Travel Mapping
Railway Data Discussion => In-progress Railway Systems & Work => Topic started by: Nagamasa on February 01, 2025, 04:13:26 am
-
BART is currently split into 3 different systems:
- the main wide-gauge 5-line service
- eBART, standard guage DMU extension of the Yellow line
- OAK Connector AGT shuttle to OAK/li]
All of these are mapped as equals on the BART System Map: https://www.bart.gov/system-map, I don't think we should be splitting it up here into separate systems based on the infrastructure provided. Proposal is to consolidate usaebart into usabart and move OAK Connector out of usaair into usabart.
-
I'd support moving eBART into BART and reducing by a system (though I'm also open to keeping it separate as its a somewhat different thing*). But the Oakland shuttle doesn't remove a system, and means it's missing from the other similar routes.
Plus the shuttle is not given a colour. If it was 'grey line' or something, then that's treated as equal. It's not even given a letter.
*But, where these transfers to non-electric trains happens on Metro North and the LIRR, we've treated it as one route, rather than a separate bit.
-
I'm happy to move eBART into BART, and that is indeed how I had it until I was advised to move it.
The OAK shuttle is branded as the Beige Line and operated directly by BART. Given that it is fully integrated into BART, there's a strong argument for moving it.
-
An aside, to confirm, do connected routes support 2 in the same region (I assume so)? Yellow Line can have the normal and DMU sections as separate routes but are connected, which is fairly true to reality and maps.
-
Moving eBART into BART makes perfect sense.
OAK shuttle is more of a gray area. It seems to fit more in the model of a typical Air Train link like the ones at ATL, EWR, and PHX (and probably a few others). In the long run it probably doesn't matter which system it's in, but the question to ask might not be who operates the shuttle, but how does is operate in comparison to similar routes.
There are certainly arguments that support either option. I guess if I had to come down on one side or the other, I'd keep it with the landside airport rail systems.
-
An aside, to confirm, do connected routes support 2 in the same region (I assume so)? Yellow Line can have the normal and DMU sections as separate routes but are connected, which is fairly true to reality and maps.
Funny enough, that is also how I had it originally. I want to keep the transfer station in regardless, because you can turn around there even if you can't leave.
-
So the issue here is it doesn't matter what BART brands the service as. It matters what it physically is.
Heavy rail rapid transit goes in tier 3, but light rail goes in tier 4. If a single system operator has both heavy rail and light rail services, they have to be split into separate systems for TM purposes. This is how it is done in every other city - L.A. Metro light rail is separate from L.A. Metro subway, SEPTA Trolleys is separate from SEPTA rapid transit, MBTA light rail is separate from MBTA subway, etc.
If you have an issue with eBART being separate, take it up with Contra Costa County for building a light rail line to connect to the existing heavy rail BART service instead of extending the BART service. We just document what exists.
-
What makes eBART light rail?
As far as I can see, eBART is just a standard gauge un-electrified rail line that is fully segregated - not even a level crossing, let alone street-running. That's different to BART's non-standard gauge electrified heavy rail line, but not different to heavy rail.
The trains used are the same as regional Dutch rail.
The American Public Transport Authority classes it, alongside BART, as Commuter Rail. Both also fit the definition of Metro (save, perhaps, the unelectrified nature of eBART).
-
Heavy rail rapid transit goes in tier 3, but light rail goes in tier 4. If a single system operator has both heavy rail and light rail services, they have to be split into separate systems for TM purposes. This is how it is done in every other city - L.A. Metro light rail is separate from L.A. Metro subway, SEPTA Trolleys is separate from SEPTA rapid transit, MBTA light rail is separate from MBTA subway, etc.
How important is this distinction with regards to BART? Might an exception to the "rule" make sense here for a single, grade separated line. Having ridden this section, it does act like part of the BART system despite having to change vehicles to reach Antioch at the end of the Yellow line.
Is it more important to reduce the number of systems by eliminating one with a single route or keep things as they are due to the nature of the vehicles? From a rider's standpoint, it won't make a difference, so this comes down to how the rules around rail systems should be applied and whether there should ever be any exceptions. As noted earlier on the OAK air train, combing that with BART would not eliminate a system, so where that ends up is almost doesn't matter.
For me, having completed all existing BART systems, the final resolution won't really change anything.
-
From the standpoint of riders, the difference between BART and eBART is "change to a shuttle train." Even BART doesn't acknowledge the existence of eBART (or the transfer station) on its official maps, and it appears as a single line unless you're familiar with the system. "eBART" isn't even a term used in the public lexicon, despite being the internal designation for the service. As far as the public knows, it is the Yellow Line. From a legal/operational standpoint, it's a bit more complicated, as eBART is operated more directly by Contra Costa County.
-
Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to. ;)
-
What makes eBART light rail?
I mean... this looks like an LRT vehicle to me: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westbound_eBART_train_approaching_Pittsburg_Center_station,_May_2018.JPG
It sure ain't a subway train, so it does not belong in tier 3.
It's described by wiki as a "hybrid" system having elements of both light rail and commuter rail, which... yes, fair. Which means it belongs in either tier 2 or tier 4 depending on which side it tends more towards.
I agree with it being in tier 4 because it's a shuttle connecting to the end of a tier 3 line, which means it serves a function consistent with tier 4. Wouldn't make sense having the subordinate lesser service in a higher tier than the service it's subordinate to.
-
It is much more akin to light rail than subway. No doubt about that.
The carriages are similar to Phoenix's Valley Metro trams or even the Muni light rail in SF, they are just missing the overhead electric power.
If that's the argument for keeping it as a tier 4 system, I'm fine with that.
I believe the original suggestion was to eliminate a "one route" system by combining this section with the rest of BART. It's not like there aren't plenty of other single route systems in Railway Browser.
-
It just looks like light rail because it's a stubby 2 car train rather than a typical 4-8 car length DMU or EMU or subway.
Anyways, I think eBART is fundamentally part of the BART system, as cl94 said. We're documenting what exists. There's no eBART map or system, just "Yellow Line continues on the other side of the transfer platform." The overall system is still subway/regional rail. Having a separate system for eBART almost feels like the rail-equivalent for "non-freeway CA state roads", which we don't really do.
The LA example though, given that the LA Metro map (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/sivog4pnu259j9oc75vlo/25-0412_blt_GM_MlinkAmtrak_47x47.5_DCR_final.pdf?rlkey=g9xk79o2uypo191fmacpbx2hx&e=1&st=8d9coqsr&dl=0) makes no distinguishments between any of their services, perhaps we are also being too pedantic there?
-
There are a bunch of cities throughout the US that have both heavy rail and light rail rapid transit lines, including one where they actually run on the same tracks through the city center (Cleveland, and yes this is cursed). They are pretty much always shown on the same map.
If we decide we want to combine them for the sake of reducing the number of systems... well, we need to do it consistently across the board.
One thing I don't like about combining them from a practical perspective: this would mean they no longer show in different colors on maps. I do like having this distinction visibly present on maps.
-
What makes eBART light rail?
I mean... this looks like an LRT vehicle to me: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westbound_eBART_train_approaching_Pittsburg_Center_station,_May_2018.JPG
I'll go ahead and make the nldrs (https://tmrail.teresco.org/user/mapview.php?sys=nldrs) and autsst (https://tmrail.teresco.org/user/mapview.php?sys=autsst) systems tier 4 then? Because the trains they use on many routes are the same as eBART Dutch example (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arnhem_Arriva_Ellen_ten_Damme_naar_Tiel_(9374771096).jpg), Austrian example (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StB_4062_003.jpg). They don't look like light rail though to me though!
OK, sure, here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@39.9480222,-75.1267401,3a,75y,79.14h,78.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOjDvwEKAGlpRFU4XFAjt0A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.6262794807499%26panoid%3DOjDvwEKAGlpRFU4XFAjt0A%26yaw%3D79.14150903293124!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) it's undeniably a light rail vehicle. Because of the nature of the tracks, not the vehicle. And the nature of the tracks in Austria are commuter rail, Netherlands local/commuter rail, California rapid transit, and Camden trams (the rest of the line outside Camden city centre is local/commuter rail though).
It sure ain't a subway train, so it does not belong in tier 3.
Because it's short? Francophones aren't going to be happy when I lower their metros like the Rennes Metro (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hochbahnabschnitt_Pontchaillou_-_Anatole_France_der_Metro_Rennes.jpg) and the Lausanne Metro (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bf_Sallaz,_Kehranlage.jpg) to tier 4 and pretend they are light rail because they went with short-vehicles-high-frequency. The Lille Metro (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Metro_Lille_VAL208_01.JPG) train looks more 'light rail' than the eBART one.
It's described by wiki as a "hybrid" system having elements of both light rail and commuter rail, which... yes, fair. Which means it belongs in either tier 2 or tier 4 depending on which side it tends more towards.
Citation needed on the light rail thing. It's only 'light rail' because of weird legal status that US law encourages it to be called that and so avoid a load of draconian regulation that makes no sense for an entirely segregated rapid transit system (dare I say 'metro' - other than the power supply, it meets wikipedia's definition!) like this.
It's also listed as commuter rail because BART is commuter rail (though I'm fine with it being in the more prestigious tier 3 than tier 2). Wiki calls BART 'rapid transit' which is code for 'we had a big edit war over whether its commuter rail or metro because its both and people seem to think you can only be one or the other so we settled on a more generic term'.
I agree with it being in tier 4 because it's a shuttle connecting to the end of a tier 3 line, which means it serves a function consistent with tier 4. Wouldn't make sense having the subordinate lesser service in a higher tier than the service it's subordinate to.
At last a good bit of reasoning! I agree with all of this.
However, we have places where the shorter-train diesel shuttles are merged into the rest of the line. I don't know why we are treating Antioch as different from Wassaic, Port Jefferson, etc. It's inconsistent. All are treated as the same line (unlike say, the Mattapan line in Boston - where its drawn as and called a different line, even if its red), all require a change of trains.
-
There are a bunch of cities throughout the US that have both heavy rail and light rail rapid transit lines, including one where they actually run on the same tracks through the city center (Cleveland, and yes this is cursed). They are pretty much always shown on the same map.
Different question though to eBART, which is the same line, not merely the same network.
The MBTA Mattapan line is shown as a separate, albeit red, line on the map. eBART isn't even mentioned on the BART map - just some nebulous 'transfer here' stop. And Yellow line trains have Antioch / SFO as their displayed termini, even though if you are the wrong side of the transfer station, you'd need to transfer.
And tier 3 and tier 4 both have two TM colours available - TMteal and TMlightsalmon provide alternates to TMblue and TMred. You can see the difference as demonstrated with London's two tier 3 systems (https://tmrail.teresco.org/user/mapview.php?sys=gbnlu,gbndlr) and Stockholm's two tier 4 systems (https://tmrail.teresco.org/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=si404&sys=swesl,swess).
-
However, we have places where the shorter-train diesel shuttles are merged into the rest of the line. I don't know why we are treating Antioch as different from Wassaic, Port Jefferson, etc. It's inconsistent. All are treated as the same line (unlike say, the Mattapan line in Boston - where its drawn as and called a different line, even if its red), all require a change of trains.
Wassaic and Port Jefferson both have thru service available during peak hours. On the other hand Greenport, which never has thru service and always requires a train change, is mapped accordingly (https://tmrail.teresco.org/hb/showroute.php?u=duke87&r=ny.grebra).
The official map (https://www.mta.info/map/22461) doesn't show Greenport any differently than Port Jefferson or Wassaic, but it's still mapped differently because what the trains physically do is the deciding factor here, not what the official map shows.
So yeah, rolling usaebart into usabart is one thing, but joining eBART with the Yellow Line as one route? No. That is simply inconsistent with reality, regardless of what BART may like to pretend on paper.
-
I must admit, this has been an enlightening discussion.
While I was initially on board with combining the eBART section with the rest of the BART yellow line, the arguments for and against have changed my thinking. I'm in favor of keeping it a tier 4 system with just the single route.
In the long run, there are going to be many systems with single routes due to the nature of rail (HART, Tren Urbano, Valley Metro in Phoenix, and the Cleveland RTA red line just to name a few in the US). If the goal is to include basically anything that runs on fixed tracks, that's just going to be the way of things. Reducing the number of systems is a worthy goal, but aligning the rail systems to their appropriate tiers is probably more important.
-
However, we have places where the shorter-train diesel shuttles are merged into the rest of the line. I don't know why we are treating Antioch as different from Wassaic, Port Jefferson, etc. It's inconsistent. All are treated as the same line (unlike say, the Mattapan line in Boston - where its drawn as and called a different line, even if its red), all require a change of trains.
Wassaic and Port Jefferson both have thru service available during peak hours. On the other hand Greenport, which never has thru service and always requires a train change, is mapped accordingly (https://tmrail.teresco.org/hb/showroute.php?u=duke87&r=ny.grebra).
The official map (https://www.mta.info/map/22461) doesn't show Greenport any differently than Port Jefferson or Wassaic, but it's still mapped differently because what the trains physically do is the deciding factor here, not what the official map shows.
So yeah, rolling usaebart into usabart is one thing, but joining eBART with the Yellow Line as one route? No. That is simply inconsistent with reality, regardless of what BART may like to pretend on paper.
OK, I'm persuaded.