Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit

Archives
July 19, 2006

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)

Update: called the Oakland service center today and was told that currently the service is still in/between the downtown SF stations. I was also told that if I wanted any more "specific" details about the project status/timeline/etc, I should call the main switchboard (mind you, this number isn't on the website even) on Monday, which I plan on doing. lensovet 00:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I called up BART last week and was finally able to get in touch with the person in charge of this project. You can find "the real deal" in the article now.—lensovet–talk – 20:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Old system maps

There are some old system maps lying around on flickr, perhaps we can also use them to make new extension sections. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jef/65736181/ http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=28403033&size=l lensovet 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

I'm glad the statistics table has caught on. I was thinking that maybe we could also have a statistics timeline. For example, list the current statistics then have a line that represents the history of that number since BART's inception. It might be difficult, but it would be very interesting information. 67.161.46.169 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ticket Gates Photo

This article would benefit from a photo of the ticket gates (the ones with the red gates). It's something associated with BART. Gordeonbleu 06:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I thought my pic from SFO would work but realize now that the angle isn't really good there. I'll see if I can take a picture of the gates sometime this week. In the meantime, take a look at the BART-related photos in these albums of mine: http://www.dotphoto.com/Go.asp?l=lensovet&P=&AID=3866131&T=1 , http://www.dotphoto.com/Go.asp?l=lensovet&P=&AID=3477708&T=1 , and http://www.dotphoto.com/Go.asp?l=lensovet&P=&AID=3885888&T=1. I apologize ahead of time for all the other junk in these albums, but I haven't had the time to sort these things out properly...anyway, if there's a picture from any of those albums that you want me to upload, just let me know the picture name! Thanks. —lensovet–talk – 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the SFO ticket booth "IMG_2007" would be the most appropriate in the gallery. Thanks for your contributions! Gordeonbleu 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, we actually already have this image at Image:SFO BART entrance.jpg! Are there any other photos that you saw in those albums of BART (unrelated to the faregates) that you'd like to see here on wiki? Let me know... —lensovet–talk – 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The current cutline for the ticket gate photo calls them "signature red triangular doors." I'm not sure how appropriate that is. The gates are almost identical to those in the Washington DC metro (although I think the doors there are orange triangular ones). Can they be appropriately called "signature" when they're found elsewhere? Perhaps we should reword?--Velvet elvis81 23:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think images 2010 and 1984 (both the titles of novels, incidentally) would be useful for this page. I think 1984 gives a better sense of the seating and 2010 can be used to demonstrate the Third rail. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Two motormen?

From the article: The airport extension requires two motormen (one on each end of the train) to operate between San Bruno and Millbrae stations in order to avoid extended dwell times at SFO; the train pulls in to the SFO stub-end station (with the primary motorman) and pulls out of SFO in the opposite direction (with the secondary motorman) headed towards Millbrae. I don't ride BART that often (mostly evening/weekend when it's a train per 20 minutes), but I've always seen the driver walk from one side of the train to the other, indicating that there's only one motorman. Do they have 2 motormen during busier times? --Matt 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that he actually walks to the other end? From my observations, he closes the doors, then walks out the first door in his car, and starts walking down the platform...and the train shortly leaves. And there's no way he made it to the other end by the time it does. —lensovet–talk – 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always had it be a pretty long stop at SFO, on the order of 2+ minutes. I haven't watched him walk out one end and in the other, though. I have seen a new motorman enter one end of the train at SFO. But as I said, not a very frequent BART rider. And it might vary by time of day. Do you see this during the week/peak time? --Matt 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on your experience and my experience, it seems to vary by time of day. My three recent experiences (usually during the morning peak, evening peak, or shoulder peak) with boarding or deboarding at SFO has been that of the train immediately departing after a 20 - 30 second dwell time. The motorman needing to pull the train away from SFO had already preboarded the rear cab car at either Millbrae (for northbound trains) and at San Bruno (for southbound trains). I felt bad for those motormen because it's got to be a frustrating job boarding and unboarding trains all day long just to see only three stations. --Inetpup 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dublin/Pleasanton: Originally planned as stub line

The recently added bit about the Dublin/Pleasanton line being originally planned as a shuttle is referenced by a transit fan site (http://transit-rider.com/ca.bayarea/bart.cfm?id=dublin1) that itself does not cite references. This strikes me as not particularly authoritative; at the very least, the sequence of events is confusing (why did they plan to do it that way, and why did they change their minds?).

BART didn't believe that they could achieve adequate headways, such that they could run all four lines through the Transbay Tube and downtown S.F. Prior to the Dublin/Pleasanton line, headways through the Transbay Tube were approximately one train every five minutes or three trains per 15 minute period. Improvements in train control and navigational technology improved the distance required between trains, which allowed the extension (to my chagrin) to operate as a trunk line. --Inetpup 07:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it should chagrin you. And I'd still like to see something more solid than a transit fan site as a source. --Jfruh (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy because it increased BART's operating costs significantly. Dublin/Pleasanton has extremely low ridership (and thus four or five car trains) compared to the Richmond or Pittsburg lines; it essentially doesn't deserve to be a trunk line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inetpup (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

As for 'why did they change their minds', BART wasn't even sure if it was technically possible until better 'train-separation detecting' technology was invented to achieve minimal headways. There are threads on the Usenet (though not very authoritative) that state LRVs (retrofitted with broad gauge) were being studied by the MTC as an option to connect Dublin/Pleasanton with Bayfair. However, finding a reference for materials that were published before circa mid-1990s, particularly things like BART Annual Reports or BART SRTPs or MTC studies, aren't possible on the Internet yet, because no one has taken the trouble of scanning and OCR'ing the documents. Getting an authoritative answer would require a visit to the MTC Library in Oakland or the Institute of Transportation Studies Library in Berkeley. Any volunteers? --Inetpup 05:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude in the edit summaries, by the way. If the cite had been supplied when the information was originally added, I wouldn't have reverted. I will continue to be suspicious of uncited additions, or additions that rely entirely on uncited information from non-authoritative sources. --Jfruh (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It was entertaining to be rude. I knew you could take it, so I just dished it out. In the future, you should put first and then let the author fix it. That would prevent ill feeling between you and others like me.--Inetpup 07:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you already had the cite, why didn't you just add it in the first place? --Jfruh (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

May I ask if you two are arguing about the proper citation of sources or the ineptitudes of a public agency. If it is the former, then use {{cite}}. If it is the latter, then it does not belong here. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite either. The required citations are from the 'pre-Internet' generation, which might be a little difficult (perhaps for you) to comprehend. As such, getting the citation requires a good 'ol trip to the library. I was suggesting that someone (perhaps you) would volunteer to go to one of the transportation libraries in Oakland or Berkeley and get the citation. --Inetpup 07:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps you may have directly said that the source for your information is in printed text without the seemingly condescending flair. But I will not hold it against you, as what is there to create grudges from trivial matters? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 08:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Metric units

Ummm, who put the metric units first in this article? That's complete nonsense. the article talks about a system which is located entirely in the united states. there's absolutely no reason for the metric units to be put first; it makes no sense. and yes, there's a section in the manual of style that says this, but i don't feel like pulling it out right now. please change the order of units back to the way it was. thanks. —lensovet–talk – 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree and am going to try to change them back. Please see [1] which states "put the source value first and the converted value second." As the BART system was built to US specs, US units should always be listed first, as is the case for virtually all engineering projects constructed in the United States. Calwatch 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How about using twips? That would be brilliant!!--Inetpup 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no excuse for metric units as the primary (rather than secondary) unit of measure, particularly for an American transit system; it would be okay for a non-American system. Flame war against the offender, anybody?--Inetpup 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed information

I removed this information as these items were in the incorrect sections of the articles and are unsourced. If they can be re-added and sourced, go for it.

Also, unlike other systems, BART bans food and beverage on all trains and station platform areas.

In addition, the fare card system was easily hackable with equipment commonly found in universities, although most of these flaws have been fixed.

Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 06:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hackability: [2] It has been readded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calwatch (talk • contribs)

It still needs a reputable source --Matt 15:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the reputable paper articles cited in the PushBack article. Per WP:V, paper sources are just a valid as online sources, and PushBack was republishing a government backgrounder on Wattenburg. Calwatch 04:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Images removed

I removed these images in order to make the page less cluttered. I also feel that they are of lower quality than the other images and don't seem to give any pertinent information. If you have issue with this, please replace them or discuss it here. Image:PEP BART.jpg and Image:A and B carproject revised.jpg - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 06:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of neat to show the very unique BART toy on this wiki page. I'm going to try to place the image somewhere that won't cause the article to look cluttered. I'll try to consider this from the perspective of the most common low-resolution screens (1024 x 768). HeWhoE 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)