> --"Speaking of Balkanization, BART wrote the book and started the craze. Wrong gauge, wrong voltage,
> you name it. But if the federal government were to lay down national design standards(a la PCC or
> USRA)there would be a great gnashing of teeth."--

> The primary reason for BART's weirdness was paranoia, pure and simple. The Powers That Be
> deliberately designed the system so that the Mighty Southern Pacific could NOT run freight
> trains on it - I KID YOU NOT! The fear and loathing for the SP infected every part of the
> design process; the end result is a Lionel set run amok, with a financial sea of red ink that rivals
> Lake Tahoe.

Its a nice story; but unfortunately, a total myth. True enough - that Bill Stokes, BART's first general manager, lamely told the media the reason for the broad gauge was to keep freight trains off the line. But that was because he spoke off the cuff and was unprepared as to how to explain such a technical issue to a non-technical public. He thought that idea would please the public. No mention was made of any particular railroad.

The fact was that no freight car would ever come close to fitting inside a BART tunnel anyway; nor would any BART bridge work sustain its weight, let alone the locomotive required to pull it. It was in fact, a silly thing to say! Moreover, there was no need to directly interchange anyway - still isn't. High headways demand dedicated tracks. The broad gauge reflected only the rail industry's long held realization that 4ft 8-1/8 was not really all that good of a decision. It was nothing but an attempt to live and learn from past mistakes.

Bart didn't just start the craze either, BART is credited by the transit industry (APTA actually) of starting the whole rail renaissance! At the time of BART's original design and construction, very little trackage had been built in over a half century. And none of it covered long distance suburban service. BART was more or less on its own. So it either used 50 year old technology or it did its own thing. What would you do, if you thought you had to be the best and the newest in order to compete with the convenience of the auto? You would push the envelope. But actually, the leading edge in any industry is more aptly described as the "Bleeding Edge".

As we critics sit here now, with our benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we would have made different decisions. Actually, so would the whole rail industry. If they had it to do over again, most engineers I know would have standardized on a gauge even broader the BART's. Over 6 feet!

As to any "loathing": the fact is that any engineer worth his salary makes his design decisions dis-passionately, after much objective study of the alternatives, much as any other scientist would. Hopefully, he picks the best one. Please note however, that not all engineers are worth their salary - but we try.

What sea of red ink? The fact is that of all the various transit agencies in the Bay Area, BART is far and above the most productive in getting cars off the road (hundreds of thousands of trips per day) and is the most operationally efficient in the farebox ratio as well. For example, compare BART's 50%-60% ratio to Muni's 10%. Most only manage 10%-20% farebox return. Note that BART administrates the Amtrak Capital Corridor at over 50% farebox ratio as well. BART's operational finance base was long ago fixed by the state legislature as a sales tax at 3/8%. It has successfully lived within this means since its inception. So do you live within your allotted means?

So why pay any such tax? Simple! Hundreds of thousands automobiles are in fact no longer competing for road space. Even if you don't ride, the practicality of using your own automobile has been preserved for your use. Without BART, the freeways have choked to a complete stand still. About a decade ago, BART was shut down by a strike. After only one week, the Bay Area economy began to collapse (closed businesses and layoffs, etc); forcing the state to step in with mediation and the threat of imposed settlement.

Operational cost wise, BART is cheap compared to the alternatives. But where it has major problems is on the capital side, as I have mentioned in past threads. This is a major problem almost everywhere, especially in California and is not specific to BART.

The solution everywhere is to change contract law to be more even handed between private contractors and government agencies such a BART. Also, we need to stop with all the NYMBY bells and whistles which multiply capital costs several times over. There are numerous other ways to sharply cut capital costs as well. But cut we must - While getting more track miles per dollar. And that applies to all projects across the board - across the nation - no exceptions.

OPB