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

11–20 of 112 posts

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

#11

Post by ninth_ant »

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.

That’s a bit of a catch-22 because part of the reason the county is isolated and small is because there are few good commuting options to the rest of the bay where most of the work is there.

If they added BART there, the potential for adding density would make more sense. Obviously other factors like terrain and NIMBY-ism play roles as well, but you don’t need to reject all rail options within reach of a major metro just because people don’t live there yet.

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

#13

Post by ethbr0 »

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.

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

#14

Post by epaulson »

Moosdijk wrote: post #7

Why does the article take so long to explain what BART stands for? Even then, it assumes a lot of prior knowledge. This is one of the reasons I tend to read the comments on articles more than the articles themselves.

It's a newsletter about transit, for transit nerds. If you're subscribing to that newsletter, you know what BART stands for.

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

#15

Post by wsh »

throwaway4711 wrote: post #5

Reminds me of this additional BART fubar, thanks to which we have no BART all the way around the bay. Basically two self interested people on the San Mateo county board of supervisors kept the county residents from even voting on participating in the BART system! One was the head of Caltrain, fending off competition, the other a real estate developer. NB, the Bohannon's are now mega rich real estate owners [1] in the…

As I understand it, the Southern Pacific was concerned less with avoiding competition for its Peninsula Commute service than with ensuring that it wouldn’t ever be required to take over BART and bear its operating losses. This was long before Amtrak or the 4R Act, and railroads were still under strict economic regulation by the ICC and CPUC, so the prospect of being ordered to take over a money-losing passenger operation was a real concern.

That’s also the actual reason, or so the story goes, for BART’s non-standard 5′6″ (1676 mm) track gauge: the physical impossibility of interchange with SP’s lines was one more assurance that the SP wouldn’t be entangled with BART or its costs.

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

#16

Post by jedberg »

Moosdijk wrote: post #7

Why does the article take so long to explain what BART stands for? Even then, it assumes a lot of prior knowledge. This is one of the reasons I tend to read the comments on articles more than the articles themselves.

It's an article written by a Bay Area person for other Bay Area people, so it's assumed you know what it is. Kinda like how articles about computers don't tell you what RAM is.

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

#19

Post by jacobolus »

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.

> 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 automobile, tire, and petroleum industries though.

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

#20

Post by BrianHenryIE »

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.

Post reply on HN