Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit/Archive 1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of the article's talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Minor connections

So-called WHEELS bus connects to dublin/pleasanton/livermore: http://www.wheelsbus.com/

VTA operates two "express" busses to parts of Santa Clara County which is the only general public transit link from the east bay to San Jose: http://www.vta.org/

These aren't really important to the article, but if you're going to list "minor connections", they're appropriate. User:JoshuaRodman

Use in film

One other item that should be mentioned is the system's use in film and video media. For example, while the system was still under construction, George Lucas used a portion of it for scenes in THX-1138 (which was recently re-released on DVD). slambo 11:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

cf http://www.norcalmovies.com/THX-1138/ -- John Fader 14:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was also featured in Planet of the Apes. -- Beland 07:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) It was in an episode of Planet of the Apes series, that was just shown on the Sci-Fi channel. One of the main characters said it got its electricity from nuclear power.

Names of BART lines

In the "current lines" section, it's useful to mention the colors, as that's how the lines are identified on BART maps. However, perhaps there should be some mention that BART lines are not referred to by their color, but by their final destination (eg, a rider would say, "I'm on a Richmond train," not "I'm on a red train." Jcb9 1 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

I'm going to take a moment to note how, as a rider, I've been forever frustrated by the lines which change names when extensions are finished. More on-topic, the destination is of course ambiguous in regards to the route. There are two different routes which end in Richmond, for example. JoshuaRodman 04:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Construction cost and financing

Does anyone know where to find the cost of construction of the system and the details of how it was financed?

Details of BART service

An anon has added some info to the page that seems unencyclopedic:

BART OPERATING HOURS: WEEKDAYS 3:45AM TO 2:00AM WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS: 4:15AM TO 2:30AM FOR SERVICE AFTER 2:00AM(WEEKDAYS) AND 2:30AM ON WEEKENDS, USE THE SPECIAL BART OWL BUSES. THESE BUSES RUN EVERY 7 MINUTES BETWEEN 2:00AM-4:30AM.

Who cares about the specific operating hours? Train frequency it at least a measure of the size/scope of the system, but I'm inclined to remove this. Also, the same anon made a number of changes that are completely incorrect; yes, in the blessed Embarcadero to Daly City corridor, trains run every 4 minutes, but on any given line (i.e., for everyone else in the entire Bay Area) they run every 15 minutes or 20 minutes. I'm reverting that change out.

I'm also planning to revert the change that says MUNI is comparable to other transit systems. It's not. Look at a map for any other large city with transit, and there are far more lines that cover a greater area. There may be a number of buses, but rail-wise it seems inferior to NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, etc., everywhere except LA! Full disclaimer: I grew up outside Washington D.C., where the suburbs actually have trains that run every 15 minutes, even on the weekends.

Finally, does anyone have any evidence that MUNI is coordinated schedule-wise with BART? All I know is that when I take the MUNI train back from Pac Bell park, the wait for the next train to Dublin/Pleasanton is always freakin 19 minutes!! A google for bart muni schedule coordination turned up a few discussions of a "Transit Coordination Implementation Plan" but it doesn't specifically reference BART and MUNI schedules. Anyone? Wnissen 13:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the idea is to show that BART does not provide local service and that in most other places the people who provide heavy rail service also provide bus service. AFAIK, BART is the only (non commuter) rail-only transit system in the US. In editing, I also deleted the sched coord statement--Jason McHuff 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

BART/MUNI Metro transfers

"Transfering from BART to the Muni Metro can be done at Embarcadero, Montgomery Street, Powell, and Civic Center Stations, the five rail transfer stations in the city."

Is there a reason that Balboa Park is left out? The above sentence lists four stations but says it lists five. I'm assuming that the omission is Balboa Park, but I didn't want to edit it in case there is a reason it was left out. Either way, there is a mistake in the sentence. Could someone more familiar with the article fix it? Thanks!

Glen Park BART station is about a block walk from a stop on the Muni Metro "J" line.

I have changed it so it notes the combined Market St stations as well as Balboa & Glen Parks. Balboa Park was probably left out because it is not a shared station--Jason McHuff 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Station article titles

How about standard article titles for station pages? I say use Station Name (BART). Station and line (extension) opening dates would also be nice, too. In addition, I have also moved the history section since it seems current info is more important --Jason McHuff 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Only half of the stations are named that way. Keep in mind that Embarcadero Station, Montgomery Street Station, Powell Street Station, and Civic Center Station are also Muni Metro stations. Richmond Station also is an Amtrak station. And Millbrae Station also serves Caltrain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Then leave those. But please, let's have some order with the others. And you forgot Coliseum/Oakland Airport, which is also served by Capitol Corridor. Union City (BART) is a special case as it may be joined by conventional rail services if BART to SJ doesn't go through, but for now I suggest leaving it as it is. Bayberrylane 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a note - Millbrae Station ought to be renamed Millbrae Intermodal Terminal, its proper name, and the Market Street Subway stations (and the Capitol Corridor stations) ought to be left alone with station on the end (rename Coliseum/Oakland Airport). But the other stations ought to be in format Station Name (BART); this makes the most sense and also brings us in line with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority light rail stations. See Category:Santa Clara VTA light rail system, where Diridon Station, the only shared stop that has an article, was left alone and VTA info was incorporated into an existing article without renaming. Bayberrylane 19:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART station, and the Oakland Coliseum (Amtrak station) are separate structures, there had been a suggestion to merge them, but the discussion went dead, if anybody has anything to add to the discussion it would be appreciated. --JVittes 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is now done for all stations that are BART-only. In the process I also made the SFO station its own article because the SFO#lala links were causing trouble and people forgot to capitalize correctly. Cheers. lensovet 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ridership figures

Instead of commenting out the ridership figures, it would have been better if you had just asked for the source. The source is a BART spokeman as reported in the SF Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/10/10/news/20051010_ne02_bart.txt .

Stations vs Cities

The article mentions stations in the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae. Since the actual station articles exist (South San Francisco Station, San Bruno Station, Millbrae Station) , it seemed appropriate to use those links in instead. Schmiteye 18:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ghost Trains

Can someone elaborate on how dew causes ghost trains in the computer system and any changes that have been made over the years to help avoid this problem? Is it a problem shared by other similar rapid transit systems?

I'm not sure that the dew causes ghost trains, but according to this very POV but informative website, [1] found by Niteowlneils, it causes (or originally caused) trains to disappear from the computer systems. Dew rusted the tracks at night, and since such a low voltage signal was used to detect the trains, the rust insulated the wheels from the track, causing the train to disappear from the system. I don't know if BART has redressed the problem other than the solution proposed on the webpage, but other rapid transit systems (including the very similar Washington Metro use higher voltages to detect trains, voltages which are not insulated by rust. Bayberrylane 20:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Line Extensions and Original 1972 Lines

The article should indicate the extensions to the system since its original opening, that is, indicate when the system was extended east past Concord, and west to Castro Valley and Dublin. --FourthAve 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Someone could put up a map of the original BART network. Here's one I found:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jef/65736181/

Byron? What the heck is Byron?

Quote from article:

"While the district includes all of the cities and communities in its jurisdiction, the BART system only has stations in many but not all of these cities. This has caused tensions in places like Byron..."

This might sound a little bitchy, but I've never even heard of Byron. And what kind of "tensions" could there be for BART not stopping in a town of less than a thousand people, that's twenty miles away from the nearest BART line, and that isn't even on a major highway? Was there some sort of political action to get BART into Byron that I never heard of? Livermore I understand - most people have heard about the expansion plans - but I think inclusion of this little town in the opening part of the article is either ridiculous or should be cited with an article about past political action there.

-sparsefarce 11 Jan, 2005

it's been over a week. i'm taking byron off. -sparsefarce 19 Jan, 2005

I agree. Byron is a census-designated place in the far east of Contra Costa. It's population is less than 1,000, but it's still in line for eBART DMU service. Bayberrylane 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Misc. comments

As of Dec 2005, MTC is starting a new Owl bus service system in the Bay Area funded by Regional Measure 2 money. This funds both previous Owl service provided by Muni, AC Transit, and VTA as well as some new service. Some of the service covers BART stations previously without any transit service when rail service was not available. Someone should include something about this in the main article.

Also, BART General Managers should be added from Stokes to Margro, and a few paragraphs on the substantial impact on Bay Area land use patterns, especially in central and eastern Contra Costa county, would be appropriate. Keep in mind: the people who wanted BART to exist had a very definite vision of San Francisco and Oakland as urban headquarters cities and everything else as suburbs. Their point was to get the Dilberts of the day into the cubicles of the day reliably and sell houses etc., not provide a rail transit network with appropriate bus connections to facilitate public transit use per se.

Actually, Pleasant Hill, California was developed in a similar way to the Metro-based cities in Washingotn, D.C. But your point is well taken and you should make a stab at incorporating into the article. Calwatch 06:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Owl service - the new Owl buses will replace most of the lines, and provide transport around the Bay except one gaping hole. To go between Fremont and San Jose, one must go via San Francisco. It's going to be much shorter (and possibly cheaper, too) to take a cab, unless VTA provides Owl service on 180. They could even have a semi-local line, like Samtrans 397 replacing KX at night. Bayberrylane 20:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See All-Nighter Network. Bayberrylane 16:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Plastic farecards?

Unless BART has drastically overhauled its system in the past year (since the last time I rode it), tickets (BART's designation for them) are paper, not plastic. The BART website still shows the same ticket types I'm familiar with.--Eric 19:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

They are moving to a thin plastic card similar to the New York City Metrocard or the Chicago Transit Authority card. Paper stock still works on the system, but the plastic stock roll out began a few years ago and appears to have spread. Calwatch 05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The article should reflect this, then. I'll make the relevant changes. Eric 06:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Paper tickets are still available from third-party vendors that sell discounted high-fare cards, I buy them regularly.

Speaking of paper tickets, could someone post an image or graphic of the basic blue BART ticket? It's instantly recognizable in the Bay Area, and it has trickled into the regional popular culture (t-shirts, etc.).

http://www.bart.gov/tickets/types/types.asp

Will do this weekend, leave me a message on my talk on saturday to remind me. lensovet 06:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have scanned the ticket, but don't know under what license to upload it. Any ideas? lensovet 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. lensovet 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. The license seems fine. Other subway articles with ticket images seem to use the same license. Gordeonbleu 23:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent dates

The article contains seriously inconsistent information on the date of formation of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.

• The intro section states that the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District was created in 1949.

• The history section states that the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission was created in 1951, produced its final report in 1957, and that the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District was formed acting on those recommendations.

Clearly these cannot both be correct, and the difference is significant (at least 8 years). Anybody know the correct facts. -- Chris j wood 17:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

So, no-one has come up with anything on this in 10 days, so I've removed the inconsistent dates. Better to be short on information than purvey disinformation. -- Chris j wood 17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to a page on the BART site that give accurate years for the creation of the commission and district. The district was created in 1957 which I added to the article. The commission came first in 1951 and took eight years to come up with a general plan for BART. In 1961, the specifics for BART where hashed out by the district members and in 1962 plan was approved by the voters. I added a mention of the voters approval for BART and the fact that it was the CA legislator that created the district. --Cab88 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Track Guage

Does anyone know the "political and economic reasons" for selecting a nonstandard track guage for BART? I can't think why anyone would do that, unless they intended for it to be absolutely unusable for mainline trains. Bayberrylane 23:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There's an uncited explanation on the broad gauge page saying that it's to prevent the lightweight trains from being blown over by the wind - as well as being mentioned on the main page. Of course, they could have just used windscreens where winds may have been a problem? --Millbrooky 06:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The BART track gauge issue attracts a great deal of negative comment which cannot be justified in light of experience elsewhere. "Standard gauge" serves no particular purpose in situations where through working is ruled out by design factors. "Standardization" per se would appear to provide fewer advantages than many Americans take for granted. Each of Tokyo's subway lines has its own unique fleet, and (in most cases) these cannot operate on other lines because track gauge, current collection and rolling stock dimensions are not identical.

BART would have been "absolutely unusable" for "mainline" trains even given a common track gauge because U.S. "mainline" rolling stock is larger, and heavier, than "rapid transit" rolling stock. (This is not true in some other countries, e.g. Japan.) Operation of BART trains over "mainline" track is not possible because BART trains do not conform to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) crashworthiness standards - they would be much heavier if they did.

My POV, but I'd have to say that "blown over" was probably not the issue. The theoretical calculation went something like so many degrees of superelevation (at curves) plus wind of so much velocity = train (of planned mass) blown off track.

Strong gusts of wind do occur in the Bay Area - and such gusts have been known to blow trains off tracks in Japan (which uses "standard gauge size" trains on "narrow-gauge" tracks). The most recent (and serious) incident of this type occurred on a high viaduct in western Honshu.

Knowing this, and absent some form of "design countermeasure," BART would reasonably have needed to have some means of stopping trains if wind velocity reached a certain "threshold." But figuring out how to do this would be difficult because Bay Area "gusts" are typically not sustained gale force winds but just that - gusts. It would be difficult to predict these with good accuracy. The alternative - waiting (as with an earthquake) until the "event" actually occurs to stop trains could impose significant service disruption. I can think of a number of BART design features that suggest poor planning, but track gauge is not really one of them. Ldemery 00:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember hearing that the non-standard gauge was also a political move to disallow counties which opted out of the system due to its high construction cost (because of the Transbay Tube) from benefitting from the system later by connecting it to standard gauge tracks. That sounds a little dubious. BART also has since expanded into San Mateo County, laying parallel track to the standard-gauge Caltrain in some places. (Though it's not unlikely this would also be justified by ridership numbers and other operational concerns.) Anyway, does anyone have any documentation on this theory? -- Beland 00:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons for the wide gauge is that it supposedly provides a greater stability for passengers based on research. BART took a clean-slate approach when it comes to engineering, so existing standards didn't matter much, but the downfall is that no other system in the world has built based on BART standards. A benefit of BART being a standard gauge system instead, is that BART would be able to adopt new rolling stock technology quickly, and making a joint order to other agencies. Third generation metro systems in the US: Baltimore, Miami, and Los Angeles all have standard gauge, third rail, and use an identical rail car design. New subway systems in China are also being standardized on standard gauge, 1.5kv overhead line, and are ordering the same type of equipment. Acnetj 00:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the Washington Metro was built to the same standards as BART; they certainly look the same from the outside, and use the same technology. I have difficulty with the idea that Bechtel would design the system and subsequent contractors would design build cars with identical nomenclatures to two different standards. Stranger things have been known to happen, but... Eric 06:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Top of page infobox

Bay Area Rapid Transit
Overview
Locale	San Francisco Bay Area
Transit type	Metro
Number of lines	5
Number of stations	43
Daily ridership	315,000 (2004)
Operation
Operator(s)	Bay Area Rapid Transit
Technical
System length	104 mi (167 km)
Track gauge	5 ft 6 in

I just created a new infobox Template:Infobox Public transit for the St. Louis Metrolink page that I believe is better suited to describing public transit systems than the currently used Template:Infobox rail infobox and I thought that it would be a useful addition here. I would appreciate any comments regarding the new template. --Millbrooky 07:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice, but you incorporate a lot of info that isn't in the actual template as linked. I would update the root template in case anyone else wants to use it. Bayberrylane 19:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, most of that wasn't supposed to be there. Must've gotten carried away with copy paste. (I've removed the extra info that I had included here) --Millbrooky 06:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That "daily ridership" figure should read "weekday ridership," preferably "average weekday ridership." "Daily" and "weekday" ridership are not the same thing - the former is annual ridership divided by 365 and is reported by some systems overseas (e.g. Japan). Ldemery 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest that daily ridership is that high currently, for weekdays yes, but average daily, no. If one works out the numbers BART provides, avarage weekday rideship for 2004 was 308486.5, meaning roughly 155,000 people use BART every weekday. The number should be changed to reflect the official numbers from BART. For Fiscal '05 average weekday exits were 310,717. JVittes 06:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it I think it would be best to adopt the wording similar to the Caltrain article in the infobox, and include "(avg. weekday)". Since the information to calculate the formula suggested above is either hard or impossible to find, I can't find weekend numbers, monthly numbers, anything that would help; that way it seems more accurate, afterall if you compare it to the Washington Metro information it would seem to inflate BART's numbers. JVittes 17:37, 03 May 2006 (EDT)

new map

new map

All, I decided to make a SVG map to replace the current fair use map. It is based on the Caltrain map by User:Finlay McWalter. Edited in Inkscape. Please check it for errors and make suggestions for changes. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No comments so far. Putting it in the article. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late notice, but the station is "Pittsburg/Bay Point," not "Pittsburgh/Bay Point." The Pittsburg in the Bay Area does not have the "h" in the more well-known Pennsylvanian city. --Physicq210 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The spelling has been corrected. Calwatch 07:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected SVG map. I mark's Calwatch's PNG map as redundant. Calwatch, in the future, please edit the SVG map. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do that. I do not have wikimedia access. Calwatch 02:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't need any special access. You can create an account on Commons and upload freely licensed works there. SVG is a XML-based format. As such, it is text based, and textual edits like the spelling change can be made in any text editor, even Windows Notepad. Graphical edits can be done in tools like Inkscape. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a map on ipodsubwaymaps.com here[2] it is licensed under the creative commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.147.119 (talk • contribs)

That page does not load for me. Also, it is a static gif, not a svg. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor aesthetic suggestion... could the land color be changed to a color like the one used in that map linked above? The current pale yellow doesn't contrast well with the yellow Pittsburg/Bay Point - Daly City line. (Nice job on the SVG!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordeonbleu (talk • contribs)

I've changed it, how do you like the current color? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's better. Thanks! (Another nitpick, sorry!, but possibly a different background color for the legend, as the current dark gray doesn't contrast too well with the red text.) Nice work with the SVG, by the way!

Mobile Phone Underground Coverage

By November 2005, BART had become "the first transit system in the nation to offer wireless communication to all passengers on its trains underground".

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/19/MNGF2FR6C11.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2005/11/19/MNGF2FR6C11.DTL&o=2 http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3649554

"When BART first broached the idea in mid-2001 of wiring its nether regions for wireless reception, many passengers squawked about having to listen to nonstop chatter from cellular phones... The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurred while the surveys were being taken, and BART officials believe the widely publicized use of cell phones during the attacks persuaded many passengers to support wiring the tunnels."

I can confirm underground reception in all the stations and tubes under Market Street in San Francisco, but I'm not sure if they're still working on the other underground parts of the network.

On the east bay, there is def not reception everywhere. it's rather spotty, too, some stations have it, but the tunnels definitely do not have full coverage. lensovet 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That wording is misleading, it is ok for something like a newspaper, but an encyclopedia should be better than that. What does that statement mean? DC Metro had all its underground (except for a few short tunnels) connected to Verizon wireless service by 2001. Is there anything about the new statement in the article that as written may lead to confusion?. It needs to be rewritten. I'll take a stab at it after I read the links here. --JVittes 13:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe what they mean is that all wireless providers have service, rather than just one. The article talks about that. What we really need to do is call BART and ask them the status of this. lensovet 20:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That makes more sense. I can confirm that coverage in the East Bay underground stations and tubes is not yet active. The articles probably meant what Lensovet said - that they provide to customers of all wireless providers in the region. Gordeonbleu 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that DC Metro only has CDMA service, so it may have to do with that, Cingular I think doesn't support CDMA, so that's why it claims all passengers, eventhough one still has to have a service provider, and a cell phone, so it is confusing. I guess I'm being pedantic, both systems allow all passengers to use the wireless system, just that on BART one can say that if you have service near a station you will have service inside BART. Though I think last time I was in the Bay Area Cingular blacked out in some of the underground sections around Berkeley, so I don't know. --JVittes 04:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Some really old AT&T Wireless/Cingular customers might still be on the CDMA network, but yeah, most Cingular, as well as all T-Mobile, users are on GSM. Take a look at http://www.govtech.net/digitalcommunities/story.php?id=98319 , which actually says what they mean by "all passengers", and also at the BART Times of Feb '06 mentioning that the project is complete in downtown SF and is progressing elsewhere on the system. I'll try to call BART next week to see if I can get more info. lensovet 07:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the article's talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.