Talk:List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations

Article Titles

This is ridiculous. BART Stations can have, after their official names, "(BART)", or "Station", or nothing at all. This is very confusing, especially with few redirects. To bring naming conventions in line with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's and most other system's stations, I propose that each station article's name be changed to (Station name on official map) + (BART). For example, San Bruno Station would become San Bruno (BART), and for stations like Union City, Coliseum/Oakland Airport, Richmond and Millbrae that are shared with other systems, all would take the BART suffix except for Millbrae, which should be renamed for its formal name, Millbrae Intermodal Terminal. Bayberrylane 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I took a look at the historical policy, but I still prefer my original pproposal as it stays current with the only other transit system in the area that has individual station pages, VTA light rail. Bayberrylane 02:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge into BART Main Entry?

Wouldn't merging this entry into the BART system entry after Routes, and making this entry as "2. Stations (List)" be better?--Mistakefinder (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Millbrae Transfer Station?

Are we only defining "Transfer" in this article strictly as transfers between BART lines, or including BART/Caltrain transfers? If so, we should add the "*" next to Millbrae Station in the table also.--Mistakefinder (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It refers only to transfer stations designated by BART. And obviously they are transfers between BART lines.—Chris! _ct 17:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that it would be better to list Millbrae as a transfer station between Caltrain and BART to let readers know that the transfer is possible (if they're not familiar with BART/Caltrain already). Otherwise the reader may not click on Millbrae to read more about the transferability to/from Caltrain.--Mistakefinder (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the format a bit. How's that?—Chris! _ct 01:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking good! --Mistakefinder (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Weekdays" vs. "Week Days"?

Btw, don't you think BART's use of the term "weekdays" is kind of confusing? It is different from the typical meaning of the entire weekday (24 hrs). Perhaps we should suggest to them to revise the brochures to say "week days" instead of "weekdays" and "week nights"? --Mistakefinder (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Either way is fine. I don't have a preference.—Chris! _ct 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Change System map background color?

How about reverting the base color to previous version's lighter yellow color to show the Yellow Line (Pittsburg Baypoint Line) better? --Mistakefinder (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

All color should follow those on {{BART color}}. See the edit page for the color codes. I already made the change on the system map.—Chris! _ct 00:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburg/Bay Point/SFO Line Inaccuracy

The Pittsburg/Bay Point - SFO line serves Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno and SFO at all times. The only station it serves part time is Millbrae, at least under the current operating pattern. I find the note text confusing right now.Mike (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Including station locations

The article would naturally be improved by including the milepost location of each station-- e.g. the midpoint of the platform at MacArthur is 2.22 miles from the southeast end of the Oakland wye (which is Milepost 0 for the Richmond and Concord lines). Of course this info is easily gotten by going to the station and looking at the blue milepost markers at 0.1 mile intervals (or less), and that would be the sensible thing to do, but that would be Original Research. It's research that anyone can verify for himself, but it goes against the letter of Wikipedia rules, which should be broken in this case but presumably won't be. So we need a source.

Paper maps from circa 1972 do exist, in the library and elsewhere, showing the mileposts at each of the original stations. They're clearly "official"-- drawn by BART or the contractors or somebody-- but they are on paper, and some people think such a map can't be a source, since they can't personally verify it. Is that true?

The mileposts on the map agree with the mileposts we can see along the track. (Pretty close anyway-- as I recall there's a 0.01-mile discrepancy at Coliseum.) So no real need for the map, except to serve as a fig leaf. Think it should fill the bill? Tim Zukas (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How will the article be "naturally improved" by doing such a thing? I'm not being sarcastic here; I just don't see what useful information it will add. --Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Any time you're writing an article about a railroad (or a highway) connecting point A and point B, the distance from point A to point B via the railroad/highway is relevant-- especially when the public timetable doesn't show it. Remember how BART was supposed to average 50 mph including stops? What if we're wondering how close it comes to that now? How would you find the distance from Richmond to Hayward, or Pittsburg to Millbrae? If you live here you can get on the train and look at the milepost markers, but if you don't live here it'll be harder. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Or: you want to write a letter to the editor complaining about BART's fares. Only way to compare fares is dollars per mile/kilometer; you know the former but need to find out the latter-- from the Wikipedia article. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. If people want to search for milepost info for rails, then I think people come to the wrong place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for general information, not technical info like distance from station A to station X. If they want such info, then they should contact BART or search in local libraries. Anyway, I never say "a map can't be a source." But to be able use it, you need to provide adequate details like publisher, title, date, etc. Saying "Paper maps circa 1972" is too vague and it is not going to work. On top of that we require sources that are reliable, which is necessary for providing accurate information.—Chris!_c/t 01:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"If people want to search for milepost info for rails, then I think people come to the wrong place." As it stands the article is sure nuff the wrong place, but it could easily be the right place, and it should be. Can you find the right place anywhere online, that gives the distance between, say, Richmond and Fremont?

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for general information, not technical info like distance from station A to station X." An article on the Boeing 747 should give "technical info" like how long it is. An article on the Empire State Building should give "technical info" like how tall it is. The BART-station list now gives "general info" (i.e. useless info) like the fact that Powell St station is in San Francisco.

"I never say "a map can't be a source. But to be able use it, you need to provide adequate details like publisher, title, date, etc." The map has dates, all right, but it doesn't have a title or a publisher-- it was done by or for BART, for its own use.

"we require sources that are reliable". What you mean is "I require a source that I have seen and have judged reliable. I am the one who decides; other Wikipedia editors must submit their sources to me for approval, and if the source is on paper it can't be used because I can't see it." This would always be the wrong attitude for Wikipedia, but it's particularly silly in this case because all the mileposts can be verified by anyone who goes out and looks. There's a Milepost 23.7 marker at the Fremont station about 0.01 mile northwest of the platform midpoint, and likewise elsewhere. Yes, that is Original Research, but in this case it should clearly be allowed, since anyone can easily do it and it's only needed to verify the map. Tim Zukas (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, including the fact that Powell Street station is in San Francisco is not useless. Maybe it is for you but clearly not for those who don't live in SF. Secondly, Wikipedia policies do require reliable sourcing. Go read Wikipedia:Verifiability yourself if you don't believe me. Note that I am not the one who make the rules, I am simply enforcing our policies. If you don't like them, that is not my problem.—Chris!_c/t 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policies do require reliable sourcing." Everyone's agreed on that-- and this source is reliable. Anyone who doubts its reliability can easily confirm it by taking a ride on BART and looking at the trackside milepost markers.

You think a source can't be "reliable" unless you yourself have seen it. (Or you might deign to allow the source if the publisher sounds reliable to you, and the title sounds reliable to you, and the date sounds reliable to you. Others are of course not qualified to make such decisions.) What Wikipedia rule requires your approval of all additions? Tim Zukas (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You said "this source is reliable", but how do we know that if there is no info on the source. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources on that. And you can't verify the source yourself then go back to call the source reliable. That involves original research and it doesn't work that way. I never said I have to see the source myself for it to be reliable, but there should be at least some info on it, so we can judge it and accept it in good faith. And without info on the source, how can we cite it? We can't just cite "BART map circa 1972" as source. Do you understand? You may think that I am throwing all these policies at you to prevent you from adding the info, but that is clearly not my intention. If you think about it, these policies are all necessary for ensuring accurate info on this website.—Chris!_c/t 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Introductory - Swestlake proposal

"Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a heavy-rail and rapid-transit system for the public San Francisco Bay Area. The system is administered by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (SF BART district) government agency overlooking the three California counties of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, and City and County of San Francisco. BART is ranked as the fifth busiest rapid transit system in the United States with an average count surpassing 350,000 passengers per weekday.[1][2]"

Current form is

"Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a heavy-rail public rapid-transit system in the San Francisco Bay Area. The system is run by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (SF BART district), a government agency in three California counties: Alameda County, Contra Costa County, and the City and County of San Francisco. With over 350,000 passengers each weekday BART is the fifth largest rapid transit system in the United States in terms of ridership.[1][2]"

"heavy-rail public rapid-transit system" is malformed english. Needs to be chopped down and isn't much different in saying

"public heavy-rail rapid-transit system" , nor

"public heavy-rail rapid-transit system",

it's mumbo jumbo adding on top of "Transit" already at the beginning.. with the word "Area" written twice. Two "transits" and two "area" in one sentence-- this is clutter.

Also in the past someone else suggested not using the word "run" in the introductory as, it can easily convoluted as to what personel(employees/manpower) is addressing the directive of the message. "Administration" is less ambiguous for "run", as "run" can even be attributed to actual physical operations of machinery.

Government agencies do not always "operate" physically within specified territories they administer, this is another reason why using the word "in" is incorrect. The person who undid the change fails to understand this fact of basic english grammar. This isn't interpretative grammar, this is common english. This isn't a marathon race but a government agency.. and using the word overlook rather than "in" is fitting even outside the interpretative context of political discussion. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations&diff=next&oldid=549961223 )

Also the corrections done on the following introductory paragraph is about the BART system, and so using the vocabulary "opened" is not reflecting use towards the overall physical infrastructure, but rather sub-stations besides just end-stations of the 5 major lines of the BART system. This is why the words "for" and "to" are replaced for "opened" -- and is very fitting because the word "line" is strictly used for almost each sentence of the paragraph. It also enhances the readability because it reduces unnecessary clutter of modifier words added on top of the word "between"; as "opened between" -- it is also easier to understand because of "reforms" described in the paragraph where some end-stations are no longer end-stations of a line. A line is a line, and it is drawn between two things, but this is a "transit" line and people intuitively know there are sub-station stops. So if the word "line" is used there's no need for saying "between" because it's usage is a distraction for complexity.The word "between" only mitigates complexity for inviting more explanation on a follow-through sentence. The word "to" is directive to the user, simplified for reading and to the point. The expression "opened between" is also misleading because the introductory sentence "BART" is a system, and the nature of describing "parts" of the BART system would be major critical components of it-- instead "Stations" and "extensions" are exemplified and there are described reforms(by use of the word "extension") whereby the terminology "extensions" defeats the purpose of using "between" in the first place. A line is simple and is always directive, so "to" and "for" is simple and to the point for the reader to understand he is catching one "critical" component of the BART system(and whether or not there are any extensions emphasized about it later on in the paragraph) and is ready to read the next major or critical component-- as "end-station" to opposite "end-station" line. Wikipedia is not to be read like an instruction manual. It should be simple and to the point where possible. Describing the BART system is not to be written or used as a travel guide either.

If one wants to use
"BART operates five lines. " Then immediately indicate the five lines and not the historical story line.

If the story line of BART is written, then at least indicate it had a historical value of change of it-- quick and briefly. It acts as a lead for the paragraph, because the paragraph is already written in the style of historical value.(justifies why i edited the first sentence of the second paragraph. This too was completely reverted by Zukas)

I'll see if Zuka's supports my invitation to address the above concerns and would like to understand his positions, notably on why he thinks the first sentence cannot be simplified to basic english that is readable with less repetitious/unnecessary clutter.

Why,
Current article form for first sentence:
"Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a heavy-rail public rapid-transit system in the San Francisco Bay Are" is more appropriate rather than,

My proposing change:
"Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a heavy-rail and rapid-transit system for the public San Francisco Bay Area."
Tim Zukas' behaviour of quick editing has been scrutinized before for this article on his talk page and has refused to fully to providing explanations on his changes for prior occassions. I will dismiss everything about that, but I am only interested on his last editorial activity on this page.

Tim Zukas you are welcome to speak and represent your motivations for explaining your last change on this article.

Thank you.

Swestlake (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

At the moment the first sentence reads "(BART) is a heavy-rail public rapid-transit system in the San Francisco Bay Area." Tell everyone what you want to replace it with. (Feel free to delete "public".)

" A line is simple and is always directive, so "to" and "for" is simple and to the point for the reader to understand he is catching one "critical" component of the BART system(and whether or not there are any extensions emphasized about it later on in the paragraph) and is ready to read the next major or critical component-- as "end-station" to opposite "end-station" line."

Can't expect anyone to make sense of that. Maybe your best plan is to quote each sentence in the article and tell us what you want to substitute. (Might be best to do one sentence at a time.) Tim Zukas (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

—

I invited you to give your reasons why you reverted all of my changes-- minimally just requested justifying only one sentence. I would be expecting to hear your argumentative points on why you did that. You have no justification to perform such an editorial action if you do not have any justification in doing so. Your emphasis is to ignore your last editorial change of the prior proposal I have attempted to engage. The minimal leniency is to take article at public value. Hyphenation is meritocracy for technical operation of things. Since you have no outlining reasons on upholding your stand on the minimal request I made for just one sentence, you should not be engaging in wikipedia editorials.

Swestlake (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

—

For other third parties reading proposed changes, I should overcome any prior confusing mitigation by introducing a more adequate reduction, just for the first sentence..

"Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a rapid public railway system for the San Francisco Bay Area.",

This latter one is simpler by reduction. If it's for the public's eye to be reading this, legibility should be expressed for the lay person; hyphenation is for technical emphasis on the operations of things.

The accountability for upholding the changes for the rest of the introduction can be found near the top of the section's explanation-- notably pertaining to the fact that Wikipedia pages are not to be expressed as a technical instructions manual nor a travel guide

(too high stakes on the usage for the word "between")

Since Zukas has no explanation on *reverting any of the changes I made*, I will transfer the given candidacies for wider legibility.

Swestlake (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Swestlake, as a Bay Area resident who is no stranger to the BART system and have worked on this particular article in the past, I agree with Tim Zukas that there are significant issues with your latest edits to this page, especially the second paragraph:

BART services its overall system on five major railway lines and throughout the years has gone through a number of reforms. The Richmond–Fremont line for MacArthur to Fremont initiated in September 1972 and connected to Richmond in January 1973. The Pittsburg/Bay Point–SFO/Millbrae line for Concord to MacArthur started in May 1973. Service between Montgomery Street and Daly City began in November 1973. The Fremont–Daly City line began servicing Transbay Tube in September 1974 marking the initial completion of the Concord–Daly City to Richmond–Fremont joints. The Richmond–Daly City/Millbrae line began for Richmond to Daly City a few years later. BART underwent its series of major expansions with service extensions for North Concord/Martinez in 1995, Colma to Pittsburg/Bay Point during 1996, and Dublin/Pleasanton to the Dublin/Pleasanton–Daly City line in 1997. The south of San Francisco had service extended with San Francisco International Airport to Millbrae in 2003.[3] BART also connects Oakland International Airport from Coliseum/Oakland Airport station by the service of the AirBART shuttle bus.

The original paragraph before your edits summarized the physical growth of the BART system. For example, the original sentence The Richmond–Fremont line opened between MacArthur and Fremont in September 1972 and was extended to Richmond in January 1973 states exactly what it meant, that the Richmond-Fremont line's first segment opened for service is between MacArthur and Fremont stations, and a second segment to Richmond station opened for service later. Your edit to that sentence, particularly the for...to prepositions and the word ordering, makes the sentence's intended meaning harder for the casual reader to understand. Similar things can be said for the other changes you made in this paragraph. In addition, your edited sentence The Fremont–Daly City line began servicing Transbay Tube in September 1974 marking the initial completion of the Concord–Daly City to Richmond–Fremont joints made it factually inaccurate, since the Fremont-Daly City line serves more than just the Transbay Tube, and I have no idea what you mean by the word "joints", which makes the sentence all the more confusing.

I appreciate your desire to improve the article, but in this case, I do not feel that your edits to the second paragraph improved the article's content or clarity, and I can understand why Tim Zukas decided to undo your edits.

JJHW17 (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________

@User:JJHW17

The second paragraph comparisons can be seen here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations&diff=550072003&oldid=550034569

(1)

BART operates five lines. The Richmond–Fremont line opened between MacArthur and Fremont in September 1972 and was extended to Richmond in January 1973. The Pittsburg/Bay Point–SFO/Millbrae line opened between Concord and MacArthur in May 1973. Service between Montgomery Street and Daly City began in November 1973. The Fremont–Daly City line began service upon the opening of the Transbay Tube in September 1974, which was the completion of the initial system (Concord–Daly City and Richmond–Fremont). All-day service direct between Richmond and Daly City was added in 1980. The first major system expansion was to North Concord/Martinez in 1995, Colma and Pittsburg/Bay Point in 1996, and Dublin/Pleasanton on the new Dublin/Pleasanton–Daly City line in 1997. Service south of San Francisco was further extended to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae in 2003.[3] BART also serves Oakland International Airport from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport station via the AirBART shuttle bus.[4]

(2)

BART services its overall system on five major railway lines and throughout the years has gone through a number of reforms. The Richmond–Fremont line for MacArthur to Fremont initiated in September 1972 and connected to Richmond in January 1973. The Pittsburg/Bay Point–SFO/Millbrae line for Concord to MacArthur started in May 1973. Service between Montgomery Street and Daly City began in November 1973. The Fremont–Daly City line began servicing Transbay Tube in September 1974 marking the initial completion of the Concord–Daly City to Richmond–Fremont joints. The Richmond–Daly City/Millbrae line began for Richmond to Daly City a few years later. BART underwent its series of major expansions with service extensions for North Concord/Martinez in 1995, Colma to Pittsburg/Bay Point during 1996, and Dublin/Pleasanton to the Dublin/Pleasanton–Daly City line in 1997. The south of San Francisco had service extended with San Francisco International Airport to Millbrae in 2003.[3] BART also connects Oakland International Airport from Coliseum/Oakland Airport station by the service of the AirBART shuttle bus.[4]

(1) is prior, (2) is the modified

I accept the response but I do reserve the intention of keep editing it, because it was too convoluted to finish with one edit. I agree with your point that "for" is not strong enough, but the 'between' would make it more complex if there's an invitation to including reforms with it(reforms, as pertaining to already existing content of (1) for historical railway construction milestones). You should also take a strong note on this other observation I did not point out, but the naming of the lines themselves already imply end-to-end station points, so this form of obvious self-intuition shouldn't cause any stir of confusion knowing that the "for" of other named stations pertains to it's line. True, it's possible and I agree with you that the word "between" is possible, but take a good look at how the 2nd paragraph is presented in (1)

"BART operates five lines." I brought this up before. If it's written like this, it should go straight to the point rather than trying to pull up anything about construction timelines. Since I edited this sentence in context of the paragraph's already established intention of expressing "reform" then I can see the expressions therein that are roughed-up because their expressions become faulty. The context of construction becomes ambiguous and complex when you get to sentences 7,8, and 9.. where "major expansions" are being emphasized. I made modifications on paragraph two so long as these sentences can be comprehensible with the sentences before them. In actuality, I would prefer to rewrite the whole paragraph because even (2)'s first sentence cannot be fully representative for it's respective paragraph, but it's (2)'s version is more accurate than than (1), for the following:

"The original paragraph before your edits summarized the physical growth of the BART system." Not necessarily-- let's take a look. Sentence #4

(1)"The Fremont–Daly City line began service upon the opening of the Transbay Tube in September 1974, which was the completion of the initial system (Concord–Daly City and Richmond–Fremont). "
(2) "The Fremont–Daly City line began servicing Transbay Tube in September 1974 marking the initial completion of the Concord–Daly City to Richmond–Fremont joints."

It's wabble dabble -- "began service upon the opening" -- this is clutter. The word "service" does not need "upon the opening", service is common sense that something is opening, and it already has a reinforcement with "began" so, it's two more clutter than needed. This is common english..

"which was the completion of the initial system (Concord–Daly City and Richmond–Fremont)" -- This is extremely confusing. The word "system" has only so far been the BART system, a line does not become it's "system" when an overview of a "major" system is being introduced no matter what discipline it is. Perhaps it can be possible to give it an exception by using the word "sub-system", but it only loses the purpose of the introduction which is to look at it from the BART system point of view.

You expressed concern of "since the Fremont-Daly City line serves more than just the Transbay Tube,". I do not live in San Francisco Bay area and understood by the way it is written by (1) to mean a station. However you brought it to my attention and I have verified on that it is not a station (Transbay_Tube), the reason why it appeared to be a station is because of the second clause of (1) as 'which was the completion of the initial system (Concord–Daly City and Richmond–Fremont)' -- This is strictly invalid because the fact by the way I understand reading upon an "overview" of the BART system is connecting it's line transit points by basis of station and not by construction pathway mediums. You mention this "summarizes" the physical growth of the BART system. This is simply not true, on a very sub-part of it does, but it does not "summarize" the physical growth at all for two reasons-- The first is "physical growth" for the nature of the heading of this article which is in the eye of the "public" of. This entitles to sticking to elements of "summary" as "station" rather than transit construction pathways or their building of material. If you're going to be talking about the building of material summary, it should include also whether the transit trains should be electric or gas-powered, as it makes up part of the physical system at different level. The second reason is the emphasis already placed on representing the growth of "transit lines" after the first sentence by station names.. So a "summary" of a "system" in context separate from that related to the entity-purposes of "station" only gets convoluted because the whole way the build material pathways were not elements of the overview of the BART system. You would be able to squeeze in about the Transbay Tube for being a "milestone" but I wouldn't connect it as a "summary" for the system. It's grammatically incorrect, I know you know more about the system than I do on all fronts, but it's the way the expressions are presented and reflect the leading sentence of the paragraph.

Mind me telling you I also should not have to bother to even look at the map, but I did and still looking at it again the expression 'initial system (Concord–Daly City and Richmond–Fremont)' is dancing with lingo .. The 'initial system of "what" ? Let's go back to the previous meanings very briefly.. "(Concord–Daly City and Richmond–Fremont)" << Whether they are lines or segments of lines to look as "parts" of the BART system, why is the "initial system" then preceding "(Concord–Daly City and Richmond–Fremont)" ? But let's agree on something, 'Transbay Tube' is important and a milestone, and being so, it has it's own respective element to contribute to the paragraph, therefore the material pathway has to be expressed.. otherwise convolution occurs with "initial system", "Transbay Tube" and what's in the brackets(those station names). Mind me telling you I'm not in the area and so you are already familiar of the components, but the expressions don't fall in the right order..

So for (2) written as "The Fremont–Daly City line began servicing the Transbay Tube in September 1974 on it's milestone completion of the Concord–Daly City to Richmond–Fremont line connections.", should incorporate the type or material pathway naming milestone, that way it can add clarity but still kept brief and doesn't take away the overview message of the intended system. There must of been other milestones on the way, but since it is already emphasized it cannot be included without excluding it to be just another name for a station. You think it's logical that 'Transbay tube' implies it is not a station but people who are outside of San Francisco wouldn't know reading the article and would not easily be able to decipher it. Also underwater railway passages are rare in the World afaik, so it would be needing to emphasize it's type of pathway contributing to the milestone

Currently (2)

"The Fremont–Daly City line began servicing the Transbay Tube in September 1974 on it's milestone completion of the Concord–Daly City to Richmond–Fremont line connections." can be more clearer if written as

"The Fremont–Daly City line began servicing on the milestone completion of the underwater Transbay Tube segment of September 1974, enhancing the already established system of the lines Concord–Daly City and Richmond–Fremont."

Now the last sentence of paragraph 2 needed editing

(1) has "Service south of San Francisco was further extended to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae in 2003.[3] BART also serves Oakland International Airport from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport station via the AirBART shuttle bus.[4]"

(2) "BART also connects Oakland International Airport from Coliseum/Oakland Airport station by the service of the AirBART shuttle bus.[4]"

The reason is because AirBart shuttle bus does not materially operate on the railway, so the word "via" is not a suitable/material conduit path to the rest of the railway. That's why the word "by" is needed

...

As for using the word "between", I'm ready and still lenient on addressing that, but in my opinion in order to use that word, the whole paragraph would have to be written better-- because sentences 7,8,9 prevented me thus by overcoming convolution.

You had good points to make there, but I don't hold back on my disagreements especially if there's convolving legibility which only ends up twisting the original intentions of leading sentences. It all has to fall into place especially for descriptive patterns that are sequentially dependent upon one another. The purpose of me editing the parts in need of editing is not to persuade people in direct cause, but to first point out the basic delinquencies on the misuse of common english which wasn't addressed and I was glad to address them before settling on further points upon it's presented context. It was a mess, and I was glad to help out.

I thank you for your time and feedback. I appreciate the commentary.

Swestlake (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Swestlake, I respect the fact that you put in a lot of thought into your edits. I unfortunately do not have enough time to go over the merits of each word and sentence in that second paragraph. I was not the one who first wrote it, though I was among the editors who have made changes to it over time. All I want to say is that particular paragraph was meant to be a condensed summary of the physical growth of the BART system from its inception to today. It was written to express a large amount of information in a concise but generally understandable manner. You certainly can find plenty of deficiencies in its choice of words and phrasing, and since this is Wikipedia, you are free to edit it to make it better. It is just my (and Tim Zukas') personal view that your edited version of the paragraph express the contained information in a less-clear manner than what was there before.

"Mind me telling you I also should not have to bother to even look at the map..."

I appreciate all your commentary, but I strongly disagree with your above statement. Try to understand this: none of the information in that paragraph, whether it is written in the way it was before your edits, or written in the way you insisted, would make any sense to a reader who has no prior knowledge of BART unless the system map is there to serve as a visual reference. That's what the 2 maps on the right side of the article page are there for. They say a picture's worth a thousand words for a reason.

These are the final words I will say on this matter. Thank you.

JJHW17 (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________

Well I appreciate the feedback, but according to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines what you're saying is inadequate because Wikipedia is not meant to be used as an technical instruction manual(the expressions used on sentence 1, and the last sentence of a paragraph 2 is wrong with the word "via"). For all editors who share your viewpoint, should consult:

Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

"be as concise as possible—but no more concise. Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples."

so editing/reviewing Wikipedia pages must fall within guidelines, and not by your assumption by a "picture" is worth a thousand words has anything to do with the legibility nor readability of an article. A picture is worth a thousand words if there is actually coherence among the words-- and even basic elementary english was not exhibited at all throughout the whole two paragraphs. I mean "simple" english. Writing/editing wipedia pages is not to be expressed on how you speak from what I understand, this is wrong. This is why the word "run" is inadequate in paragraph one, while "administer" was used to replace it.

I pointed out just one very "simple", actually two of them. First sentence of paragraph one, and "last" sentence of paragraph 2. You addressed me Paragraph 2, but you could not even relate to debate any changes for the last sentence of paragraph 2. I actually have to justify the correction of grammar before I can even begin to clarify the context; which to me makes supporting my position that much easier-- not much thought I have to give it-- so quite the opposite, it's just that you two are so used to clicking 'undo' or hit-n-running other wikipedia page edits without giving much thought to it which to me is pretty shameful. Neither of you are willing to debate any changes, and that's a bad habit. You can't justify your editorial positions by pointing at a picture. This isn't a very attractive quality to exhibit your capability as an editor-- and anyone reading what you say across talkpages with this form of editorial justification would merely add more scrutiny on how you well you scale your changes.

You and the other have absolutely no reason to "undo" other people's changes if you do not have the capability of defending/clarifying or elaborating your position. When people like me stand up, the hit-n-runners try to find the easy way out.This nonsense stops with me.
Your edits are now on my watchlist.

Swestlake (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Swestlake, I have no intention of undoing your edits. My personal editorial policy is that I only undo edits that contain unsourced information or content vandalism. I had raised a few issues with your edits because their wording had altered the intended meaning of some of the information in the second paragraph. You have since corrected them, and I thank you for that. I chose not to discuss and debate about the rest of your edits because they did not affect the accuracy of the underlying information, and thus I had no issues to raise about them. We obviously have disagreements on how to best word and phrase the paragraph, and I've made my point clear about that, but this is simply a matter of personal opinion, and is certainly not enough grounds for me to interfere with your edits. I understand why Tim did what he did based on his past edit practices (which I too had taken issues with in the past), but that was not what I would have done, certainly not without prior discussion. I apologize for not make that clear before, and I accept the blame for that.

Please do not take my expressed disagreements as an attack on your right as a Wikipedia editor to make changes to improve articles.

JJHW17 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"When people like me stand up, the hit-n-runners try to find the easy way out."

Questions that don't have answers: What are people like you? What's the easy way out? What's the hard way out? What are we getting out of?

No doubt the second paragraph of this article is going to bounce around for a while, so everyone will get a chance to compare the two versions. Which one's better will be plain to everyone, with maybe one exception. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Number of Underground Stations

In the 4th paragraph it says "...has 48 stations: 19 on the surface, 14 elevated, and 15 underground...", but I think there are 16 underground stations. I'm aware that the number is cited from the BART website, but let's count them:

• All 8 San Francisco stations: Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell, Civic Center, 16th Street Mission, 24th Street Mission, Glen Park, Balboa Park
• Three Oakland stations: 19th Street, 12th Street, Lake Merritt
• All 3 Berkeley stations: North Berkeley, Downtown Berkeley, Ashby
• Two San Mateo stations: South San Francisco, San Bruno

So, 8+3+3+2 = 16. Am I incorrect in my count? Someone let me know. Jigen III (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Station abbreviations + codes?

As far as I'm aware, station codes are still used on official communications from BART, as well as some publicly-available outreach reports. List of Caltrain stations shows station codes for every station and it's been pretty useful for me to reference; any reason why adding similar information to this page would be problematic? Emeryradio (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Those codes are not widely used in public information - not even twitter with its strict character limit. One of the sources you cited was documentation for the API - a programming interface seen only by coders - and the other was a contextless list of two-character codes that I don't recall seeing used anywhere. Codes should only be included in lists like this when they are both widely used, and are useful to readers. IATA airport codes and Amtrak station codes meet those criteria; BART codes don't. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What does the "Ridership" number represent?

Just trying to figure out what this number means in the context of an individual station. Does it represent passengers coming into the system there, or leaving the system there, or both combined, or the average? Are passengers transferring between lines counted in this number? Would be good to have an explanation in a footnote. --Jfruh (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)