Yes! Please!

Thanks!

Jamison: my guess is that it is used for temporary storage purposes and just for flexibility in keeping the two main service tracks clear, but it’s a good question. I do not know for sure to what extent those tracks have been used.

Andrew: Yes, NY is a far more complicated system than BART. Just as a starter, the NY subway has four-tracked lines that permit express service, something BART cannot really provide due to its mostly double-tracked system. And the sheer number of rail connections in NY makes BART basically look like the meeting of two country roads, in comparison. But I agree, track maps may not be useful for the average rider, but they are fun in a geeky sort of way. :)

On SJ BART, I can’t think of a good pro-con site off the top of my head, but this is a subject I’ve really been meaning to get to in the (hopefully) near future, with a couple posts. Perhaps as a follow-up to these couple of MTC freeway posts (still working on the second follow-up post I promised). The short version? It is hard to believe that this project won’t run over budget, and ridership projections are really just wildly high. So the question is: is BART, whose service maxes out at 80 mph, really the best way to spend 6+ billion of regional rail dollars, and is that really the best way to improve South Bay transit as a whole? Some, myself included, believe the answers to those questions to be no. But it’s definitely an important topic, because, if built, it will use a huge chunk of Bay Area transit expansion dollars. It’s long been on the to-do list, so I’ll try to get to it as soon as I can. Thanks for expressing the interest.

David: Thanks very much for passing along the link, it should be fun to explore the NYC track map and the rest of that site.

On the subject of a SJ BART extension: do you have a link to a good discussion of arguments pro and con? Years ago I thought it was a good idea, but I’ve sort of come around to thinking the opposite now, but I don’t have much to base either view on. I do think there was potential to make good use of such a line developmentally back when they were planning and building BART originally, but of course after the late 50s that wasn’t a real possibility and especially not after San Mateo pulled out of the original plans.

Brian: the sections laid out in the original system are pretty bare bones, e.g. not constructing the fourth track through downtown Oakland. Express service would be nice with the SJ extension, though even nicer would be no SJ extension at all!

misa: I think congestion pricing is a great tool for removing cars off the road and in generating revenue for worthy transit projects. A discussion of congestion pricing here in the Bay Area has been on my to-do list; I’ve just been really low on time.

jfruh: David #13 beat me to it on answering about the North Concord tracks.

David: thanks for writing in. I just knew there were a few inaccuracies between Daly City and Colma. Something didn’t quite look right, but I was working off of a fuzzy memory. I’ve been meaning to ride trains through there a few times just to clear those up. I was considering not posting the map until doing that, but figured why not and just fix them later. I’ll drop you an email though — since you’ve got the papers, perhaps you can save me the trouble of even getting on the train. :)

nice work, sir. i, as it so happens, have the aid of BART documents, but it is sheer *laziness* that has prevented me from ever producing a digital track map. now i don’t have to :-P

the map is accurate, save for a few minor corrections to the daly city turnback area (between daly city and colma) and the location of a few assorted crossovers (you may wish to add the planned central contra costa crossover [http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/ccc/index.aspx] as well), depending on whether you are going for a purely schematic look or seeking a little more geographical accuracy.