BART-like systems

Why have cities in the United States, especially those lacking any sort of sufficient rapid transit system, not considered, or at least not revealed long term plans for, BART-like subway systems with long distances between stops and faster train-running speeds? (I know that BART's automation has been problematic, but that does not mean a standard system could not be designed like BART)


A somewhat related question: The Wikipedia article on San Diego's transportation system says that at one point, the city was considering a BART-like system that would have had over 100 stations. I have never been able to find any info on this proposal. Does anyone know if this was ever actually proposed, or is it a factual error on Wikipedia. If the proposal does exist, does anyone know where I can find more information?

how fast can BART trains go?

Because of the cost of building a subway system in the city as Bart does. It is true that BART has the ability to be more than it is, but relatively speaking, it does well for an experimental system.

BART trains usually run in Performance Level 2, with a top speed of about 66 mph. When it first opened they would run in Level 1, which nowadays means about 76 1/2 mph top speed.

When the line to Pleasanton opened trains would do the 10 miles from Pleasanton to Castro Valley in 10 minutes start to stop (with the 66 mph top speed), but for some reason they have a lot of ~40 mph running there now.

The Short answer is cost. BART is one of three similar systems all planned and constructed about the same time - BART, WMATA and MARTA in Atlanta. All of them had similar, regional plans and similar characteristics. Later, Miami, Baltimore, and LA constructed similar systems, but in all cases except for BART and WMATA, the full system was never built out. I've seen plans for similar systems in Houston, San DIego, Dallas, even LA from the '70s, but many times the issue was getting the vote for the local funds to complete the system. Most of these old plans haven't been scanned it. The ones I've seen I've found at different university libraries - particular those with good civil engineering / transportation programs like the Georgia Institute of Technology. The Massachusetts Transportation Library in the State TRansportation Building on Stuart Street in Boston is another great resource for those old plans than have been electronically scanned and placed on the internet.

But in answer to your main question - it isn't that cities didn't have the plans - many did - it was the cost that did them in.

timz wrote:BART trains usually run in Performance Level 2, with a top speed of about 66 mph. When it first opened they would run in Level 1, which nowadays means about 76 1/2 mph top speed.

When the line to Pleasanton opened trains would do the 10 miles from Pleasanton to Castro Valley in 10 minutes start to stop (with the 66 mph top speed), but for some reason they have a lot of ~40 mph running there now.

PL2 gives a top speed of about 68 for 70 mph or 80 mph track. PL1 gives 78 mph on 80 track, but 68 on 70 mph track. However, PL1 puts more wear on the cars, shortening the hours between preventive maintenance. So, PL1 is rarely used.

The whole stretch between Castro Valley and West Dublin has two challenges. One is that automobiles wind up on the tracks, from traffic accidents. There are a few stretches of high concrete walls to prevent this, but that project hasn't been worked on (probably due to lack of funds) in five years. So, the tracks from the top of the hill to Dublin Station are 50 mph, while everything west is 80 or 70 mph.

The second challenge is the new East Dublin station. Single tracking is used in this area, since the construction crew needs the second track to get materials to the station. They don't actually ship stuff by rail, they carry it over the trackway. The four pedestrian walkways are supposed to be installed sometime this week, which may make it possible to open both tracks to train traffic ? You can see two of the walkways where they were built in the offramp areas west of the station, at the Foothill exit. The other two pieces are near the two parking garages. The station is almost done, so in 7 more months, both tracks will be in service.

They will need the track access for big pieces like escalators, but workers and small stuff can come across the pedestrian bridges.

Most BART stations are spaced 5 minutes apart or less, but there are a dozen spacings of 6 to 10 minutes. Replacing and regaging the rails would be necessary to get them up to 80 mph, and could be run at PL1. This speed increase would reduce the number of cars needed, essentially "creating" 26 more cars. Once the economy gets better, BART will have the money to make this possible; it's one of many competing projects for a limited amount of money. But, it's "shovel ready" - stimulus money could make it happen.

modorney wrote:
The second challenge is the new East Dublin station.

You mean the new West Dublin station.

The existing Dub/Plez station is in East Dublin.

modorney wrote: Replacing and regaging the rails would be necessary to get them up to 80 mph, and could be run at PL1.

Why do they need to be reguaged?
What does the PL in PL1, PL2, etc... mean?

Yep, you are right - the new station is West Dublin.

http://tacnet.missouri.org/history/rail ... augeLimits

Technically speaking, BART is not Class 4 track (80 mph passenger) since it is not standard gauge.
However, the same tolerances would apply - minus a half inch, plus an inch. In general, BART tracks do not get out of gauge, since almost all the system is on plinth, or on concrete ties. However, the rails do wear, and there is a general program to replace all the worn rail. If you go by MacArthur, or by the spur at Daly City, there are two rail cars, each with 8 pieces of 800 foot rail. Keep an eye on these cars, rail "disappears" frequently.

No, it doesn't get swiped, it gets parked alongside the rail to be replaced, usually outside the worn rail. It's a lot easier to deliver eight pieces of rail, each one at a different location, in one trip. And there is no harm in letting it sit there for a few weeks.

On Friday and Saturday nights, the track crews have more time, and they will replace a piece or two every weekend. There is a short time window of 6 hours and 8 hours on these nights, so they have to work quick. I should point out that BART has the best track people in the world, popping in 800 feet of rail in 8 hours is no mean feat. In addition, lots of signal and track circuit wiring has to be reinstalled, and the signal people are also the best. Occasionally, it takes them 15 minutes more to get everything working, (the signal system is older than most of the workers) so, BART sometimes wakes up late on Saturday or Sunday. The old rail gets cut up into 50 foot pieces, and sits between the rails for a while. And every so often, a flatcar collects the scrap, and you can see the flatcar near Daly City, or Bayfair.

BART has a rail geometry car, and checks the rails often - usually more than once a week. If a stretch gets below specs, then the speed is reduced, until the rail is replaced.

Regauging also includes up and down - http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... .3&idno=49
Is a set of mathematical formulas describing the limits. Ground will settle even under concrete ties, so the ties have to be leveled to maintain the speed class. There is one particularly rough piece of track at the south end of Hayward Yard that looks barely legal class 4, but it sure is rough, especially at 80 MPH.

BART also does railgrinding, which helps to keep it in gauge.

PL is the speed code - Performance Level. Each stretch of track has a command speed, each train has a PL and the product (a matrix) of the two is an operational speed. PL1 is the top speed, so the operational speed is the same as the command (track) speed. PL2 makes the 80 mph track into an operational speed of 70, and PL3 is a lower operational speed. PL4 on down also has reduced acceleration. The operational speed is shown on the LCD, but, in Washington, the Metro has LED displays for all three speeds (I think they have slightly different names).

modorney wrote: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... .3&idno=49
Is a set of mathematical formulas describing the limits.

I'm always reassured when technical specifications contain the mis-spelling of common words such as gauge and alignment. ("Gage" and "alinement".) Where was this written, in Taiwan ?

3rdrail wrote:

modorney wrote: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... .3&idno=49
Is a set of mathematical formulas describing the limits.

I'm always reassured when technical specifications contain the mis-spelling of common words such as gauge and alignment. ("Gage" and "alinement".) Where was this written, in Taiwan ?

"Alinement" was used in the military at least 50 years ago, and I believe "gage" as well; I think they may also have been used in engineering. Around that time there was a movement in some quarters to simplify English spelling, and as I recall, that was about when the Chicago Tribune started writing "thru" and "cigaret" among other simplifications. They never caught on.

ExCon90 wrote:

3rdrail wrote:

modorney wrote: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... .3&idno=49
Is a set of mathematical formulas describing the limits.

I'm always reassured when technical specifications contain the mis-spelling of common words such as gauge and alignment. ("Gage" and "alinement".) Where was this written, in Taiwan ?

"Alinement" was used in the military at least 50 years ago, and I believe "gage" as well; I think they may also have been used in engineering. Around that time there was a movement in some quarters to simplify English spelling, and as I recall, that was about when the Chicago Tribune started writing "thru" and "cigaret" among other simplifications. They never caught on.

Hmmm...maybe so, but that document is filled with spelling and punctuation that is incorrect, ie. 4'8&inch which should read 4' 8"(+1") or 4-8 (+1").

ExCon90 wrote:in engineering. Around that time there was a movement in some quarters to simplify English spelling, and as I recall, that was about when the Chicago Tribune started writing "thru" and "cigaret" among other simplifications. They never caught on.

I see many cases where people write "thru" tho.