Hacker News Reader

Comment by basedgod | Hacker News Reader

a bridge to nowhere, that's a blight on that neighborhood in SF (in the middle of a beautiful park), and has served to fuel and encourage car culture, and does not integrate with public transit in the slightest

few civic minded people celebrate the freeways that have torn 20th century cities apart, and this bridge is (a very pretty) extension of this

View on HN

If I imagine it as an ugly bridge then I can see your points well. But I really think you have to figure the beauty of it into the equation. It draws unbelievable tourism to the city. My wife (a Brazilian) has a tattoo of it - that's how strong the allure is for some people (although of course there are people all around the world who have a tattoo of whatever architectural icon that drew them to their adopted city). $35M to make your city an international icon is a bargain. Of course the creators probably had no idea it would have that kind of impact but my only point is that when talking about the GGB the beauty is an inextricable part of the equation.

it's a bargain for the city but still a blight on it's residents that does not serve them in any way

it makes the lives of a few rich people better as they can commute to their yachts better, but that's about it

sf would have been completely fine as a city without this bridge

Do you feel that reaching Point Reyes and other areas in the north does not "serve them in any way"? Bridges have existed for millennia because they're useful to both sides of the bridge.

this garbage bridge does not serve it's residents above replacement.

ferries already existed, as well as other ways to get to the areas north of the city.

the main issue with this bridge is that it is the enemy of better, and a bridge/tunnel with forward thinking infrastructure and transit can now never be built, now that we have this antiquated garbage bridge built, merely for the myth of car ownership

the civil planning doesn't even extend to the rest of the city, it's merely plopped down onto an arbitrary section of it.

it would have been better to not have been built at all. a more ugly bridge built later on wouldn't have had the nimbys we have today, and could have been torn down and retrofitted without it being sacrilegious

It reads like you don't understand the needs of SF back when that bridge was built. It could also carry rail, but that portion was not completed - because, and here's the shocker, a city's needs change over time. The Wikipedia page about this bridge covers a lot of these details.

Entirely 100% disagree. Easy access to Marin and all areas north make San Francisco a much better city.

Tourism is a substantial part of San Francisco's economy. It employs a lot of San Francisco residents.

If it's only used by a few rich people, I'd expect the traffic on it is very light.

Counterpoint though is the fact that you see heavy traffic on it is testament to its role in encouraging car culture

People need to live somewhere, and we sure haven't built up enough to allow most people to live within the city itself. Is "encouraging car culture" the new NIMBY angle? It's just the flip-side of the housing crisis. I'd live closer to work too if I could afford Woodside or whatever.

Ah yes - a bridge from the top of a peninsula to the other side. Surely nowhere else would people think to make one of those. Just have everyone take the long way around where they will then need to cross TWO bridges if they want to travel north!

Not sure what you mean by lack of integration with public transit.

The Golden Gate Bridge does not have a subway. But it does carry a lot of buses. It also has biking and walking lanes, unlike other Bay Area bridges.

Is your ideal to have no bridges, or at least bridges closed to individual cars (Like market st)?

The biking and walking lanes on golden gate leave much to be desired. I would not consider them functional for non leisure travel.

Yes. Biking across is not fun at all.

A huge loss is that when Bart was built Marin voted against extending it north.

The Bridge that we need foot and bike traffic access on is the Bay Bridge. That’s far more disappointing as it would better connect Oakland and SF (and Treasure Island!). With ebikes so popular now, that could actually displace cars significantly in the Bay Area.

The eastern span has one. Mostly useless without one on the western span though. They seem to have a project up for it, but i'm not sure what the status is:

https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/bicycle-pedestria...

Yeah I’ve seen all of the options for the western span, I think it’s going to require a lot of pressure on Sacramento to get any progress on this.

> A huge loss is that when Bart was built Marin voted against extending it north.

Marin was kicked out, as a result of San Mateo pulling out leaving Bart under funded. As they said at the time, "We are withdrawing involuntarily and upon request,". A 1956 poll found that 87.7 percent of Marin residents wanted a BART line.

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/How-BART-almost-connect...

That is much better context, definitely conflicts with the common understanding people have of why the Marin portion failed.

> The Bridge that we need foot and bike traffic access on is the Bay Bridge.

I'm not sure how useful that would be. The Bay Bridge is quite long, at ~4.5 miles end-to-end, and the east span terminates in a huge toll plaza in an industrial area of Oakland which is neither bike- nor pedestrian-friendly. I wouldn't realistically expect any significant number of bikers to use the bridge, and those that did would probably be using it more for recreation than transport. Like it or not, the Bay Bridge was built as a highway connector.

You may be unaware, but the east bay portion of Bay trail connects to a lot of great bike infrastructure from the Eastern Span of the Bay Bridge already. It's a very gentle grade up the entire bridge, which makes it approachable for even casual riders. The connection there has many bike paths that lead between all the East Bay cities, Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, Albany, and Richmond.

From Oakland it would be approximately a 45 minute bike ride (if it existed), on an ebike probably 20 minutes. About an hour from Berkeley (and 30 minutes on ebike). These times would compete with cars during rush hour.

It's true you wouldn't want to dump bikes at the literal terminus of the bridge, but a surface-level bike path could take you a little past the Maze to the vicinity of the Frontage Road & Powell St or Mandela Parkway / Horton St, both very comfortably bikeable. I used those streets for years cycling from Berkeley to West Oakland BART and the Jack London Square ferry terminal.

When I lived in SF, I really enjoyed taking the Muni 76X express bus from downtown SF across the Golden Gate Bridge to Muir Woods. It only runs on the weekends, but that's not the bridge's fault.

and does not integrate with public transit in the slightest

I used to live in SF and commuted to Sausalito daily, either by GGT bus or bike (or rarely, took the ferry but riding home from the ferry wasn't much shorter than just riding to Sausalito).

Of all the bridges in the bay area, the Golden Gate is the least deserving of such contempt IMHO.

At least pedestrians and cyclists can make use of it, I've done multiple bike rides from The Sunset to Marin/Sausalito/Larkspur via the GGB. Never a bad time.

The Bay Bridge however, now that's a bridge I can get behind hating on. Lots of lost opportunity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com