Boston vs. San Francisco
By adamg - 9/5/11 - 11:09 am
Fresh off a trip to the West Coast, Marjorie Arons-Barron compares the two cities, concludes:
A generation or two ago, San Francisco had a distinct magic, which could make a Bostonian envious of its cosmopolitanism and self-conscious about our parochialism. I don’t feel that way any more.
Comments
hmm
Not sure about a decade ago, but when I went last Sept it felt like a tourist trap city. It is possible I didn't go to the right areas, but we also tried to stay away from the touristy locations, but it still felt that way.
MBTA
Thank you, blog person.
Customer Service and cleanliness may be better
... But in terms of coverage of the city, the MBTA has MUNI/BART crushed, which makes it more useful overall. There are very few major destinations in the urban core around Boston that aren't accessible directly without using a bus. In SF, the Marina, Richmond, Pacific Heights, etc. are all bus only. Many other neighborhoods have only the equivalent of green line surface access.
Bus, so what?
The hills in San Francisco make it very difficult to construct traditional subways. Riding through the Twin Peaks tunnel, you can go nearly 10 minutes without encountering a station, since it is so deep under the surface. Notice how BART skirts the hilly areas. Most of the streetcar lines were instead converted into trackless trolleys, which still run extensively throughout the city, and are nearly as good (if not better in some ways, such as tractive effort).
So I don't really blame them for choosing to run service like that, though it is true that some areas are poorly served. One thing it does show is that street-running light-rail vehicles are perfectly fine, and their street-running network is so extensive it would probably cause MBTA management heads to explode. Not to mention rear boarding and POP which makes it much quicker to get moving.
In Boston there are plenty of areas which can only be accessed by bus. Most of Somerville, Charlestown, Dorchester, and Southie are left out of the rail rapid transit system.
Bus-A-Phobic
Yeah but out there people aren't afraid to take a bus, its just a way of life for them. But here, people are 'bus-a-phobic', and many folks here will down right refuse to take a bus here, but yet will walk 25 minutes to a train station (???). Its just a mentality change that needs to be done here.
One of the main reason why people there are more apt to ride a bus (outside of the fact that many chunks of SF are not served by a LRVs) is because they've had the NextBus system since 1999 and it has basically replaced paper schedules (NextBus also originated there). (NextBus = Real Time Tracking)
The T, themselves say ridership on buses is up due to the NextBus System because once you know how long you are going to wait, its more attractive to ride (much like the trains here.. at least you'll know on the Red Line you'll wait a maximum of 15 minutes for a train)
Also keep in mind the Tunnel Portions of MUNI (with the exception of the Twin Peaks Tunnel which was built in the 1920s) was because of BART being built in the 1970s. BART was suppose to be a two tunnel system. One Express, and one 'local' train. When BART had to curb expenses, the Gov't decided to just give one set of tunnels to MUNI to get rid of the horrendous light rail traffic on Market Street. Prior to this almost all (except the Twin Peaks Tunnel) MUNI traffic was above ground and 'at grade'.
Currently MUNI is embarking on building a new tunnel under the financial district.. its called the "Third Street Tunnel". And IMHO one of the biggest wastes of money out there (as it really is just going to serve tourists when it extends all the way to Fisherman's Wharf in a decade or two). They should really think about rebuilding the LRV tracks to on Geary in the Richmond District (one of the few remaining areas that isnt directly served by a LRV line)
PS - Most of the bus routes today on the T WERE trolley routes in the beginning, then they became trackless trolleys, then diesel buses in the 1960s (due to YIMBY/NIMBY effects of the over hanging wires).
I'm "Bus-a--Phobic." As a
I'm "Bus-a--Phobic."
As a daily T commuter I will not live on a bus line. I live within walking distance of a T station.
Busses are way too unreliable.
When I lived on a bus line I had to factor in 45-60 mins just to get to the station, which was a 15-30 min walk.
Fuck the Bus.
Almost every time I take the
Almost every time I take the bus here, it's late. About one of every few times, the bus has made me AN HOUR later than the schedule said I should've been. This had included popular routes ridden by working professionals, like the #1.
Unless you have a bus route that you know to be relatively reliable, you should know that the buses seem to be treated by MBTA management like the riders don't have to be anywhere and that the riders' time has little value.
I think that's how most Boston drivers see the bus: as charity for the unemployed poor.
Real Time Apps
Real Time Apps
First off, stop relying on the printed schedule. And start relying on NextBus or "Real Time Apps". And I'll be honest, most of the apps blow. I really only recommend ONE.. the NextBus.com website itself. NextBus provides the hardware and software to the T for the real time tracking stuff it does, so it is the most accurate. I've used a few apps, and find them to be wrong, this is because the T only FEEDS them schedule times and actual GPS locations, and NOT "predictions". Its up to the app creator to do the mathematics involved for the predictions. Some are more reliable than others, its all app dependent. I just choose to stick with Nextbus.com rather than rely on an App.
Once you start using NextBus.com, you'll soon realize the schedule is only good for one thing... When a bus leaves its starting point. Anything outside of that, like denoted stops on the schedule is an estimate.
Most drivers are under a watch. They *have* to complete a route in a scheduled amount of time. This means if the driver loses time somewhere, they are going to make up time elsewhere. So if a schedule says they are suppose to arrive at certain midway point at a certain time early, do you think the driver is going to sit there at that stop until the time passes until the schedule says they are suppose to get there? No way! they are going to keep going because they know they are going to lose time elsewhere due to traffic or a wheelchair load or something.
This is why the real time stuff was the best thing to happen to the T's bus service. If NextBus says its going to arrive in 5 minutes, its going to arrive in 5 minutes, regardless of what the schedule says. For example, I know in my area, the schedule always says one time but I can almost guarantee that its 4 minutes late every time. Why? because it has to sit at a intersection near my house to make a left turn (and if the light inst green as approaches it, its going to sit there for 5 minutes waiting to make that turn).
Is this the T's fault? not really. This is why they TELL you (or did before Real Time tracking) to be at the bus stop 5-10 minutes BEFORE the noted time. Even though it may not seem like it, but the T is constantly adjusting bus schedules to account for more riders, new traffic patterns, etc. on bus lines. They do it 4 times a year. But most people rely on some 6 year old schedule they were able to get their hands on and then wonder why they miss the bus. (and they do MAJOR route changes every OTHER year, such as adding/reducing routes or changing locations)
And its those folks that have one or two bad experiences riding the bus that give up on it. Unfortunately its these attitudes that prevent many people from trying it again. People get all pissy if a bus isn't right there then at the moment they want. And I am sorry, rail lines are not much better than buses, and sometimes I found a BUS to be more reliable in getting around than some rail lines.
I have not owned a car in 12 years. And for the vast majority of the time I have not lived near a rail line and had to take the bus. Trust me folks, as a daily bus rider, its not bad once you use the tools available, and have some COMMON SENSE. But most are too much of primadonna's to give a crap. THIS is one of the major differences between Boston and San Francisco. SF they don't get all hell bent outta shape, here they get all hell bent out shape.
But then again I'm a rail fan of sorts, so this interests me. Sometimes I wish I could teach people how to ride the T properly and use the tools they give you. One of these days I am going to write a blog on how to ride the T with tips and tricks.... One of these days, Alice.. one of these days..
PS - the #1 is a sh*tshow. It has nothing to do with the schedule or the drivers or the T at all. It has to do with it being a VERY popular bus route, with far too many riders than it can handle, add some dumb college kids who don't move into the bus, plus some strollers blocking the exits. The T can only dedicate oh so much resources to a bus line before its not cost effective anymore. But better service to the #1 is coming. Trust me. I follow this sort of stuff.
I use the trip planner on mbta.com right before my trip
They should just tell you to allow an extra hour to be late for that one too.
Hills
The hills certainly make subway construction more difficult, but there are a few examples where this is done in the city (tunneling under Twin Peaks, Buena Vista Park), which leads me to believe it's more of a budget/priority issue than an impossible technical challenge. The Bay Area seems to have invested a lot more into expanding BART to far flung low density suburbs than improving transit in the urban core.
Isn't most of Charlestown within a 10 minute walk from an orange line stop? At least Somerville's situation will change if that green line expansion project ever happens.
From what I gather of local
From what I gather of local politics, BART extensions make piles of cash for construction and consulting firms and therefore get greased through.
I wasn't saying building stations deep underground is impossible, but engineering is also about practicality and cost.
As for Charlestown, you have to enter that no-man's land between Somerville and Charlestown and cross a highway to get to the Orange Line. Not exactly accessible, but technically, yes.
Elitist rubbish
What an elitist, liberal snob. San Francisco has "fewer fat people." Hold on while I pack the moving truck and head right out there. I've been trying to escape the Boston fatties for years. And liberals are viewed as tolerant? Sheesh.
"And despite winning the World Series last year, Giants management still feels the need to stage half-inning hokey “amusements” which makes the fan experience more like that at a minor league game."
--
What, like a game long sign-making contest sponsored by W.B. Mason or playing a corny Neil Diamond song from four decades ago in the eighth inning of every game? Spare me.
Fatties do spoil the view,
Fatties do spoil the view, don't you know. How can one live when one is surrounded by the common people?
i missed the part of the blog
i missed the part of the blog post where she said she was a liberal--
nothing screams liberal
like a hyphenated last name...
Uhhhh...
Liberals! There are whole countries of 'em in Latin America! Just look at their last names!
OMG!
It's a double liberal! Kill him, boys!
a couple of things
First off, yeah when you go to a destination several times on a trip, it loses its 'flair' and 'appeal'. Its not going to be the same. But to someone who has never been or has been a handful of times, its going to be a exciting place. (I feel the same way about some vacation destinations I've been to far too many times)
Secondly, I agree MUNI/BART is run better. But it is a far younger system than the MBTA. Yeah MUNI has had street cars as long as the T, but the main stations and what not were all built in the 1970s. MUNI also doesnt have as powerful Union has the T does, so it isn't carrying a ton of debt by retirees. On Muni you can be fired just as easily as you can at KMart, on the T. Not so much.
But to the T's credit, she also quoted a time during a Red Sox game, which is the WORST time to rate the T. Even *I* would be annoyed at riders if I worked for the T during a Red Sox game. The riders who go to games, NEVER ride the T any other time, and are usually rude and obnoxious themselves.
And third, Boston was just rated by Men's Health Magazine has the fittest place in the US. Beating San Francisco. Take that to McDonalds and eat it! I invite anyone to hit a southern city (i.e. Atlanta, New Orleans, Birmingham) and see what a 'fat city' really is like.
Because Google is just too hard
A quick trip to google yields a Wikipedia entry that references actual government data on obesity rates:
San Francisco has an obesity rate around 17%
Massachusetts, as an entire state, comes in at 20%
California clocks in, as an entire state, at 23%
The differences in the obesity rates are, well, slim.
As for Men's Health "fittest" category, I'm not sure how they calculated that. Boston is certainly one of the better cities, but so is San Francisco. Again, they aren't terribly statistically distinguishable anyway - certainly not at the street level.
The Sociologic Images blog charted city obesity rates against income levels, and found a pretty strong correlation with higher activity/lower obesity and increasing income. Notable exceptions were Salt Lake City, Portland, OR, and Minneapolis. Those three went off the line, as their low obesity rates and high physical activity levels came in at relatively middling income levels.
Eh
Are those stats the number of people whose BMI puts them at obese, or only people with high BMIs along with at least two of diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, joint issues, COPD etc.?
I'm sure you know this, but for the other people who are commenting on such things, just looking at body size doesn't tell you much about people's health or lifestyle.
Just from observation and purely anecdotal, I noticed when I was spending a lot of time in Iowa that the population overall didn't seem fatter, but that I was seeing a whole lot of people who were out of breath at the smallest tasks, drove everywhere, didn't exercise whatsoever, didn't eat much that was still recognizable as a plant. There were a TON of large, doughy-looking people using mobility scooters to do their errands and things, statistically way more than could possibly all be the result of decreased stamina that occurred from accidents or genetics or random events. Here, there are people of all sizes, but most of the people I see of all sizes can walk and run with no difficulty and seem to eat balanced diets.
Again, anecdotal, but this was something I was noticing in a place where there's way less variety and way higher prices on fresh food (in the farm part of the country -- odd) and where communities are not designed for walking. Between SF and Boston, I've experienced both as being similarly active and health-conscious.
Visual Perception
This wasn't a conversation about BMI as a predictor of health risks, Eeka. The blogger was speculating that she saw fewer fat people in SFO. That would be unlikely, as the BMI distributions in each population are extremely similar. Even if BMI is a cheap and useless predictor of individual health, the similar numbers would indicate that there is no real difference in "number of visibly fat people" in the population.
I agree that the health issues are far more complicated and that predicting risk in an individual using BMI is utter garbage given that most doctors can check blood pressure and lipid levels and blood sugar, and body composition varies so extremely between individuals anyway.
Different Viewing Points = Different Views
If you're standing on top of a hill in either city, you're more likely to see thinner people. Multitudes of fat people aren't likely to be climbing the hill. If they did, they'd soon be thinner people. Likewise, if you're in a fast-food joint, fatter people will likely be seen.
Anecdotal evidence, without some explanation of where and how obtained, is fairly useless, no? She (the blogger) was just making an observation, and said as much. No biggie.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Boston and SF
I'm in SF right now so I can say a few things.
If you spend your time around AT&T Park and the Embarcadero then yes, you will feel as if it is a tourist city. Those are the boring areas.
San Francisco never had a "Big Dig" because they were much wiser and simply removed the Embarcadero freeway when it collapsed, instead of trying to replace it with a ridiculous tunnel. The Embarcadero and Ferry Terminal area is to them what our Greenway is to us.
and diverted ALL the traffic
and diverted ALL the traffic from the Embarcadero Freeway onto Van Ness :) (the new designation of US 101) How wise is that? Van Ness is nothing bit a freeway with lights now, as there's so much traffic on it.
The big dig was necessary as it *IS* the north south connector between the north side of the side to the South Side.
What's North of San Francisco? The Bay and Marin County. How much development is in Marin County? Not much. Now compare Marin County to the North Shore of Massachusetts? See what I mean, it was necessary. Unfortunately forcing tons of traffic onto the greenway just wasn't possible, and forcing the traffic onto 128 wasn't possible too. The traffic has to go somewhere....
I'm no big dig fan, but it was a necessary evil.
Compare with Europe
Can you think of a single European city that has a highway running through its core? I can't. Boston, with its density and non-grid layout probably more closely resembles European cities than almost anywhere else in the US. Sure, people over here are more attached to their cars than Europeans, but is there another reason this was necessary while every European city seems to get by without tunnelling through their cities? One possible reason I can think of is that few European cities were built directly on the coast, so a full loop highway is possible. Wouldn't this money have been better spent on improving transit so that trips between shores may not be as necessary?
Europe is not the US
Europe is not the United States. Please stop comparing Europe to the United States. Its like trying to compare an Apple to an Orange.
In Europe, people BEG for trains and public transit to come to their communities.
In the United States, people PREVENT public transit from coming to their communities. (just ask Cobb County, GA and how that's working out for them now)
In Europe, owning a car is a luxury and costs a ton of money. (in upkeep, costs, and gas)
In the United States a car is almost a necessity (outside of major cities with decent transit)
In Europe, transit is built with little opposition from car companies since most countries do not have cars built within its country boundary. (Coupled with my first point)
In the United States, it is a known fact that car companies (General Motors) KILLED the American Street Car in the 1940s, which is why very few of them are left. Then lobbied congress to build highways for these cars to be built on, instead of investing in rail lines like Europe.
Please stop trying to compare European Cities to US ones. There are many more reasons why you can't compare the two. Mostly it has to do with politics, our government, and people itself. You just can't compare.
They're quite different, no doubt there
But they also seem to be way ahead of us when it comes to transportation planning at least, and striving to emulate successful examples doesn't seem like a crazy idea to me. This was an opportunity to reverse the historical shunning of public transit, but instead, the crippling debts from the big dig have severely limited future transit projects and maintenance for the state.
correct
I'm a rail fan. So I'm all for public transit. I'd love to see trains from Concord NH to Boston that run every 20 minutes to reduce road traffic.
But Americans love their cars. It'll never happen.
It'll be a cold day in hell when most Americans dump their cars for public transit. Not when every other commercial on TV is a car commercial, or gas remains under 4/gal. Own a car is a very American thing, and it has been ingrained into our society as "the thing to do and own" for decades. Until this mentality changes, public transit will only be seen as "for the poor" or a "public service" and not a necessity.
And you are correct, the MBTA should have NEVER been forced to take on some big dig debt, it will be the demise of the agency (or cripple it for decades to come). But is that really the big dig's fault. Not really, its Politicians fault for just passing the buck onto an agency that couldn't afford it in the first place, rather than controlling cost over runs and turning a blind eye to them.
Could have the money been better spent on Public Transit. Possibly. Would it have solved Boston's traffic problems. Probably not. See my comment above for the answer (Re: changing mentality) People wanted a highway for their cars, and they got one. From what I've read about the Big Dig, very few alternatives were given that did not involve building a new highway. (yes there were several that HAD a highway and a Public Transit Component, but few were public transit only)
True
You're certainly right about American perceptions of cars vs public transit. As you said, chances are the trend will not change until gas prices reach a point at which the costs of driving become prohibitive. Another unfortunate challenge, in addition to people's love of cars, is that nearly all development since the 50s has been of the car dependent type. Sprawling office parks, malls, and housing. This is less of an issue in Massachusetts where we still have a lot of traditional downtowns and older neighborhoods, but it would still make a transportation switch a substantial challenge.
None of this implies the
None of this implies the necessity of building highways through cities. That practice was largely ended due to American communities organizing and protesting against "redevelopment" and "slum-clearing". Nothing to do with Europeans in that case.
Van Ness is fine
I've walked up and down it. It's too wide is the problem. But that goes for many of the roads in SF. Now, as for the Big Dig, I would say that SF needs it more than Boston if all you care about is auto traffic. Geographically, SF sits in a constrained space: if you want to go from San Mateo to Marin, you must go via SF. Whereas, Boston has much more room to skirt. You can go from the South Shore to the North Shore via 128. The presence of the I-93 tunnel is just a convenience which came at great expense to the city.
And, I hope you don't feel too bad about this, but frankly the North Shore of Massachusetts is not all that special. Marin is pretty well developed and traffic on the bridge is quite heavy. People heading to Sausalito, Tiburon, Mill Valley, Stinson Beach or other points north. I don't feel that there is anything in particular about the North Shore that justifies the Big Dig. It's largely suburbia and some tourist trap places. Just like Marin.
points north
I don't know enough of the San Fancisco area to gripe too much here (Point Reyes is beautiful area for birding...that's about the extent of it for me), but I think something seems a bit out of whack here. If we're talking the North Shore, like from Lynn northeast to Cape Ann, I guess one can have their opinion over what's better, north of San Francisco or the North Shore, but the point is the Big Dig did not do a whole lot for folks on the North Shore. If anything the traffic shoots through downtown quicker and the jams are now worse on Route 1, 107 and 1A. Going up 93 from Somerville to the 128/93 junction can be like pissing glass shards in the afternoon.
But in the end the highway transportation needs of the North Shore were not really being addressed by the Big Dig except maybe tangentially. Ever since the original path of 95 through Rumney Marsh and across Lynn was bagged, the North Shore has simply sat around waiting for at least the Blue extension to Lynn. A Route 1 which has essentially remained unchanged since the 30s and 107 & 1A staggering through Lynn just doesn't cut it for vehicles and so you're left with Commuter Rail or busing it over to Wonderland. The Big Dig is answering the needs of folks trying to get up 95, where they might hop off to the North Shore or continue north to NH and Maine, which I would argue are just as nice as the points north of San Francisco (maybe fatter though).
What our Greenway is to us? A
What our Greenway is to us? A laughingstock?
Not to me . . .
. . . Every day without rain the Greenway has been packed this summer. Walking around this weekend- I'd say the Greenway easily beat out the Common in numbers. Won't even mention the Com Ave parks leading up to the public gardens- nothing ever goes on there.
Greenway is great - I love it.
public gardens It's garden,
It's garden, not gardens.
Source: http://www.cityofboston.gov/parks/emerald/public_garden.asp
And it's the Commonwealth
And it's the Commonwealth Avenue Mall, not Com ave parks.
Or, At Least, Comm Ave
With the two Ms. That has been the more-accepted reduction for as long as I can recall.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
MBTA VS BART
BART shuts down because protesters block stations trying to abolish the BART police because of recent shootings.The T doesn't shut down when suburban punks overrun the system. They call the WINCHESTER police instead.