hypersoar40
rapidTransit_BART_elevated
I've always been a fan of the BART rolling stock, particularly ones with the slanted ends. BART trains have a wonderful 1960's look while still looking futuristic.
BART has a weekday ridership of 335,000, making it the fifth busiest rapid-transit system in the United States. The first segment of the system opened in 1972 but it didn't connect the East Bay with San Francisco until 1974.
This is an unusual rapid-transit system in that it spreads throughout the San Francisco metropolitan area while providing relatively little urban service to San Francisco itself. In that sense, it operates more like a commuter / regional rail system than an urban rapid-transit system. This isn't necessarily bad, as the Washington Metro or (especially) the Paris RER demonstrate, but the BART was designed with nearly all of its service concentrated in one line in San Francisco, limiting its utility for transport throughout the urban core while the limited track space reduces the frequency of trains at the various branches throughout the wider metropolitan area, making it less attractive than it could otherwise be in the suburbs. To better grasp the planning debacle, compare the system to the Washington Metro: both systems were planned around the same time with the same general idea (regional transit in the freeway age), opened within a few years of each other, and are roughly the same size, yet the Washington Metro has over twice the ridership of the BART. The difference is made even more stark when you consider that San Francisco is both much more populous and dense, has a more dense metropolitan area, has historically been more transit dependent, and has a higher cost of driving when compared to Washington.
It is sometimes said by planners that the enemy of the good is the perfect, that essentially you go with the tools you have and be thankful that something was accomplished. In the case of the BART, I would say that that sentiment is rubbish. Is the system of benefit? Yes, who would deny that? However, considering that the financial and political cost over the years and what resulted, everyone would have been better served had they waited for something closer to "the perfect".
rapidTransit_BART_elevated
I've always been a fan of the BART rolling stock, particularly ones with the slanted ends. BART trains have a wonderful 1960's look while still looking futuristic.
BART has a weekday ridership of 335,000, making it the fifth busiest rapid-transit system in the United States. The first segment of the system opened in 1972 but it didn't connect the East Bay with San Francisco until 1974.
This is an unusual rapid-transit system in that it spreads throughout the San Francisco metropolitan area while providing relatively little urban service to San Francisco itself. In that sense, it operates more like a commuter / regional rail system than an urban rapid-transit system. This isn't necessarily bad, as the Washington Metro or (especially) the Paris RER demonstrate, but the BART was designed with nearly all of its service concentrated in one line in San Francisco, limiting its utility for transport throughout the urban core while the limited track space reduces the frequency of trains at the various branches throughout the wider metropolitan area, making it less attractive than it could otherwise be in the suburbs. To better grasp the planning debacle, compare the system to the Washington Metro: both systems were planned around the same time with the same general idea (regional transit in the freeway age), opened within a few years of each other, and are roughly the same size, yet the Washington Metro has over twice the ridership of the BART. The difference is made even more stark when you consider that San Francisco is both much more populous and dense, has a more dense metropolitan area, has historically been more transit dependent, and has a higher cost of driving when compared to Washington.
It is sometimes said by planners that the enemy of the good is the perfect, that essentially you go with the tools you have and be thankful that something was accomplished. In the case of the BART, I would say that that sentiment is rubbish. Is the system of benefit? Yes, who would deny that? However, considering that the financial and political cost over the years and what resulted, everyone would have been better served had they waited for something closer to "the perfect".