Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit

Number of vehicles correction

Is the number/type of vehicles correct in the number of vehicles section? It notes, “ 789 total, with 618 legacy cars and 171 new cars in service; with 8 DMU vehicle sets (eBART); and 4 AGT vehicle sets.” Seems to be incorrect as only new fleet cars are running in regular service and they’d need more than 171 new cars for complete service. Noahbroussard (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Alleged racially biased design

The discussion was archived (see archive 4), but since then there have been new sources reporting on this (see ), so I think the section should be readded, citing this new source and naming San Antonio specifically. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Numberguy6: @RickyCourtney: @Pi.1415926535: Pinging everyone involved in the original discussion. Opinions would be appreciated. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: @Jfruh: forgot to ping you. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That article doesn't make much of a case for BART having any noteworthy bias (i.e. unusually different from other projects at the time). In fact, it says this: Built according to race-neutral specifications in a region already stratified by race, most notably in its job market and housing policy, BART reproduced and reinforced existing inequalities. I do think that a well-researched paragraph or two about the equity effects of BART's design, and more recent efforts to change that (including proposed infill stations), would be appropriate. This source could support that, but more substantial (particularly academic) sources would be needed.

What this source would not support is the claim of deliberate racial bias in the design. As I noted in the previous discussion, that is a claim that would need particularly strong sourcing. For the same reasons I posted there, San Antonio is not a compelling case for the claim. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"Humphrey Go-Bart" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Humphrey Go-Bart has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 20 § Humphrey Go-Bart until a consensus is reached. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• BART evening map effective January 2025.png
• BART web map effective January 2025.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Network topology

@Orbitalbuzzsaw: I really don't think your recent edit is an improvement from the previous wording. The wording is more convoluted ("network topology" and the lengthy first sentence in particular), and there are several subtle issues:

• While there are 15 TPH scheduled at peak, they are not scheduled on exactly 4-minute headways (primarily because the Yellow Line is every 10 and the others every 20)
• While similar in some aspects to S-Bahn systems, there are differences (notably that S-Bahn typically uses mainline rail lines) and that claim needs a reliable source. I'm also not sure it's a useful comparison given that readers are less likely to be familiar with the concept The existing claim of similarity to rapid transit and commuter rail also needs a cite, but that's easy to find (here's one I found in 30 seconds)
• Interlining is when services are connected end-to-end, not when multiple services share the same trunk.

I request you self-revert until we reach consensus about what changes are needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Section regarding possible station closures & track removal should be added

This should be added as something informative, not just as an endorsement of a political measure. It’d need to be regarding the fact that the blue line could be cut and in turn the entire track to Dublin/Pleasanton, the orange line could be shortened to Bay Fair, eBART and yellow line service past Concord could be cut, and the OAK connector could be cut, and the stations at Millbrae, San Bruno, South San Francisco, Colma, Orinda, North Concord/Martinez, Pittsburg/Bay Point, Pittsburg Center, Antioch, Oakland International Airport, Castro Valley, West Dublin/Pleasanton, Dublin/Pleasanton, South Hayward, and Warm Springs/South Fremont could be closed (I also request that notes of the station closures be added to their respective articles). Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I had the same thought, but it's there: "In February 2026, the BART Board approved a plan to close up to 15 stations, end service at 9 pm, and increase fares by 30–50%, among other cost-cutting measures if voters rejected a proposed sales-tax increase." I think it's appropriate to leave it at that, with the one reference cited, until the sales tax measure either passes or fails in November. Unless there's some other development in the interim, like BART starting to close stuff or an alternative rescue plan emerging. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I think notes should probably be added to the articles for the respective stations threatened. A note about it has been added to the San Bruno station article but the other 14 have no mention of it Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I added that to replace the unreferenced sentence you'd put there. I agree. But some of them may already have a sentence tucked in, like the sentence here that you may have missed. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)