Difference between revisions of "Timeline of Bay Area Rapid Transit"

From Timelines
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 10: Line 10:
 
| 1947 || || Report || A joint review board by the United States Army and Navy concludes that an additional link is needed between San Francisco and Oakland to reduce congestion on the Bay Bridge. The proposed link is an underwater tube to carry high-speed electric trains.<ref name=bart-concept-born/><ref name=divided-loyalties-p25/>
 
| 1947 || || Report || A joint review board by the United States Army and Navy concludes that an additional link is needed between San Francisco and Oakland to reduce congestion on the Bay Bridge. The proposed link is an underwater tube to carry high-speed electric trains.<ref name=bart-concept-born/><ref name=divided-loyalties-p25/>
 
|-
 
|-
−
| 1949 || || Legislation || The California state legislature passes the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Rapid Transit District Act.<ref name=clr>{{cite web|url = http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2867&context=californialawreview|title = BART and the Victoria Line: A Comparison of New Commuter Transport in California and London|last = Griffith|first = John|last2 = Holmes|first2 = Dallas|date = August 1, 1967|accessdate = June 2, 2017|publisher = ''[[wikipedia:California Law Review|California Law Review]]''}}</ref> According to the Act, a specially created district would be needed to operate effectively in the context of multiple Bay Area governmental units. The Act provides that the district shall include the city and county of San Francisco and the cities of Alamenda, Albany, Berkeley, Emerybille, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, and San Leandro, and may include all or any part of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties and any city situated therein. In total, over seventy county, city and county, and city governments are potentially involved.<ref name=clr/>
+
| 1949 || || Legislation || The California state legislature passes the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Rapid Transit District Act.<ref name=clr>{{cite web|url = http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2867&context=californialawreview|title = BART and the Victoria Line: A Comparison of New Commuter Transport in California and London|last = Griffith|first = John|last2 = Holmes|first2 = Dallas|date = August 1, 1967|accessdate = June 2, 2017|publisher = ''[[wikipedia:California Law Review|California Law Review]]''}}</ref> According to the Act, a specially created district would be needed to operate effectively in the context of multiple Bay Area governmental units. The Act provides that the district shall include the city and county of San Francisco and the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emerybille, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, and San Leandro, and may include all or any part of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties and any city situated therein. In total, over seventy county, city and county, and city governments are potentially involved.<ref name=clr/>
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1951 || || Report || The California State Legislature creates a 26-member San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission, comprised of representatives from each of the nine counties which touch the Bay. The Commission's charge is to study the Bay Area's long range transportation needs in the context of environmental problems and then recommend the best solution.<ref name=bart-concept-born/><ref name=divided-loyalties-p25/> Both the joint Army/Navy report<ref name=divided-loyalties-p25/> and the efforts of BAC are credited for the legislature's decision.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-uX_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA44|title = Urban Elites and Mass Transportation: The Dialectics of Power, Page 44|author = J. Allen Whitt}}</ref>
 
| 1951 || || Report || The California State Legislature creates a 26-member San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission, comprised of representatives from each of the nine counties which touch the Bay. The Commission's charge is to study the Bay Area's long range transportation needs in the context of environmental problems and then recommend the best solution.<ref name=bart-concept-born/><ref name=divided-loyalties-p25/> Both the joint Army/Navy report<ref name=divided-loyalties-p25/> and the efforts of BAC are credited for the legislature's decision.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-uX_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA44|title = Urban Elites and Mass Transportation: The Dialectics of Power, Page 44|author = J. Allen Whitt}}</ref>

Revision as of 21:34, 2 June 2017

Full timeline

Year Month and date Event type Details
1945 Organization The San Francisco Bay Region Council is created by California's State Reconstruction and Re-Employment Commission.[1] Although funded by the state in its first year, the council incorporates as a private nonprofit organization, and changes its name to the Bay Area Council. Initial supporters of the now private BAC include Bank of America, American Trust Company, Standard Oil of California, Pacific Gas & Electric, U.S. Steel, and Bechtel Corporation. In subsequent years, BAC would be influential in pushing for transportation changes in the San Francisco Bay Area, including enhancements to the bridges as well as the ceration of BART.
1946 Acquisition The Key System Transit Company, a private operator of electric trollies in the Bay Area, is acquired by National City Lines, a company representing automobile and bus interests, that wishes to eliminate electric trollies from the streets.[2] The removal of a key alternative provider of mass transit would pave the way for mass transit solutions such as BART.
1947 Report A joint review board by the United States Army and Navy concludes that an additional link is needed between San Francisco and Oakland to reduce congestion on the Bay Bridge. The proposed link is an underwater tube to carry high-speed electric trains.[3][4]
1949 Legislation The California state legislature passes the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Rapid Transit District Act.[5] According to the Act, a specially created district would be needed to operate effectively in the context of multiple Bay Area governmental units. The Act provides that the district shall include the city and county of San Francisco and the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emerybille, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, and San Leandro, and may include all or any part of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties and any city situated therein. In total, over seventy county, city and county, and city governments are potentially involved.[5]
1951 Report The California State Legislature creates a 26-member San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission, comprised of representatives from each of the nine counties which touch the Bay. The Commission's charge is to study the Bay Area's long range transportation needs in the context of environmental problems and then recommend the best solution.[3][4] Both the joint Army/Navy report[4] and the efforts of BAC are credited for the legislature's decision.[6]
1956 Report Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall and Macdonald (PBHM) present a report, Regional Rapid Transit (RRT) to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission. The report had been commissioned in 1953. This report is the first planning document for BART and would be the starting point for further reports.[7]
1957 Highway transportation A number of citizens' groups protest freeway construction in San Francisco starting around this time, beginning with the Embarcadero Freeway. This leads to increased interest in mass rapid transit as an alternative.[8]
1957 County coordination Based on the findings of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BARTD) is formed by the California state legislature, comprising the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo. Santa Clara county is not included.[3][4]
1959 May 14 Work contracts BART retains the services of the joint engineering venture composed of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall and Macdonald, Tudor Engineering, and the Bechtel Corporation to develop a regional plan.[9][10]
1959 Financing plan A bill is passed in the California state legislature providing for financing of what would later become the Transbay Tube through surplus toll revenues from the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge.
1961 System plan A final plan is sent to the boards of supervisors of the five counties. The system would have three endpoints in the East Bay: Concord, Richmond, and Fremont; one in the Northwest at Novato, and one in the South Bay at Palo Alto.[3]
1962 April County coordination San Mateo County opts out of BART, citing high costs, existing service provided by Southern Pacific commuter trains, and concerns over shoppers going to San Francisco, hurting local businesses. The withdrawal of San Mateo County leads to Daly City (just at the border between the counties) as the southwest terminus.[3]
1962 May County coordination Following the withdrawal of San Mateo County, Marin County also withdraws, citing engineering objections and the potential for not getting enough votes. This leads to cancellation of the plans for a northwest terminus and the Geary Subway section of the system.[3]
1962 May Report The Composite Report (CR) is produced by the consortium of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall and Macdonald, Tudor Engineering hired by BARTD in 1959.[10]
1962 November County coordination The remaining three counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco) agree to the modified BART plan with a $792 million bond measure, with terminuses at Richmond, Concord, Fremont, and Daly City.[3] The measure, known as Proposition A on the three-county ballot, is able to pass due to two changes engineered by Alan K. Browne of the Bank of America: (a) getting the state legislature to reduce the needed BART vote from 66.67% (the default) to 60%, and (b) allowing for the requirement of crossing the vote threshold to be applied to all votes together, rather than county-by-county. Without both these changes, the measure would not have passed.[11] Supporters of the measure organize a campaign committee called Citizens for Rapid Transit, whose top members are San Francisco bankers.[11] In contrast, there is no organized opposition. Opponents include the Civil League of Improvement and Associations that opposes the taxes needed, the Central Council of Civic Clubs and the San Francisco Labor Council that have more specific objections, and some automobile and older railroad companies, though these companies do not spend resources on opposing the bond measure.
1962 November 29 Work contracts BART signs a new contract with the successors to the firms it had contracted with to come up with a design for the system. The new contract is for overall system planning through research and development, design, and management of construction. The contract is with the engineering joint venture firm composed of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas (the successor to Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall, and MacDonald), Tudor and Bechtel. In short, the joint venture to which the work is contracted is called PBTB.[12][13]
1962/1963 Lawsuit Robert L. Osborne, an Oakland city councilman and East Bay manufacturer, files a lawsuit against BARTD arguing that fixed rail is obsolete, that BART stations would be too far apart to encourage riders, athat better and more efficient transit systems were rejected by BARTD, that the ultimate cost would exceed the $792 million approved, that BARTD's contract with PBTB is open-ended and illegal and based on nepotism, and that an illegal, close working relationship exists between the Citizens for Rapid Transit Committee and BART public officials. Many of these allegations would later prove true.[14]
1964 June 19 Construction BART construction is officially inaugurated by President Lyndon Johnson, presiding over the ground-breaking ceremony for a 4.4-mile test track between Concord and Walnut Creek.[13]
1965 Construction Construction on the Transbay Tube begins.
1967 July Construction Construction for BART tracks along the Market Street Subway in San Francisco commences. The construction is carried out using cut-and-cover.
1967 Independent assessment In response to criticism by the California Society of Professional Engineers (CSPE), the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Board of Ethical Review reviews the case. The Opinions are published as Case No. 66-1 in Vol. 2, 1967. The Opinion concludes that it is not appropriate to issue criticism of the fee arrangements in the manner that CSPE did.[15]
1967 Work contracts The contract for the operation of BART's Automated Train Control (ATC) system is won by Westinghouse for $26 million.[12]
1969 April 3 Construction The final section of the Transbay Tube is laid out (it has not yet been fitted for use by trains).[16]
1969 September 1 Controversy At the Contra Costa County meeting to nominate candidates for the BART Board, Roy Andersen, the candidate of the Diablo Chapter of the CSPE delivers a speech critical of the BART/PBTB relationship.[17]
1969 November 9 Preview A section of the Transbay Tube is opened for pedestrian traffic, prior to being fitted out for train use.[18]
1972 February and March Controversy Three engineers working for BART, Max Blankenzee, Robert Bruder, and Holger Hjortsvang, had identified safety problems with the Automated Train Control (ATC). They contact Daniel Helix, a member of the BART board of directors, who raises the matter with the board, and goes public with the issues on Febrary 7-9. On February 24 or 25, at a public meeting of BART, the issues are raised. The board votes ten to two in support of BART management.[12] On March 3, BART, having determined the identities of the three whistleblowing engineers, gives them the option of resigning or being fired. After they refuse to resign, they are all fired.
1972 September 11 Service start BART opens service. Initial service is between the stations of MacArthur and Fremont (completely in the East Bay). The stations are: MacArthur, 19th Street, 12th Street, Lake Merritt, Fruitvalue, Coliseum, San Leandro, Bay Fair, Hayward, South Hayward, Union City, and Fremont.
1973 January 29 New stations BART opens service from MacArthur to Richmond (in the East Bay). The newly opened stations are: Ashby, Berkeley, North Berkeley, El Cerrito Plaza, El Cerrito Del Norte, and Richmond.
1973 May 21 New stations BART opens service from MacArthur to Concord (in the East Bay) completing the East Bay part of its initial plan. The newly opened stations are: Rockridge, Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, and Concord.
1973 August 10 Preview The first test run of a train under automatic control from West Oakland to Montgomery is performed. The train runs at full speed, taking seven minutes and returning in another six minutes.[19]
1973 November 5 New stations BART opens its service in San Francisco (not yet connected with the East Bay), from Montgomery to Daly City. The stations are: Montgomery, Powell Street Station, Civil Center/UN Plaza, 16th Street/Mission, 24th Street/Mission, Glen Park, Balboa Park, and Daly City.
1974 September 16 New stations BART opens its station in West Oakland and begins trans-bay service between its East Bay and San Francisco stations.
1976 May 27 New stations BART opens its Embarcadero station, its first infill station. This would become BART's busiest station.

References

  1. ↑ J. Allen Whitt. "Urban Elites and Mass Transportation: The Dialectics of Power, Page 42". 
  2. ↑ J. Allen Whitt. "Urban Elites and Mass Transportation: The Dialectics of Power, Page 45". 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 "A History of BART: The Concept is Born". BART. Retrieved May 28, 2017. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Robert Morris Anderson. "Divided Loyalties: Whistle-blowing at BART (Page 25)". 
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Griffith, John; Holmes, Dallas (August 1, 1967). "BART and the Victoria Line: A Comparison of New Commuter Transport in California and London". California Law Review. Retrieved June 2, 2017. 
  6. ↑ J. Allen Whitt. "Urban Elites and Mass Transportation: The Dialectics of Power, Page 44". 
  7. ↑ J. Allen Whitt. "Urban Elites and Mass Transportation: The Dialectics of Power, Page 52". 
  8. ↑ J. Allen Whitt. "Urban Elites and Mass Transportation: The Dialectics of Power, Page 48". 
  9. ↑ "BART, PBTB, and CSPE". Retrieved May 28, 2017. 
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 J. Allen Whitt. "Urban Elites and Mass Transportation: The Dialectics of Power, Page 54". 
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 J. Allen Whitt. "Urban Elites and Mass Transportation: The Dialectics of Power, Page 59". 
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Stephen Unger (April 29, 2010). "The BART Case". The Online Ethics Center for engineering and science. Retrieved March 15, 2017. 
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 "A History of BART: The Project Begins". BART. Retrieved May 28, 2017. 
  14. ↑ J. Allen Whitt. "Urban Elites and Mass Transportation: The Dialectics of Power, Page 63". 
  15. ↑ "Robert Morris Anderson". 
  16. ↑ "BART Tunnel Completion Moves Near". Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 31 March 1969. Retrieved 20 August 2016. 
  17. ↑ Robert Morris Andersen. "Divided Loyalties: Whistle-blowing at BART". 
  18. ↑ "BART Tube Is Opened For Sunday Visitors". Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 10 November 1969. Retrieved 20 August 2016. 
  19. ↑ "Bay tube run made by BART". Lodi News-Sentinel. UPI. 11 August 1973. Retrieved 20 August 2016. 
Retrieved from "http://timelines.issarice.com/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit&oldid=14356"