New BART Layout, what do you think??
BART faces a challenging problem in its next fleet of cars, it is first and foremost a long distance commuter train, but is seeing rush hour capacities similar to that of inner city public transportation. So, how can BART continue to please the long term commuters, who are their main source of income, and also design for increasing passenger loads?
Some of the proposed design changes include:
_ adding a third door for increased passenger flow
_ providing more standing room by sacrificing some seating
_ adding unobtrusive bike storage
_ articulated trains (example: the double buses with the flex point in the middle to add a free flow of passenger between two cars)
_ improve interior interface to know where you are going/where you have been
Some concepts that have been posted on the internet have shown a combination of frontwards facing seating and sideways facing seating... How do you feel about BART adding sideways seating like we see in the muni buses? While the sideways seating allows BART to cram about 3 more seats per side in each car, would you rather sacrifice about 6 seats per car to have all forward facing seating combined with increased standing room? Maybe to make up for the lost seats BART could add some lean pads. That would be a nice way to settle between sitting and standing.
Let me know your thoughts!
I have attached an image to illustrate the different seating directions mentioned above.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| SEATING OPTIONS.jpg | 38.43 KB |
- MDiCan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Well whenever I ride BART I
Well whenever I ride BART I only ride usually from Downtown SF to Balboa Park/Daly City/Colma so standing for an extended period of time isn't that big of a problem for me if my feet aren't sore. But they'll be a problem for someone commuting from Downtown SF to the fringes of the BART system so you'll have to have a certain amount of seating for passengers commuting far. What I'm thinking about is the seating arrangement London has for their new S Stock trains. You can look on Flickr for what I'm talking about. Lean pads would be stupid in my opinion.
I can't think of any subway system out there that installed lean pads for people, I just see more problems coming out of that. Plus the conceptual designs BART has that include lean pads involve placing them in the middle of the car. Bad idea, putting polls with lean pads in the center of the car restricts passenger flow. BART shouldn't try to be revolutionary when it comes to the new cars, being revolutionary got us those carpeted floors and cushioned seats that we all love to hate. And articulated trains would be a plus, Bombardier (who I hope BART hires to make the new cars, not some crap Chinese company) has been making articulate subway cars for Toronto, Delhi, London and several cities in Shanghai. And with BART reaching the point your going to need nothing but 10 car trains during rush hour, articulated cars become much more useful.
I think if lean pads were
I think if lean pads were treated in the right way it could work.. but I have only seen it in concepts so far. BMW did a train concept which uses lean pads in select places, it is a beautiful design. If you search it on Google you will see some interior shots. I will be really disappointed if I don't see articulated train cars.
I agree with not putting poles down the center, it starts to look like a prison. I think the psychological aspects of riding are just as important as the physical, such as color, lighting, scents, etc..
Virgin Airlines could be inspiration for lighting ideas.
First a correction. If you
First a correction. If you consider RIDERSHIP BART is an urban subway system with several low usage routes into the sprawlburbs. As such a third door to speed rider exit/entry is long overdue. The single seats in the middle facing fore and aft are I think far better than side facing bench seating.
In 2008 BART did a large
In 2008 BART did a large scale survey and one of the areas was to identify the percentage of long term commuters vs. short term. It showed that about 58 percent of riders were long term riders(if my memories serves me right). I don't recall the percentage coming from the East Bay at the moment. So, I do think it is safe to say there are a growing number of passengers riding short distances within the city which is contributing to the overall growth in ridership. In a way you are right tho, BART is seeing a change in the type of passengers that ride, but most of their income is still coming from "long term" riders. I am also curious as to how they plan to solve the bike issue... maybe some verticle storage bike racks, get the bikes up and out of the way of other riders?
I don't understand "term" in
I don't understand "term" in relation to distance travelled. I have been riding since day one; is that long term?
The last time I read BART's rider stats, it was very clear that several stations east of Rockridge along w/ San Bruno and SSF were in the bottom ten. The only CC Cty station in the top ten is Del Norte w/ huge parking and feeder buses from several outlying areas. Periodically riders on this site complain of late evening PBP 5 car trains which from my observation nearly empty @ 19th. As to revenue/cost per rider, while not perhaps absolutely linear, distance is expensive both wear and tear on cars/tracks, and labor of train attendant. if a # exists per rider/mile, BART's fares which are cheaper per mile as the trip is longer exacerbate the giveaway to the sprawlburbs. Put simply if riders from Montgomery to Concord paid based on the same formula as those going to Rockridge they would pay more than double current fare.
If they raised fares that
If they raised fares that much ridership from the outer areas would plummet, as it would make taking BART more expensive than driving in. As it is, it's getting pretty close mileage wise. It's the bridge + the parking in the city that puts driving over BART's cost.
Sorry, but the "sprawlburbs" aren't going anywhere. It's gotten so many of the places you are referring to are cities in themselves, just nowhere near a mega city. If everyone who worked in the city lived there, San Fran would be nothing but 20 story buildings. If I wanted to work in New York City, I'd move there. That high horse you're on is getting old, might want to stable it for a while.
How about three seats in a
How about three seats in a each front/back facing row, with two on one side of the aisle and one on the other? That would add quite a bit of standing room a la Muni buses, but still be much better than sideways seats. I really don't like sitting sideways since you have to strain not to bump into your neighbors every time the train starts and stops.
Interesting ideas. BART cars
Interesting ideas. BART cars are very wide though. Much wider than standard. So some of these seating arrangements are not practical.
Too bad BART couldn't go
Too bad BART couldn't go double-decker like Cal-Train but you can't stand on Cal-Train either because they have the luggage shelves in the middle.
I really prefer to have the
I really prefer to have the forward seating just like Interior Concept letter C. I would totally agree too that with the sideway bench seating it would be very uncomfortable having to sit across from one another. Plus you would bump into one another depending how the train accelerates or moves. I would propose that there should be some open space at the ends of the cars for people with bikes, luggage, and wheel chairs, strollers. Like for configuration C's cab car, you could make it where it's only open space with leaning pads or bench seating at the ends of the cars. Let me know what you all think. I've been doing my best to keep myself posted on what BART is proposing for the new cars. Within the past few weeks, I've been going on the comment page and emphasizing about seating and how Concept C would be the best.