Talk:Silicon Valley BART extension

Recent reports on the schedule are contradictory. Nonetheless, articles should be based on reliable, published wp:secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on wp:primary sources. Cabanatuan(2014) and Cabanatuan(2017) disagree with Cabanatuan(2012), which said that the extension could be expected originally in 2016.^[1] Cabanatuan(2014) says completion was expected in late 2017.^[2] Cabanatuan(2017) quotes an official spokesperson as saying that the extension is progressing at least three months ahead of the “original” schedule of spring 2018.^[3]

The "original" schedule was 2016, according to reports from 2012 when the station broke ground.^[4][5][6][7]

The official timeline (which takes precedence over news reports on a matter like this) never specified 2016. I always thought it was 2018, with the notion that accelerated construction schedules could open it before then.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You always thought the original schedule was 2018, but WP did not. That's because WP followed its official policy on matters like this, and relies on wp:secondary sources—more so than wp:primary sources or official statements. As of 2012, WP had 2016 as the original schedule.^[8] WP does not and should not rely on official statements, which may attract a tiny readership and are not widely publicized. The official timeline does not take precedence on Wikipedia.—166.107.163.254 (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@166.107.163.254: Except, you are misinterpreting WP:SECONDARY. BART is a government organization, as is VTA, and this is a project by them. Their word takes precedence over everything else. And this is not a case where secondary sources take priority. This is a simple read of the project timeline. This is not an interpretation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Cabanatuan(2017), which you cite, quotes an official spokesperson from 2017.^[9] But secondary sources from 2012, including Cabanutuan(2012), have a different "official" timeline. It might be worthwhile for the WP article to discuss the conflicting schedules, but no source has investigated it. So, there's no support for such a discussion. The wp:secondary policy applies here, because WP had a multitude of contemporaneous, secondary sources from 2012 to substantiate the 2012 version of the WP article. Secondary sources and the 2012 version of WP both say that the original schedule for completion was 2016.

Government agencies are subject to the WP:SECONDARY policy. WP treats them like other primary sources, whether rocket scientists, shipbuilders, theologians, popes, kings, presidents or CEOs. WP does not accept official timelines as holy writ, and does not swallow their words whole. This article cannot rely on a “simple read” of the "official" timeline. WP policy is as follows, “All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.” The article may not interpret primary sources, instead it must rely on secondary sources to interpret the "original" schedule. WP didn’t speak to the spokespersons for the government agencies, didn’t attend the press conferences nor view the groundbreaking ceremony. WP didn't hear from the politicians backing this project, nor interview the manager who was responsible for construction. The newspaper reporters in 2012 (secondary sources) were in a position to do so. The public doesn’t read government reports and official timelines, anyway. The government agencies could have corrected the “misinterpretations” of the newspaper stories back in 2012, but they did not. Regardless, WP should continue to follow its own policy, and rely on WP:SECONDARY sources over WP:PRIMARY sources.—166.107.163.254 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@166.107.163.254: And this is a secondary source that clearly says June 2018 was the original timeline. This is what has been said by the press and VTA for a while now. I also think you are still misinterpreting WP:SECONDARY. That policy is intended to protect against distortions of neutrality and verifiability caused by relying on primary sources. But here, not only are there secondary sources ( is another), but they clearly agree with VTA's interpretation of it. Now having a look at the sources you linked, you're clearly misinterpreting them yourself: said it could be completed by the end of 2016, which is not the same as saying they were originally actually targeting end of 2016. For , "a bit more than four years" after April 2012 is not inconsistent with end of 2017 (which is 4 years, 8 months after that) or 2018, and besides, is too vague to infer anything concrete from. again says "could", not "expected to" or "will". Only one of those sources says it is expected to open in 2016, and local news stations are known for misinterpretations (and hence take a backseat to VTA and local newspapers).

@Jasper Deng: Well, here is a secondary source, the San Francisco Chronicle published October 2019, that clearly says 2016 was the original timeline. "By the way, when construction on the extension began back in April 2012, transit leaders thought the Milpitas and Berryessa stations would open for service in 2016. A lot has changed since then." This is not "new" information; it's been known since April 2012.

It's important for WP editors to heed the original, contemporaneous (secondary) sources. WP editors should not be swayed or duped by misinformation from (biased) official sources, nor confused by revisionist accounts of an actual historical event.166.107.163.254 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

So at best, your case for them being behind schedule is very weak, whereas the case for the date being 2018 is strong, especially when there are yet more secondary sources agreeing with VTA's position.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Have we decided on an original opening date? The current article still reflects that the second phase has been delayed by a year despite all present-day sources saying the reverse. --haha169 (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Historical, contemporaneous sources don't have hindsight bias and historical revisionism. What was original schedule as of 2012, when it broke ground? In accounting, they call it back-dating. Sources from 2012 should inform the assessment, for example the Mercury News and KCBS. It doesn't matter what the press and VTA are saying today. (The following has highlighting added for emphasis.)

“Stations at Warm Springs, Milpitas and in the Berryessa area of north San Jose will serve 23,000 passengers a day when the first 10 miles of track open in 2016.”^[10]

“When BART opens in 2016, there will be 1,260 spaces at the Milpitas station and 2,505 at the Berryessa station.”^[11]

“By 2016, if all goes as planned, an extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) line will go from Fremont in the East Bay to the Berryessa area...”^[12]

“The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the lead agency for this Design-Build Contract with design and construction being performed from 2012-2016 and system start-up anticipated for 2016.”^[13]

“completion in 2016”^[14]—166.107.163.254 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@166.107.163.254: "System startup" is not inconsistent with what has happened, namely the beginning of testing; it is not equivalent to "opening". Your other sources are not suitable for the reason I discussed above: local TV stations are known for misinterpretations when it comes to articles like these and other secondary sources are consistent with VTA's view (, ). My memory also has that 2018 was clearly stated in the 2012 version of the VTA website. The Wayback Machine only has versions from 2014 and onwards, but 2018 was clearly the original.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The schedule for revenue service that was announced to the public through the news media when construction broke ground should not be confused with official reports and documents that were not publicized. Likewise, the schedule for opening or start of revenue service or system startup should not be confused with the schedule for the completion of construction. Though recent press reports indicate that it was originally scheduled to open for service in 2018, this claim is controversial and disputed. The interpretation of the schedule, which was announced publicly, should rely on WP:secondary sources. “Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.” Most of the contemporaneous (as of 2012) secondary sources say that it was scheduled to open for revenue service in 2016. The Associated Press (2012) appears to be the most reliable source. The AP reported that federal, state and local transit officials (transportation leaders) were saying that it was scheduled to open in 2016.^[15]

Numerous other secondary sources from 2012 say that 2016 was the original schedule for opening, such as KCBS.^[16] The SJ Mercury reported it would open in 2016.^[17] The SJ Mercury again indicated it would open in 2016.^[18] Independent Voters had 2016.^[19] T.Y. Lin International Group had system start-up in 2016.^[20] Quality Engineering, Inc. had completion in 2016.^[21] Wikipedia had it opening to the public in 2016.^[22] California State Senator Jim Beall expected that trains would begin rolling for the public four years after 2012.^[23] Michael Cabanatuan of the SF Chronicle indicated it could be completed by the end of 2016.^[24]

To sum up, the analysis and interpretation of the "original" schedule should rely on reliable, wp:secondary sources. The original schedule was 2016 for revenue service, announced publicly by the Associated Press when the project broke ground.—166.107.163.254 (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're just rehashing what you said earlier, which I have convincingly refuted above even using reliable secondary sources, so you're not going to convince me by repeatedly linking to WP:SECONDARY.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The recent (post-2012) sources have hindsight bias; they disagree with the original (2012) sources. According to (secondary) sources from 2012, the “original” schedule to open revenue service was 2016. The Associated Press report from 2012 is as follows: “Transportation leaders on Monday signed final documents pledging $900 million in federal funds for the $2.3 billion Berryessa extension, scheduled to open in 2016.”—166.107.163.254 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I did show you other 2012 sources that agree with VTA's case. Also, I think it's important to distinguish between the target date and the predicted date. It was long the case that 2016 was predicted but it was always considered technically ahead of schedule. So to say it was expected to open in 2016 was technically correct, but to say it was scheduled is not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@166.107.163.254 and Anthony.le: Although the titles of the articles might suggest such, articles like are pretty explicit that a.this is not a delay, b.it's actually a "might not" rather than a "won't", and c.an opening by the end of this year would be ahead of schedule.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The info-box at the top right for the Warm Springs/Silicon Valley BART Extension "route map," is outdated. It says the downtown SJ stations will be completed in 2026, but this has been pushed back to 2029–2030.166.107.163.254 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't be too quick to make updates from the recent 2029-2030 estimate, which came from media prematurely running with a "preliminary schedule" slide from the Sept 20 VTA board meeting. VTA said it's a result of expanding the engineering work with new updates expected in a few months. For now assume that was a padding of the estimate until they have more info. They're expecting to get the plan up to 10% engineering by December - see presentation slides from Aug 16. Ikluft (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

They're starting construction activity on the phase to downtown SJ -- https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/01/21/work-begins-on-downtown-sj-bart-extension-prompts-road-closures/?fbclid=IwAR2vtT6cwo2XHIxWYzSc8PCj3KjiEs6q-1FDxNKocmuEykYhnXtG0vaPHTA -- but this page says that phase still isn't funded. Has that changed? --Jfruh (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

My understanding was that only state and local funding has been secured, which is about 70% of the project.^[1] I.e., it's still unfunded federally, but (minor) construction is starting in anticipation of federal funding being approved, since it's looking increasingly likely it will. That said, I haven't been paying super close attention, so if you can find a more updated source, feel free to cite and add it. --Tga (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tga.D: I agree with your assessment; the federal contribution or some other contribution of the same amount will be needed to declare the project funded, as was the case for phase I.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not reference the Mercury News article of Oct 1 "San Jose BART delay: Milpitas, Berryessa stations likely to miss 2019 opening". The keyword "likely" shows it was the reporter's interpretation, not an official announcement. There were board meeting minutes at the time which indicated an increasing trend in technical issues reported by BART which VTA needed to fix, and did cause serious doubt among observers whether the schedule would be met. However, I saw at Berryessa station yesterday that the Oct 21 goal to begin "pre-revenue testing", or scheduled test runs, was met as trains came and went from the station on a regular basis. Until better sources appear after Thursday's BART Board of Directors meeting, see my pictures of the pre-revenue testing at Berryessa on Twitter. So I removed the references to the Oct 1 Mercury News article and restored the projected opening date to tentatively Dec 2019. Ikluft (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please look at WP:NOR, WP:Secondary and WP:Verifiability.166.107.163.254 (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The twitter pictures are Original Research, based on WP:Primary sources. The Mercury News report of October 1, 2019 [] is attributed directly to the General Manager of BART: "But the agency’s general manager revealed this week that BART is likely to miss that target, and trains probably won’t start taking passengers to those stations until sometime in 2020."

Until now, no "better source" has appeared in secondary sources. Relying on the General Manager along with reliable (secondary) sources, such as the SJ Mercury News, SF Chronicle and cbslocal KPIX, is well-founded and reasonable.166.107.163.254 (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)166.107.163.254 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• There are no amount of sources to get around the fact that no official announcement of a delay to 2020 has been made yet. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and must refrain from WP:OR extrapolation of news quotes to piece together an unannounced conclusion. Yes, there is growing doubt based on board/committee meetings and unofficial quotes in the news whether they can meet the December 2019 opening. But Dec 2019 is still the official published date, and cannot be contradicted by media speculation or unofficial statements. There's also plenty of historical precedent for engineering projects to have public airing of internal progress interpreted as doubt when real problems remain in work. While the media is struggling to guess how this will turn out, it is never Wikipedia's task to scoop them on the story. It can wait. If you have a personal axe to grind against the San Jose BART extension project, start a blog (on your own or some other organization's server) where you're free to post those opinions. While we're reciting Wikipedia policy links, may I suggest... remember to assume good faith on others' edits too. Ones who exercise more restraint aren't necessarily your opponents on the matter. Have patience. Don't be hasty. We will see how this turns out shortly, one way or the other. Ikluft (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ikluft:A Third Opinion as been requested for Dispute Resolution. WP:THIRDOPINION166.107.163.254 (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)22:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps, as a compromise, the wikipedia page should discuss both the fact that Dec 2019 is the official opening date published by BART and that Mercury News and the General Manager of BART have reported that the deadline is likely to be missed? Ikluft, your characterization of the 2020 opening date on Wikipedia as an attempt to "scoop [the media] on a story" is obviously not accurate; as you know, the 2020 date appearing on Wikipedia was from an already-published Mercury News report. And one may reasonably believe that the Mercury News report is the most up-to-date and accurate forecast of the opening date without having "an axe to grind" against the project. 2605:E000:1314:8F3C:C05D:30E5:1F67:9B00 (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The original version was 2019. This was changed to 2020, but reverted. Finally, a compromise version that includes the full range of possible dates was produced: December 2019–2020.166.107.163.254 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)22:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately is isn't that simple in this case. Take a look at the article. The BART GM was quoted in the article as not committing to an opening date, which is not the same as confirming a delay. The Mercury News titled the article "likely" to miss the 2019 goal - those factors added up to making that article a disputed source whose content does not support the conclusion. In this case we have to wait for VTA and/or BART to make an official announcement and get that report from the news. The current published date on VTA's site is still Dec 2019. The latest BART Board meeting minutes showed VTA and BART are still working long hours toward a goal of Dec 28. Granted, it looks like they can't afford for anything else to go wrong in order to make that date. But there must not be a rush to make that call here. It can wait for an official announcement. Wikipedia does not break the story, per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia does not play along with any game of how "likely" it is, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Wikipedia won't piece together unofficial statements, meeting minutes or likelihoods into a conclusion, because original research has been prohibited for 15 years. Have patience. This story will unfold one way or the other in a matter of weeks. Ikluft (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Authoritative news sources are reporting that the opening is planned for December 2019–2020.

KPIX CBSlocal: "…the new Berryessa BART station…is slated to open in 2020."

Silicon Valley Business Journal: "BART service at the Berryessa transit center is expected to begin by year's end, although recent reports suggest that service may be delayed until 2020."

San Jose Mercury News attributes report to the General Manager of BART: "San Jose BART delay: Milpitas, Berryessa stations likely to miss 2019 opening: Officials had hoped to open the stations by the end of the year…But the agency’s general manager revealed this week that BART is likely to miss that target, and trains probably won’t start taking passengers to those stations until sometime in 2020."

San Francisco Chronicle: "Revenue service will not start on Dec. 28, 2019 if VTA does not resolve the discrepancies necessary for BART to start pre-revenue testing by Oct. 21, 2019."166.107.163.254 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• The content of those articles don't support the conclusion. Those all list conditions where a delay may occur, with varying amounts of speculation by reporters. (The KPIX article isn't about the extension.) The schedule is tight and might not be met - but a delay has not been officially announced. A press release from VTA today continues to claim VTA & BART are aiming for opening by the end of 2019. Don't be in a rush to make the announcement on Wikipedia that has not been made in public, per WP:OR, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL. It can wait until the news either way on opening or delay is official. Ikluft (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Original Research (Ikluft pictures of the pre-revenue testing at Berryessa) and the section heading by Ikluft conclude that, "Pre-revenue testing to Berryessa began Oct 21 as planned." The October 21 date is unsupported.

The October 28, 2019 press release from VTA also disagrees. They announced that the testing began a week after October 21: "On October 28, 2019, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) began pre-revenue operations on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s 10-mile BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension." 166.107.163.254 (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• You're mixing up articles and talk pages. There is wider latitude for discussion of the page's maintenance on talk pages - I didn't post the picture link in the article so there's no original research issue. Since we were discussing here whether or not they were making progress and trying to make some sense of the media's confusion, the Oct 21 date on this section's title was a local spotter observation that train testing activity at Berryessa did ramp up dramatically, trains coming every 45 minutes, on the day the BART Board agenda said pre-revenue testing would begin. It was as much as any of us had access to on that day. At the Oct 24 BART Board meeting, the report stated that there were still some train control issues for VTA to fix which postponed official start of pre-revenue testing to Oct 28. The test train arrival rate did not appear to be reduced during the week in spite of the schedule change. The VTA press release indicates they did start it this time. I suggest stopping with the personal sniping and focus on discussion of maintaining the article's topic according to WP rules. Remember the guideline to assume good faith of other editors. Ikluft (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Continued in the next section... This section wandered way off its original topic of the observation of the increase in train traffic Oct 21 which at first seemed to confirm the date listed in the BART Board agenda at the time for pre-revenue testing to begin. Ikluft (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia values WP:Secondary over WP:Primary sources. BART spokespersons and news reports (sources outside VTA) point to opening the two stations in December 2019 or 2020. The train spotter does Original Research (WP:NOR), and gets tips from insiders on train testing and fire training. The audio and comments of the train-testing observation sound like unrestrained cheer-leading. They may have a pompom to wave. (WP:NPOV) "Run, Barry run!…Let's get those trains running!" (2018 youtube jN3N4SMeFow)

San Jose Mercury News: "Will new Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations open this year? They just missed a key deadline"

KPIX CBSlocal: "…the new Berryessa BART station…is slated to open in 2020."

Silicon Valley Business Journal: "BART service at the Berryessa transit center is expected to begin by year's end, although recent reports suggest that service may be delayed until 2020."

General Manager of BART …the agency’s general manager revealed this week that BART is likely to miss that target, and trains probably won’t start taking passengers to those stations until sometime in 2020."

BART spokesperson: "Revenue service will not start on Dec. 28, 2019 if VTA does not resolve the discrepancies necessary for BART to start pre-revenue testing by Oct. 21, 2019."

San Francisco Chronicle: "Are the Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations going to open on time? It's complicated…The two new stations were slated to open up by the end of the year, but numerous complications are pushing work down to the wire."166.107.163.254 (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• You're quoting rules for articles. This is a talk page. See WP:TALK. Ikluft (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm again going to recommend some self-restraint on your part. Look at the volume of text on this talk page generated by your anger toward the topic and anyone whom you disagree with. If everything has to become a war for you, that behavior will eventually backfire, for example some kind of IP block or semi-protection of the page. Just when I thought you were making progress learning to use sources whose content supports the text added to an article, this is not progress. Among the unnecessary and irrelevant stuff above, I laughed when you tried to point out the line "Run Barry run!" from my video of the BART test train at Milpitas, claiming it was cheerleading. That line was actually a pop culture reference (comics, TV and movie in this case) from DC Comics' "The Flash", where various incarnations of the character over the years have been called Bart or Barry. It was thrown in for a joke. After years of BART construction through my neighborhood, it was good see something moving. It isn't required for you to get the joke - but in quoting it, you gave away your intent to make personal attacks based on things you can find on the web on another editor. That behavior will not earn points for you in the Wikipedia community. Again, I suggest exercising self-restraint. Ikluft (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• I saw that Pi.1415926535 added a link to VTA's press release on Monday. Then, while not exactly the compromise that had been suggested, the Mercury News posted a new article Tuesday which points out the tight and possibly-already-missed schedule, even as VTA and BART still hang on to their official 2019 plan... "Will new Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations open this year? They just missed a key deadline". That put together the pieces that would have been WP:OR for us to say without it as a source. While citing it, I tried to word this carefully by specifically saying the Mercury News called the schedule into question. That keeps all of our opinions out of it. But I think it captures what this discussion was looking for, without trying to pre-announce a delay that hasn't been announced yet. Even from my position encouraging restraint, there's no doubt their schedule is tight and can't afford for anything else to go wrong now. Ikluft (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The Mercury News did report on "the tight and possibly-already-missed schedule" for December 2019. Reliable sources leave no doubt that the schedule is December 2019 or 2020.166.107.163.254 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Should the planned opening be listed as (revised) 2020 "December 2019" or "December 2019 or early 2020"? 166.107.163.254 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: This is just obnoxious - this disagreement does not need an RFC. December 31, 2019 is less than 60 days away. If your attitude wasn't combative, a solution like "As of October 28, 2019, BART claims the extension will open on December 31, 2019. However, some press reports claim that it will not open until early 2020..." would be possible. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. How about, "As of November, 2019, VTA indicates the extension will open in December 2019, however BART officials indicate that it could be pushed out to early 2020."?166.107.163.254 (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The current text of the article already says substantially the same thing since last Wednesday, except attributing the questioning of the schedule to the Mercury News, which is supported by the source. Ikluft (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• NOpposed It can wait. Any attempt to pre-announce the delay before an official announcement is made, is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Don't be hasty. Ikluft (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The repetitive asking for a third opinion and now RFC amounts to WP:FORUMSHOP. Ikluft (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Relevant news: presentation slides for today's (Nov 7) VTA Board meeting show they're ramping up for the bus & light rail schedule updates that coincide with the BART extension opening. The graphics show brochures with December 28 opening on the cover. It says the public info/marketing campaign about the upcoming transit schedule update will begin Mon Nov 11. (link to VTA transit update presentation slides) So as I said, don't be hasty. Ikluft (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, the IP is wrong. With a key milestone just achieved, VTA and BART have no reason to slip it further for now and any assertion of such is OR.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

BART officials have stated publicly that the October 21 milestone was missed: "Will new Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations open this year? They just missed a key deadline." How about, "As of November, 2019, VTA indicates the extension will open in December 2019, however BART officials indicate that it could be pushed out to early 2020."?166.107.163.254 (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't support anything not explicitly said, and also don't want to include "could" things because such statements are almost tautological: transit projects always can be delayed beyond any announced date.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If there's a source you could mention when its due to be open but you'd have to be careful to not violate WP:Crystal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Those sources are already in the article. The last official statement on Oct 28 from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) was that they are still planning for the Berryessa BART extension to open by the end of 2019. VTA is Santa Clara County's transit and transportation district, which built the San Jose BART extension because Santa Clara County is not one of the 3 counties of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. We know from VTA and BART Board meetings the current plan is Dec 28 - so there is no room for any more delays and still make 2019. VTA's official word is still for the end of the year. Until and unless there's an announcement of a delay, speculation would be WP:CRYSTAL. That should be answered one way or the other soon. The next milestone to watch is whether VTA and BART complete testing and are ready for inspections from the California Public Utilities Commission by early December. They can't officially announce an opening date until passing CPUC inspection. So we wait for news... Ikluft (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Moot per below. The bot sent me. Hoist commuting from the curbside now! Drones can deliver more than just packages! EllenCT (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The much-anticipated delay of the opening of the BART Berryessa extension has been announced by VTA: "VTA and BART will Defer Operations on the Berryessa Extension" - it's a primary source but it's an official government entity's announcement so it can be used to update the article. Plan to add additional sources when news articles show up. Ikluft (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw this coming. They always take longer than every goal they set until the official opening day announcement. Other sources ( ) now cover this as well so we can also cite them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems VTA is confused about the opening in 2020 or December 2019: ––[Special:Contributions/166.107.163.254|166.107.163.254]] (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)166.107.163.254 (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)166.107.163.254 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)166.107.163.254 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

They only just announced the delay. Expect them to take some time for staff to update the web site. You may get better results by sending them an email to point it out. Ikluft (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535, Mxn, and Cristiano Tomás: So I am confirming my intent to ride the first operational train at Berryessa on Saturday. My thinking was to move the orange and green line articles and update templates at that time. However, the fact that dignitaries will get their own train tomorrow somewhat complicates this. We can move it as early as the ribbon-cutting ceremony, as that could be considered to officially open the extension, but that would be confusing to anyone using our articles to inform themselves of riding. An intermediate option is to do the move after close of service tomorrow, since the next BART trains would then be on the new schedule. What do you think?--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Anytime after the end of service on Friday is fine - it's not really open until it's in revenue service. I will plan to help with template and link updates tomorrow night or Saturday, and I'll be riding down Saturday daytime to get pictures. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I was planning on potentially riding to Antioch too while I'm at it, and I'll be getting pictures for sure. If you'd like, email me and we can coordinate the photo shooting–depending on when you head down it could be conceivable for us to be on the same train southbound (however we would have to stay 6 feet apart too).--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Signage at Berryessa/North San José uses the full station name with the accent, but most signage at other stations uses just “Berryessa” in the same vein that Warm Springs/South Fremont was abbreviated as “Warm Springs”.
• Destination signs are not yet showing the first southbound train, which is further up the line.
• Maps on this train car are not the updated version yet. However, most station maps seem to be updated at first glance and they are consistent with the online map in using the accent.—Jasper Deng (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• There are numerous trains headed southbound that are not stopping at any stations. This is to be expected as there is no major rail yard at Berryessa and it needs a steady supply of trains to keep sending trains north until the first operational southbound trains arrive.—Jasper Deng (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Update: Destination signage is also only using “Berryessa”; I had hoped they would use the full name with the accent. I will be boarding the first southbound train, most likely at Bay Fair station.—Jasper Deng (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not surprised, given that the full name was adopted very late in the process. At Berryessa station, the big red signs saying "NORTH SAN JOSE" were only added after the fact, as seen by comparing photos on Commons and also in the awkward placement of some of those signs. I don't think it would've been practical to accommodate such a long name after the signs had been made with the shorter name. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 16:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• On the southbound train now, the signs showed just a big “BERRYESSA” to indicate the train’s arrival, unlike what they did with Warm Springs (spelling it out in full). Based on this it may be good to acknowledge that the station name gets abbreviated often in practice in our article on the station.—Jasper Deng (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  I've added the short name to the article's lead. Though now I'm wondering if we should also add Berryessa/North San José. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Also, the nature of Berryessa is clearly elevated, but that of Milpitas is not as clear. It’s not fully underground in the same sense as e.g. Downtown Berkeley but rather is like San Bruno station in that it is on a depressed alignment. I’m not sure if we would count it as “underground” like I did during my updates. I will want to check the station out more once I get there. Hopefully, BART will update its stats page soon so we can have an official verdict on this.—Jasper Deng (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Maps in this train car aren’t updated either. I am just hoping BART is now consistent with the order in which the green line’s name is spelled. I’m surprised that didn’t cause any edit wars over its article.
• I investigated Milpitas more thoroughly; it is indeed questionable whether it should be counted as underground. I’ll defer to consensus, though note that most media sources I’ve seen describe it as underground.—Jasper Deng (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• I finished my day one observations. Maybe we should note that the new stations' parking is not under BART, but under VTA, a first for BART stations.
• Never found an updated map on a train (I rode one Fleet of the Future train on the green line but forgot to pay attention to the maps) so it's yet unknown if BART will keep the naming consistent.
• There is significant transit art that could use mention in both station articles. In particular, Milpitas' platform is by far the best-looking platform I've seen in the whole system.
• I will open a talk page discussion on Milpitas' talk page about its classification. Sources don't classify it as underground as explicitly as I thought.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)