Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit/Archive 1

message: One other item that should be mentioned is the system's use in film and video media.  For example, while the system was still under construction, George Lucas used a portion of it for scenes in THX-1138 (which was recently re-released on DVD). slambo 11:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
: cf http://www.norcalmovies.com/THX-1138/ -- John Fader 14:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in film 

message: In the "current lines" section, it's useful to mention the colors, as that's how the lines are identified on BART maps. However, perhaps there should be some mention that BART lines are not referred to by their color, but by their final destination (eg, a rider would say, "I'm on a Richmond train," not "I'm on a red train." Jcb9 1 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
:: I'm going to take a moment to note how, as a rider, I've been forever frustrated by the lines which change names when extensions are finished. More on-topic, the destination is of course ambiguous in regards to the route.  There are two different routes which end in Richmond, for example. JoshuaRodman 04:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of BART lines 

message: An anon has added some info to the page that seems unencyclopedic:
BART OPERATING HOURS: WEEKDAYS 3:45AM TO 2:00AM WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS: 4:15AM TO 2:30AM FOR SERVICE AFTER 2:00AM(WEEKDAYS) AND 2:30AM ON WEEKENDS, USE THE SPECIAL BART OWL BUSES. THESE BUSES RUN EVERY 7 MINUTES BETWEEN 2:00AM-4:30AM.
Who cares about the specific operating hours? Train frequency it at least a measure of the size/scope of the system, but I'm inclined to remove this. Also, the same anon made a number of changes that are completely incorrect; yes, in the blessed Embarcadero to Daly City corridor, trains run every 4 minutes, but on any given line (i.e., for everyone else in the entire Bay Area) they run every 15 minutes or 20 minutes. I'm reverting that change out.
I'm also planning to revert the change that says MUNI is comparable to other transit systems. It's not. Look at a map for any other large city with transit, and there are far more lines that cover a greater area. There may be a number of buses, but rail-wise it seems inferior to NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, etc., everywhere except LA! Full disclaimer: I grew up outside Washington D.C., where the suburbs actually have trains that run every 15 minutes, even on the weekends.
Finally, does anyone have any evidence that MUNI is coordinated schedule-wise with BART? All I know is that when I take the MUNI train back from Pac Bell park, the wait for the next train to Dublin/Pleasanton is always freakin 19 minutes!! A google for bart muni schedule coordination turned up a few discussions of a "Transit
Coordination Implementation Plan" but it doesn't specifically reference BART and MUNI schedules. Anyone? Wnissen 13:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea is to show that BART does not provide local service and that in most other places the people who provide heavy rail service also provide bus service.  AFAIK, BART is the only (non commuter) rail-only transit system in the US.  In editing, I also deleted the sched coord statement--Jason McHuff 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details of BART service 

message: "Transfering from BART to the Muni Metro can be done at Embarcadero, Montgomery Street, Powell, and Civic Center Stations, the five rail transfer stations in the city."
Is there a reason that Balboa Park is left out? The above sentence lists four stations but says it lists five. I'm assuming that the omission is Balboa Park, but I didn't want to edit it in case there is a reason it was left out. Either way, there is a mistake  in the sentence. Could someone more familiar with the article fix it? Thanks!
:Glen Park BART station is about a block walk from a stop on the Muni Metro "J" line.
::I have changed it so it notes the combined Market St stations as well as Balboa & Glen Parks.  Balboa Park was probably left out because it is not a shared station--Jason McHuff 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BART/MUNI Metro transfers 

message: How about standard article titles for station pages?  I say use Station Name (BART).  Station and line (extension) opening dates would also be nice, too.  In addition, I have also moved the history section since it seems current info is more important --Jason McHuff 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then leave those. But please, let's have some order with the others. And you forgot Coliseum/Oakland Airport, which is also served by Capitol Corridor. Union City (BART) is a special case as it may be joined by conventional rail services if BART to SJ doesn't go through, but for now I suggest leaving it as it is. Bayberrylane 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note - Millbrae Station ought to be renamed Millbrae Intermodal Terminal, its proper name, and the Market Street Subway stations (and the Capitol Corridor stations) ought to be left alone with station on the end (rename Coliseum/Oakland Airport). But the other stations ought to be in format Station Name (BART); this makes the most sense and also brings us in line with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority light rail stations. See :Category:Santa Clara VTA light rail system, where Diridon Station, the only shared stop that has an article, was left alone and VTA info was incorporated into an existing article without renaming. Bayberrylane 19:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART station, and the Oakland Coliseum (Amtrak station) are separate structures, there had been a suggestion to merge them, but the discussion went dead, if anybody has anything to add to the discussion it would be appreciated. --JVittes 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Can someone elaborate on how dew causes ghost trains in the computer system and any changes that have been made over the years to help avoid this problem?  Is it a problem shared by other similar rapid transit systems?
:I'm not sure that the dew causes ghost trains, but according to this very POV but informative website,  found by Niteowlneils, it causes (or originally caused) trains to disappear from the computer systems. Dew rusted the tracks at night, and since such a low voltage signal was used to detect the trains, the rust insulated the wheels from the track, causing the train to disappear from the system. I don't know if BART has redressed the problem other than the solution proposed on the webpage, but other rapid transit systems (including the very similar Washington Metro use higher voltages to detect trains, voltages which are not insulated by rust. Bayberrylane 20:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost Trains 

message: The article should indicate the extensions to the system since its original opening, that is, indicate when the system was extended east past Concord, and west to Castro Valley and Dublin. --FourthAve 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Line Extensions and Original 1972 Lines

message: Quote from article:
"While the district includes all of the cities and communities in its jurisdiction, the BART system only has stations in many but not all of these cities. This has caused tensions in places like Byron..."
This might sound a little bitchy, but I've never even heard of Byron.  And what kind of "tensions" could there be for BART not stopping in a town of less than a thousand people, that's twenty miles away from the nearest BART line, and that isn't even on a major highway?  Was there some sort of political action to get BART into Byron that I never heard of?  Livermore I understand - most people have heard about the expansion plans - but I think inclusion of this little town in the opening part of the article is either ridiculous or should be cited with an article about past political action there.
-sparsefarce 11 Jan, 2005
it's been over a week.  i'm taking byron off.  
-sparsefarce 19 Jan, 2005
:I agree. Byron is a census-designated place in the far east of Contra Costa. It's population is less than 1,000, but it's still in line for eBART DMU service. Bayberrylane 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byron?  What the heck is Byron? 

message: As of Dec 2005, MTC is starting a new Owl bus service system in the Bay Area funded by Regional Measure 2 money.  This funds both previous Owl service provided by Muni, AC Transit, and VTA as well as some new service.  Some of the service covers BART stations previously without any transit service when rail service was not available.  Someone should include something about this in the main article.
Also, BART General Managers should be added from Stokes to Margro, and a few paragraphs on the substantial impact on Bay Area land use patterns, especially in central and eastern Contra Costa county, would be appropriate.  Keep in mind:  the people who wanted BART to exist had a very definite vision of San Francisco and Oakland as urban headquarters cities and everything else as suburbs.  Their point was to get the Dilberts of the day into the cubicles of the day reliably and sell houses etc., not provide a rail transit network with appropriate bus connections to facilitate public transit use per se.
:Actually, Pleasant Hill, California was developed in a similar way to the Metro-based cities in Washingotn, D.C. But your point is well taken and you should make a stab at incorporating into the article. Calwatch 06:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Owl service - the new Owl buses will replace most of the lines, and provide transport around the Bay except one gaping hole. To go between Fremont and San Jose, one must go via San Francisco. It's going to be much shorter (and possibly cheaper, too) to take a cab, unless VTA provides Owl service on 180. They could even have a semi-local line, like Samtrans 397 replacing KX at night. Bayberrylane 20:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See All-Nighter Network. Bayberrylane 16:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. comments 

message: The article contains seriously inconsistent information on the date of formation of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
* The intro section states that the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District was created in 1949. 
* The history section states that the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission was created in 1951, produced its final report in 1957, and that the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District was formed acting on those recommendations.
Clearly these cannot both be correct, and the difference is significant (at least 8 years). Anybody know the correct facts. -- Chris j wood 17:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, no-one has come up with anything on this in 10 days, so I've removed the inconsistent dates. Better to be short on information than purvey disinformation. -- Chris j wood 17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link to a page on the BART site that give accurate years for the creation of the commission and district. The district was created in 1957 which I added to the article. The commission came first in 1951 and took eight years to come up with a general plan for BART. In 1961, the specifics for BART where hashed out by the district members and in 1962 plan was approved by the voters. I added a mention of the voters approval for BART and the fact that it was the CA legislator that created the district. --Cab88 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent dates 

message: I just created a new infobox Template:Infobox Public transit for the St. Louis Metrolink page that I believe is better suited to describing public transit systems than the currently used Template:Infobox rail infobox and I thought that it would be a useful addition here. I would appreciate any comments regarding the new template. --Millbrooky 07:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks nice, but you incorporate a lot of info that isn't in the actual template as linked. I would  update the root template in case anyone else wants to use it. Bayberrylane 19:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, most of that wasn't supposed to be there.  Must've gotten carried away with copy paste. (I've removed the extra info that I had included here) --Millbrooky 06:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top of page infobox