I beg to differ - on your begging to differ -

BART never could do much more than 80. They did try it a few times during manual testing (before service began), taking a couple miles to get to the high 90s. But never on the aerial, which just wouldn't safely take a 90 ton 3 car empty at 100mph, let alone a 350 ton fully loaded one. Its hard to even get to 80 in the subway - too much back pressure builds up in the very tight tunnels.

The automatic train control never was set up to allow any faster speeds than 80mph. And they didn't even have speed indicators for the first couple of years. Those, and speed limit indicators (cab signals anyone) were added later (while I was still involved) - in response to a series of accidents and a generally flawed control system design. Much hard work has been done over the years to correct these early flaws.

That it seems BART trains were once a bit faster than now is probably an accurate memory. Actually, due to inadequate braking distances allowed in the original design (they don't slow down any quicker either), BART started service with an old fashioned manual block system "overlaid" on top of the automated system, complete with block operators. Too fix this outrageous and inexcusable problem, many compromises had to be made; slowing the top speed in certain areas was one of them. These compromises are slowly being weeded out as more capable modern technologies make such improvements economically practical.

BART's early experience probably justifies the concern that an inept California government (when wasn't it) probably will not successfully manage any sort of modern industrial enterprise - especially one so complex as a railroad.

But before you jump on the "Private" enterprise bandwagon, be aware that every installation and every engineering design; indeed every single molecule of BART, was originally performed by private corporations; which contractors and consultants proved to be nothing but politically well connected money grubbers feeding at the public trough. Moreover, most of these were totally unqualified, having had no previous experience with the peculiar problems of railroading - at all. It actually was, when BART finally got around to hiring their own experts (yes, public employees), that things began to get fixed up and become more reliable.

I must laugh sometimes though, when I hear naysayers about any public transit project - especially rail. It always reminds me of the day BART took over the commute service from Concord to San Francisco.

Up until that day, Greyhound offered a superb commuter service on that corridor - a bus every 30 seconds during the commute hours and half hourly off peak - with much express service to specific points as well. Greyhound attracted a stable 4200 riders a day, but they couldn't turn much profit - if any.

BART began with very short overcrowded trains (not enough cars - 50% being always broken down) running once every 10-15 minutes without any schedule at all; and only part way to San Francisco besides. On that 1st day, BART took all of Greyhound's 4200 riders plus 6000 more! It grew rapidly from then on - until more than 400,000 tickets are now sold every day - and still growing. This experience has been duplicated in countless other places across the country. Obviously. the people will buy a commute car to avoid the bus; preferring to ride the train. -- even in California!

The whole BART experience, from its original patronage estimates being quickly exceeded, to its complete dominance in certain commute markets today; in spite of its early crappy design, unreliability, and poor service; IS a testimonial to the natural efficiency and effectiveness of this invention called the railway.

You can't keep a good idea down!

Build it - And they will come!

OPB