Jump to content

Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Non-encyclopedic Information Abounds

Non-encyclopedic information abounds in this article, for example in the "Recent History" section, where there is a lot of tedious detail about which trains go to which stations, and what hours, and on what days of the week. Writers need to understand that such things are 100% arbitrary decisions on the part of the professional managers of BART; and they are subject to change beginning on any day, and for any reason that the managers decide to do so. It is information that is absolutely NOT "cast in concrete", and it does not belong in an encyclopedia because it is information that is quite evanescent.

For example, in an article on an airline, you don't describe how it offers service between Salt Lake City and Oklahoma City, and what times those flights leave, because that is something that can change TOMORROW. The airline might just drop that service altogether, anytime that its managers decide that they need to.

For a train system like BART, it is far better to describe things (that are set in concrete) like where the tracks go, where the stations are, especially the ones at the ends of the lines and at significant locations - airports, AMTRAK stations, intercity bus stations, coliseums, stadiums, city halls for the big cities, large universities, convention centers, for example.

Lots of things in the article need to be written from the point-of-view of people who live elsewhere. For example, someone from elsewhere might wonder, "If I land at the SFO airport, will BART take me to Fisherman's Wharf, to the S.F. City Hall, to the stadium where the Oakland A's play, or the San Francisco Giants..." People out here like me want to know if it is even possible, and not the details of the schedule. "Is it possible to ride BART to Stanford University?" - in which case, we find out that the answer is "No".

If I am traveling to Washington, D.C., I might ask, "Is it possible to ride the METRO to Georgetown?", and in this case, the answer to the question is "No", also. "But I saw a Georgetown station in a movie!" Well, that was the filmmaker's idea of a little joke.... 98.67.174.103 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

recent additions

in several previous edits: added content ranging from gay pride/a's/sfo records, segway incidents/policy, films w/bart, huston street riding bart, cell phone expansion, let me know what u think. and in retrospect i think that i have places things in the wrong place but wasnt sure where to place them, i do propose a ridership section for the statistics maybe with a table of the top 10 stations for ridership with a drop down "show" of the rest, and also merge the segway section into a section on bikes on bart or on general accessibility on bart to wheelchairs and bikes and scooters and segways and the rules, maybe a section on the major attractions bart connects with such as downtowns stadiums and universities and shopping centers, we could add the huston/kennedy content there, and that's all ive got for now.MY♥INchile 04:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Marin Pulls out of Bart District

The following line in the article does not cite a valid source:

"BART officials refused to allow Marin supervisors to stay in the district because they were afraid Marin voters would not approve the bonds, which had to win more than 60% approval."

If you track down the article cited (the link just takes you to the Mercury news front page you get this article:

http://www.mercurynews.com/bart/ci_5162648

... which does not substantiate the claim that Marin was forced out of the BART district. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.62.96 (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing content

This article has some great information, but there are several points where it's apparent the editors were not in the SF Bay Area during the funding and building. In particular:

1) BART trains were meant to be wholly automated, and only union pressure forced there to be drivers on trains. (In the long run, this proved to be necessary, anyhow, because the automatic controls were not sophisticated enough, and because drivers could spot any safety problems.)

2) The promised speed was much higher than what was delivered in practice.

3) The BART officials promised the trains would be extremely quiet, both for the community, and for riders. In practice, communities were quite annoyed with the noise. Riders today know that the track is still quite noisy in places.

4) I don't remember the number of accidents that were associtated, but in the early months of BART's running, the outside doors used to open automatically, and without warning. at full speed. (I witnessed this myself, on more than one occasion.)

5) Marin County wasn't the only county or city that threw major obstacles in BART's construction. Some of the lower East Bay cities refused to allow BART passage unless a station was placed in their city. As a result, there has never been a line connecting San Jose and San Francisco -- a very serious oversight that was recognized even in the 1960s, before the boom in Silicon Valley.

24.130.12.229 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This all seems like good information to me, but it all needs reliable sources that we can cite (i.e. newspaper articles, books, magazine articles) for its inclusion in the article. Without such citations, this content would likely be removed as original research or unsourced POV pushing. Slambo (Speak) 11:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This text was delated because reference leads to dead link "According to a study by the Sierra Club, which is an opponent of the project, the taxpayer subsidy required to attract each new rider on this extension would be between $31 and $72 per rider per trip; this translates to a public subsidy of $62 to $144 per rider per round-trip, or $15,500 to $36,000 per rider per year over a 20-year period". If new link is found (I could not), please edit. Broncobus (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)broncobus Broncobus (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think point (3) above should be addressed in the article. Is BART noisy when you ride it? Can you have a conversation with a fellow traveller? Since this may be a model engineering article i think it would be reasonable to include. Perhaps this would be a suitable citation for an edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Son of eugene (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposition 13 cite

I think that the Proposition 13 cite is useful, to explain why the measure failed to pass even though it received a large majority vote. 192.91.147.34 (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's clarify that I didn't remove the Prop 13 info. I did make a change to correct the status of Measure B - it's so close that they're officially still counting. Wikipedia cannot call an election before the county does. Even though it looks like the measure will fail, nevermind the KCBS headline that made it sound like it's already over. Wait until it's official and then include a reference for it. Ikluft (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Huh. The "history" page makes it look as though it was removed. Sorry about that. I don't have a problem with the other edits. However, once the counting is finished, I think that the percentage should be included--the measure did go well past a majority of the popular vote, and failed by less than 0.20%. I understand that "a narrow margin" is meant to imply this, but I think that it's important to state just how narrow the margin really was. 76.252.223.101 (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it will definitely be reasonable to include a percentage when a final one is counted and released. Don't forget that the margin is still close enough that the result is not yet completely certain. It will take more time for them to finish the absentee ballots and sort more slowly through provisional ballots. So just be patient. It isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes until they finish counting and post it. Ikluft (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This shows what a "nail-biter" finish it is... "South Bay BART Extension Still Behind, But Close" - the figures released at the end of Monday's counting were 35,000 votes left to count manually. At the time the measure was 1000 votes short of the 2/3 needed to pass. So that's why I'm saying we can't call it failed yet. Passage isn't likely but still can't be ruled out. Ikluft (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It's been hanging at about the 1000-1500 vote mark since the 4th. 192.91.172.42 (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Another news update: Fate of BART extension sales tax undecided (SF Chronicle) Ikluft (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's an unexpected twist in the news which illustrates why not to call an election result when election officials say it's still undecided. "Surge of Yes votes push Measure B on BART closer to victory" The ratio of provisional ballots is turning out to be higher for "yes" than it was for absentee ballots. Friday's count of 9000 provisional votes brought the total count to 66.61%, closer to the 66.67% required for passage. We should know a result in the next few days with 17,000 provisional ballots left to count. Stay tuned to the news. Ikluft (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

2009 BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant

I've reverted efforts by editor MLRoach to supress press conference quotations by Burris. Whether or not they are factual, they are absolutely newsworthy relevant to encyclopedic coverage of this case:

  1. 11:12, January 7, 2009 Critical Chris (Talk | contribs) (64,108 bytes) (why stop with Burris, why not delete quotations from "police self defense trainer" c'mon!Undid revision 262577333 by MLRoach (talk)) (undo)
  2. (cur) (prev) 10:45, January 7, 2009 MLRoach (Talk | contribs) (62,671 bytes) (→2009 BART police shooting: remove a bunch of things said by the lawyer. Wikipedia's about facts, not just reprinting what someone says.) (undo)

What MLRoach reverted: "On Tuesday January 6, 2009, Burris commented "Without so much as flinching, the officer Mehserle stood over Mr. Grant and mercilessly fired his weapon, mortally wounding Mr. Grant with a single gunshot wound to the back." "The ultimate, important question in this case is what did the officer do and what did he intend to do?"

I can understand not wanting too many quotations, and wanting a succinct article, but why is a quotation from a "police self defense trainer" a sacred cow for this editor?Critical Chris (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

MLRoach - So despite your hypocritical, careless, and convenient oversight of only those quotations with which you disagree, you come on my own talk page and add this "stuff"? Your note and my responses to follow.

"You seem to be pushing your point on Bay Area Rapid Transit. Please state facts and don't just post what other people said. Please listen to the point of Wikipedia's point of view policy." Thanks --Matt (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Pushing what point? I'm not adding anything that's not ALL OVER the news media right now. I maintain all of my edits are encyclopedic, and well sourced. I'm well versed in WP:NPOV, do you care to educate me as to how my edits are POV? I'll be waiting for your response here. You're the one who conveniently and selectively chose to revert quotations from Burris, while ignoring quotes from the "police self-defense expert," then you chastize me for for adding them in the first place. WTF is with your hypocrisy? And why are you going on the defensive here on my talk page, did you not see the talk page for the article?"Critical Chris (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda. I'm not seeking to suppress the quotes by Burris, I don't think they're relevant in this article, an article about the transit system. I think the shooting is notable, but let's state the facts instead of just copying what other people have said about the issue. Show me what the issue was, don't tell me what someone else had to say about it. I don't know which quote you're referring to about the police self-defense trainer, I don't see it in the revision before I made my first edit on this issue. -- Matt (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see it now. I was searching for "trainer" not "instructor". I didn't remove that sentence because I hadn't noticed it. Additionally, that note seems to side with the victim, meaning that I'm not hypocritical, just clumsy. --Matt (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How about just cover this whole thing under "Bart Police Shooting of Oscar Grant" which is already a separate article? In fact just put the subsection under "Recent News" as a redirect to that article. The article itself can be filed under BART police. --Mistakefinder (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted "21:04, 21 October 2009 70.189.216.90 (talk) (71,383 bytes) (Irrelevent) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)". This is a significant ongoing case. Although it is certainly a negative event in BART's recent history, removing all reference to it from this article fails to provide the neutral point-of-view (NPOV) that we are required to maintain in Wikipedia articles. - Johnlogic (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Spelling on map

Hello! The map of the BART system looks fantastic, but there's a spelling mistake: it says "Layfayette" for "Lafayette". --SameerKhan (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploader of map notified. —Kurykh 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed, thank you for letting me know. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
could we add an "under construction" for the West Dublin station? and a proposed or under study for the warm springs/milpitas/san jose extention from fremont to santa clara, wBART from Richmond to hercules/martinez/fairfield, ebart from bay point to antioch/brentwood/tracy, and tbart from dublin to tracy and north along i-680 to walnut creek and martinez?
also, it looks like there's a better map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Revised_BART_map.svg Kevin chen2003 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The stations are less discernible than the current map. —kurykh 03:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent News - Hayward Yard Fire 2008

Would someone want to write about the fire in 2008 that caused disruption and modification of service on the Fremont Line for several months? Or at least refer to news articles that referred to it?--Mistakefinder (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Routes - Reorganize listing?

I suggest reorganizing them in the order of Pittsburg/BP-SFO, Richmond-Fremont, Dublin-Millbrae, Richmond-Millbrae, Fremont-Daly City, since the first three offer daily service, and the latter two more limited service. Richmond-Fremont is a main trunk line that passengers need to transfer to on Sundays and weekday/Sat evenings and would be better described earlier instead of last. I'd do it but want to check w/ the orig. writer and the forum first.--Mistakefinder (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Five stations under construction?

The infobox says that there are 5 BART stations under construction. Unless I'm wildly off base, there are actually only two -- the W. Dublin infill station and Warm Springs. What are the other 3? --Jfruh (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

According to this, West Dublin/Pleasanton, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Warm Springs are all under construction.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Construction of Milpitas and Berryessa stations has been approved, funded and is set to begin in 2012.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Um, then by your own admission that means Milpitas and Berryessa are not under construction. We can add them when they are actually under construction. Also, Pittsburg and Antioch are part of eBART, which is not exactly part of the the BART system proper. That leaves only West Dublin/Pleasanton and Warm Springs. --kurykh 04:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

they are part of bart just like ferry and bus are part of golden gate transit proper, the berryessa extension has been approved99.55.175.128 (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Cell phone use underground

"By November 2005, BART had become the first transit system in the nation to offer cellular communication to passengers of all wireless carriers on its trains underground." Unfortunately, this quote and the San Francisco Chronicle article which it references are too optimistic. As of July 2009, there is no T-Mobile service in most of the Transbay tube and in the underground tunnel between West Oakland and Fruitvale (except when the train is stopped at Lake Merritt). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.181.123 (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant now -- all services are working in the Transbay Tube, Oakland Wye, and through 24th St. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.165.17.120 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Patent nonsense

In Bay Area Rapid Transit#Background I have deleted "...and more stable at high speeds" as patent nonsense. With both 66 and 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) the stability of the passenger car that is 10 ft 6 in (3,200 mm) wide depend on the condition/quality and maintenance of the tracks. Peter Horn User talk 01:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If not wind proofing, then why a non-standard gauge? What about the reason for this wider gauge in India? Tabletop (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
See broad gauge in India. IRFCA
The wider gauge may of course be more stable during earthquakes, as well as wind. Tabletop (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The current route map could be misleading to some.

The way the current route map in the article squishes all the routes so they go in strict south-north direction on the map is potentially misleading. The fact is the Pittsburgh/Bay Point route goes more in north-east direction, the Fremont route goes in south-east direction, the Dublin line in east direction, and the SFO line goes west, southwest, then south-west. It would be better if there was a map that at least had the SFO, Pittsburgh/Bay Point, and Dublin/Pleasanton routes lines going in more left/right direction. As it stands now, someone who is unfamiliar where different cities are located in the Bay Area might get the false impression, for example, that track between Ashby and Richmond runs parallel to the track between Rockridge and Pittsburgh/Bay Point. Either you need disclaimer that the route layout on the map does not represent the true layout of the routes in relation to each other or someone should create a map that at least has the routes going roughly in the right directions. --Cab88 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I take BART periodically and live near the Fremont BART station, and I think it's horribly confusing even as a streamlined map--the label for Fremont is over next to the Pleasanton line. It may make sense to railfans (?), but I don't think anyone else trying to learn about BART will actually have much luck parsing it. --Wintersweet (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be confusing but these are the types of maps all railroad enthusiasts and transit officials actually use, its a template every rail system and rail line has on wikipedia, that is in addition to any images of a transit system.99.60.6.109 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I will try to upload an image. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

not good
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

PLEASE respond on MY TALK PAGE. Where do I put this picture in this article? I can't align it with the text. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your question is simple, you do nothing (about placing the image at this time).
This article has been rated as a Good Article. That doesn't mean changes cannot occur, but major changes, such as you are proposing should be proposed on the talk page and a consensus reached before implementing.
So the next step is to propose a change, and make the proposal at the bottom of the page, where it can be found.
Before you make the proposal, you ought to sort out the license. At the moment, the image you propose is non-free. That doesn't mean it cannot be used, but you should read Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems, it will outline the requirements clearly, and offer suggestions for help. Make sure you can satisfy all ten items; I don't think you can.all items can be addressed, but I don't think anyone can.
If you can, and others agree, you can discuss where it should be placed, but I doubt it will get that far.--SPhilbrickT 00:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how to respond, is that supposed to be an insult? I mean, “I don't think you can”, “I doubt it will get that far”? I'm kind of offended? Haven't the foggiest what's happening or how to respond? Honestly very offended? Also, collasping comment to “nothing”? Is that to do what, reduce embarrassment? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
There's no reason to be offended. I'm not suggesting that YOU cannot meet the 10 requirements, I'm suggesting no one can. For example, is there a free equivalent? Answer yes. (in my opinion).
There's no point in opening up a conversation about how to use this image is you cannot write a FUR that is accepted, so I suggest starting there first. It's not an area in which I work, so I might be surprised.--SPhilbrickT 02:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, “I'm suggesting no one can”. Then why did you state “I don't think you can” above? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Responded at my talk page--SPhilbrickT 13:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC).
I'm not sure where to put this response in the order of things (collapsed sections and such) but I was asked to provide some input. 10.28.2010 and Sphil seemed to have worked out their differences, so I'm leaving that sleeping dog lie. As far as the map is concerned though... I don't see a point in adding another map to what is now an article with two maps. There's already a map generated from Google Earth which shows the real world physical layout of the BART system (sorry if that's not the proper terminology). And the vertical diagram that people seem to have a problem with is a standard representation of a mass transit system. Similar diagrams are posted in thousands of busses/trains/subway cars throughout the world. The purpose is the show the stops and the places where one might change routes. It's not important that they be geographically accurate since that information isn't what is trying to be conveyed. Please note, I was asked to throw in my two cents. I'm just a third party putting in their opinion, so I will not be watching this page for replies. Take care, Dismas|(talk) 01:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

BARTD

In its early years (ie before it was constructed), its acronym was BARTD, see this research paper. i have seen images in a magazine, i believe it was scientific american, with trains showing the "bartd" logo, probably a prototype. This should be included in article if adequately sourced.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why has reference to two transit strikes been removed?

Reference to both Transit Strikes, originally in this article, have been removed. Why? Labor strikes are relevant as are the freely discussed frequent issues at BART between Unions and Management.

19th Street: not a transfer station

The northbound transit station is 12th Street, not 19th Street. I'd edit it, but I guess it's possible that's changed in the time since I moved away from the Bay Area. But 12th Street was ALWAYS the transfer station before.67.233.176.171 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The transfer station has in fact been officially changed from 12th to 19th Street. Whether the change makes any sense at all is another matter... 70.36.134.198 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the transfer station has been changed to 19th St. Voyager640 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It's changed. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
My guess is that the transfer station was changed to 19th Street eliminate delays to trains running from Hayward and Dublin/Pleasanton directly into San Francisco (and vice versa), which otherwise might have had to wait for trains laying over at 12th to clear their block. But I don't know for sure; does anyone have any specific information about the reason for the change? 108.246.205.134 (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Map?

Why doesnt this article have a geographic system map? ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.28.53 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because nobody has added one. Feel free to fix that. :) --Thogo (Talk) 15:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
done, i used paid so its not perfect or a vector image but it will do for now, added all the stations/lines under construction/planning and updated the line configuration on the sfo line.Thisbites (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor edits

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit&action=historysubmit&diff=391023185&oldid=391015017

A series of edits by a user last year degraded this article significantly, I don't have the time to clean this up now, but ugh.

- dieman (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

BART hacking and delays reported on media outlets

I have received some information in regards to the protests that is ongoing in San Francisco over the hacking incident and delays that is ongoing. More to come later... CHAK 001 (Improvements? Please let me know!) 06:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

New Train Rendering Release

Can someone update the image of the new rolling stock provided here?

http://bart.gov/docs/cars/exterior.pdf

Much thanks. - Fan Railer (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The BART web site copyright is very explicit and restrictive. It looks to me like someone would have to get their explicit permission in order to use that illustration here.
The site has no "publicity" or "press kit" section, so I don't think that could be claimed as a fair use exception.
But, I could of course be completely wrong.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

BART Protests -- "with the objective of disrupting BART service during the late afternoon commute"

I disagree with "Demonstrations were announced by several activists, with the objective of disrupting BART service during the late afternoon commute.". The protests were meant to protest the unjust killing of the previously mentioned people. The protestors never announced that they had "the objective of disrupting BART service. In fact many protestors have specifically stated they didn't want to have stations closed, with plans even being made to stay well away from stations so that there would be no excuse for (unnecessary?) station closures: http://opbartsf.tumblr.com/post/9473926347/protest-plan-for-opbart-3 . I'm still trying to find a decent source to show this, but the source linked to at the end of that sentence only describes BARTs opinion that protestors were aiming for disruption, which tells you nothing about whether or not the protestors were aiming for disruption. In conclusion, that sentence should be removed unless someone finds a reputable source stating "protestors announced they wanted to disrupt service". 77.57.186.202 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oakland offices

Their website indicates the board of directors office is in Oakland. that should be in the article. i added the Oakland template here, which shows all the oakland stops and BART itself for that reason.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Map is wrong

Please view comments I made on the map's talk page. Bay Area Native (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Grid map is wrong

There is service between SFO and Millbrae, every night and every weekend, just not all day every day, but it is shown in light blue as if it were out of service and that is incorrect.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

BART rolling stock articles

Could someone create articles such as BART A-Car, BART B-Car, BART C1-Car and BART C2-Car, incorporating template:infobox train? Such articles exit for New York City Subway rolling stock. Peter Horn User talk 01:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Swap Request for "Map of Evening and Sunday Service" Map

Could a Wikipedia user please swap the locations for "South San Francisco" and "San Bruno" on the BART Map that was uploaded for night and weekend service? The map there remained unchanged and no Wikipedia user has come forward to make a minor correction to the map specifically for night and weekend service. I should note that the map that someone made to the weekday service is currently up to date, but no one noticed the error until I scrolled down to the "Hours of Operation" in this article and verified it on the BART's website. Cheers. [3] CHAK 001 (Improvements? Please let me know!) 04:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

How many doors on new cars?

To speed up service, BART is preparing to introduce new, three-door cars.

I believe the trains will have six doors, three on each side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.246.205.134 (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The new trains will have six doorways with three on each side of the train. Four of these will be the current set of double-doors and the newly added third door will be a single-wide door, presumably designed primarily for exiting. This is according to all of the renderings I have seen. Bytemaster (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent potential strike

Should we add something about the strike threats by workers? 71.146.15.156 (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There should honestly be something about the recurring labor problems the agency has, which seem to crop up every five years when the contract runs out. There was a week-long strike in 1998, and a near-strike in 2003. Not sure if there was one in 2008 or not. --Jfruh (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Solar carports

Both this article and the Orinda article mention that in 2008, BART entered into a contract to have built solar-panel-topped carports at Orinda Station thanks to its sunny disposition. Both articles cite this Mercury News item dated July 2008. However, as of July 2013, there are no such devices present at Orinda Station, and I haven't been able to find any sources (bart.gov or otherwise) talking about why this project failed to materialize. Perhaps the mentions should be removed or modified to reflect that they never came to pass? hwj (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

BART Map Legend Is Wrong

The 'legend' for the (regular) BART map on the BART page contains an error – the Green line is listed as "Richmond-Milbrae" when it should say "Fremont-Daly City".

Hopefully, somebody can fix that... --IJBall (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Gauge

I note that BART uses wide (Indian) gauge rather than standard gauge. It would be nice if the article gave some information about this choice and the lack of inter-operability it must cause. --AlisonW (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The wide gauge is just wide enough to permit dual gauge with standard gauge, as in Spain.
If the wide gauge were only 1600mm as in Ireland or Victoria, dual gauge with standard gauge is problematic. Tabletop (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Any information on workers, employees, staff, etc.?

As both a service and business, the employees and staff would be important information to include.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/contractors/hvac/westcode/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Good little bot, have a treat. Nickjg (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Flip-up seats

The caption for the image of the A2 car interior

A2 car interior

says that a flip-up seat is visible on the left. I do not see a flip up seat in the image. Is there a flip-up seat in the image? If not, the caption should be changed.Sapiens scriptor (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think BART has any flip-up seats. I'll change it. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
BART clearly has had flip-up seats, at least in the recent past. Googling "bart flip-up seat" finds photos of them flipped up, to allow use of the space for wheelchairs or bicycles. Somebody with on-the-spot access should check this. The seat in the photo might or might not be a flip-up; it's hard to tell from the cropped image, even though the Wikimedia Commons description claims it is. Reify-tech (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictures: seat, seat and person. These were installed on the C2 cars[1] and have since been removed. Sapiens scriptor (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "BART Trains & Station". Oren's Transit Page. Retrieved 12 August 2014.

BART to OAK - Where Should It Go?

The portion of the BART article on the BART to OAK system is currently in the 'Future expansion and extension' section. However, the system will open for service tomorrow (on Sat., Nov. 22), which means it should no longer be in the 'Future expansion and extension' section. Yet, as part of the BART system, it should still be mentioned in this article. So, what I'm wondering is – where should the 'BART to OAK' section be moved to? Maybe the 'Routes' section? Any ideas here?... --IJBall (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be treated like any other line in the BART system and added to the list of routes.RickyCourtney (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I generally agree, with the caveat that BART to OAK isn't quite like the other 5 lines in the BART system. So while I think it should probably go in the 'Routes' section, I think it should be 'offset' with its own introductory sentence to point out the difference (e.g. that it's an AGT line). --IJBall (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that if the line has its own introduction you run the risk of making a very wordy section, even more wordy. Maybe something like this:
*   Coliseum–Oakland Int'l Airport: Automated guideway transit line that connects the Oakland International Airport to the BART system at Coliseum station. Operates daily.
RickyCourtney (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking something along the lines of:

The five BART lines are generally identified on maps, schedules, and signage by the names of their termini:

In addition BART also operates a separated automated guideway transit line:

I don't think setting it up this way is unreasonable... --IJBall (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Couple of suggestions saying "automated guideway transit" followed by "people mover" seems redundant. Let's just say "Operates along Hegenberger Road from the Oakland International Airport to the BART system at Coliseum station." Also BART appears to calling this the "Coliseum–Oakland Int'l Airport line" in keeping with the naming convention of the other lines. We should follow suit.RickyCourtney (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Ack. BART seems to call it "BART to OAK" in all other press releases, etc. I agree, though, that for the 'Routes' section specifically, sticking with "Coliseum–Oakland Int'l Airport line" is probably the best call. --IJBall (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: OK, I've taken your suggestions, and added this to the 'Routes' section. Editors, feel free to improve this addition as you see fit... --IJBall (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Rounding figures in the article

WP should not slavishly quote over-precise values given by official sources. The WP policy on rounding precision is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Uncertainty and rounding. Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative (i.e. low precision). Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. The official figures are subject to measurement error, and they fluctuate each measurement period (in this case, monthly). Thus, official figures are unlikely to be accurate at full precision, and the full-precision official figures are not helpful to readers.71.128.35.13 (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you have this quite incorrect. Firstly, you are misinterpreting the uncertainty and rounding guideline – that section is referring to those numbers that have "errors" associated with them (e.g. 12.34 m2 ± 5%), or have a specific uncertainty associated with them. This is not the case with most of the figures in the article which you have rounded, such as ridership figures, which are explicitly known (and counted) to an exact value. Second, this is a MOS guideline, not a policy, and it mostly certainly doesn't countermand WP:V which is a Wikipedia policy. In other words, you cannot willy-nilly drop figures for an exact sourced figure like that. As such, I am going to restore all of the figures that you have inappropriately "rounded", contrary the provided sources, here and here, in the near future (giving anyone else time to comment first). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with your arguments. Counting paying passengers in an entirely faregated system is an incredibly precise affair. Also our guest can't just rewrite history, BART's top speed is well documented as 80, not 70 as asserted. Other than that I have little to add to IJBall's argument. --RickyCourtney (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The top speed was formerly 80 mph, but that changed in 1976. According to an official report in 2013, "The maximum operating speed BART currently uses today is 70 mph. It is unlikely that 80 mph operating speeds will be used again due to the increase in motor wear and propulsion failures at the higher rate. There are also higher impacts on track maintenance."[1]
The Atlanta Subway article rounds to the nearest 100, e.g. 438,900 daily riders. Wikipedia's rounding policy provides readers with useful, encyclopedic information.
BART ridership certainly isn't “explicitly known to an exact value,” nor is it "incredibly precise." So, while 211,288 riders are provided by official source with an implicit margin of plus or minus one rider, the real margin is far greater than plus or minus one rider. A precise, but nonetheless unknowable in principle, number would not be helpful to readers, anyway. These counts are from September, but counts vary monthly.
Ridership does not and cannot include (or wrongly includes) non-paying employees, non-revenue passengers (e.g., children under four years of age), gate hoppers, mechanical breakdowns, software/algorithmic errors, and ticket counterfeiters.--71.128.35.13 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, you are not correct – first, the "rounding" guideline you refer to is a guideline, not a "policy" (WP:V is an actual "policy"); secondly, it does not apply in this case, as it is easily possible to collect ridership figures (either monthly, quarterly, or annually) down to the exact number of revenue-paying riders (as RickyCourtney says above). But thank you for not reverting the figures that are directly from the references this time... The "top speed" issue is a more nuanced issue that should probably be discussed further – while it may be limited 70mph for other reasons currently with the vehicles now in operation, I wonder if that will still be true when the new trainsets start going into operation by 2020. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Even so, I have been unable to locate the exact number of annual riders, just a rounded figure to seven significant digits for CY2014.[2] Could you really find this exact number, easily? Should this be rounded to 132 million, 132.3 million, or 132.3142 million?--71.128.35.13 (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't tell you if APTA has the exact annual figure or not – I suspect they do, and just choose to publish the annual ridership number to 7 sig figs. BART actually does have the exact figures (look for a file called "BART_Ridership_FY73_FY14.xlsx" on their website in the "Ridership" section) – this file has exact annual ridership figures down to a single person! As for what to report on Wiki, you could in theory put this figure down in the Infobox as, say, "132,314,200 (2014)" if you wanted to, but I think "usual" practice is to round such ridership figures to roughly 4 sig figs... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
One other point: this article historically has used the annual (fiscal year) ridership figures direct from BART (i.e. "BART_Ridership_FY73_FY14.xlsx" figure) over the annual figures from APTA, and I would advise reverting the ridership figure to the one from BART, as it's presumed to be "more accurate" coming directly from the operator in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
BART's official and overprecise figure is 125.979396 million per year at www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART_Ridership_FY73_FY15.xls--71.128.35.13 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd advise going with "126.0 million (FY2015)" then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone object to my updating the ridership figures in the first paragraph of the article? The file that 71.128.35.13 shared (http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART_Ridership_FY73_FY15.xls) gives the most updated average numbers, since it includes the results from the recently-completed 2015 fiscal year, rather than for a specific month (in this case September 2014). Mole2 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mole2: Nope, no objection – usually, somebody updates the figures as soon as BART releases the new .xls file with the most recent fiscal year's figures. So, if you want to do this year's update, have at it! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20SCOA%20Final%20Report%20June%202013.pdf
  2. ^ "Transit Ridership Report Fourth Quarter and End-of-Year 2014" (pdf). American Public Transportation Association (APTA) (via: http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/ridershipreport.aspx ). March 3, 2015. Retrieved 2015-03-14. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Design speed is not notable (summary box)

The summary box at the top of Wikipedia articles don't list “design speed.” The main body of this article should explain and discuss the distinction between “design speed” and "maximum operating speed."

“Design speed” is not listed in the summary box of wikipedia articles, because it is not important and not notable. Even top speed isn't listed in the summary box for the Washington Metro, the SEPTA#Rapid_Transit, the PATH_(rail_system), the [[Red Line (Los Angeles Metro), the Purple Line (Los Angeles Metro), Broad Street Line, the Market–Frankford Line, the Norristown High Speed Line and the Orange Line (MBTA). The same holds for the Beijing Subway, the Shanghai Metro, the Seoul Metropolitan Subway, the Moscow Metro (average speed in Moscow is 26 mph, however) and the Tokyo Metro.

However, top speed is listed for the Chicago "L" and the Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority. Both top speed and average speed are listed for the New York City Subway and the Metrorail (Miami-Dade County).--71.128.35.13 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think my position is this: while a source ("BART Facts") can be produced for the 80 mph figure, you have a probably better source for the 70 mph figure and as that is the current top practical speed on the system, I would leave the sourced 70 mph figure as the only one in the infobox. I do think, however, that the 70 mph vs. 80 mph "top speed" figures should be discussed in more detail in the article's text. So that's my $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'm reading the reference for the 70 MPH speed differently than everyone else. I read it to mean that the top speed BART uses in regular, scheduled service is 70 MPH. That doesn't mean that BART doesn't still run trains at 80 MPH under certain circumstances (like trying to make up lost time), they just don't schedule service to normally operate at 80 MPH. I find it interesting that BART still lists the maximum speed as 80 MPH and has explicitly said that the new cars have also been designed to have a maximum speed of 80 MPH (http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/faq). If the agreement is that the highest service speed and not the maximum speed is the "top speed" go ahead and make the change. Personally I think the way we have it now is ugly. --RickyCourtney (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
My one caveat on this has always been about the new trainsets. It seems like 70mph is the preferred top speed of the current trains (and the quote in Ref. #6 makes it pretty clear that 70mph is the current "top" operational speed...), but I've always wondered if they'll go back to 80mph when the new trains start operating... Getting back to the Infobox thing, it sounds like we probably need to hear from more editors to get their opinion on this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall and 71.128.35.13: This last modification from an anonymous editor inspired me to look into this again. It appears that while 70mph is a "preferred" "operating" or "scheduled" top speed, 80mph is indeed the maximum speed for BART trains. This is supported by three official BART sources:

So under normal circumstances the control system will only allow the trains to travel at speeds up to 70mph, but when necessary (if a train has fallen behind schedule) the control system can allow trains to travel at their maximum speed of 80 mph. In light of these three sources, I think we should change the top speed in the infobox to 80 mph and find a way to explain how the speeds work in the article --RickyCourtney (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeed, consensus is already showing that the 70mph figure is unsupported. The sourcing above clinches the case (to me, the "facts" source should be the "definitive" one...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Consensus and supporting references have shown that 70 mph is the normal, operating, preferred, scheduled speed. --71.128.35.13 (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please explain emergency evacuation third rail issue

"On ground-level tracks, the third rail alternates from one side of the track to the other, providing breaks in the third rail to allow for emergency evacuations". Huh ? Please explain "ground-level track" and its relevance. Sounds like the doors on only one side can be opened in an emergency and which side is crucial to prevent electrocutions. Sounds like the third rail side alternation would have to be half a train's length to work. A derailment would be a nightmare. Sounds like the rail power needs to be turned off before people can safely escape. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Humphrey Go-Bart

The page Humphrey Go-Bart links to this article (section Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit#Connecting_services_via_bus), but Humphrey is not mentioned here. Perhaps it should be in the history section? I seem to remember that it was a (free?) shuttle service to the UCB campus, or perhaps also the the Lawrence Hall of Science and MSRI? --194.166.244.228 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Side Failure?

Is the ATC accident a case of "Wrong Side Failure"? Tabletop (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Development of original automatic train control system

The original automatic train control system (late 1970's/early 1980's) was developed by UK computer consultancy Logica as a custom development (since "packaged" automatic train control systems were not commonly available at the time). I don't have references hence referencing this in the talk page (here and also at Logica:TALK rather than updating the main article. This train control system was replaced in the late 1990's/early 2000 when increases in routes and frequencies meant that it had run out of capacity and could not easily be amended to increase capacity, coupled with the increased availability of "off the shelf" automatic train control systems from specialist railway signalling suppliers.

--193.35.250.233 (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but any such replacement is waaay in the future. EEng 05:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

How many counties ?

"...cities in four other counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo)." Huh ? I count three here. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

BART connects S.F. county to three others, total 4 counties served. EEng 05:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks for fixing the text to avoid ambiguity. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

New 2017 Map error re: weekend and night service on Red/Green lines

The most recent version of the map contains two small mistakes, which have to do with BART's horrendously complicated routing patterns. I've noted this on Wikipedia Commons, but also wanted to put it here in the hopes that someone will correct it.

The Red (Richmond-Millbrae) line runs the entire length between Richmond and Millbrae on weekdays during its entire service period. It is only cut back to Daly City on Saturdays. Likewise, the Green (Daly City-Warm Springs) line runs the entire length between Daly City and Warm Springs on weekdays during its entire service period. It's only cut back to Fremont on Saturdays. Neither the Red nor Green line runs at all on Sundays.

To correct this information on the map, I would change the explanatory text on the bottom of the map as follows:

Note: Richmond-Millbrae trains run until 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and during the day on Saturdays, when they terminate at Daly City. Pittsburg/Bay Point-SFO trains continue to Millbrae on evenings and Sundays when the line is not running.

Note: Warm Springs/South Fremont-Daly City trains run until 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and during the day on Saturdays, when they terminate at Fremont. Richmond-Warm Springs/South Fremont trains continue to Warm Springs/South Fremont on evenings and Sundays when the line is not running.Mole2 (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Historical events? (ATC failed, train crashed, financial mismanagement, GM fired, entire board replaced...)

The managerial and technical events at the inception of BART were epochal, not a single incident. The train controls were unsafe, the firings were retaliatory, a train crashed, the train controls were redesigned, multiple investigations were conducted, finances were mismanaged, top management was fired, the board was restructured and the entire board was replaced.

These events were epochal, and no history of BART should hide them. This article could hide them, if it were to mention—in passing—that "questions were asked [by whom??] concerning the safety and reliability of the system..."[1] The reference is hidden behind a paywall. Reliability is not the same as safety. The word "reliability" doesn't even appear in the non-paywall section of the reference.

Some would scrub the epochal events at the start of operations from this article. This purge of history has the appearance of an Orwellian deep-cleaning by the Ministry of Truth. The wiki article for Germany covers WWII head-on, with proper seriousness: as if WWII were important. A separate article, "History of Germany," likewise gives WWII the attention it deserves. WWII is a lot more contentious than BART train controls. The history section of this article shouldn't hide epochal events under the rug, in the name of "punctuality."—166.107.163.254 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

yes, BART's pretty much been a piece of shit from the beginning. no one's denying that. but head over to London Underground and History of the London Underground for a template of getting to more in-depth subjects related to trains. writing a history of BART's incompetence could double the length of this or any article - make it punctual or get it off the same page as fare info and track gauge. Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want fare info, go to the BART website; if you want the gauge, go to 5 ft 6 in gauge railway. The history section of this article is filled with fancrud and techno-trivia, some indirectly from press releases that spawn many news stories.
The history section of the article on the London Tube has train crashes, station fire(s), the firing of top management, and dozens of passengers killed. They were a bloody mess, mate, making our BART management, the state legislature, the legislative analyst, the NTSB and the PUC look proactive.
Instead of worrying about punctuality, worry about verifiability and importance. For example, the claim that nine counties were envisioned to be part of BART originally is unsupported. If you look after notability and significance, punctuality will take care of itself. Does the history section include the important material? Is the failed plan to run trains on the Golden Gate Bridge important? The installation of black tiles? The replacement of the ticket vending machines? The flip-flops between off-peak headways of 15 and 20 minutes? The installation of solar panels? The improvement of maintenance facilities in 2012? The earthquake study in 2010? (This could be important.) The proposed extensions to the Sunset district in San Francisco? The unfunded infill stations?
History will little note, nor long remember, the replacement of ticket machines nor the installation of solar panels. History should note—carefully—the failures of ATC and of management, so we don’t repeat those mistakes.—166.107.163.254 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I hate this huge long section on train-control failures. A line or two in the history section would suffice. This long excursus into the early failures of the train control section belongs in the "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit" section.Mole2 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You’re right. The article has a huge amount of unimportant material, that could be buried. Move the material to a separate article that no one reads: "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit."
Would you move the unsupported claim that BART was originally planned to serve nine counties, or move the train-control failures? Move the failed plan to run trains on the Golden Gate Bridge, or move the train crash? The replacement of the ticket vending machines, or the retaliatory firing of the engineers who warned about the train controls? The installation of the black tiles, or the financial mismanagement? The installation of solar panels and improvement of maintenance facilities, or the firing of the GM? The aborted extension to the Sunset district in San Francisco and unfunded infill stations, or the restructuring and replacement of the entire board of directors?
Train geeks and WP readers should view BART as a political entity, more than a railroad. The real problem wasn't the train controls; it was a lack of direction and control on the part of the board and management. The long discussion of the train crash, management turmoil, and firings is not an excursion. It's central to the birth of BART; and epochal. The Orwellian purge that you propose for this article would throw out the organizational baby, and keep the technical bath water.——166.107.163.254 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not the only section of the article crowded with unnecessary detail that I'd take out (I'd be happy if someone axed the solar panels and ticket machines). It is entirely appropriate to have a short summary of the history of the system at the beginning of this article, including information about the system's birth, early problems, control failures, and yes, mismanagement. But this whole section is egregiously over-detailed. There's an existing, separate article called "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system" where this level of detail belongs; and the merger of this section into that article has been proposed for five months with you as the only opponent. Condensing the train-control failures heading to an appropriate length, given the presence of the separate "history" article, is not the same as eliminating it, and is not "Orwellian," an accusation I strongly object to. You do not have the exclusive right to pick and choose what part of BART's history is "more important" or "epochal." I could argue, for example, that the Transbay Tube's design and construction is just as "epochal" as train-control failures. The tube was an extraordinary piece of engineering. Yet all information about it has been removed from this article. Is that "Orwellian"? Mole2 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Editing the unnecessary technical details about solar panels and ticket machines would be a positive step. This article is about BART, and its history. “Editing” the epochal events of its birth as you propose would certainly be Orwellian, since the deletions would serve the cause of historical revisionism. The Transbay Tube is not BART: it’s a component of BART. The Golden Gate Bridge support piers are not the bridge; they’re a component of the bridge. The Golden Gate Bridge history section covers its design, finance and construction in great detail. No one sees the early-stage designs, the failed funding deals or the scaffolding collapses. But they’re an important part of the history of the bridge. No one sees the first-generation ATC system, the management failures and the lack of direction on the part of the governing board. But, they’re an important part of the history of BART. History is about the stuff that is buried, the stuff you can't see.
You want to treat the history of BART as if were the construction of a machine, but it’s not. I’m at a loss to understand how it was that all the multitudes of editors to whom you refer, had egregiously failed to address this crucial part of BART history for years (not just five months!). It seems that neither they nor you were inclined to dig deep and uncover the nontechnical, but nonetheless important, historical material. The history was buried in the reports, but you didn’t want to find it.
Get used to it: BART history isn’t just bond measures, long tunnels, modernist stations, shiny trains and track extensions. BART is a political entity, whose history is must be understood through the lens of the Post reports, the NTSB and CPUC investigations, and the state legislature hearings. The important lessons of BART have to do with political turmoil, automated control systems, managerial failures and ethical lapses. The article had and has glitzy over-detailed distractions, like expansion plans, train-car orders, and maps of service areas.
The BART article should cover the ATC failures, the train crash, the investigations, the firings, and the restructuring of the board. The article (finally) does cover the subject, and it does so at an appropriate length and a level of detail that corresponds to its degree of importance. The source material is reliable, and the events at the birth of BART were momentous. Why don’t you redirect your keen editing focus to the sections on infrastructure, rolling stock and traveling (hours of operation, fares, ridership), because they’re filled with fluff?—166.107.163.254 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
First of all, this article is not, as you say, about BART's history. The entire history section on BART used to be in this article and became so long that it was ultimately cut and moved, with the full support of the Wikipedia editing community, to the "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit" article. I was not involved in that decision, but since it got made, my opinion is that that's where most of this material belongs. If you don't like it, then you can start a petition to have the history article moved back into this one. If you look at the Wikipedia page on the New York City subway, there is a very short history section. The (deeply political, and deeply epochal) deterioration of the system in the 1970s warrants no more than a couple of lines. That's why there's a separate "History of the New York City Subway" article that goes into that history in far greater depth. That's all I'm proposing for this article.
Second, just as the Transbay Tube is a component of BART, the train control system is a component of BART and not the system itself.
Third, this article is about an existing rapid transit system. Therefore, maps of service areas, lines, and information about rolling stock are not "distractions," as you argue. They are integral to the article. As I said before, I do agree that there is a lot of extraneous information in this article that could come out, but I don't agree that the details I've just noted are extraneous.
The only thing you seem to think is important about BART is this particular set of problems in the 1970s. The bottom line is that I agree with you that this information is valuable, useful, and important, and should be on Wikipedia. The truth is that I did not know about this history in the 1970s and am grateful that you have brought it to my attention, and that of the public. That does not change the fact that I think the section is too detailed and is out of place here. I believe the appropriate solution for this article is to have a brief section on the history of the system, including an overview its early failures and scandals, and for this very detailed section to go into the "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit" article.
Fourth, I am not advocating "historical revisionism," as you unkindly and incorrectly call it. I'm not "revising" anything; that would be rewriting it so that it softens what actually occurred or raising doubt about the historical record or recasting it in some other light than the facts would bear out. Nor am I saying that these train-control failures, political failures, or management problems never occurred. I have never said that. The ONLY thing I have proposed is moving this section, completely intact and correct, to the "History.." article. You are free to disagree and indeed to object to that, but proposing that we do that is not historical revisionism and I strongly object to your qualifying it as such.
We can disagree politely about this issue, but you're now escalating into bullying territory by making nasty remarks and veiled attacks. I object to the following:
• Do not claim that "I did not want to find this history" and do not call my editing suggestion "Orwellian." Those remarks imply that I willfully wish to dispose/hide/conceal this information. That is absolutely not true. I'm suggesting moving the information to another article, not disposing of it.
• I also dislike your assertion that I should "get used to it" and that I should "apply my keen editing focus to fluff." You do not get to make the decision about this disagreement on your own. And even if we are interested in different aspects of BART that does not mean my contributions are not valuable.
Wikipedia is large enough of a community to enable a dialogue, but your escalating, disagreeable rhetoric is making that very difficult for me. If you make any further such remarks, I will report you. In any case, I will be contacting an editor to begin a dispute-resolution case on whether this discussion should be merged into the "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit" article or whether it should remain here, since we clearly cannot arrive at an agreement on our own. Mole2 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
You are proposing the following: "The ONLY thing I have proposed is moving this section, completely intact and correct, to the "History.." article." However, this section was written in response to the "To-do list for Bay Area Rapid Transit." If you were to move the section, how would you discuss the first years of the system's operation? Clearly, some of the editors believe that the history of the early years is well worth discussing.
  • We need to incorporate a bunch of information from this article. It has lots of (seemingly) factual information and provides some insight into the first years of the system's operation.
This item dates all the way back to July 2006. It was, and still is, notable and important. Would you care to draft an alternative discussion of the birth of BART, per the to-do list at the top of this talk page?—166.107.163.254 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course the early years of the system is well worth discussing, as I've stated repeatedly over and over again that I like this material and find it useful. Please assume good faith editing on my part, which is part of Wikipedia guidelines.
My point is that this level of detail doesn't belong here in a section that's meant to be a summary, not a dissertation. Clearly, some of the editors felt that this article on BART had become too long to contain everything and decided to spin off portions to other articles, including the extensive history section, the section on rolling stock, the explanation of what the Bay Area Rapid Transit District is, and so on. (Keep in mind: I'm not the person who made this decision, I'm just trying to bring this article in line with that decision). Yes, of course I saw the directive "We need to incorporate a bunch of information from..." But in 2006 when the editors put that directive out, the article on BART was MUCH shorter. By the time you wrote this new section, the article had become so long and unwieldy that the consensus of the editing community was that this article should contain no more than a couple of paragraphs of overview on the history of the system. And that the history of the system could best be discussed in the greatest, longest, and most excruciating detail in a separate "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit" article. Again, I refer you for comparison to the Wikipedia article on the New York City subway, which has a very short overview of the system's history and then refers readers to the separate article on the "History of the New York City Subway."
My vision for this portion of the article: The history section in this article would be perhaps a total of 3 paragraphs long. You ask how I would discuss the first years of the system's operation. We could condense your text into a paragraph explaining that there was a controversy about the train-control systems that the Board of Directors essentially ignored, resulting in a major accident; a delay to the introduction of full service; and ultimately the replacement of the Board and formal federal and state investigations. There would, of course, be a link saying: "Full article: History of the Bay Area Rapid Tranist system," if there isn't one already. This existing text would be moved into that article (where I think someone has already put it).
This approach has been proposed for months. If you still disagree, then I ask that you do so through the formal dispute resolution process that I've already begun and which can be found here. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit.23Historical_events.3F_.28ATC_failed.2C_train_crashed.2C_financial_mismanagement.2C_GM_fired.2C_entire_board_replaced....29_discussion If you do not participate in dispute resolution, that seriously weakens your point of view. When the editing community has arrived at a decision as to how to proceed, I hope you will abide by the decision that's made. I will do the same.
Please note also: your text claims that the introduction of service to San Francisco was delayed until 1976. That is not correct. Transbay service though the Transbay Tube began in 1974.Mole2 (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to correct the delays in the start of service. Here's some material from 1979 on the subject:
"Construction delays The major sources of delays were design changes, problems with financing, and a taxpayer's lawsuit challenging the 1962 election in which the BART bond issue had been approved. These delays added $321 million (50% of the excess) to BART's cost, by extending construction into years of further and faster inflation. Between December 1968 (when the Transbay Tube originally was scheduled for completion) and September 1974 (when the Tube actually opened for service), the average annual inflation rate was 11.3%"[2]
"The frequency of trains, their operating speeds, the reliability of their operations, and the capacities provided in peak periods of travel by BART were considerably lower than those originally planned. Trains were running on 12-minute headways instead of the 4.5 minutes originally planned for each of the four lines (90 seconds where three lines converged). BART did not initiate service on all lines simultaneously in 1972 but instead phased in service. The most critical link, the Transbay Tube, was not opened until late 1974. Night service did not start until the end of 1975, and Saturday service started in 1977. Direct Richmond to Daly City service still is not operating, and it now appears that "full service levels," when they are attained, will not achieve the headways and average speeds announced in the original plans."[2]
"Major construction didn't begin until mid-1964 and wasn't completed until September 1974, when the Transbay Tube opened for service."[2]
"BART began service between Oakland and Fremont in September 1972, between Richmond and Fremont in January 1973; between Concord and Oakland in May 1973; and between Daly City and downtown San Francisco in November 1973. Trains began running through the Transbay Tube in September 1974 - between Concord and Daly City, and between Fremont and Daly City. Initial service over all of these routes was confined to weekdays, between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM. BART began nighttime service in November 1975, with trains running until midnight. Saturday service (6:00 AM to midnight) began in November 1977, and Sunday service (9:00 AM to midnight) in July 1978."[2]
"During the first three months of 1974, the average weekday patronage on AC Transit's transbay buses was 63,000 trips a day. During the first three months of 1975, after BART had begun service through the Transbay Tube, AC Transit's average transbay patronage was 44,200—about 30% less than it had been in 1974. During the first three months of 1976, patronage rose to 45,200. As BART diverted travelers from transbay buses, AC Transit gradually reduced its transbay service. In December 1973, AC Transit’s transbay lines accounted for 35,800 bus-miles a day on weekdays. By December 1976, service had been cut to 30,400 bus-miles."[2]
"During June 1974, before BART began service through the Transbay Tube, the bridge handled about 93,000 vehicles a day, in each direction, on weekdays. Immediately after the Tube was opened, traffic on the bridge declined noticeably. By December 1974 it had fallen to 85,000 vehicles. But then it began to recover. In June 1975 it was 94,000; and in October 1976 it reached 96,000 — almost exactly the volume that would have been expected if there had been no transbay BART service."[2]—166.107.163.254 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to that report, this is great information we should work to incorporate into the parent article and/or some of the others. Mole2 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gillam, Jerry (November 15, 1972). "Safe Automated BART Train Controls Doubted". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  2. ^ a b c d e f https://archive.org/stream/bartsfirstfivey1979sher_0/bartsfirstfivey1979sher_0_djvu.txt. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

RFC on Section on Early Train Control Failures

The consensus is that the section on the history of BART's early train control problems should be moved to the sub-article "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit" and a condensed summary retained in the parent article.

Cunard (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the section on the history of BART's early train control problems be moved to the sub-article "History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit" and a condensed summary remain in the parent article? The alternative is to retain in the parent article in its entirety. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Please !vote Support or Move to move the section into the sub-article, or Oppose or Retain to leave it as is.

Survey

Move - Since a history article exists it makes more sense for it to be there. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Move - The main/parent article should have a brief history section, but this level of detail belongs in the sub-article.Mole2 (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Move to history article, leaving brief summary in this one. Maproom (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Move, but don't remove the material from this page until the sub-article is fully fleshed out. --Jfruh (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Move, I have nothing to add to foregoing. JonRichfield (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Retain - As noted in the to-do list at the top of this talk page, the article should discuss the early years of the system. 166.107.163.254 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Move, but do leave a 500 word summary in this article. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Request for Comments period has ended as of 9/25/2017. Please see threaded discussion for next steps. Mole2 (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Hello. I've been actively involved in this discussion from the beginning. Please see the major threaded discussion on this topic above. Our (unfortunately unresolved) discussion on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is located here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_155#Talk:Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit.23Historical_events.3F_.28ATC_failed.2C_train_crashed.2C_financial_mismanagement.2C_GM_fired.2C_entire_board_replaced....29 Mole2 (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the idea to move most of the details to the sub article, as long as a decent summary is left here. I read above that someone suggested two or three lines, but that does not seem adequate. I would probably expect one or two paragraphs and potentially keeping the separate sub section. The quotes should go and many of the details of the reports and investigations could be summed up in a sentence or two. The details as written would most likely be fine in the history article though. AIRcorn (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Aircorn, I hope you don't mind that I'm moving your comment into the threaded discussion section. All along, I've argued in favor of just such an approach. Do you think that a 500-word, one or two paragraph summary would suffice, if a couple of sentences does not? I agree completely that the quotes should go and many of the details of the reports could be summed up, but that the existing text can stand as is in the history article. Mole2 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Ping didn't work for some reason. Honestly I don't want to put an exact number on what should remain. Editorial judgement from editors interested and familiar with the topic should be making those decisions. I rarely think direct quotes are useful in any overview article (they are not even summarising the source let alone the topic). From an outside perspective one or two paragraphs seems fine to me. AIRcorn (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been RFC summoned. You've both thought this through well. Your ideas about not including quotes would serve this article well while including them on an article about the history of BART would probably work. I might be time for the changes you suggest. Thanks for the work.Horst59 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The Request for Comments period has ended. Do people agree that a consensus has been reached? The result of the RFC was largely in favor of the move, with a summary paragraph retained in its place. Mole2 (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BART to Antioch

Currently it looks like BART is operationally treating the yellow line as the Antioch-SFO/Millbrae despite the mid-point transfer. This means that the schedule book shows Antioch as one line, the map shows Antioch as one line (with the little disclaimer) and station announcements will announce the final destination of the train as Antioch (although I don't believe stations have had their signage corrected to state the terminus as Antioch). One could refer to the Pittsburg Transfer-Antioch line similar to how the Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line is referred to, except MBTA now officially calls the Mattapan line the Mattapan Trolley with its own schedule. Effective May 26, 2018 I propose making all references to the terminus of the yellow line as Antioch (and merging the eBART and Pittsburg-Bay Point line articles) and referring to stations on the Pittsburg Transfer-Antioch line as Antioch. Calwatch (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. Regardless of what BART says, we base content on reliable independent sources. Most sources discuss the DMU line as separate at this point. We don't have to be in any rush to match every minor change to train maps, particularly when BART itself has not been consistent on naming. James (talk/contribs) 05:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The news articles so far have followed BART's lead and called it "BART to Antioch" or the "Antioch extension" without the use of the "eBART" terminology. [4] [5] Calwatch (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Here are four stories that took me 10 seconds to find: [6], [7] [8] [9] Your insistence on switching terminology at a point in time when there is no consistency in naming - and when multiple other editors have told you to hold off - verges on original research and is also coming off as aggressive and rude. I suggest you cease editing to change the terminology for now, and wait until the messaging is more consistent. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's change it to SFO-Antioch line brujas!108.75.79.57 (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit/Archive_3&oldid=1144572091"