Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
BART of the Future
22 views
Skip to first unread message
Kenneth M. Lin
Jun 13, 2013, 11:41:56 PM6/13/13
to
http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/new-features.aspx
http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/new-features.aspx
Does anyone know the current seat width and leg room measurements? Looking
at the schematic, they are making the seats much smaller in order to
accommodate bikes and standing passengers.
Seriously, does it cost more to make the seats 19" tall as oppose to 18"?
They are using 90% wouldn't mind but did they interview the morbidly obese
Bay Are residents?
One thing that BART had going was that it had plenty of leg room. And the
new seats appear to be without padding so it'd be quite uncomfortable.
The number of seats per car is also screwy because in the diagram it shows
that three seats are gone if someone parks a bike. And are people required
to vacate those seats if someone wants to park their bicycle?
http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/new-features.aspx
Does anyone know the current seat width and leg room measurements? Looking
at the schematic, they are making the seats much smaller in order to
accommodate bikes and standing passengers.
Seriously, does it cost more to make the seats 19" tall as oppose to 18"?
They are using 90% wouldn't mind but did they interview the morbidly obese
Bay Are residents?
One thing that BART had going was that it had plenty of leg room. And the
new seats appear to be without padding so it'd be quite uncomfortable.
The number of seats per car is also screwy because in the diagram it shows
that three seats are gone if someone parks a bike. And are people required
to vacate those seats if someone wants to park their bicycle?
Keith Keller
Jun 14, 2013, 12:20:38 AM6/14/13
to
On 2013-06-14, Kenneth M. Lin <kennet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Seriously, does it cost more to make the seats 19" tall as oppose to 18"?
> They are using 90% wouldn't mind but did they interview the morbidly obese
> Bay Are residents?
18" is the seat height. Why would that matter to obese passengers?
>
> Seriously, does it cost more to make the seats 19" tall as oppose to 18"?
> They are using 90% wouldn't mind but did they interview the morbidly obese
> Bay Are residents?
20" is the planned new seat width. The current seats are 22" wide:
http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/customer-feedback.aspx
Presumably some of the 10% who didn't find 20" seats acceptable were
larger people.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Kenneth M. Lin
Jun 14, 2013, 11:01:24 PM6/14/13
to
"Keith Keller" wrote in message
news:m9iq8ax...@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us...
On 2013-06-14, Kenneth M. Lin <kennet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Seriously, does it cost more to make the seats 19" tall as oppose to 18"?
> They are using 90% wouldn't mind but did they interview the morbidly obese
> Bay Are residents?
18" is the seat height. Why would that matter to obese passengers?
20" is the planned new seat width. The current seats are 22" wide:
http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/customer-feedback.aspx
Presumably some of the 10% who didn't find 20" seats acceptable were
larger people.
--keith
Well, wouldn't rest of us have to sit next to those large persons?
Keith Keller
Jun 16, 2013, 12:53:52 PM6/16/13
to
On 2013-06-15, Kenneth M. Lin <kennet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Well, wouldn't rest of us have to sit next to those large persons?
You can always stand instead.
>
> Well, wouldn't rest of us have to sit next to those large persons?
Peter Lawrence
Jun 18, 2013, 12:10:40 PM6/18/13
to
On 6/13/13 9:20 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
>
> 20" is the planned new seat width. The current seats are 22" wide:
Just as a frame of reference, at AT&T Park the standard width of the seats
>
> 20" is the planned new seat width. The current seats are 22" wide:
in the stadium is 19" but the club seats (in the Field Club and on the
second level) are 22" wide.
IIRC, many of the older seats at the Oakland Coliseum (not sure about the
Mt. Davis addition) are only 18" wide.
- Peter
Peter Lawrence
Jun 18, 2013, 12:17:38 PM6/18/13
to
On 6/13/13 8:41 PM, Kenneth M. Lin wrote:
>
> http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/new-features.aspx
One of the advantages of the new cars (if they do what's shown) is that each
car will have an extra set of doors, making ingress and egress a whole lot
easier and faster. That should help speed up the schedule as a whole too,
especially during the rush hours.
- Peter
>
> http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/new-features.aspx
One of the advantages of the new cars (if they do what's shown) is that each
car will have an extra set of doors, making ingress and egress a whole lot
easier and faster. That should help speed up the schedule as a whole too,
especially during the rush hours.
- Peter
Keith Keller
Jun 18, 2013, 2:25:18 PM6/18/13
to
On 2013-06-18, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
> One of the advantages of the new cars (if they do what's shown) is that each
> car will have an extra set of doors, making ingress and egress a whole lot
> easier and faster. That should help speed up the schedule as a whole too,
> especially during the rush hours.
It'll definitely help boarding, but IIRC the Tube itself is basically at
> One of the advantages of the new cars (if they do what's shown) is that each
> car will have an extra set of doors, making ingress and egress a whole lot
> easier and faster. That should help speed up the schedule as a whole too,
> especially during the rush hours.
capacity with BART's current control system. So they won't be able to
add more trains, though perhaps they will be able to better stay on
schedule.
Patrick Scheible
Jun 19, 2013, 1:54:14 PM6/19/13
to
Keith Keller <kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> writes:
> On 2013-06-18, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> One of the advantages of the new cars (if they do what's shown) is that each
>> car will have an extra set of doors, making ingress and egress a whole lot
>> easier and faster. That should help speed up the schedule as a whole too,
>> especially during the rush hours.
>
> It'll definitely help boarding, but IIRC the Tube itself is basically at
> capacity with BART's current control system. So they won't be able to
> add more trains, though perhaps they will be able to better stay on
> schedule.
My understanding is that the Market St. stations are more of a
> On 2013-06-18, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> One of the advantages of the new cars (if they do what's shown) is that each
>> car will have an extra set of doors, making ingress and egress a whole lot
>> easier and faster. That should help speed up the schedule as a whole too,
>> especially during the rush hours.
>
> It'll definitely help boarding, but IIRC the Tube itself is basically at
> capacity with BART's current control system. So they won't be able to
> add more trains, though perhaps they will be able to better stay on
> schedule.
bottleneck than the tube. The trains have to stop and let people in and
out for 2 minutes at least. That means trains in the tube can't run
less than 2 minutes apart. If the extra door per car means they can run
the trains through the tube 90 seconds apart, it'll add capacity.
The earliest designs for BART called for four tracks under Market St.,
using both levels. Then to save money BART decided to turn over the
upper level to MUNI. It makes transfers easier, but now that BART is
near capacity it limits their options.
-- Patrick
Keith Keller
Jun 19, 2013, 2:42:54 PM6/19/13
to
On 2013-06-19, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that the Market St. stations are more of a
> bottleneck than the tube. The trains have to stop and let people in and
> out for 2 minutes at least. That means trains in the tube can't run
> less than 2 minutes apart. If the extra door per car means they can run
> the trains through the tube 90 seconds apart, it'll add capacity.
I thought I had read that even if BART could get trains to depart more
>
> My understanding is that the Market St. stations are more of a
> bottleneck than the tube. The trains have to stop and let people in and
> out for 2 minutes at least. That means trains in the tube can't run
> less than 2 minutes apart. If the extra door per car means they can run
> the trains through the tube 90 seconds apart, it'll add capacity.
quickly they still could not add capacity in the Tube because of their
switching system. They already run ~20 trains per hour through the Tube
at rush hour, which averages out to one every three minutes. That seems
difficult to improve to me, but I could be wrong.
If the big bottleneck is really just boarding, then BART's idea to put
additional platforms on the other side of the trains at Embarcadero
and Montgomery might also help:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/BART-considers-rebuilding-2-SF-stations-4267383.php
Brad Allen
Aug 28, 2013, 10:30:04 PM8/28/13
to
" If the big bottleneck is really just boarding, then BART's idea to
" put additional platforms on the other side of the trains at
" Embarcadero and Montgomery might also help:
That makes sense. God it must be expensive, though, unless those
" put additional platforms on the other side of the trains at
" Embarcadero and Montgomery might also help:
structures are already installed (as broom closets or something easy
to convert).
0 new messages