Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amtrak Acela is a major national rail line that covers major NE metro areas. BART is an intra-city heavy rail metro system. Once again, total apples and oranges.
That is Acala only and does not include regional amtrak trains which are a little slower but carry more or any SEPTA or NJT lines which carry even more.
Bart is much like regional rail in function really
That said I find the bay much more intertwined then Philly and NYC metres but I do believe many people don't realize how much these two metres do overlap
Amtrak Acela is a major national rail line that covers major NE metro areas. BART is an intra-city heavy rail metro system. Once again, total apples and oranges.
Unlike rapid and posh Acela delivering door to door service, BART has lots of stops between the two cities. Agree - apples to oranges.
BART is more like LIRR, Metro North and the like than like a traditional subway. Functionally it's commuter rail.
The "subway" equivalent in SF would be MUNI Metro.
Bart is more similar to the DC Metro or Marta or even PATH or PATCO for NYC and Philly
It is hybrid of sorts though not really subway or regional rail in total but is technically considered HR due to electrification type
In layout and distance covered it actually is closest to SEPTA regional rail with core underground shared lines and radiating line to distance with stations further apart as it extends. It also has better headway generally and dedicated farebox collection but in coverage and core throughput is actually quite similar to the current SEPTA regional rail setup and not really like older first generation subways
Bart is more similar to the DC Metro or Marta or even PATH or PATCO for NYC and Philly
It is hybrid of sorts though not really subway or regional rail in total but is technically considered HR due to electrification type
I personally don't see how PATH and BART are similar.
PATH has pretty dense station configuration, runs with a single base fare, is all urban, with no park-and-ride stuff, seating is subway-style benches, and heavy off-peak ridership. BART has widely spaced stations, fares based on distance, mostly park-and-ride suburban running, seating is commuter rail style, and heavy rush-hour ridership.
And don't see how electrification type matters. LIRR and Metro North run on subway-style third rail, but no one would say they're like a subway.
To me, it comes down to functional usage- Is your system an urban one, where people are going from urban neighborhood to urban neighborhood for their daily functioning, or is it a suburban one, where the system is based on rush hour commuting patterns from bedroom communities to central cores. To me, BART is definitely the latter.
I personally don't see how PATH and BART are similar.
PATH has pretty dense station configuration, runs with a single base fare, is all urban, with no park-and-ride stuff, seating is subway-style benches, and heavy off-peak ridership. BART has widely spaced stations, fares based on distance, mostly park-and-ride suburban running, seating is commuter rail style, and heavy rush-hour ridership.
And don't see how electrification type matters. LIRR and Metro North run on subway-style third rail, but no one would say they're like a subway.
To me, it comes down to functional usage- Is your system an urban one, where people are going from urban neighborhood to urban neighborhood for their daily functioning, or is it a suburban one, where the system is based on rush hour commuting patterns from bedroom communities to central cores. To me, BART is definitely the latter.
I actually think we are mostly in agreement. Maybe more PATCO then path then but one positive is both these run 24/7
I personally don't see how PATH and BART are similar.
PATH has pretty dense station configuration, runs with a single base fare, is all urban, with no park-and-ride stuff, seating is subway-style benches, and heavy off-peak ridership. BART has widely spaced stations, fares based on distance, mostly park-and-ride suburban running, seating is commuter rail style, and heavy rush-hour ridership.
And don't see how electrification type matters. LIRR and Metro North run on subway-style third rail, but no one would say they're like a subway.
To me, it comes down to functional usage- Is your system an urban one, where people are going from urban neighborhood to urban neighborhood for their daily functioning, or is it a suburban one, where the system is based on rush hour commuting patterns from bedroom communities to central cores. To me, BART is definitely the latter.
Functional usage-wise, BART is substantially different from LIRR and Metro-North for many of its stations and I think you're probably pretty unfamiliar with the system.
I would say that BART, Washington Metro and PATH operate pretty similarly though the Washington Metro has many more interlined parts within the urban core and PATH train is a bit more limited. They all offer park and rides somewhere along and the frequencies at non-interlined parts during evenings and weekends are varying degrees of not good.
Other thing the BART is like are S-Bahns in Germanic countries. Basically, the parts in San Francisco to parts of Oakland operate as a rapid transit service with close together stops in an urban environment, reasonable fare and the kind of frequencies where people just wander in without thinking to consult a time table. I would say that's a pretty good sign of having rapid transit service. Outside of those interlined parts on weekends, you'll probably worry about the timetables and be substantially pissed when you accidentally catch the train just as it's leaving the station.
What would be nice would be a conversion of more commuter rail systems in the US into something that ran more like BART does. SEPTA Regional Rail sort of has the capacity to do it right now. Boston would probably benefit the most from this with that North-South Station Link.
That being said, the rapid transit portion of BART is pretty stunted compared to that of Philadelphia and Boston. It'd be nice if the national and global success the Bay Area has meant a bit more in terms of infrastructure for residents there.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-07-2016 at 12:36 PM..
Number of Workers who Commute via Public Transportation, 2014
San Francisco CSA 431,549...10.4% of all commuters
Boston CSA 344,377...9.2% of all commuters
Philadelphia CSA 291,570...8.6% of all commuters
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
