Who can we blame for the current state of our transit system?
This morning's commute was just horrible. I happened to be on the train that broke down before the TOD this morning. The train was having "major" mechanical problems in the direction of Embarcadero. How a train can work in one direction and not another is puzzling. After waiting for 15 minutes for the TO to move from one side of the train to the other, we all had to unload at West Oakland and go to the other platform to head to Embarcadero. While I understand things happen, and this could have been one of these times where, "things happen," the question I have to ask is what the hell happened for Bart to be where it is now?
The system as a whole just seems ill conceived, poorly managed, barely maintained, rarely on time...the list can go on....
Why must trains move at a crawl from West Oakland to Lake Merritt/19th street?
Seems like poor planning of the route/track geometry.
Why do we not have a fully automated system these days?
Is there no money saved for investment of future technologies?
Who can we blame for using cars with only 2 doors and not 3? The purchaser of the train cars or the manufacturer?
Why is there carpet on the floor of the trains? Carpet is hard to maintain!
Why does the system stop and Richmond and not go all the way to rodeo? (Anyone who travels on 80 can agree with this)
Why doesn't the system go all the way to San Jose? Down the Peninsula?
How can Bart try to increase ridership when it seems that we have hit the wall? Trains are packed as they can get!
Why don't we have newer train cars? Was there no plans from day 1 to have a packed system?
Trolls: While this post is just a bunch of rants, having a Bart is better than not having one. With my paltry increase this year, I can barely afford Bart as it is. My questions are valid, and my main concern is how did we get to such a sorry state in the first place?
- Hockey's blog
- Login or register to post comments
In short, it's the voting
In short, it's the voting public that's to blame. At the largest scale, over the past 50 or 60 years, the huge majority of the public investment in our transportation infrastructure in this state and country has been into roads and highways.
More specifically, when BART was first conceived, the plan was to have it do a complete loop of the bay, and even go up into Marin. However, the voters of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Marin counties chose not to join the transit district, so the system was not extended into those counties. The Wikipedia article on BART and the Official BART history page are both very informative about the original plans and resulting system.
I've heard (here?) that the slow routing of the trains through downtown Oakland has something to do with the owner of a store that wouldn't move when they were digging the BART tunnels, requiring them to lay the tracks in a much tighter radius than originally planned.
i've heard that here too. it
i've heard that here too. it was a hardware store. but i think the store was responsible for the tight turns from the macarthur side into the underground section, not from west oakland. west oakland to the oakland underground is a relative straight shot. but it is very slow. not sure why.
A train can work in one
A train can work in one direction and not the other due to cab equipment problems at the leading end of the train. When you turn around and go the other way using the cab at the other end, no more problem. A multitude of electronics, relays, switches, wiring and connectors are involved in making the train go. The complication is required so that it is safe. It can't be simultaneously simple and safe.
The trains crawl under downtown Oakland because of the sharp curves. To have straight track through downtown Oakland would have required tearing down most of the buildings in the path of BART or putting BART on an elevated structure.
BART is fully automated compared to systems like Boston, Chicago, New York and Phila. The operator closes the doors manually and makes announcements. All other functions are automatic. The operator can manually control the speed of the train up to 25mph when necessary. The fact that there is an operator does not mean the trains are not automated. The operator is there to augment safe and reliable operation of the train, which is a major responsibility.
BART was conceived as a new departure in rapid transit. Much effort was placed on passenger comfort in order to lure people out of their cars. In an attempt to allow everyone to have a seat, in order to have more seats, you have to have fewer doors. So if you want to blame someone, blame the people who had to be lured out of their cars with the promise of a seat. Current sentiment is that the next generation of cars will have three doors. When this happens, wait until you hear all the whining about fewer seats. You can't have it both ways.
Carpet was another lure for the car driving public. The employees who have to deal with it don't like it any more than you do and it is gradually going to go away.
BART doesn't go to San Jose or down the peninsula because the voting taxpayers of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties didn't originally want it. Now they do but somebody still has to pay for it.
There's still alot of empty space between Richmond and Rodeo along I80. BART only makes sense when there is more than some minimum population density along a given route. People in northern Contra Costa county are more than well served by the BART Pittsburg/Bay Pointe line.
BART is working on a new train control system, Advanced Automatic Train Control or AATC, which was intended to improve capacity by allowing trains to run closer together. The project ran into a legal dispute about two years ago which is delaying implementation. So BART indeed has been working on capacity improvement.
BART completely rebuilt the original A/B car fleet between 1998 and 2002. This amounted to effectively retaining only the carbody and replacing all of the electrical and mechanical systems with the latest technology. Seats and carpet were also replaced. The reliability, maintanability and availability of the cars was considerably improved. Between 1987 and 1994, 230 C cars were purchased to allow for increased ridership, line extensions and to improve operational flexibility.
BART is not some autonomous juggernaut that does whatever it pleases. BART has a publicly elected board of directors. What goes on at BART is collectively the result of what voting taxpayers of the region want and it all costs money.
Thank you for your lengthy
Thank you for your lengthy and informative reply.
I do not agree with this statement however;
There's still alot of empty space between Richmond and Rodeo along I80. BART only makes sense when there is more than some minimum population density along a given route. People in northern Contra Costa county are more than well served by the BART Pittsburg/Bay Pointe line.
Hwy 80 is one of the worst commutes in the state.
Plenty of people would take Bart into the city for work. Anybody who lives in Vallejo/Fairfield/Sac would say the same thing.
Not a weekday goes by where El Cerrito Del Norte/Plaza are full of cars, even the surrounding area has to be permit parking only because of people it attracts.
There IS a market for Bart up north.
Anyone who drives I80 from as
Anyone who drives I80 from as far away as Vallejo, Fairfield or Sacramento can take 680 or 780 to Concord, Pleasant Hill or Walnut Creek and get on BART there.
To extend BART down the middle of I80 from Richmond to Rodeo so those same people can just pull off I80 there and get on BART would be a negligent misuse of taxpayer money. As I said, the population density between Richmond and Rodeo does not support an extension between those two points. Between Richmond and Rodeo on I80 lies San Pablo, Pinole and Hercules with a population of about 80,000 including Rodeo. On the other hand, the BART corridor to Pittsburg/Baypointe includes Concord, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Lafayette and Orinda with a combined population of about 234,000.
Population density studies like the one performed in the previous paragraph are just the tip of the iceberg as far as what is required when an entity such as BART goes hat in hand to the federal government for money to build extensions. "We want to extend BART for 20 miles down the middle of I80 so people can just pull off and get on BART there" doesn't cut it.
I stand by my statement that northern Contra Costa county is more than well served by BART. BART can't possibly go within just a few miles of everyone's front door or down the middle of every interstate in the region.
I wonder how much a change
I wonder how much a change BART has had on population density over the years.
The NYC subway system is responsible for a large shift in population, in fact as it was being built the residential population expanded with it.
If I had to guess, I would say it has had the biggest effects along the concord lines
BART has embraced the concept
BART has embraced the concept of a "transit village" in the vicinity of BART stations for a number of years which obviously increases the nearby population density. According to the official BART website, a new one broke ground at Pleasant Hill last week. It involves building apartments and condos, as well as commercial property and parking near the BART station.
Transit villages have been developed at El Cerrito del Norte, Fruitvale, Richmond and South San Francisco stations. Other locations are being planned.
Quick question. Is TOD the
Quick question. Is TOD the "Tube Of Death" or something else? I'm kind of new here.
"Tunnel of Death"
"Tunnel of Death"
How 'bout Transit Oriented
How 'bout Transit Oriented Development.
We are the ones to blame!
We are the ones to blame!