 |
Re: "Progress" vs. "Tried & True" - A Few More Thoughts
Author: Dragoman
Date: 07-31-2010 - 23:32
Good thoughts all, Al, and I don't want to seem to be blindly defending Nostalgia over Logic. But, for the sake of discussion ...
> 1. Speed - the Bridge Railway had a 35 mph speed
> limit, BART is lots faster through the tube.
Putting aside the fact that this speed difference would only make a 3-4 minute difference in travel time, we must also assume that if the Bridge Railways had survived to the present, there would have been some 50 years of progress in their operation, just as today's SF MUNI is not exactly your father's MUNI!
> 2. BART has several stops in San Francisco rather
> than only stopping at the Transbay Terminal. Much
> more useful for commuters and shoppers not going
> to the Financial District. (and now it goes
> direct to SFO - before it was necessary to go from
> Transbay to Taylor and O'Farrell to catch an
> airport bus)
And the various Bridge Railways had many more East Bay stops, and neighborhoods served, than BART could ever hope to have! And now BART parking lots are stretched beyond capacity, because the trains don't stop down the street (as Key trains once did in my neighborhood).
Today, SamTrans express busses stop in front of the Transbay Terminal. And again, over 50 years some improvement in SFO connections would probably have developed.
> 3. Given how the shipment of goods has shifted
> from loose-car railroading to containers delivered
> by truck (and also the shift of nearly all port
> business from San Francisco to Oakland), the three
> lanes available on the Bay Bridge for trucks and
> buses would be totally inadequate (especially
> since at peak times there was only one lane in the
> opposite direction).
Overall, there were more "lanes" under the original system -- 6 auto lanes, 3 truck/bus lanes, and the 2 tracks. As someone who commuted daily for nearly 20 years on that bridge, I have never seen more truck traffic than what could be handled by 2 dedicated truck lanes.
> If we had kept the Bridge Railway, it would have
> been necessary to build a second bridge to handle
> vehicles including trucks and buses and we would
> still have a slow train which only went to
> Transbay. Nostalgia is fine, but now that we have
> a rebuilt Bay Bridge for vehicles, and BART for
> fast and more versatile service, I think we're
> much better off.
And in the 60's and 70's, there was planning for a second SF-Oakland bridge (the so-called "southern crossing"). Never happened, and today congestion is a major problem, due primarily to single-occupancy cars.
I'm not saying that we are not better off now. And I'm not saying that we are. I am suggesting that, had the old systems been nurtured and allowed to progress organically, like MUNI and the SF - San Jose commute trains (ex-SP, now Caltrain), we might have today as good a system -- different perhaps, but has good or better -- for much less cost.
Now, we shall never know, and the thoughts can be relegated to the realm of Nostalgia. But if there were another system about to be ripped out ...
> 1. Speed - the Bridge Railway had a 35 mph speed
> limit, BART is lots faster through the tube.
Putting aside the fact that this speed difference would only make a 3-4 minute difference in travel time, we must also assume that if the Bridge Railways had survived to the present, there would have been some 50 years of progress in their operation, just as today's SF MUNI is not exactly your father's MUNI!
> 2. BART has several stops in San Francisco rather
> than only stopping at the Transbay Terminal. Much
> more useful for commuters and shoppers not going
> to the Financial District. (and now it goes
> direct to SFO - before it was necessary to go from
> Transbay to Taylor and O'Farrell to catch an
> airport bus)
And the various Bridge Railways had many more East Bay stops, and neighborhoods served, than BART could ever hope to have! And now BART parking lots are stretched beyond capacity, because the trains don't stop down the street (as Key trains once did in my neighborhood).
Today, SamTrans express busses stop in front of the Transbay Terminal. And again, over 50 years some improvement in SFO connections would probably have developed.
> 3. Given how the shipment of goods has shifted
> from loose-car railroading to containers delivered
> by truck (and also the shift of nearly all port
> business from San Francisco to Oakland), the three
> lanes available on the Bay Bridge for trucks and
> buses would be totally inadequate (especially
> since at peak times there was only one lane in the
> opposite direction).
Overall, there were more "lanes" under the original system -- 6 auto lanes, 3 truck/bus lanes, and the 2 tracks. As someone who commuted daily for nearly 20 years on that bridge, I have never seen more truck traffic than what could be handled by 2 dedicated truck lanes.
> If we had kept the Bridge Railway, it would have
> been necessary to build a second bridge to handle
> vehicles including trucks and buses and we would
> still have a slow train which only went to
> Transbay. Nostalgia is fine, but now that we have
> a rebuilt Bay Bridge for vehicles, and BART for
> fast and more versatile service, I think we're
> much better off.
And in the 60's and 70's, there was planning for a second SF-Oakland bridge (the so-called "southern crossing"). Never happened, and today congestion is a major problem, due primarily to single-occupancy cars.
I'm not saying that we are not better off now. And I'm not saying that we are. I am suggesting that, had the old systems been nurtured and allowed to progress organically, like MUNI and the SF - San Jose commute trains (ex-SP, now Caltrain), we might have today as good a system -- different perhaps, but has good or better -- for much less cost.
Now, we shall never know, and the thoughts can be relegated to the realm of Nostalgia. But if there were another system about to be ripped out ...
