Login
Login

Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit#rfc 9B255B5

{{Talk header}}

{{American English}}

{{ArticleHistory

|action1=FAC

|action1date=27 February 2005

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bay Area Rapid Transit/archive1

|action1result=failed

|action1oldid=10633963

|action2=GAN

|action2date=21 February 2006

|action2link=

|action2result=listed

|action2oldid=40409370

|action3=PR

|action3date=4 August 2006

|action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Bay Area Rapid Transit/archive1

|action3result=reviewed

|action3oldid=67170924

|action4=GAR

|action4date=17:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

|action4link=talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit/GA1

|action4result=keep

|action4oldid=311135191

|action5=GAR

|action5date=06:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

|action5link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bay Area Rapid Transit/1

|action5result=delisted

|action5oldid=1039940392

|currentstatus=DGA

|topic=Engtech

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=

{{WikiProject California|importance=Mid|sfba=yes|sfba-importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Trains|Subway=yes|subway-importance=mid|importance=mid|portalSAweek=30, 2007}}

{{WikiProject Transport|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}}

}}

{{BS template|Bay Area Rapid Transit lines}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

| age=8760

| archiveprefix=Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit/Archive

| numberstart=3

| maxarchsize=75000

| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minkeepthreads=5

| minarchthreads=2

| format= %%i

}}

{{Archives}}

{{Broken anchors|links=

}}

Requested move 10 February 2023

:The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Silikonz💬 21:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

----

– I've noticed that in the last few years, BART has made a heavy pivot towards using line color names. They even discuss this in [https://www.facebook.com/bartsf/posts/pfbid08JBLcQyocWVDJm7157durBr2jSEdRmpEsevcWgGb5qM9SycjW6Mbe9PLDAdq2bocl a recent post to Facebook].

The Fleet of the Future trains announce "this is a Blue Line train to Daly City" or "this is a Red Line train to Richmond" both in audio announcments and on visual displays.

All messaging from BART now comes in the form of "Yellow Line service impacts alert" or "Planned Track Closure, Weekend bus bridges on the Yellow Line."

On the website, station pages and the real time departures now show the colors with two-letter abbreviations like Washington Metro.

In the prototype platform digital signs at Lake Merritt, trains are color-coded (although still announced by final destination).

We've long known that using the end point line name format (Berryessa/​North San José–Richmond line) is clunky, especially compared to a color name (Orange Line). Since BART is moving in this direction quickly, can we follow? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

:I would tentatively be in favor of the move. There doesn't seem to be a single point where they officially switch to the color names, but we seem to have more or less reached the tipping point. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Formalizing this as a page move discussion -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

:Strong support. I was about to come propose this myself before I came here. BART itself more often designate these lines by color rather than by destination. I'm actually writing this as I ride on a Fleet of the Future train, and the announcer just said "this is a Red Line train to Richmond". BART's new platform signs at Lake Merit also show colors. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

:Support per above. --Jfruh (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

::Although I would note that the SFO-Millbrae "Purple Line" no longer seems to exist, so I wouldn't see the need to move that page. --Jfruh (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

:::I figured we should move it for the sake of completeness… but after further study, it was never called the Purple Line, so we can leave it off. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

:::: I take this back, apparently BART did call it the Purple Line towards the end of its last incarnation. See: https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2019/news20190115 In light of this, for the sake of completeness and consistency, I'd still suggest we rename it too. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::Addtional examples of BART using the Purple Line name can be found at this Google search. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

{{abot}}

New Routemap design?

I've had a crack at resigning the BART map in the Routemap template to be more like what the official map looks like. I've added a few design features which I like, but admit might be too much for clarity to the casual reader. Before adding it to the article, I wanted to submit it for review to see if others agreed it was worthy of placement into the article. If not, I'll keep it hosted on my user page. Let me know what you think!

User:BT14/BART Colors

BT14 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

:Looks great to me! My only note would be to use a different color for the proposed/future stations and lines -- generally we use a light/faded version of the color used by the rest of the line, rather than another color that's as bold as the active lines. --Jfruh (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

::Visually it looks great - better than the current - but that comes at the cost of being very wide. At ~830 pixels wide, it takes up almost two mobile screens (>60% of readership), and much of a desktop screen. There's some narrowing that would be possible without sacrificing quality (on the Blue Line, for example), but ultimately it's a question of whether it's feasible to have a detailed full-system RDT in the article. This is a complex system with 6 services and 50 stations, with terminals in 7 different directions; that just might not work in the article at any reasonable width. It might be best to have a minimal version of the existing diagram in the article (ditch the parking icons etc to get it to about 400 px width), with a link to your version as a standalone template. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Update Map

Can someone please update the map regarding the changes effective today? Please.

2601:40A:8400:5A40:4CFB:3311:74C3:5F9B (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Retired Old Trains

I'm not great with editing tables, could someone move the older two trains into the retired section? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Number of vehicles correction

Is the number/type of vehicles correct in the number of vehicles section? It notes, “ 789 total, with 618 legacy cars and 171 new cars in service; with 8 DMU vehicle sets (eBART); and 4 AGT vehicle sets.” Seems to be incorrect as only new fleet cars are running in regular service and they’d need more than 171 new cars for complete service. Noahbroussard (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Alleged racially biased design

The discussion was archived (see archive 4), but since then there have been new sources reporting on this (see [https://oaklandside.org/2024/07/18/bart-skips-over-this-oakland-neighborhood-so-residents-launched-a-campaign-for-a-station/]), so I think the section should be readded, citing this new source and naming San Antonio specifically. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Numberguy6}} {{Ping|RickyCourtney}} {{Ping|Pi.1415926535}} Pinging everyone involved in the original discussion. Opinions would be appreciated. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{Ping|InvadingInvader}} {{Ping|Jfruh}} forgot to ping you. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

::That article doesn't make much of a case for BART having any noteworthy bias (i.e. unusually different from other projects at the time). In fact, it says this: {{tq|Built according to race-neutral specifications in a region already stratified by race, most notably in its job market and housing policy, BART reproduced and reinforced existing inequalities.}} I do think that a well-researched paragraph or two about the equity effects of BART's design, and more recent efforts to change that (including proposed infill stations), would be appropriate. This source could support that, but more substantial (particularly academic) sources would be needed.

::What this source would not support is the claim of deliberate racial bias in the design. As I noted in the previous discussion, that is a claim that would need particularly strong sourcing. For the same reasons I posted there, San Antonio is not a compelling case for the claim. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)