For a great example take a look at the new Maryland Governor and one of his first actions coming into office[0][1] This is someone(and his backers) that are ideologically opposed to public transit even when it is overwhelming supported(and paid for) by the regions it directly effects.
[0] http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-sun-investig... [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-republican-gov-larry...
I live in a dead spot on the South Side of Chicago where, ~80 years ago, the neighborhood association actually had the El demolished over gentrification concerns.
There is little liberal objection to improving public transit in already expensive downtown areas, but plans to improve commute times from the south and west sides of San Francisco will almost certainly be met with vigorous opposition. Even if they wouldn't cost anything.
The opposition to those systems (their expansion, in some cases even just their operation) was universally from the right, because "run gubmint like a business, and if it doesn't make a profit, pull the plug!"
I guess it was all those right-wingers in Marin?
Edit: diction
http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20100807/did-marin-lose-...
At the time, the project was incredibly expensive to build. Every foot of track was scrutinized. The people of Marin would have loved to have BART go through their county, especially the SF commuters.
My father's biggest grip was getting to a job site from Marin to San Francisco. He hated the commute, along with myself years later. I guess we were spoiled? The commute was only 45-60 from Marin to anywhere in the city.
At the time, building BART was really a big deal. The enginneers would load materials into these huge round cylinders. Welders would then run beads around the circumfrence of the cylinders. Once everything was secured to to ocean floor, workers from the SF? side would cut into the new section. As a kid, I was allowed to go to work with my father once a year. I would drive electric golf carts up and down the tube.
Times have certainly changed? For some reason, Electricians drank a lot back then? Actualy everyone drank a lot back then. It was not uncommon to see a Electricain drinking a beer down in those dark, dank, tubes--if they had a stationary boring job to do. I recall my father building a lamp from one of the third rail insulators, and I still can't get rid of a "Danger--3rd rail sign" he lifted. On the sign, right after Danger, they put in Pelligro. They actually debated whether it was necessary to put in any foreign language on the signage. It was a different time; Marin and San Francisco were 90% white, mutt, middle class, and Hispanic people were scarce.
I do miss the man, but we had our differences. He always felt that because I went to college, I would turn into some pompous a-hole? I told him, "Dad, I'm going to a state college. I said, "It's actually kind of a joke, but I do want to graduate." He didn't have to pay a dime for my education, so I still don't know what his problem was? It's almost like he wanted me to be happy, but just not happier than himself? Well he won? I remember a christmas card he gave me that had a bunch of "PhD, Doctor, too many degrees, etc." before my name on a card. I went home, from that Christmas dinner, and had a nervous breakdown, and have never been the same. Thanks Dad! Different parenting skills back then?
The "it'll cause sprawl" narrative apparently did not play much of a role in the actual politics of the planning process.
The richest neighborhoods - in the suburbs - don't want transit. An unreliable once-an-hour bus is seen as a handout for the poors, an impractical feel-good project that cannot earn its way. A large transit development that aligns with a real neighborhood would upset the balance by making the surrounding area denser and busier. This is the position that the the western San Francisco neighborhoods have been in for the past generation - a bit too wealthy and a bit too suburban to break away from car usage, even as they are far denser than most suburbs. Many of the outlying BART stops, similarly, are large parking lots, a way of sealing in car dependence and transit as a last resort for commuters, rather than a benefit that makes the stop a destination.
But then the reverse applies once you're in central cities and you're dealing with luxury condo residents: Anything less than a world-class rail system is deemed unsatisfactory, but the rails should, of course, go from one wealthy neighborhood to another. Getting the poor into the rapid system equates to more "criminals" or "thugs", and so you would get support for saturation coverage of an area that is already well-served, or a neighborhood that has undergone massive gentrification, but not underserved poor areas. This sort of thing contributes to transit system balkanization - a bad system for the poor, and a good one for the rich.
In both density situations, minority political groups will get showcase wins if they can lock in by-the-doorstep bus coverage of their constituents that is too slow and indirect to be truly useful. This is something that SF and much of the East Bay has avoided, but maybe not for the right reasons. The areas that were historically lower-income got access to BART, but are simultaneously now the biggest targets for gentrification. They were intended to be handout zones, and then the rise of real estate prices ultimately flipped that idea upside down and turned BART into a gentrifying mechanism. And now we are in the situation where the system has to be developed for a plurality, rather than a handout - which is probably a good thing.
(Arlington and Lexington, even at that time, were relatively upper income but would also have been fairly liberal--at least by national standards.)
BRT can't move nearly as many people as trains can. It would take many more buses to move the same amount of people. In a dense urban environment, trains make the most sense. In an area that's not dense, trains can allow density to happen. See the development of New York for instance. Plenty of trains went through fields at the time, and the railroads made huge amounts of money off of developing this now useful land (amongst other things). I suppose that's the real reason you get folks in the Bay Area to fight against trains.
The other issue we have in the US is our infrastructure costs are way out of line with the world norm. If the Second Avenue Subway had similar per-mile costs to Tokyo subway extensions (or even the maglev they are building), the funding for the first phase would mostly get the subway the length of Manhattan.
Beverly Hills found a way
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/04/beverly_hills_loses_fi...
If you dig a little, it turns out the public "it'll blow up our kids!" hysteria was mostly cover for a desire to have route the subway to benefit the city of Beverly Hills instead of the neighboring mostly-office-space Century City. Blocking the subway entirely was basically political blackmail.
The alternate location is 0.2 miles away, wouldn't even be in Beverly Hills proper, and there aren't any particular commercial developments that would be of better advantage than the current proposal. Heck, the alternate location is adjacent to a golf course.
The distance look close on a map, but the terrain is EXTREMELY unwalkable - what looks like regular roads on the maps of Century City are laid out more like highways, with hundreds of meters between crosswalks, and large blocks without paths to cut across them.
The MTA wanted the Century City route, both because it would have been better placed to catch commuter traffic and because the Wilshire/Santa Monica route would have gone too close to a fault line; Beverly Hills, clearly, preferred the extra commercial activity to contribute to its own tax revenues. So they made up this "oh my god the kids are going to die!" scare; the local congressman, Henry Waxman, backed them by getting the BH route blocked at the Federal level until 2007.
The MTA then brought up the alternative of sending the train through West Hollywood instead, bypassing BH altogether, and the city caved right quick.
God I love local politics.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/@34.0670703,-118.401029,17...
[2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beverly+Hills,+CA+90210/@3...
[3] https://www.google.com/maps/place/2000+Avenue+of+the+Stars,+...
I largely agree with your points but the 'Think of the children' aspect wasn't just contained to that aspect; they had fears of ISIS attacks as recently as last year.
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/09/bev_hills_paper_warns_...
That said an above ground system up and down over and across Van Ness, Geary and maybe Judah/Taraval and taking over for Caltrain down the peninsula would be great.
Speaking of the peninsula, it could exploit a system going down the camino real corridor. That alone could alleviate congestion and housing, if only they developed that long corridor and put in mass transit along the line and allow mixed use mid-rises five blocks on either side of it.
So don't discount bus service and other alternatives. This romance with rail, either above or below ground, sucks up way too much funding for what it delivers.
Hong Kong has the best subway system I have experienced.