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

61–70 of 112 posts

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

#61

Post by jrockway »

laurencerowe wrote: post #52
tomc1985 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did a quick survey of Asia and it seems like they are happy to build expressways through downtown. Tokyo has them, Shanghai has them, Taipei has them, Seoul has them.

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

#62

Post by jrockway »

narrator wrote: post #50
rsync wrote: post #8

"The story goes: Marin County, worried about cost of the extension and engineering concerns of running BART on the Golden Gate Bridge, ultimately backed out of the BART District. Fin." I want to push back on this slightly ... The received wisdom - repeated ad infinitum - among bay area progressives is that Marin County rejected BART based on racist, exclusionary, NIMBY concerns. That is how "the story goes" in these…

Below is a video of a Marin County Supervisor reading a letter sent in by a prominent local doctor regarding the SMART train project. It's this kind of thing that IMHO, is at least part of the reason why there will never be BART to Marin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfO8CCMmHjA

I think that congestion charging is the way around this. If you want to drive to the city, fine, but it will cost you $50. Train suddenly looking like a decent option.

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

#63

Post by WWLink »

schoen wrote: post #33
lqet wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the main bridge in Lisbon, Portugal (Ponte de 25 abril) was built by the same company as the golden gate bridge I don't think this is true, according to Wikipedia, the Golden Gate Bridge was build by McClintic-Marshall, and the Ponte de 25 abril by the American Bridge Company [0]. You might be confusing this with the Bay Bridge [1], which was build by the same company and also had rail service until 1963. [0] https…

It is especially confusing to visitors from San Francisco, because the bridge has an architectural design like the Bay Bridge, but is painted orange like the Golden Gate Bridge!

i guess it kinda sorta does. but not really.

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

#64

Post by DoneWithAllThat »

pc86 wrote: post #21
ethbr0 wrote: post #13

It seems like every major infrastructure folly, at its heart, simplifies to "Someone made their career espousing a certain worldview, and when facts changed in future decades, were unwilling or unable to change their now-famous beliefs." In this case, car > rail. Which was true and progressive, for a period! Say, 1950 to 1970? But then became false as the growth rate of cars outscaled roads.

When are we going to start treating failure to change your mind as the moral failing that it is?

When are we going to stop pretending that mass transit is politically (or even physically) viable in the vast majority of the US landmass?

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

#65

Post by Lammy »

> But Jenkins vehemently opposed BART’s extension on the “human aspects involved in such a project.”

You don’t say? http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html

That little spot of blue there in Marin County is Marin City, the remnants of the World War 2 ship-building company Marinship’s company town.

> In a 1960 letter to a bridge district board member, Jenkins argued that the only hope for BART to succeed was with entirely new housing and business developments along its routes

Thirty-thousand people would have lived here — now it’s a ghost town: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marincello

I particularly “like” this Marincello opposition piece with what I assume is Mt. Tam being encircled by a menacing and dangerous invader whose color-coding is entirely arbitrary, I’m sure: https://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2013/11/marin-sna...

As mentioned in the article, here’s a map of the NWP electric interurban rail system that ran passenger service in Marin until 1941: https://i.redd.it/zrvygksiojm51.jpg

One of its electric powerhouses still stands near the junction at Baltimore Park, and it’s in that beautiful Beaux Arts architectural style that was still popular in the 1910s.

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

#66

Post by zamfi »

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.

You don’t say where you’re from, but pre-Covid, BART’s usage had gotten so high that planners were trying to figure out how to squeeze more trains into limited headways so that the downtown track platforms didn’t become unsafe from overcrowding at rush hours. Literally it was as many trains as they could fit on the tracks.

So, add SF to your list — it’s not just NYC.

At least, it wasn’t. BART ridership is still down 60+% from peak pre-Covid.

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

#67

Post by quantumwannabe »

zamfi wrote: post #66
treis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don’t say where you’re from, but pre-Covid, BART’s usage had gotten so high that planners were trying to figure out how to squeeze more trains into limited headways so that the downtown track platforms didn’t become unsafe from overcrowding at rush hours. Literally it was as many trains as they could fit on the tracks. So, add SF to your list — it’s not just NYC. At least, it wasn’t. BART ridership is still down…

There were 8% fewer transit (bus and rail) trips in the Bay Area in 2018 than in 1982, despite the population increasing by over 30% and the transit systems were expanded during that time period. BART had a 17% decrease in ridership from 2015 to 2018 despite them increasing train service by 15%, which is probably what you're referring to. As of December 2021, BART ridership is only 25% of what it was pre-covid and they have reduced service to 75% of what it used to be.

From the BART Wikipedia article:

"After six straight years of expansion, ridership growth began to slow in late 2016, dropping by 1.7% in October 2016 from the prior year. Although the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, showed an average weekday ridership of 423,395, the second-highest in BART's history, this was a 2.3% drop from FY 2016. Ridership continued to decline by approximately 3% per year between 2016 and 2019, mirroring a nationwide decline in mass transit ridership in the second half of the decade."

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

#68

Post by teakettle42 »

Lammy wrote: post #65

> But Jenkins vehemently opposed BART’s extension on the “human aspects involved in such a project.” You don’t say? http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html That little spot of blue there in Marin County is Marin City, the remnants of the World War 2 ship-building company Marinship’s company town. > In a 1960 letter to a bridge district board member, Jenkins argued that the only hope for BART to succeed was with en…

Imagine if Marin looked like the rest of the areas surrounding SF: endless, endless suburban sprawl.

They made the right choice to prioritize open space and minimal development.

You can ascribe whatever motives you like, but we know what the result would have looked like, and it was not a winning idea.

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

#69

Post by mvkel »

Lammy wrote: post #65

> But Jenkins vehemently opposed BART’s extension on the “human aspects involved in such a project.” You don’t say? http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html That little spot of blue there in Marin County is Marin City, the remnants of the World War 2 ship-building company Marinship’s company town. > In a 1960 letter to a bridge district board member, Jenkins argued that the only hope for BART to succeed was with en…

Nice history! I ride by that powerhouse regularly. There are old train tracks peppered throughout lower Marin that speak to a different kind of place than it is today.

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

Lammy wrote: post #65

> But Jenkins vehemently opposed BART’s extension on the “human aspects involved in such a project.” You don’t say? http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html That little spot of blue there in Marin County is Marin City, the remnants of the World War 2 ship-building company Marinship’s company town. > In a 1960 letter to a bridge district board member, Jenkins argued that the only hope for BART to succeed was with en…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN