Carl A. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As to the broad gauge etc:
>
> IMO, broad gauge was to discourage use of existing
> subway-car designs. Given the state of subway-car
> designs then available, I think BART did the right
> thing to insist on all-new designs. For instance,
> PCC-based designs, which were great for light-rail
> purposes, don't strike me as adequate for a system
> like BART. However, I do concede that the new
> designs had a lot of bugs which took a long time
> to fix.
>
> The broad gauge also allows more efficient use of
> the circular space made when boring tunnels, and
> for the Transbay Tube.
>
> Still another advantage of broad gauge. There is
> not a single grade crossing of a public road,
> anywhere on BART. Suppose BART had tried to run on
> train tracks that already existed. Those usually
> had grade crossings. To contrast: Think of all the
> grade-crossing accidents that Caltrain & its
> ancestors have had. As costs rose, there would
> have been excessive political pressure to abandon
> the complete grade separation.
>
> BART also uses 1000 volts DC, which allows for
> lighter-weight motors etc. than the 600 or so
> volts that was pretty much standard. That has
> saved BART big bucks in electricity over the
> years. Many interurbans used 1500 volts or more;
> but such voltages require more space in tunnels,
> which raises construction costs. Those interurbans
> didn't have the large mileage of tunnel that BART
> has, and they had lots of grade crossings.

Despite a lack of public grade crossings, BART has had at least one fatal grade-crossing
accident. I don't recall the date, but I believe it involved a garbage truck at the South Hayward shops.