|
|
Bay CrossingsJournal
Bay Bridge Follies
Selected Readings in Venality, Hubris, and
Incompetence |
Surely, matters could not possibly be
screwier than they are just now in the matter of the Bay
Bridge rehab. While the bridge totters in urgent need of
rehabilitation, our “leaders” wallow in he-said, she-said,
telling us, “Who, me worry?” and “It is not my job.” |
|
Who’s supposedly in charge of making sure
the Main Street of the Bay Area doesn’t drop into the soup?
That would be Sunne Wright McPeak, director of California’s
largest government agency, Business, Transportation and
Housing. McPeak’s resume is less-than-stentorian: washout
Contra Costa burgomaster and most recently head of the
policy-for-hire “think tank” Bay Area Council.
Cynics suggest that Ms. McPeak’s appointment
had more to do with putting talk of the Governor’s
fanny-pinching on movie sets to rest than merit and
predictably enough, Ms. McPeak has made a thorough bumble of
the Bay Bridge problem. Her first
idea when cost overruns threatened a work stoppage? Kick
aside a vote of the people designating toll dollars for
public transit. The measure in
question–Regional Measure 2–was developed by McPeak herself
while at the Bay Area Council. Her flip-flop was a
transparently craven toady to Schwarzenegger advisors aiming
to evade the State’s first-line responsibility for bridge
repairs and slough it off onto the Bay Area. Can’t wait ’til
you move back home, Sunne.
But a brew of venality, hubris, and incompetence has always
characterized Bay Bridge dealings. Consider the following
excerpts from outstanding local histories on the matter of
the Bay Bridge.
From Endangered Dreams: The Great Depression in California
by Kevin Starr, Oxford University Press © 1966
No American city is more fortunately, or more unfortunately,
sited than San Francisco…Since the 1860s a rail line had
linked San Francisco with the city of San Jose at the
southern end of the bay, but only its ferryboats linked San
Francisco with the rest of the nation...ferries were
carrying an average of 4.5 million vehicles back and forth
across the bay by 1930, a figure which doubled by 1937.
Ferryboats, which averaged 30 miles per hour in 1925, were
revved to average 45 miles per hour by 1930 to serve the
increased traffic. (Editor’s note:
Carl Nolte, dean of San Francisco Chronicle writers,
harrumphs that he would like to see a 45-mile-per-hour
ferry.) Miraculously, no commuter
had ever lost his or her life on these ferryboats, with the
exception of the odd suicide…On the evening of 17 February
1928, the ferryboat Peralta, its water ballast improperly
handled, plunged into a swell off Yerba Buena Island,
sweeping more than 30 passengers into the chilly waters of
the bay. Five of them drowned.
(Inauspiciously enough, the ferry currently serving Alameda
and Oakland is also named the Peralta.)
Proponents of a bridge between San Francisco
and Oakland maximized (the event) in their public relations
campaign. Credit for originating the idea of bridging San
Francisco and Oakland most likely belongs to William Walker,
editor of the San Francisco Herald, who first proposed the
idea in 1851. In August, 1853, Tom McGuire, an impresario in
gold rush San Francisco, featured at San Francisco Hall on
Washington Street near Montgomery a pageant entitled “The
Past, Present and Future of San Francisco.” One scenic
backdrop, designed by a certain doctor D.G. Robinson,
depicted a spectacular suspension bridge soaring across San
Francisco Bay between Telegraph Hill and Mount Diablo.
In 1869, Joshua Norton, the self-proclaimed
Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, who
lived as a revered street character in San Francisco,
resplendent in a military frock coat and other regalia,
called for his subjects to construct a bridge between the
two cities. (Plans for the Bay
Bridge gathered steam in the early 1900s as part of what was
known as the Greater San Francisco Movement, which included
the goal of uniting the Bay Area into something akin to the
borough system of New York City. The Bay Bridge was also
linked with plans to dam the Hetch Hetchy.)
In late March of 1928, Mayor Rolph of San
Francisco and United States Senator Hiram Johnson testified
before Congress regarding the necessity of a bridge from
Rincon Point in San Francisco to Oakland via Yerba Buena
Island. What was needed was a direct connection linking San
Francisco-Oakland and the emergent suburban regions in the
East Bay. Pointing to the growth that would come once the
Hetch Hetchy project was complete, Mayor Rolph argued that
only a bridge between San Francisco and Oakland could handle
the expected growth. San Francisco city engineer Michael
O’Shaughnessy and harbor pilot captain George Harrison
described the growing congestion on the bay and predicted
that the recent drowning of five passengers from the Peralta
was only the first of many predictable disasters.
The California State Legislature created the
California Bridge Authority, authorizing to own and operate
a bridge between San Francisco and Oakland. Federal funding
(and) state bonds were approved (sufficient to make) the
structure arguably the most expensive single public works
project to that point in American history. Many claimed it
to be, all things considered, the most expensive public work
project in the history of the human race.
(Aesthetics were never a controlling concern
with the Bay Bridge, then or now.)
A no-nonsense battleship gray structure, combining
suspension, cantilever and a truss system with two decks,
the top for automobile traffic, the bottom for trucks and
Key System trains, has never overwhelmed its viewers as an
aesthetic statement. As engineer in charge of design, Glen
Woodruff tackled the problem of devising this overlong
bridge with efficient practicality. San Francisco architect
Timothy Pflueger was invited to chair a committee of
consulting architects, but one strains to see any element of
Pflueger’s styling genius in even the suspension half of the
structure, which he did work on as a designer.
As straightforward civil servants,
responsible to the Department of Public Works in Sacramento,
neither design engineer Woodruff nor chief engineer Charles
Henry Purcell had either the budget or the inclination to
commission Pflueger, or any of the fine architects
practicing in the Bay area, to stylize the 518-foot-high
suspension towers, as Gordon Kaufman was asked to stylize
Hoover Dam. In terms of design and style, the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge bespoke the engineering
aesthetic of public works, and the Toll Bridge Authority,
rather than the aesthetic proclivities of San Francisco.
From Imperial San Francisco: Urban Power, Earth Ruin
by Gary Brechin, Univeristy of California Press © 1999
(The Great San Francisco Association and its goals were
central to the ideology behind building the Bay Bridge.)
|
|
(Mayor) Phelan and
his associates also looked to New York City for a
model, for in 1898, Manhattan’s leaders persuaded
four adjacent jurisdictions to join it in a
conurbation second in size only to London.
The Greater San Francisco
|
|
Association grew out of the California
Promotion Committee and the San Francisco Chamber of
Commerce. Even conservatives such as Michael de Young
conceded that a publicly owned Hetch Hetchy would make for a
Greater San Francisco that would, in turn, command Greater
California. At the end of 1907, the Merchants’ Association
Review published a bird’s-eye view of “the Bay Bason and the
Greater San Francisco,” a vision of the “future site of a
proposed imperial city,” while the Chronicle simultaneously
published a similar view as the frontispiece of an elaborate
“Greater San Francisco Edition” promising wondrous
prosperity once Berkeley, Oakland, and Alameda were brought
under San Francisco’s benevolent aegis.
Unfortunately for those who wanted Greater San Francisco,
Oakland had too long suffered from its neighbor’s
condescension. The Sacramento Union noted that “San
Francisco has pursued for many years a policy of belittling
Oakland, yet wonders now why the big city across the bay
should object to the submergence of its identity by
consolidation.” Oakland’s leaders
had their own dreams of glory, for their city was growing
with an assured influx of energy and had plans to annex its
neighbors into a Greater Oakland. They saw no reason why
Oakland, with its excellent port and rail connections,
should not be the future hub of the Pacific, and they
determined to scuttle the consolidation measure that their
San Francisco counterparts placed on the state ballot for
the fall of 1912. So successful was
their public relations campaign that on election day,
California voters defeated the measure in all but three
counties. In various guises and names, Greater San Francisco
perennially returns, though never again with the chance for
success that it had early in the twentieth century. The
failure to consolidate the chief cities of the Bay Area may
well have marked the end of San Francisco’s attempt at
Pacific hegemony, for the leaders of Los Angeles had an
equally grandiose vision and a seemingly limitless supply of
power necessary to achieve it.
From O’er The Bay: “Song Of The Oakland Bridge”
Words by Charles Jackey , Music by Pro. John Phoenix, L.L.Dr.
Dedicated to M.L. Winn, Esq., the earliest Pie-oneer of the
Pacific Coast with copious explanations by the Author
Squibob Press, Inc., © 1990 Richard D. Reynolds
(In 1856, a Lt. George Horatio Derby, a Massachusetts-born
Army engineer who wrote numerous sketches under the name of
John Phoenix, or Squibbob, wrote a comic sketch called “O’er
the Bay, or the Song of the Oakland Bridge” in which he
described the perils and discomforts of crossing the Bay by
barge.”) We have been favored with
the perusal of the new song “O’er the Bay,” or “The Song of
the Oakland Bridge,” the words of which are by Charles
Jackey, and the music by our talented fellow-townsman, John
Phoenix, Esq., and by the kindness of the latter gentleman
are enabled to present our readers with the following copy,
several days in advance of the Press. |
This wonderful production, Professor Phoenix
assures us, admits of a “Choriouse” ad libitum; which may be
affected by repeating the last two lines as often as may be
considered necessary, with variations to suit–the air being
purposely rendered capable of the most incredible number of
changes. The song may be had at LeCount’s (after it is
published), beautifully lithographed, and with a vignette by
Nahl, giving a most touching and pathetic view of the Pile
Driver, and the Steam Ferryboat, lying stuck in the mud in
the distance. Price $1, or 14 copies for 50 cents.
I.
The poet calls on people of energy to commence
immediately the building of the Oakland Bridge, and
suggests that the hydraulic characters that raise
houses in such mysterious manner should assist in
pumping out the Bay as a preparatory step.
Descriptive of some of the usual disagreeable
incidents of the passage to Oakland in the
ferryboat, on which the author once paid four bits
for a passage and two bits for a bottle of execrable
soda water. |
|
Men of might be up
and doing, Right
away;
Drive the piles, the mud so blue in,
’Cross the Bay–
Men of suction, help ’em do it,
That’s the way.
There’s a horse about to kick,
There’s a man that’s taken sick,
There’s a boy that holloas Wo!
Here’s a nose about to blow,
There’s an hourly steamboat
sticking on the way–
Men of Clinton and of Oakland–
In the Bay. |
|
|
|
II.
The poet pictures the families of San Francisco
seeking the pleasures of rural retirement, and the
wealthy merchant enjoying a drive on the completion
of the bridge.
He urges the commencement of the work and calls
on our richest bankers (who are hereby requested to
pardon the liberty taken with their names) to assist
therein.
He alludes with a sigh to pecuniary liability.
|
|
Once that welcome
route is opened,
Who shall say
What happy families will move across
the Bay–
What fat old merchant there shall drive
In his chay
Drive the piles, lay the plank,
Pump the Bay dry, here’s the crank;
Help us Palmer, help us Cook,
Build the bridge “by hook or crook,”
Till o’er it rattle buggy, dog-cart, dray,
(With but a trifling toll of fifty cents
to pay)
To Alameda and to Oakland,
O’er the Bay. |
|
|
|
III.
The poet shows the advantage of the bridge in the
pursuit of fugitives from justice.
“In the door” is an expression from Hearn’s
History of Monte implying that he has him securely.
A beautiful picture is presented here–the Sheriff
returning in luxurious ease with his prisoner, while
the honest fishermen earn their living by leaning
o’er the railing of the Bridge and catching the
fragrant “porgie.”
It is a melancholy thing that such a song as this
should have an end, but, alas! “sich is life.” |
|
Lo! A loafer’s going
to vanish
Some fine day,
With a carpet-bag he’s bolter,
making way;
Lo! the Sheriff puts out after,
O’er the Bay–
He pays the toll–an awful bore–
And gets the loafer “in the door”;
And o’er the bridge he brings him back,
Or per adventure takes a hack,
(For a snug sum the City had to pay,)
While fishermen catch “porgies”
in the Bay
To sell in Clinton or in Oakland,
O’er the way.
|
|
|
|
Advertisement |
|
|
|
|