Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rapid transit on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Portal:Trains
 Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is mantained by WikiProject Rapid transit.
Peer review Bay Area Rapid Transit has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Good articles Bay Area Rapid Transit has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.


To-do
list

Pending tasks for Bay Area Rapid Transit:

 (purge cache –  edit this list)
  • The lead is too short, for an article of this size it should be about three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD.
  • We need to incorporate a bunch of information from this article. It has lots of (seemingly) factual information and provides some insight into the first years of the system's operation.
  • Try to convert some of the bulleted lists to prose, this is a common objection on FAC. – done
  • There are a few one paragraph subsections in the later stages of the article, try to merge some of these where possible. – done, I think
  • There is a mix of referencing styles. Convert the inline external links to the format used elsewhere in the article. – done, and I think there aren't any duplicates
  • The article needs going over with a fine-toothed comb to smooth out awkward prose. Taking the first paragraph of the first section as an example:
    • As of the 22 June 2003, opening date of the extension to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae, the BART system comprises 104 miles (167 km) of track and 43 stations. reads awkwardly - something like "Following the opening of an extension to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae on 22 June 2003, the BART system comprises 104 miles (167 km) of track and 43 stations." would be better.
    • 2nd and 3rd sentences - the fact that the guage is non-standard is repeated.
    • Last sentence - the words "This" and "relatively" are redundant.
    • The specific examples above have been fixed, but the whole article needs to be examined thoroughly for similar problems
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm. – someone has done some of this, but we need to double-check the rest
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise.
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 14 additive terms, a bit too much.
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo
Archive

Archives
July 19, 2006


Contents

[edit] Mobile Phone Underground Coverage

By November 2005, BART had become "the first transit system in the nation to offer wireless communication to all passengers on its trains underground".

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/19/MNGF2FR6C11.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2005/11/19/MNGF2FR6C11.DTL&o=2 http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3649554

"When BART first broached the idea in mid-2001 of wiring its nether regions for wireless reception, many passengers squawked about having to listen to nonstop chatter from cellular phones... The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurred while the surveys were being taken, and BART officials believe the widely publicized use of cell phones during the attacks persuaded many passengers to support wiring the tunnels."

I can confirm underground reception in all the stations and tubes under Market Street in San Francisco, but I'm not sure if they're still working on the other underground parts of the network.

On the east bay, there is def not reception everywhere. it's rather spotty, too, some stations have it, but the tunnels definitely do not have full coverage. lensovet 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That wording is misleading, it is ok for something like a newspaper, but an encyclopedia should be better than that. What does that statement mean? DC Metro had all its underground (except for a few short tunnels) connected to Verizon wireless service by 2001. Is there anything about the new statement in the article that as written may lead to confusion?. It needs to be rewritten. I'll take a stab at it after I read the links here. --JVittes 13:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe what they mean is that all wireless providers have service, rather than just one. The article talks about that. What we really need to do is call BART and ask them the status of this. lensovet 20:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That makes more sense. I can confirm that coverage in the East Bay underground stations and tubes is not yet active. The articles probably meant what Lensovet said - that they provide to customers of all wireless providers in the region. Gordeonbleu 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I heard somewhere that DC Metro only has CDMA service, so it may have to do with that, Cingular I think doesn't support CDMA, so that's why it claims all passengers, eventhough one still has to have a service provider, and a cell phone, so it is confusing. I guess I'm being pedantic, both systems allow all passengers to use the wireless system, just that on BART one can say that if you have service near a station you will have service inside BART. Though I think last time I was in the Bay Area Cingular blacked out in some of the underground sections around Berkeley, so I don't know. --JVittes 04:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Some really old AT&T Wireless/Cingular customers might still be on the CDMA network, but yeah, most Cingular, as well as all T-Mobile, users are on GSM. Take a look at http://www.govtech.net/digitalcommunities/story.php?id=98319 , which actually says what they mean by "all passengers", and also at the BART Times of Feb '06 mentioning that the project is complete in downtown SF and is progressing elsewhere on the system. I'll try to call BART next week to see if I can get more info. lensovet 07:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Update: called the Oakland service center today and was told that currently the service is still in/between the downtown SF stations. I was also told that if I wanted any more "specific" details about the project status/timeline/etc, I should call the main switchboard (mind you, this number isn't on the website even) on Monday, which I plan on doing. lensovet 00:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I called up BART last week and was finally able to get in touch with the person in charge of this project. You can find "the real deal" in the article now.—lensovet–talk – 20:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old system maps

There are some old system maps lying around on flickr, perhaps we can also use them to make new extension sections. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jef/65736181/ http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=28403033&size=l lensovet 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

I'm glad the statistics table has caught on. I was thinking that maybe we could also have a statistics timeline. For example, list the current statistics then have a line that represents the history of that number since BART's inception. It might be difficult, but it would be very interesting information. 67.161.46.169 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ticket Gates Photo

This article would benefit from a photo of the ticket gates (the ones with the red gates). It's something associated with BART. Gordeonbleu 06:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I thought my pic from SFO would work but realize now that the angle isn't really good there. I'll see if I can take a picture of the gates sometime this week. In the meantime, take a look at the BART-related photos in these albums of mine: http://www.dotphoto.com/Go.asp?l=lensovet&P=&AID=3866131&T=1 , http://www.dotphoto.com/Go.asp?l=lensovet&P=&AID=3477708&T=1 , and http://www.dotphoto.com/Go.asp?l=lensovet&P=&AID=3885888&T=1. I apologize ahead of time for all the other junk in these albums, but I haven't had the time to sort these things out properly...anyway, if there's a picture from any of those albums that you want me to upload, just let me know the picture name! Thanks. —lensovet–talk – 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the SFO ticket booth "IMG_2007" would be the most appropriate in the gallery. Thanks for your contributions! Gordeonbleu 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool, we actually already have this image at Image:SFO BART entrance.jpg! Are there any other photos that you saw in those albums of BART (unrelated to the faregates) that you'd like to see here on wiki? Let me know... —lensovet–talk – 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The current cutline for the ticket gate photo calls them "signature red triangular doors." I'm not sure how appropriate that is. The gates are almost identical to those in the Washington DC metro (although I think the doors there are orange triangular ones). Can they be appropriately called "signature" when they're found elsewhere? Perhaps we should reword?--Velvet elvis81 23:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/y/Talk%7EBay_Area_Rapid_Transit_6432.html"