DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY - MANILA 

College of Engineering

Case Study 2: The Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART)

CPETHICS 

1 Term, Academic Year 2019 – 2020

st

Submitted to: 

Ms. Armie Pakzad 

Submitted by: 

Edmark Jayson Q. Aldea

Jose V. Medalla 

29 October 2019
Case Study
THE BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT (BART) SYSTEM
In the late 1940’s the foundation for a regional mass transit system for the San Francisco Bay
area was laid, leading eventually to construction of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system.
As envisioned, BART was to be a high-tech rail system serving many of the communities along
San Francisco Bay and would incorporate new technology, including fully automated control
systems for all trains. The automatic train-control (ATC) system designed for BART was an
innovative method for controlling train speed and access to stations. In most mass transit
systems, this function is performed by human drivers who read trackside signals and/or receive
instructions via radio from dispatchers. Instead, BART relied on a series of onboard sensors to
determine a train’s position, and data from a control center to indicate the location of other
trains and information on allowed speeds. None of the control technologies that were being
designed had been previously tested in a commuter rail system. The contract to design and
build the ATC was awarded to Westinghouse in 1967. The key players in this case were three
BART engineers working on various aspects of the ATC. These engineers became concerned
about the lack of testing of some of the components of the ATC, the lack of oversight of
Westinghouse by BART, and the quality of the documentation that Westinghouse was
providing. Unable to get their concerns acted upon by BART management, the three
engineers contacted a member of the BART board of directors indicating that their
concerns were not being taken seriously by management. This action was in direct conflict with
the general manager of BART, whose policy was to only allow himself and a few others to deal
directly with the board. The engineers were confronted by management about whether they
were the sources of the leaks about the problems at BART, and all denied their involvement.
After it became clear that they were the source of the information given to the board, all three
of the engineers were offered the choice of resignation or dismissal. All refused to resign,
and were subsequently dismissed on the grounds of insubordination, lying to management,
and failing to follow organizational procedures. None were able to find work for a number of
months, and all suffered financial and emotional problems as a result. In the course of the legal
proceedings, the IEEE attempted to assist the three engineers by filing amicus curiae brief in
their support. The IEEE asserted that each of the engineers had a professional duty to keep the
safety of the public paramount, and that their actions were therefore justified. Based on the
IEEE code of ethics, the brief stated that engineers must “notify the proper authority of any
observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.” The brief interpreted this to
mean that in the case of public employment, the proper authority is the public itself.
Ethical Issues to be discussed

1. Was it necessary for the engineers to blow the whistle?

Yes, it was necessary for the engineers to voice out the problems they encountered directly to the BART
board member in this case. It is more important to ensure the safety of the public when constructing a
public transport system rather than oblige to a management group who had deliberately ignored their
concerns.

2. At what point should an engineer give up expressing his or her concerns?

There is no point in which an engineer must stop expressing his or her concerns as long as it is related to
the given work objective. If a management group fail to carry out their role in replying to these
concerns, an engineer must express them to a higher authority if the concern is of paramount
importance to public safety or other matters of similar magnitude. If this authority also fails to
accommodate the concerns, the engineer will have no choice but to whistleblow to the public regarding
their concern and maltreatment.

3. In this case, when several levels of management appeared to not share the engineers’ concerns,

how much more effort did professional ethics dictate?

In the situation of the engineers, professional ethics dictated that it was right for them to exert more
effort and find more effective ways to voice out their concerns. The main goal for a professional is to
better serve the public which may only be accomplished if the project was ensured to be safe and
working properly. It was necessary for them to bypass a company rule in order to achieve this goal.

4. What actions short of going to the board and whistleblowing might the engineers have taken?

Instead of whistleblowing the engineers themselves should have tested the components that were
lacking in the ATC, as engineers themselves the problems that they have identified should be given a
solution, they need to think a solution to the problem that they have found.

5. Should the IEEE have intervened in the court case?

Yes, because the engineers’ actions are based only on the IEEE’s code of ethics, the IEEE must defend
the engineers because even if they were dismissed and suffering in a lot of problems the engineers did
the right thing.

6. What level of supervision should an organization have over its contractors? Is it sufficient to

assume that contractors are professional and will do a good job?

They should hire a supervisor who will overlook at the project once in a while, because even if the
contractors are professional we cannot guarantee that they will finish the job properly. To be safe they
should hire supervisors so that things will go smoothly.

7. One of the perceived problems with BART was a lack of adequate documentation from

Westinghouse. What are the ethical considerations regarding documentation of work?

The purpose of documentation is to fully explain the subject, information should be accurate and valid.
The problem in this case is the quality of documentation that the Westinghouse is providing. They
should be accountable. While there are certain inherent dangers in human rights documentation work,
great care must be taken not to create unnecessary risks.

8. What responsibility does an engineering organization have after the design is complete?

Stability, Safety, and Functionality of the design. After the design is complete the engineering
organization should ensure that the structure is stable and it functions as how it supposed to function
for this case as a mass transit system, Also the safety of the passengers is in the hands of engineers who
made the design, the structure shouldn’t endanger the public safety and health.