 |
Re: Key System demise
Author: Moot Point
Date: 03-31-2016 - 10:39
The Key faced issues that transit systems across the country dealt with after World War II.
You can point to a number of things, but they all came together to make using the trains for transportation less than desirable for the riders.
Worn out well describes the infrastructure of the Key as well as the trains. No amount of paint could cover issues that made riders seek other methods. The bridge trains were always under powered and had no ventilation other than open doors. Just like BART today, a warm car makes people think twice the next time they ride.
And let's not forget labor troubles. Just like BART, the Key faced a couple of big strikes in the 50's that drove people away from using the trains. If people could drive their cars, why wouldn't they?
Buses were inevitable replacements for the trains. They didn't have maintenance of track and overhead. At the time, fuel was cheap. Buses were not tied down to specific routes and they could go where needed. One more point, and a very important one. The Key was a private company, even under National City Lines operation. The kind of money needed to upgrade tracks, trains and infrastructure was beyond the kind of investment likely to be undertaken by any private company. It took public monies, authorized by the voters to get BART constructed and operating, more than 15 years after the last bridge train ran.
Yes, it is true that BART had it's origins in the last years of Key operations. And you can make a case that it follows some Key routes, serving the same communities. And you can also make the same case that BART is in somewhat similar situations today as it faces the end of a service life for trains and other systems. What remains to be seen is will Bay Area voters look to spend the same kind of investment it took to build BART to rebuild it for another 50 years of life. By no means is that a done deal.
Funny stuff, transit...
You can point to a number of things, but they all came together to make using the trains for transportation less than desirable for the riders.
Worn out well describes the infrastructure of the Key as well as the trains. No amount of paint could cover issues that made riders seek other methods. The bridge trains were always under powered and had no ventilation other than open doors. Just like BART today, a warm car makes people think twice the next time they ride.
And let's not forget labor troubles. Just like BART, the Key faced a couple of big strikes in the 50's that drove people away from using the trains. If people could drive their cars, why wouldn't they?
Buses were inevitable replacements for the trains. They didn't have maintenance of track and overhead. At the time, fuel was cheap. Buses were not tied down to specific routes and they could go where needed. One more point, and a very important one. The Key was a private company, even under National City Lines operation. The kind of money needed to upgrade tracks, trains and infrastructure was beyond the kind of investment likely to be undertaken by any private company. It took public monies, authorized by the voters to get BART constructed and operating, more than 15 years after the last bridge train ran.
Yes, it is true that BART had it's origins in the last years of Key operations. And you can make a case that it follows some Key routes, serving the same communities. And you can also make the same case that BART is in somewhat similar situations today as it faces the end of a service life for trains and other systems. What remains to be seen is will Bay Area voters look to spend the same kind of investment it took to build BART to rebuild it for another 50 years of life. By no means is that a done deal.
Funny stuff, transit...
