Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:30, 8 May 2006

I've never heard it called "Key Rail System." Usually it is called the "Key System." Should the name be changed? Aaronrp 00:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I decided that it should. Aaronrp 20:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Shipped to?

What South American country were the cars shipped to? - Leonard G. 03:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

09/30/05 Edits

Hi Everyone. As this article is getting longer I took the liberty adding dividers. I also modified/removed some edits by 155.91.19.73. There's an extensive article on the GM National Street Car Conspiracy so any discussion on this page should be minized. Some of these edits were a bit editorial (e.g. some valid opinions but not neccesarily fact) so I removed these to streamline the article.

What opinions?

Thanks for the description. I think it was all pretty true -- what were the opinionated lines? I can't take an East Bay survey but my family certainly didn't know about Key Systems and I've endured endless griping about lack of a convenient urban rail system (bart is a superhighway).

The streetcar conspiracy page has a lot of details about the various legalities, I guess there was too much here, but a summary is alright as long as its relevant to key, no? --155.91.19.73 20:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi: I'm an East Bay resident myself. I think it's a foregone conclusion that 99% of everyone here has no clue that this system ever existed - so I left that line in. However, I think the waters are a bit muddier as to whether or not there is significant "envy" of SF's light rail systems - maybe (you and I do) - but I don't think anyone knows this to a high degree of certainty so I left this part out. Your thought on the GMSC are great, but they're more appropriate for that article (your right by the way, that article does bog down in the technical analyses.) I agree that a brief summary is appropriate so I wrote in a brief NPOV edit in the "Dismantlement" Section. Joeconsumer 10/01/05

Dismantlement section is not NPOV

The "Dismantlement" section is not NPOV because it totally ignores the issue of passenger traffic.

Contrary to what many people believe, transit ridership in Oakland and environs is remarkably weak, and has been for decades.

The 1925 total of 98.9 million streetcar passengers was "barely" enough to support the infrastructure. Traffic fell to 43 million at 1933 - by which time it was clear that most streetcar lines no longer carried sufficient traffic to justify the investment needed to retain rail service. Traffic peaked sharply during World War II but fell off rapidly thereafter. The company had considered buying modern cars for its handful of "busiest" routes - but whether this would have proceeded "absent GM" is not clear because of the sharp traffic decline to 1948.

Key System carried 17.8 million "transbay" passengers at 1925. By 1940, this had fallen to 9 million - again, "barely" enough to support the infrastructure. The 7 million transbay passengers recorded at 1957 was definitely "not enough" to justify the (much-) needed investment for continued operation. By this time, the company was in serious financial trouble and declared bankruptcy a few years later.

Not neccessarily. I'd argue that the line you just gave is NPOV, since it completely parrots National City's take on things. From a historical perspective, it isn't too much of a stretch to surmised that they "cooked the books" a little to make things seem worse than they were. They certainly did so with Pacific Electric.

It should be noted that, in many other countries, private railways have kept themselves operating on a "duck tape and shoelaces" basis for nearly a half-century. While it may be true that late 50s ridership didn't justify the "major improvements" needed in the system, it is also equally true that, absent GM, the system might very well have limped along for several more decades. Certainly, had the Key survived into the late 1970s, it would have been taken over by government and the rail service would be operating as a public agency right now.