- Greater local control over government decision making. This cuts both ways, but there are a couple specific ways it makes transit projects hard to push through. First, it inserts lots of veto points into the process, which a determined minority can use to block the project. If the benefits are diffuse (a more transit accessible city), but the perceived costs are concentrated (they would tear up the street in front of my house, etc.), then it's hard to get the necessary political support to overcome all the vetoes. Second, the politicians making the decisions are accountable to the residents of that area, who aren't always the intended beneficiaries of the project. For example, a rail link that brings commuters to an area might be a huge benefit to the commuteers, but a net negative to the residents.
- Infrastructure decisions are path-dependent. It's hard, both technically and politically, to introduce transit to a community that hasn't been previously dependent on it. Neighborhoods built with cars in mind might not have enough density to support great service, and built-up, expensive neighborhoods (where the jobs are) are often prohibitively expensive to build in. Politically, it's tricky because neighborhoods and regions are going to be mostly full of people for whom the existing infrastructure is already good enough - they wouldn't be there otherwise. New projects are more likely to benefit new people - people who relocate because the new service opens up lifestyle/commuting possibilities that weren't possible before.
- High construction costs. There's ongoing debate about why this is (I won't get into it), but US cities generally have higher construction costs than other developed countries, even for similar projects. 2011 post with some concrete data: https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
So... too much veto power and too much corruption (construction lobbying) leading to enormously inflated prices?
This is only a little over twice the SF figure, for an order of magnitude better result.
You can also compare it to Tokyo. 5-10x cheaper to build their metro lines while their GDP per capita is only 37% less than the US.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durchmesserlinie_Altstetten–Zü...
[2] http://www.sbb.ch/content/dam/sbb/de/pdf/sbb-konzern/ueber-d...
And (please don't take this the wrong way) a lot of places outside the US have been easier to build in because, over the past century, those places had to be completely rebuilt anyway following the massive devastation of two world wars. The US escaped that devastation on its own soil, but is paying an ironic price in that now it's difficult or even impossible to retrofit more modern infrastructure into our cities, because we still have all the old infrastructure that never got destroyed.
There are many processes in place to disapprove of something, but none to approve to counteract them.
So, in total, I don't really get how it could get any worse for large public projects. And yet Switzerland in general and Zurich in particular is opening up new tunnels, streetcar lines, local train lines, viaducts, you name it, every other year or so. Zurich's public transit network in particular is crazy dense. When I first saw SF main station I thought I must have gotten off by accident in some local backwater, that's how disparate the situation is. Honestly, my 10'000 people hometown's train station probably almost sees about as much foot traffic as SF main station. And that's not even talking about Japan, which is another level of crazy.
Anyways, it still remains a mystery to me.
The Alpine tunnels and motorways are a part of this, as they ensure that Switzerland will remain an attractive option for cross-EU freight (instead of going around) but so are more local initiatives that improve conditions in the cities and cantons.
EDIT: In many ways, the same applies to Japan. Meanwhile SF feels no such pressure. Plenty of people (and companies) are all-too willing to move there regardless. If/when at some point SF experiences a decline, these skipped investments will begin to be sorely missed.
The thing is though, the US was by far the best nation at this just 50 years ago. The interstate system, the moon landing, Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, MIT... the US is still basically running on top of these efforts from back then. Was it just Reaganism that destroyed it, with later democratic presidents asleep at the wheel? (e.g. Bill Clinton pushed through and signed the money-for-work social program, destroying the old safety net)
This is basically every USA public project, and it forms a vicious circle. Because some highway was built some time with an inadequately-compacted roadbed, highway inspectors have to sign off on the compaction of every quarter-mile of roadbed. Because highway inspectors can never be fired, they all eventually succumb to the "inspect from the pickup truck" method. Because inspectors are nominally responsible for quality control, no road builder can ever be held accountable for inadequately compacted roadbed.
The result is that vehicles with inadequate dampening often leave the road surface entirely at e.g. each end of every interstate bridge.
The thing is though, the US was by far the best nation at this just 50 years ago. The interstate system, the moon landing, Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, MIT... the US is still basically running on top of these efforts from back then.
These projects were completed by the Greatest generation, managed without pity by the Lost generation. When we again have generations so well prepared by their formative experiences to work as they did, perhaps we'll have more successful giant centralizing projects like that. If world wars are the price of such abilities, one might rather we did without.
Right, now you're getting it. What we desperately need is some socialists.
1) Most people's savings are in housing. I do not know if this is the case in Switzerland, but in Anglo countries, the majority of most people's money lies in housing. So right there is an enormous incentive to not increase the supply of housing. This is also heavily influenced by the fact that American schools are funded by local property taxes, so not only does the value of your home determine your savings, but also the quality of your child's education. I think this is the fundamental issue, but not the only one.
2) Strong property rights, etc. covered above. It seems like you have this in Switzerland
3) Now, historical reasons. In the 1950s - 70s there was major development of American "inner cities", which mostly consisted of destroying minority neighborhoods and replacing them with freeways. This was a legacy of the fact that at the time the only urban planners where all transportation engineers, and viscous racism. This is important as it led to minority groups deciding that most "development plans" are actually plans to evict them (historically, not that far off). That things were handled so badly led to the first anti-development movement [1]. See the Fillmore District for such an example, although they didn't build a highway through it. See also [2].
4) The next thing to think about is prop 13. Prop 13 basically limited the amount that property taxes on residential areas to roughly 1~2% no matter what. This also brings up an important distinction between Switzerland and California: to my understanding you have citizen initiatives, but they are consulted on and shaped by the legislator. California's are... not. They are often poorly designed. This had many knock on effects, the most important of which for our story is that now cities have little incentive to build more residential housing, since corporate property tax rates are not so capped.
5) In the '60s and '70s, as alluded the anti-growth movement began. This movement reacted to justifiable worries about the destruction of communities, environmental, and historical damage by demanding little growth.
6) Both the anti-growth movement and Prop 13. came about in the '70s, when rent control was also passed in SF. Rent Control means that there is little incentive to invest in an already owned property, and it means that if a new building is built, it likely won't be affordable for low income people who are on rent control.
7) Racism. This is touchy, but in the 1950s and 1960s, many many white Americans left the cities to live in new suburbs, so called "White Flight", with government loan help which blacks could not receive. This was coupled with laws passed against obvious housing discrimination (such as so called "compacts" which made it illegal to sell to non-whites), so moving to a suburb with high housing prices meant that mostly poorer blacks could not buy houses there. It's difficult to say how much this plays out today, but it had a really strong founder effect in most outlying communities, leading to a culture opposed to mass transit ("it'll bring those people here") and multi-person housing ("I love my community of single family homes. It's not my problem if people can't afford housing here. We're full").
So basically everyone is opposed to more building. Minorities are convinced that more building will price them out (true) and that development is likely biased against them, preservation activists don't want new things built, suburban communities don't want to become any denser, municipalities prefer business over homes for tax reasons, and everyone who owns land has no desire to build more.
[1] http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Freeway_Revolt [2] http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Redevelopment_A-1_and...
This causes long term property owners to pay very minimal property tax bills compared to recent owners and create effective property tax rates of %0.2 or less. Prop 13 also incentives owners to never sell, which causes supply problems and increases the price even more.
There are many US states that have property tax rates lower than california, but do not have the "prop 13" problem. King county in seattle is one example.