Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How BART on the Golden Gate Bridge died: A new history

seungylee14.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 112 posts

Re: How BART on the Golden Gate Bridge died: A new history

#51

Post by bryananderson »

BrianHenryIE wrote: post #20

I learned recently, there used to be trains on the Bay Bridge! https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/50-years-since-trains-cr... I'm surprised there's not an easy rule of thumb: if a road has over two lanes in each direction, the route is busy enough to sustain trains/light rail.

You can step inside (and perhaps even ride) a Key System bridge unit at the Western Railway Museum near Suisun City, which has its own electrified railway line!

Once upon a time, this line was part of an electric railway connecting Oakland and San Francisco to Sacramento. A hundred years later, electrification between Sacramento and the Bay is a long-term wish list item for Capitol Corridor. It is such a shame that the US allowed its passenger rail system to atrophy.

Re: How BART on the Golden Gate Bridge died: A new history

#52

Post by laurencerowe »

tomc1985 wrote: post #32
rootusrootus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the growth rate of cars outscaled roads That's underselling it a bit. The growth rate of roads was deliberately stalled in the 70s. We just elected not to build new infrastructure in most places, and coast with what we had. There are some exceptions, but they are just that -- exceptions. Meanwhile, it seems that the same people who didn't want to build any more road infrastructure also didn't want to build mass tra…

Cost disease. Other countries have been completing public works projects of similar-or-larger scope for dramatically less than it costs here. How can anyone rationally accept $175 MILLION (pinky finger) for bridge planning? There are two many people sticking their hands out in American projects.

Most other counties don’t attempt to build motorways through cities the way we do in the US. Until moving to San Francisco I’d never seen a 6 lanes each way motorway. Gained a new appreciation for the public transit in U.K. cities outside of London which I’d previously considered shitty.

Re: How BART on the Golden Gate Bridge died: A new history

#53

Post by [deleted] »

yodon wrote: post #41

This reads like a highly fanciful interpretation of a hard set of large scale planning decisions that needed to be made, trying to frame it as some kind of "Machiavellian" conspiracy. Light rail in the US in the past 50 years has objectively been an over priced under utilized boondoggle. It's entirely believable buses may well have been the far better option for crossing the golden gate, even if a guy who works for t…

[deleted]

Re: How BART on the Golden Gate Bridge died: A new history

#54

Post by [deleted] »

yodon wrote: post #41

This reads like a highly fanciful interpretation of a hard set of large scale planning decisions that needed to be made, trying to frame it as some kind of "Machiavellian" conspiracy. Light rail in the US in the past 50 years has objectively been an over priced under utilized boondoggle. It's entirely believable buses may well have been the far better option for crossing the golden gate, even if a guy who works for t…

[deleted]

Re: How BART on the Golden Gate Bridge died: A new history

#55

Post by Animats »

BrianHenryIE wrote: post #20

I learned recently, there used to be trains on the Bay Bridge! https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/50-years-since-trains-cr... I'm surprised there's not an easy rule of thumb: if a road has over two lanes in each direction, the route is busy enough to sustain trains/light rail.

The Key System - "Wheels of Progress" (1945-1948)[1]

[1] https://archive.org/details/MarchofP1945

Re: How BART on the Golden Gate Bridge died: A new history

#56

Post by pvg »

teakettle42 wrote: post #40
pvg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're conflating several different strands of this story - the idea that San Mateo withdrew from BART in part for NYMBY-ish and exclusionary reasons is fairly well supported.

It’s fascinating how quickly “NIMBY” has become a very generic and rather vicious moral pejorative applied to anyone that does not support development. It previously described people who did not support development in their neighborhood, but would support it elsewhere. Now it just means “anyone opposed to any development I deem a moral/ethical/equity imperative”. I remember when pro-development sentiment was recogniz…

I'm using it to make to describe the history in less morally direct and potentially forum-inflammatory terms. The fairly recent history of urban and transit planning in the US is, in reality, full of decisions and outcomes of highly dubious morality. This is a pretty vanilla mainstream interpretation rather than some just-so story promulgated by 'progressives' as the GP appears to suggest.

Re: How BART on the Golden Gate Bridge died: A new history

#57

Post by mjg59 »

yodon wrote: post #41

This reads like a highly fanciful interpretation of a hard set of large scale planning decisions that needed to be made, trying to frame it as some kind of "Machiavellian" conspiracy. Light rail in the US in the past 50 years has objectively been an over priced under utilized boondoggle. It's entirely believable buses may well have been the far better option for crossing the golden gate, even if a guy who works for t…

Pre-COVID, AC transit moved a total of about 50% as many people across the bay per day as BART did in a single peak hour. The bus may well meet your specific requirements, but it's pretty clear that that's not the case in general. That may not have generalised to the Golden Gate crossing, but there's evidence that the bus service there is insufficient - the Larkspur ferry was operating at above nominal capacity at peak hours, which suggests that there's meaningful demand for public transit that isn't being satisfied by the buses.

Re: How BART on the Golden Gate Bridge died: A new history

#58

Post by treis »

thematrixturtle wrote: post #9
dehrmann wrote: post #2

The population of Marin County is only 258k, and more like 175k when Bart planning began. Building that line would probably serve more people in SF than in Marin, so it never really made sense.

Urban rail is one of the few things where "if you build it, they will come" is actually true, so Marin's population would almost certainly be much larger today if it was connected by BART. Whether that's a good thing is, of course, a separate question.

Urban rail usage in my city was down 20% from 2000 pre-covid and has lost another 60% or so from Covid. That's despite a ~25% increase in population.

Similar story around the US. Outside of NYC public transit usage is declining.

Re: How BART on the Golden Gate Bridge died: A new history

#59

Post by finnh »

treis wrote: post #58
thematrixturtle wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Urban rail is one of the few things where "if you build it, they will come" is actually true, so Marin's population would almost certainly be much larger today if it was connected by BART. Whether that's a good thing is, of course, a separate question.

Urban rail usage in my city was down 20% from 2000 pre-covid and has lost another 60% or so from Covid. That's despite a ~25% increase in population. Similar story around the US. Outside of NYC public transit usage is declining.

Seattle's Link light rail, a relatively new thing, has been extremely successful. Ridership for the first few years well exceeded expectations. I'm not sure of the COVID impact.

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

Re: How BART on the Golden Gate Bridge died: A new history

#60

Post by opportune »

sandworm101 wrote: post #34
jacobolus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> car > rail. Which was true and progressive, for a period! Say, 1950 to 1970? What does “true and progressive” mean? The freeway expansions of the mid 20th century cutting through city centers were disastrous all over the USA, right from the start. Horrible for urban society, economy, equity, ... Thankfully San Francisco was never turned into https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~2... Great for…

The urban sprawl created by the automobile was not a bad thing in its time. It democratized living. No longer were workers beholdant to landlords owning buildings next to the factory. Now everyone could live basically wherever they wanted. A new job no longer meant moving house and home across the city. Consumers had a far wider choice in where they purchased goods. And when they spotted a good deal they were not lim…

Yeah, suburbanization produced a tremendous amount of value allowing people to live in large, SFH homes with yards without having to pay high prices for land. I think we’ll always have suburbs at the urban:rural transition and that the automobile will play an important role in making them work.

In a lot of urban areas now the population/demand is such that people have expanded well pass the initial sets of suburbs and now those suburbs are in dire need of urbanization. That’s due to general growth over time. While it looks terrible now, that’s more because people are greatly resisting converting suburban areas to urban, and doesn’t invalidate the initial decisions to create suburban areas.

Post reply on HN