Big X for the Bay

It all sounds like something thought up by Stanley Kubrick for the movie 2001. The silent central control room houses giant twin computers that send dozens of sleek, 80-m.p.h. silvery aluminum passenger trains slicking sibilantly into stations at intervals as close as 90 seconds. Each train has only one blue-jumpsuit-clad attendant, and he allows computers to run the controls except in the event of an emergency. Even tickets are sold (in amounts up to $20) by machine. The buyer inserts coins or bills; after an electronic eye scans them, the machine gives forth a credit-card-sized ticket. Thereafter, the passenger merely enters whatever station he likes and sticks his ticket into automatic fare collectors that swiftly calculate fares (from 30-c- to $ 1.25, depending on the length of the journey) and electronically subtract the right amount from the ticket.

The ride itself is quiet, gentle--no lurching starts or jerking halts--and, above all, comfortable. Wool carpet covers the car floors, and there are no commuter straps above the cantilevered seats--the system hopes to provide each rider with a seat. Electronic equipment maintains a running check on each train's mechanical health. There are automatic doors, air conditioning and stations glowing in a dazzling, multicolored array of huge graphics, enamel murals, mosaic columns and Fiberglas reliefs.

This would be an impressive package by any standard. For residents of the San Francisco region, who will see the $1.4 billion Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) begin operation this week, it represents not only a considerable achievement--it is the first new rail transit system to be built in the U.S. in 65 years--but something of a challenge as well. BART was built as an attempt to entice San Francisco commuters out of their cars and onto a fast, smooth rail transport system that serves the entire Bay Area. Says Lawrence Dahms, BART'S assistant general manager for planning and public service: "The basic reason behind BART was not just to keep people from building more freeways but to change development policy. Since 1946, America has put its money in Detroit and highways. The result was sprawling suburbs. Can we turn the corner on that old, auto-oriented policy?"

Fund Failure. Apparently the voters of three Bay Area counties--San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa --thought so in 1962, when they approved a $792 million bond issue to fund construction. BART was intended to order growth more rationally than new highways on the theory that development follows a rail system's route while highways are usually built wherever anyone develops the land. Beyond that, the planners argued that BART would allow poor citydwellers to get to new industrial jobs in the booming suburbs. But what really explained the vote, cynics say, was that most motorists simply hoped that the rail system would keep other cars off the congested roads; the individual driver had no intention of riding the rails himself.

In any case, the new system was a long time in coming. It was delayed by technical problems, political squabbles and, most of all, by inflation. In the late 1960s, the money ran out. Only aid from the state, a locally imposed sales tax and federal funds kept the ambitious project alive. The long years of construction were marked by lawsuits, as well as by a succession of knotty technical problems and press charges of waste and incompetence. There were times when it seemed that BART might be abandoned.

On opening day, in fact, only 28 miles of what eventually will be a 75-mile network will be ready. By next year, however, the entire system is expected to be operative. The first stretch links Oakland, in the East Bay area, with Fremont in the south. The next will reach north to Richmond. Other arms will extend east to Concord and west under the Bay into San Francisco and down the peninsula to Daly City. The X-shaped system will touch every urban population concentration in the three counties, linking up an estimated 2.5 million people.

If BART works as expected, it will cut travel times by anywhere from 30% to 80%. For example, the trip from Oakland to San Francisco will take nine minutes, compared with 35 to 45 minutes by car in rush-hour traffic via the Bay Bridge.

Side Benefits. BART'S promise has sparked a $1 billion office-building boom in downtown San Francisco, plus a major beautification program the length of Market Street. In the suburbs, new homes and apartments are sprouting near the system's stations, and land values have been rising steadily along its route. Whether BART will in fact realize its planners' original far-reaching goals is still moot, mainly because the system is so much shorter than first planned. "We would like to think we've been a catalyst for good things," says Dahms, "but it's too early to tell." Environmental organizations like the Sierra Club's Bay Chapter, however, have wasted no time in praising BART as a "reasonable alternative to freeways and the sprawl and smog they inevitably bring."

Another side benefit is aesthetic. BART's 34 stations are designed to be bright and appealing--quite a change from the usual dreary transit stop. The main station at Lake Merritt even has a pool and a plaza. About a third of its extra-wide tracks will be underground and out of sight. Another third will use freeway medians, and the rest will be elevated on graceful concrete columns. BART has spent $7.5 million on landscaping alone.

The crucial issue, of course, is whether enough people will ride the lines. BART is expected to pay its own way. (One reason for all the space-age automation was to minimize the labor costs that account for about 80% of the costs of the East Coast's deficit-ridden transit systems.) Projections for 1975 predict 200,000 riders on weekdays, or 60 million a year. This would account for 11 % of the present commuting traffic. But a telephone survey indicated that only 7% of those questioned intend to use the system once it goes into operation.

Can BART corral more? Dahms is optimistic, and many another U.S. city is waiting anxiously for the results, since most urban planners agree that new highways exacerbate rather than solve traffic-congestion problems. For the future shape of U.S. cities, a lot depends on BART.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.