Geography and urban land use wiped out the port in SF. Possibly partly because Banning built the Port of LA. Which is located closer to the Chinese ports, and has better land access via the "National Road" (BNSF route) and the "Southern Pacific" line that Captain Beale laid out in 1853 for Secretary of War Jefferson Davis.....

Maybe a closer larger port, with better land side access to the US market, on the lowest gradients, and the most direct "snow free" rail and highway routes, was just more "competitive". More competitive, at least, than say an obsolete port, using manual loading of ships, located in the center of a major urban downtown, at the end of a 50 mile long peninsula?

The last time I checked the Port of SF was still located at the end of a long peninsula, right? And, it had very limited land side capacity, for those "new fangled" containers and container ships to load and unload. So just maybe, that's why the "modern" "port" has been moved to Oakland, where there is land side and sea sided capacity to load container ships, that handles vastly more trade than the Embarcadero ever could?

And, that evil Mother-f#@ker Harry Bridges, right? Isn't he the dumb SOB who agreed to containerization, in exchange for a real "share" of the increased productivity it would bring the owners, for the guys that he represented, who were doing the "work"? What an awful "dick" he was for getting his people a $180,000 a year for operating the cranes, instead of having to make a living "on the waterfront" from hijacking the loads?

It's really too bad, based my own personal experience with "landslide" Fred Hardin and convicted criminals like Byron Boyd, that the RR Unions were too busy selling out their members, to negotiate a better deal like Harry got his members, for the men and women they were supposed to be representing.