,” Baer said.

So listen up residents in Orange County and Riverside. We really need you to pony up a bit more and let us take some these federal highway funds meant for the state because otherwise people won’t be able to get to Giants games. We just need that money more than you do. Otherwise San Francisco won’t be the shining example of glorious urban life that we all know today.

Oops, sorry, that’s the wrong image. I meant this one.

A homeless female in San Francisco doesn’t realize she has a syringe in the back of her neck. Yes, she’s alive 💉 pic.twitter.com/lZvh0QzTzT

— Ron Dehlin (@RonDehlin) June 3, 2023

Nope, wrong one again.

😰
💔 in Hayes Valley pic.twitter.com/mAVh5g3fgz

— Hayes Valley Safe (@hayesvalleysafe) June 8, 2023

I’m sure it’s here somewhere.

So many bodies everywhere in #SanFrancisco, people don’t even slow down to check them anymore. Average 2-4 per Soma block, sometimes higher.

This is not homelessness, this is drugs. SFgov is failing this city! Lock up the drug dealers! pic.twitter.com/tagKNHLsoI

— CleanUpSOMAWest (@CleanUpWestSoma) May 30, 2023

The point is, everything will be fine if we just get that extra train money. We just need to stabilize ridership which will definitely happen in another few years. That’s the argument being made. But as I said above, not even NY Times‘ readers are buying this line of bull. Here’s the top comment.

How about using this crisis as an opportunity? The Bay Area has 27 different transit agencies. Each operates as its own fiefdom/kingdom despite overlapping geographies. One (BART) even has its own police force and operates its trains on a wider gauge of rail than standard gauge, further limiting integration. And they each have their own administrations which have been jealously guarded…and in my opinion tolerated way too long. We’re way past time where this organizational relic of the 1930s-1950s serves a major metropolitan area that aspires to a place on the world stage.

Another one:

You don’t need more money to increase ridership – people aren’t skipping the train because it lacks fancy amenities. They’re skipping the train because it’s full of homeless, violent, drugged-up lunatics. All you need to do to increase ridership is to enforce the laws and keep the trains clean, and voila, the riders will come back.

One more:

If you want to revive public transportation in the Bay Area, there is only one thing you need to do. Clean it up. Get rid of drugs, homeless, and mentally ill in stations and on trains. I took public transportation my entire life when I lived in cities abroad. Taking BART once was enough. Why should I use the service where some psychotic traverses the train raving and ranting; where stations are basically drug markets; and where I have to step over needles and feces on my way out? Unless BART is safe for ordinary people, it won’t survive. BART actually did a study which showed that safety was the main concern of its riders. The study was shelved, and the agency embarked on “equitable” enforcement of fines for fare-dodging or some such nonsense. Public transportation is a great idea and necessary for a city to prosper. But it has to serve the public, not homeless and drug addicts.

The money isn’t going to fix the real problems that are driving stores out of downtown and turning streets and BART stations into an open-air drug market for fentanyl addicts. So long as people like Sen. Scott Wiener are calling the shots, this won’t get better.

Giving San Francisco state money is like handing a fentanyl addict a $20 bill. You may feel like you helped but it’s just as likely the addict is going to buy drugs and wind up dead. Just like the addict, San Francisco’s problems can’t be solved with more money. Maybe when the city really hits rock bottom it will find the will to get clean.