Since 1970s, BART has been a transit icon for the Bay Area. BART is also politically popular among the general public and politicians. However, looking beyond popularity and brand, the BART technology is not a suitable solution to many of our transportation problems that we face.
Although designed in the 1960's, BART is appealing because its trains:
- Have a more modern appearance on the outside
- Provide level-boarding
- Run on electricity rather than diesel
- Operate more frequently due to BART having its own dedicated revenue sources (taxes)
- Provide service under Market Street in Downtown San Francisco
But the limitations and drawbacks of BART are substantial:
- BART cannot run express trains
- BART trains lack amenities important to riders who commute more than 15 miles each way on the train, such as restrooms, electrical outlets and tables for laptops. Eating and drinking are prohibited on BART trains.
- BART is powered by a live ground level "third rail," which requires total grade separation to prevent pedestrians from contacting the dangerous high-voltage third rail. This also means a huge up-front cost before a single BART train can run, whereas, with conventional rail, communities have the option of pursuing grade-separations with trains running in the meantime.
- The BART system was custom designed to be different from other train systems, and is incompatible with those systems:
- All BART trains must be custom-produced, thus limiting the number of vendors who are able to make BART equipment and greatly increasing the cost. Conventional rail systems like Caltrain, on the other hand, are able to purchase equipment already designed for other systems. In 2002, Caltrain purchased vehicles originally ordered by Sounder rail service in Washington State, and those vehicle are identical to what Altamont Commuter Express trains use.
- Only BART trains can run on BART tracks. Conventional rail like Amtrak, ACE and Caltrain can run on each other's tracks. In Southern California, commuter Metrolink trains share tracks with long distance Amtrak trains. That means fewer transfers and more convenient travel options for riders. Service can incrementally improve as infrastructure and funding allows.
Because of the high capital and operating cost of BART, its
competitive advantage is not serving the outer suburbs or provide inter-regional service. Its urban subway technology should rather be reserved for high density urban environment. Washington Metro, which built at about the same time as BART, carries twice as much riders as BART because its covers the DC urban core better than BART in San Francisco.
BayRail's position on BART extensions:
| Warm Springs/Berryessa/Santa Clara County extension |
Oppose. VTA has failed to demonstrate that it can afford to build and operate the project without negatively impacting local transit service. The project is not aligned to serve the employment centers and San Jose Airport, instead it is aligned to serve real estate interests. Instead we recommend Caltrain Metro East. |
| Livermore extension |
BayRail supports extension alternatives that are aligned to serve Downtown Livermore and connect with ACE during the initial phase of the project (if phasing becomes necessary). BayRail opposes alternatives that align only on 580 and would connect with ACE by Greenville Road. |
