Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit/Archive 2

message: By November 2005, BART had become "the first transit system in the nation to offer wireless communication to all passengers on its trains underground".
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/19/MNGF2FR6C11.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2005/11/19/MNGF2FR6C11.DTL&o=2
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3649554
"When BART first broached the idea in mid-2001 of wiring its nether regions for wireless reception, many passengers squawked about having to listen to nonstop chatter from cellular phones... The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurred while the surveys were being taken, and BART officials believe the widely publicized use of cell phones during the attacks persuaded many passengers to support wiring the tunnels."
I can confirm underground reception in all the stations and tubes under Market Street in San Francisco, but I'm not sure if they're still working on the other underground parts of the network.
:On the east bay, there is def not reception everywhere. it's rather spotty, too, some stations have it, but the tunnels definitely do not have full coverage. lensovet 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording is misleading, it is ok for something like a newspaper, but an encyclopedia should be better than that. What does that statement mean? DC Metro had all its underground (except for a few short tunnels) connected to Verizon wireless service by 2001. Is there anything about the new statement in the article that as written may lead to confusion?. It needs to be rewritten. I'll take a stab at it after I read the links here.  --JVittes 13:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe what they mean is that all wireless providers have service, rather than just one. The article talks about that. What we really need to do is call BART and ask them the status of this. lensovet 20:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes more sense.  I can confirm that coverage in the East Bay underground stations and tubes is not yet active.  The articles probably meant what Lensovet said - that they provide to customers of all wireless providers in the region. Gordeonbleu 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard somewhere that DC Metro only has CDMA service, so it may have to do with that, Cingular I think doesn't support CDMA, so that's why it claims all passengers, eventhough one still has to have a service provider, and a cell phone, so it is confusing. I guess I'm being pedantic, both systems allow all passengers to use the wireless system, just that on BART one can say that if you have service near a station you will have service inside BART. Though I think last time I was in the Bay Area Cingular blacked out in some of the underground sections around Berkeley, so I don't know. --JVittes 04:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some really old AT&T Wireless/Cingular customers might still be on the CDMA network, but yeah, most Cingular, as well as all T-Mobile, users are on GSM. Take a look at http://www.govtech.net/digitalcommunities/story.php?id=98319 , which actually says what they mean by "all passengers", and also at the BART Times of Feb '06 mentioning that the project is complete in downtown SF and is progressing elsewhere on the system. I'll try to call BART next week to see if I can get more info. lensovet 07:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: called the Oakland service center today and was told that currently the service is still in/between the downtown SF stations. I was also told that if I wanted any more "specific" details about the project status/timeline/etc, I should call the main switchboard (mind you, this number isn't on the website even) on Monday, which I plan on doing. lensovet 00:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I called up BART last week and was finally able to get in touch with the person in charge of this project. You can find "the real deal" in the article now.—lensovet–talk – 20:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile Phone Underground Coverage 

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

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

message: This article would benefit from a photo of the ticket gates (the ones with the red gates).  It's something associated with BART. Gordeonbleu 06:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I thought my pic from SFO would work but realize now that the angle isn't really good there. I'll see if I can take a picture of the gates sometime this week. In the meantime, take a look at the BART-related photos in these albums of mine: http://www.dotphoto.com/Go.asp?l=lensovet&P=&AID=3866131&T=1 , http://www.dotphoto.com/Go.asp?l=lensovet&P=&AID=3477708&T=1 , and http://www.dotphoto.com/Go.asp?l=lensovet&P=&AID=3885888&T=1. I apologize ahead of time for all the other junk in these albums, but I haven't had the time to sort these things out properly...anyway, if there's a picture from any of those albums that you want me to upload, just let me know the picture name! Thanks. —lensovet–talk – 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the SFO ticket booth "IMG_2007" would be the most appropriate in the gallery.  Thanks for your contributions!  Gordeonbleu 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, we actually already have this image at :Image:SFO BART entrance.jpg! Are there any other photos that you saw in those albums of BART (unrelated to the faregates) that you'd like to see here on wiki? Let me know... —lensovet–talk – 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ticket Gates Photo 

message: From the article: The airport extension requires two motormen (one on each end of the train) to operate between San Bruno and Millbrae stations in order to avoid extended dwell times at SFO; the train pulls in to the SFO stub-end station (with the primary motorman) and pulls out of SFO in the opposite direction (with the secondary motorman) headed towards Millbrae.
I don't ride BART that often (mostly evening/weekend when it's a train per 20 minutes), but I've always seen the driver walk from one side of the train to the other, indicating that there's only one motorman. Do they have 2 motormen during busier times? --Matt 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that he actually walks to the other end? From my observations, he closes the doors, then walks out the first door in his car, and starts walking down the platform...and the train shortly leaves. And there's no way he made it to the other end by the time it does. —lensovet–talk – 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always had it be a pretty long stop at SFO, on the order of 2+ minutes. I haven't watched him walk out one end and in the other, though. I have seen a new motorman enter one end of the train at SFO. But as I said, not a very frequent BART rider. And it might vary by time of day. Do you see this during the week/peak time? --Matt 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your experience and my experience, it seems to vary by time of day.  My three recent experiences (usually during the morning peak, evening peak, or shoulder peak) with boarding or deboarding at SFO has been that of the train immediately departing after a 20 - 30 second dwell time.  The motorman needing to pull the train away from SFO had already preboarded the rear cab car at either Millbrae (for northbound trains) and at San Bruno (for southbound trains).  I felt bad for those motormen because it's got to be a frustrating job boarding and unboarding trains all day long just to see only three stations. --Inetpup 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two motormen? 

message: The recently added bit about the Dublin/Pleasanton line being originally planned as a shuttle is referenced by a transit fan site (http://transit-rider.com/ca.bayarea/bart.cfm?id=dublin1) that itself does not cite references.  This strikes me as not particularly authoritative; at the very least, the sequence of events is confusing (why did they plan to do it that way, and why did they change their minds?).
:BART didn't believe that they could achieve adequate headways, such that they could run all four lines through the Transbay Tube and downtown S.F.  Prior to the Dublin/Pleasanton line, headways through the Transbay Tube were approximately one train every five minutes or three trains per 15 minute period.  Improvements in train control and navigational technology improved the distance required between trains, which allowed the extension (to my chagrin) to operate as a trunk line.  --Inetpup 07:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why it should chagrin you.  And I'd still like to see something more solid than a transit fan site as a source. --Jfruh (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not happy because it increased BART's operating costs significantly.  Dublin/Pleasanton has extremely low ridership (and thus four or five car trains) compared to the Richmond or Pittsburg lines; it essentially doesn't deserve to be a trunk line.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inetpup (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: It was entertaining to be rude.  I knew you could take it, so I just dished it out.  In the future, you should put  first and then let the author fix it.  That would prevent ill feeling between you and others like me.--Inetpup 07:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you already had the cite, why didn't you just add it in the first place? --Jfruh (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not quite either.  The required citations are from the 'pre-Internet' generation, which might be a little difficult (perhaps for you) to comprehend.  As such, getting the citation requires a good 'ol trip to the library.  I was suggesting that someone (perhaps you) would volunteer to go to one of the transportation libraries in Oakland or Berkeley and get the citation. --Inetpup 07:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Perhaps you may have directly said that the source for your information is in printed text without the seemingly condescending flair. But I will not hold it against you, as what is there to create grudges from trivial matters? --210physicq (c) 08:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dublin/Pleasanton: Originally planned as stub line 

message: Ummm, who put the metric units first in this article? That's complete nonsense. the article talks about a system which is located entirely in the united states. there's absolutely no reason for the metric units to be put first; it makes no sense. and yes, there's a section in the manual of style that says this, but i don't feel like pulling it out right now. please change the order of units back to the way it was. thanks. —lensovet–talk – 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and am going to try to change them back. Please see  which states "put the source value first and the converted value second." As the BART system was built to US specs, US units should always be listed first, as is the case for virtually all engineering projects constructed in the United States. Calwatch 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about using twips?  That would be brilliant!!--Inetpup 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I was once told that the physical appearance of the trains was modeled on the Washington Metro, although the article currently makes no mention of the design origin. Is this just an urban legend, or can somebody verify it? Matt Gies 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first cars were built by Rohr Industries in 1968-71.  When the DC Metro was opening, they ordered their first cars from Rohr in 1976, so you have it backwards.  Both BART and DC Metro later ordered more cars from Alstom. —Dgiest c 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design origin 

message: what happened to this? it was pretty well written, extensive, and well-referenced. what's left now is a hodge-podge of what used to be there and contains fewer references. i feel like just rolling that whole section back to what was there a few months ago. what happened? —lensovet–talk – 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infill stations section 

message: An agreement between SamTrans and BART has been made with regard to funding the Airport extension, in which SamTrans will no longer have to subsidize the line in exchange for giving a one time payment to BART. There is a scan of the agreement available at .
I think we should mention that in the section because it currently gives the idea that the dispute between SamTrans and BART is still ongoing.
--JVittes 04:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get a 404 on that link... --Matt 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a link to it but I can't list it here, and it requests that I sign into yahoo, sorry, I'll see if I can find it somewhere else, there is also this newspaper article , and  which are easier to read, I think. --JVittes 07:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go for it then! Cheers --Matt 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport Extension 

message: The article listed in the reference has nothing to do with the paragaph discussing the comparitive costs of BART trainsets to TGV trainsets. Here is an more appropriate source of information about comparitive cost of Rapid Transit Trains:
Keisling, Michael. Altamont Benefits. California High-Speed Rail Athority. Pg 3 <http://www.arch21.org/CaHighSpeed.dir/TALC-HSR.pdf> 134.154.252.131 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 4 is Wrong 

message: Can anyone post something about how the automated train announcements came about? Like, when a train is arriving or when the doors open, you hear a 80's style computer generated voice. (For example, open the .ogg file in Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit#Automation.) Or is this file old? Herenthere (Talk) 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what it sounds like, but I don't know how long it's been that way.  It's not very good speech synthesis, though; it took me the longest time to work out what "platform one"   was supposed to be. Speight 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Train announcements 

message: The article mentioned a "Cal conductor" electronic shuttle bus, which I've removed; I'm a UC Berkeley student and I've never heard of one.  A look at the University Parking and Transportation website didn't have anything and a google search for "cal conductor" berkeley came up with nothing relevant aside from this article.  I've instead changed the article to note that most of the campus shuttles stop near the BART station.  If the conductor exists or formerly existed (and is important enough to deserve mention in the article), please re-add with a citation.  (On the other hand, one can confirm first-hand the former existence of the Humphrey Go-Bart. When people aren't parking on top of it, you can still read that name on the pavement where it used to stop, despite the fact it's been painted over.  It's across from the no-longer-used-and-yet-recently-NextBus-equipped AC transit shelter on the West Crescent.) Speight 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cal Campus Conductor" was the name of the UC Berkeley shuttle system before it was renamed "Bear Transit"  70.231.141.89 09:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cal Conductor 

message: When I took a tour of BART c. 1976, the tour guide described at length the re-engineering Hewlett-Packard did on the control systems.  Apparently a mainframe computer was originally the system controller and stopped and started trains with radio links throughout the system.  Poor software and spotty VHF communication resulted in trains going full speed through stations they were meant to stop at, and several (dozen?) people were killed when a train ran off the end of one line instead of stopping for the station, and other serious injuries were from trains colliding.  HP's design put in distributed microprocessors each controlling about one-fifth mile of track with wired links between nodes.  They would guard trains in their section by keeping same-track approaching traffic spaced with one node empty buffering.  At least that's what I remember.  Should that be added to the history, assuming a reference can be found? —EncMstr 18:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History missing accidents and reengineering 

message: Someone clearly doesn't like the proposed California High Speed Rail system -- it was listed as High Speed Fail.  Very amusing.  Also corrected.  Dasubergeek 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit that introduced that term --Matt 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Correction 

message: Isn't there a better sounding title for this portion of the article? I couldn't think of anything off the top of my head, but there's got to be something better.  Useight 03:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bart Today"?

message: The section about the San Jose BART extension appeared to contain only the point of view of opponents of the project.  I added a description of the project and route.  I added a link to the project's official web site.  (I'm surprised that wasn't already there.)  I also tried to make the existing text more neutral.  All the points and references that were there remain.  I have been following the BART extension project closely since 2000 because, if it happens, construction would take place 1/8 mile from my residence.  I got an appointment to one of the Community Working Group (CWG) for the Hostetter/Berryessa/Alum Rock neighborhoods, which they use to distribute information and collect input.  We're expected to represent our neighborhoods in discussion of the same info as at the walk-in public meetings. So with that background I hope I've helped improve the coverage of the topic. Ikluft 12:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Jose BART extension 

message: "A pilot program card that uses technology similar to the TransLink cards, by having an electronic chip that store value for rides on BART." -- Not to be overly technical, but does the technology actually work by storing value on the card?  Similar programs, such as London's Oyster card, do indeed -- but that is due to an inability to quickly sync a database with buses.  All BART fare gates are wired, and you activate cards by using them -- which implies to me that it then accesses a database.  Anyone have any knowledge of the technical workings of these cards?
"This program is expected to last until the TransLink cards are accepted on BART. At that point passengers using the EZ Rider card will be able to use it as a TransLink card." -- Does anyone have anything to confirm in any way that the EZ Rider cards will function as TransLink cards?  The cited source, an FAQ page on the EZ Rider website, says that the EZ Rider BART card does not function as a TransLink card, and simply says that EZ Rider users will be able to switch to TransLink when it is fully deployed on the BART system.
Furthermore, EZ Rider BART cards currently issued do not contain contacts as depicted in the scan of the EZ Rider card in the article.  I am unsure, but believe the contacts are necessary for the TransLink system.  I'm as such simply deleting the second sentence.
"EZ Rider – (a new plastic "smart chip" debit card program that will eventually merge with the TransLink Phase II Program in 2007)" -- I corrected the terminology, formatting, and the new TransLink deployment estimate of Spring 2008, but does this line actually belong here at all?
This is the 6th item under a title of "BART uses a system of five different color-coded tickets".
The EZ Rider fares fall exclusively under the "Blue."  Should this simply be added a note to the blue tickets?
Ieatlint (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EZ Rider / TransLink 

message: Someone added 2 paragraphs about BART purchasing 932 new rail cars from Alstom for $11 billion in November 2007.  This information cannot be substantiated.  There is no press release on BART nor  Alstom's websites, which is really weird given the size of the alleged $11 billion order.  It was not mentioned in any of the BART governing board meeting minutes.  No news article turned up on Google search either.
According to BART's FY08 Short Range Transit Plan and Capital Improvement Program published in September 2007 (http://www.bart.gov/docs/FINAL_FY08_SRTP_CIP.pdf), BART is indeed looking to replace its rail cars some time in the future (pages 5-1, 5-13, 5-14).  However, it was also mentioned that the cost of the project is about $2 billion, not $11 billion.  The ~$2 billion figure is also cited in an article on Mass Transit Magazine (http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=151), as each rail car costs about $3 to $4 million.  The figure for 932 new rail cars seem a bit high also - that's a 40% increase in capacity over the current 669 car fleet.  Is BART really looking to expand this much?  Even if BART is to buy 932 new rail cars, the cost should be about $3.7 billion ($4 million x 932).
Because the information seem to inaccurate, it's better to just remove it for now until it can be substantiated.
CW  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means remove it. —Kurykh 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, probably some foamer or BART rep wanted to publicize it. I could've sworn that this similar incident happened over at the Muni page. Someone said that Muni ordered 1300 Orion buses and had them delivered between 2008-2012. That thing's gone now, but seriously, remove it, and warn the user. If the user keeps going at it, let either one of us know, but I don't have the power... —BoL @ 23:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, you know who added those cruft? —BoL @ 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an IP edit .  V-train (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New BART Rail Cars 

message: I propose to rename the current routes to the color routes, since BART is going to implement never-ending changes to them, like the Green Line (BART), and the Blue Line (BART). Any thoughts? —BoL @ 05:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one uses those names, and moving the pages is a two-click task. —Kurykh 05:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, simple, though. By the way, the maps I drew are pretty crappy, huh? —BoL @ 06:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall not comment on the maps. —Kurykh 07:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Kurykh, the renaming is not a good idea.  No one ever refers to the routes by their colours -- not even BART themselves.  The colour coding would create confusion, especially since they seem to annually change them.  As for the maps... I intend no offence, but I don't really see them as being sufficient.  I would recommend one of us go down to a station with a camera after the new year arrives, or perhaps to send an email off to BART themselves with the request.  Since they risk nothing in approving a system map for display on wikipedia, and ultimately help potential customers, I would imagine they would be happy to oblige. Ieatlint (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: En Contrare, the BARTtv news video on the official website explaning the 2008 service changes had BART officials refer to lines by color. I even do it cuz, well, I'm a trend setter. Not to mention people who aren't from the area keep asking me about trains by color. That being said, the color boxes in the template work just fine. No need to diverge from the norm. BT14 (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The reason why we can't use BART's map on Wikipedia is because it is copyrighted by BART, and Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia. We can't use copyrighted material if a free-license copy can be made (which is why I asked someone to make a map in the above thread). It's more of copyright issues rather than technical problems. —Kurykh 05:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have to admit, but I draw like a kid... —BoL 00:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose renaming 

message: SOS! Johnnnathan (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know where I can find links to this topic! 

message: There is no information in this article about bicycle access restrictions, which includes the fact that certain rush-hour trains do not allow them onboard.
There is also no information about the free, secured bicycle stations at Embarcadero, Berkeley, and Fruitvale.Native94080 (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No information on bicycle access restrictions 

message: Under the Automation headline, the article says that the "Fremont Flyer" had passengers on it, but no serious injuries.  Under Incidents and accidents the article say that the "Fremont Flyer" had no passengers when it flew off the track.  63.95.36.13 (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Information 

message: can some1 verify that in the vid for "when i come around" by green day, they go to a BART station, because that is what it says on the article 2 the song and i dont belive it. SkaterBoy182 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, check out this link.  Their stroll trough the BART station begins around 1:30 and ends around 2:15 elapsed time.  They appear to be walking through the ticket hall of the Powell Street station.  There are BART maps very clearly visible in the video.  --Brianvdb (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: However, that doesn't make the information notable enough to be included in the article about BART.  It's certainly not the first film crew to use BART facilities (THX 1138, for example, was much earlier), and the band's use of the station is not necessarily unique or encyclopedic information. Slambo (Speak) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GREEN DAY