| Revision as of 19:42, 14 November 2006 editSteven Russell (talk | contribs)2,447 edits Route 40th St. to Key Route Pier← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:01, 29 March 2007 edit undoHydrogen Iodide (talk | contribs)Rollbackers127,969 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject California}} | {{WikiProject California}} | ||
| {{SFBA Project}} | |||
| {{TrainsWikiProject|class=start|Streetcars=yes}} | {{TrainsWikiProject|class=start|Streetcars=yes}} | ||
Revision as of 22:01, 29 March 2007
 | California Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Trains Start‑class | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
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)
- Argentina. Buenos Aires. Tmangray 15:31, 16 October 2006 (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.
Route 40th St. to Key Route Pier
I am copying some good discussion details from the user talk page to here, so they don't get lost. These discussed points below would add valuable clarification within the article, and even better with inline notations of the mentioned references. Steven Russell 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Tmangray,
On the Key System article, you reverted a lot of my edits, which I am hoping you can explain and clarify in the article:
1) You separated the causeway and pier ("mole") from the name the Key Route Pier. What is the differences? If the Key Route Pier was not the Key Route mole, then what was the mole, and where was it? It would help the article's clarity to have that explained.
2) You changed the pier location from 40th St., to instead extending from the end of Yerba Buena Avenue. But the latter street does not show on a map, and you give no indication in your edit of where Yerba Buena Ave. was, either relative to 40th or relative to the bridge.
3) You changed the route from 40th St., saying that was the Santa Fe route. However, the connecting Sacramento Northern Railway station was at 40th and Shafter, and also, the map in the article clearly shows the Key Route to the pier running down 40th, as I initially wrote.
Can you explain your edits, or clarify your changes within the article, please? Steven Russell 17:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can do both. (1) the term "mole" was used to refer to the combined causeway and pier of the Key System, and also of the similar structures of the SP (Alameda and Oakland) and the Western Pacific; i.e. the Key Route Pier was actually only the wood structure which extended out from the end of the stone and dirt causeway; I have a 1938 Standard Oil map which does not use the name "pier" at all but simply "Key System Mole"; (2) Yerba Buena Avenue---so named because Yerba Buena Island is visible directly in line with it---is approximately one block south of 40th; it does appear on maps of the time, as well as now; take a look at Harre Demoro's 2 vol. work on the Key System which includes maps, and it will all become clear; (3) the Key line down 40th was only the C line where 40th crosses Shafter; the E and F lines joined the C on 40th near Market Street; the lines then went down 40th to a gore point with Yerba Buena where they turned to run in a straight line to the mole; the Santa Fe's main Oakland depot was located at 40th and San Pablo; 40th actually terminated (for auto traffic) at San Pablo; it was extended relatively recently as the old rail yards of the Key and Santa Fe were developed. Tmangray 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. That clarifies a lot, and if you also make the notes to the article, that would also clarify greatly. It would also help if you note things like your 1938 Standard Oil map and Harre Demoro's 2 vol. in the refs. I now see Yerba Buena Ave. on the modern map, which runs diagonally from 40th down to Adeline for only a half block. So the rest of Yerba Buena Ave. must have run through what is now the Emery Bay shopping center at the MacArthur Maze, a block south of 40th, as you say. Steven Russell 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)