Bay Area Rapid Transit was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 27, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 4, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 4, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept July 10, 2021 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: San Francisco Bay Area Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Top-importance). Trains: Rapid transit Mid‑importance Trains Portal Sel week 30, 2007 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit (assessed as Mid-importance). Transport Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Is the number/type of vehicles correct in the number of vehicles section? It notes, “ 789 total, with 618 legacy cars and 171 new cars in service; with 8 DMU vehicle sets (eBART); and 4 AGT vehicle sets.” Seems to be incorrect as only new fleet cars are running in regular service and they’d need more than 171 new cars for complete service. Noahbroussard (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was archived (see archive 4), but since then there have been new sources reporting on this (see [1]), so I think the section should be readded, citing this new source and naming San Antonio specifically. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Numberguy6: @RickyCourtney: @Pi.1415926535: Pinging everyone involved in the original discussion. Opinions would be appreciated. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@InvadingInvader: @Jfruh: forgot to ping you. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't make much of a case for BART having any noteworthy bias (i.e. unusually different from other projects at the time). In fact, it says this: Built according to race-neutral specifications in a region already stratified by race, most notably in its job market and housing policy, BART reproduced and reinforced existing inequalities. I do think that a well-researched paragraph or two about the equity effects of BART's design, and more recent efforts to change that (including proposed infill stations), would be appropriate. This source could support that, but more substantial (particularly academic) sources would be needed.

What this source would not support is the claim of deliberate racial bias in the design. As I noted in the previous discussion, that is a claim that would need particularly strong sourcing. For the same reasons I posted there, San Antonio is not a compelling case for the claim. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Humphrey Go-Bart has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 20 § Humphrey Go-Bart until a consensus is reached. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• BART evening map effective January 2025.png
• BART web map effective January 2025.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orbitalbuzzsaw: I really don't think your recent edit is an improvement from the previous wording. The wording is more convoluted ("network topology" and the lengthy first sentence in particular), and there are several subtle issues:

• While there are 15 TPH scheduled at peak, they are not scheduled on exactly 4-minute headways (primarily because the Yellow Line is every 10 and the others every 20)
• While similar in some aspects to S-Bahn systems, there are differences (notably that S-Bahn typically uses mainline rail lines) and that claim needs a reliable source. I'm also not sure it's a useful comparison given that readers are less likely to be familiar with the concept The existing claim of similarity to rapid transit and commuter rail also needs a cite, but that's easy to find (here's one I found in 30 seconds)
• Interlining is when services are connected end-to-end, not when multiple services share the same trunk.

I request you self-revert until we reach consensus about what changes are needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]