[Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message
File
Embed   (paste a YouTube URL)
Password   (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are JPG, PNG and GIF.
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5 MB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 165 unique user posts.

File: 1574881491400.jpg–(125.51KB, 650x862, fCGAsaQ.jpg)
770
No.770
A goon over on the Something Awful forums was kind enough to scan and share this article about the Bay Area Rapid Transit system from the May 1971 issue of Popular Mechanics. It's so hopeful for what could be; it's a shame BART doesn't live up to expectations.
¨ No.771
1574881529362.jpg–(136.97KB, 649x871, ch9ojnP.jpg)
Page 2
¨ No.772
1574881567341.jpg–(167.52KB, 652x868, jbCPgQH.jpg)
Page 3
¨ No.773
1574881603092.jpg–(140.94KB, 650x870, ibkR6bX.jpg)
Page 4
¨ No.774
1574881637688.jpg–(229.97KB, 1041x698, yHmu7Kp.jpg)
Page 5
¨ No.775
1574881670771.jpg–(234.55KB, 1025x724, OYIwaAM.jpg)
Page 6 - final
¨ No.932
On Market Street, BART stations ended up being grimy places where vagrants gather. The transit police are trigger-happy meatheads that are a product of the "Military-to-Law Enforcement Pipeline". BART's design team gets salty when you point out that the interiors of their new trains are "Seahawks Colors". And what good is a transit system taking cars off the roads and highways, when there are more people coming to the Bay Area who either have their own cars, or have jobs that provide their own transportation (eg: "Google Buses")?

But at least they got that line to SFO done.
¨ No.941
1575520691120.jpg–(71.95KB, 800x549, v4zAeySliuNS3R3C8Cbh1jn2JsKBkDyjT9nia3Pjl0Y.jpg)
>>932
i think BART was conceived as more of a consolidation/restoration of Key System service than as its own distinct transit system, so most of the benefits were intended to be restoration of service without trains literally causing traffic jams in the streets.
¨ No.942
1575521618009.png–(76.80KB, 714x550, dsN8mLEF5l05ai00tcZ4XEItce_XSIGlcum27eDalmE.png)
>>941
my evidence that there's some trolley influence on BART is the wacky rail and track profiles they picked. their wheels were* cylindrical with no taper at all. that's really fucking weird for anything on heavy rail, but pretty common in trolley-style equipment with extremely narrow curves to get around. The only other heavy rail operation with a cylindrical wheel profile is the CTA in Chicago, and it's for a technical reason, the minimum curve radius on the loop is extremely close to the radii trolleys have to deal with when they need to turn 90 degrees in the space of a street corner. therefore if BART specifically chose this wheel profile, either they were stupid, or they intended trolley-style curves would exist on their system at some point.

*within the past 10 years they realized this was stupid and bought a wheel lathe to put a taper in all their wheelsets
¨ No.944
>>941

Seemed to make more sense to sink some tubes into the bottom of the Bay than to be all like, "Sorry, motorists! You gotta give the bottom deck of the Bay Bridge back to trains!" And then, as with now, rail transit in California often meets with opposition.

Delete Post