SF is so ossified that people don't even consider the possibility that infrastructure can be built...

Which itself is probably part of the problem.

So, rip up all the roads, start digging, and start upgrading?

So, who pays for that? All the taxpayers, or the builders, or the potential new tenants?

I'll tell you who won't pay for it: existing homeowners, because they rely on new buildings' property taxes for anything to work. And in SF, they rely on payroll taxes from high income earners.

And in SF, the "dig once" policy means that anytime something substantial is done, nearly everything is redone, which is why Van Ness has been under construction for sooooo long: utilities.

The property wealth in SF appreciates at absolutely massive rates, but they rely on poorer new entrants to fund everything. And that old property wealth is the same political power that stops the city from a accommodating new people, restricting entry to ever more wealthy new entrants.

This was the most cogent response.

Appreciated.

Here's the thing: maintenance of existing infrastructure that serves existing residents is almost entirely paid for by astronomical "impact fees" paid by new developments. In the East Bay, 85% of EBMUD's maintenance (not capital!) budget is funded from impact fees. These can be really high. Any new dwelling in the East Bay pays a minimum of $26000 for water capacity and a minimum of $4100 for wastewater capacity. It's a big pyramid scheme and the existing residents better get a clue and permit some new construction, or the public utility districts are going to have to change their strategy and get all that money from annual assessments on existing properties.

So, is the existing infrastructure well maintained in your opinion and adequate for existing use?

That the SFPUC's facilities are adequate to water their 2.7 million existing customers seems like a fact which proves itself.

As long as people are getting water, nothing is wrong?

The city is losing 7 million gallons per day in leaks (this also includes firefighting).

Are there alot of fires daily?

So it delivers 97% of the product to the user. Seems pretty good. What is your standard? According to the EPA the typical water system loses 16% to leaks, that means SFPUC is well above the typical system performance.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents...

Where are you getting 3% loss number from?

It seems to be over 10% is lost, based on the numbers in your prior comment.

As long as most places are leaking more, it is ok? Infrastructure relativism?

The amount of water SFPUC delivers to residential customers in SF is a small portion of the whole system, which serves a large area outside the city.

Modern construction is amazing and better than you would think at avoiding ripping up roads, but yeah, that's gonna have to happen too.

Who pays for it? This is infrastructure 101 stuff. You want the people who use it to pay for it, so you finance it and have the new tenants pay for it.

You need to do this anyway, current infrastructure does not last forever. Electric lines, gas lines, optic cables, sewage systems, everything has a lifespan and at the end of the lifespan you either exchange it or risk cascading failures. At that moment, adding capacity for new construction is not a huge extra cost, especially if the density is high enough.

BTW, utility tunnel is a thing, and places like SF can probably afford some, to prevent disruptions to the surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_tunnel

We have about 90 km of utility tunnels in Prague, with a plan to expand the network to 120 km. Really helps in the historic centre.