HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:29:45 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1537@dosbears> dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com writes:
>
>It is Jon's contention (or, at least, that's how I read him)
>that travel time for commuters in the North of Market Financial
>District would be shorter if you include the travel time from
>4th & Townsend.
>

Uh, that's John, Jon was against the idea. I would say comparable
as opposed to shorter, its a strong function of how you draw the
population map of who works where in downtown SF.

>
>Data relative to Adrian's comment:  there are 11 trains that
>arrive in SF before 9:00am, 6 of them could be called expresses.
>Of those 6, one makes only one stop after San Bruno, another
>makes two stops, and the other four make no stops after San
>Bruno (in fact, they don't even stop in San Bruno.)  The expresses
>save about four or five minutes compared to the regular runs (from 
>San Bruno to SF.)
>

Yes, express trains change the picture, but I guess the question is,
is 600M worth saving commuters a few minutes a day over transferring
to BART at San Bruno? Is it going to attract that many new riders?
Especially in comparison to the new riders attracted by cutting the
line by 1/5, and taking the money saved to improve service further
down the Peninsula?

Also, according to a recent article in the Chronicle, more people
cross-commute from SF to Santa Clara county than do the commute up to
SF from Santa Clara county (this wasn't rail specific, this was all
commuters, taken from the census data). So the major market into the
city is from San Mateo county, and how much of that market will the
new BART stations in Colma, SSF, and San Bruno capture? Are towns like
Atherton really a San Francisco suburb these days, or more of a
Silicon Valley suburb? 


The biggest effect of my proposal would be to get San Francisco out of
the JPB, and let Caltrain evolve to serve its primary population,
people who live *and* work on the Peninsula and South Bay, better.  In
all likelihood one-half of my proposal will happen (a San Bruno BART
station and interchange will exist before a downtown Caltrain station
is even approved, unless a radical change happens in the speed and
direction of transit politics). We'll see how empty those trains are
going up from San Bruno, especially during off-peak hours ...
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM (George Atkins)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Sources (was Re: Cars as "something bet
Date: 8 Jan 1993 01:05:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: shilah

>>Of course, there are also lots of other non-pollution related impacts
>>of the auto: land use, cultural, social/societal, structural, attitudinal,  
>>psychological, etc.

>>--

>>Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
>>UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian

>>
>Many of the same factors apply to all of the mass transit systems
>under discussion as well--and without any potential revenue stream to
>do anything about it.

>	--Hal

Are you suggesting that mass transit has as negative an impact on the environment
as cars?

Say we got it together in the Bay Area and reduced the amount of driving done.
Say people cut down on their driving to work, shopping, whatever, and took the
bus, BART, Caltrain.  Mass transit use would go up, driving down.  When you
consider all of those factors you're talking about, we'd be in a much better
shape.  Or doesn't that sound logical to you?

-George




Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Grade Separations (was Re: CalTrain scheduling musings)
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:27:01 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Department of Atomic Text Units

In article <01LM02pw31ca01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
|In article <1993Jan5.131932.1468@ryn.mro4.dec.com> pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson) writes:
|>	While grade seperation with third rail may be a "good thing" (tm), it is
|>not necessary.  Both LIRR and NYCRR have operated with highway crossings at
|>grade thru thrid rail territory.  One simply leaves a longish gap.  (Works best
|>with EMU equipment...)  (This was true in the past,  Unknown if such crossings
|>remain...)
|I agree. You can see this all over southern England. But when I posted
|this I was told that nobody cared if they used dangerous  and unsafe
|practice over there. This is the USA after all.

   Well, that's not exactly it.  In Chicago, the elevated railroads
have some at-grade crossings where the only thing keeping people
from wandering onto the permanent way and killing themselves are
cattle guards.  (note that cattle guards are a _very_ effective
way to prevent someone from wandering where they shouldn't go)

   What the USA has that the rest of the world doesn't have is
lawyers.  Lots and lots of lawyers.  There's a recent case where
some fellow got blind drunk and decided to relieve himself when
walking home, so he clambered over the cattle guards onto CTA ROW
and tried to, umm, water the third rail.  His relatives sued the
CTA, and were rewarded a few million dollars.  (One would think
that the immediate reaction of the judge and jury would be that
this man was being negligent, and his family shouldn't be rewarded
for it, but there's not much sympathy for government agencies and
large corporations in the USA, and it tends to bias judgement just
a bit.)
                ____
  david parsons \bi/ orc@vpnet.chi.il.us
                 \/
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:44:34 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <770027@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> dsherman@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Daniel P. Sherman) writes:
>
>The only part of the idea proposed above that I consider to be of
>questionable value is shutting down the CalTrain line as it now
>exists from San Bruno to 4th and Townsend.  It is, after all, serving
>a section of the peninsula (including a part of SF) which does not
>have an easy direct access to BART.  

The stretch of SF served by CalTrain is poorly served by MUNI as
well.  The Bayshore station is fairly near a major MUNI line but
Paul and 22nd St are irregularly served.  (Not that CalTrain's
service is that good.  They tend to skip those stations with
the express and then have 1-2 hours frequency at other times.)

My point?  None.  Except that if CalTrain were to go away, I
don't think those people would notice.

--
Mike Lipsie                            584 Castro #614, San Francisco, CA 94114
dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
mikel%dosbears.uucp@ingres.com    Running rn (for DOS) with UUPC/Extended 1.11k
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Muni 3rd St. funding uncertain
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:45:31 GMT

In article <1iscnu$j2k@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
|> In article <1544@dosbears> dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com writes:
|> >In article <1inhhh$m7t@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
|> >>Hopefully, the conversion of the 15 Bus to a MUNI Metro line will
|> >>solve this problem [..]
|> >
|> >Details please.  I am aware that Metro is being extended from the
|> >Embaracdero station to "Potrero Hill" [...].  Are they
|> >planning on replacing the entire 15 as far as Bayshore?
|> 
|> Third street should be next on the list. I thought the outcome of the
|> meeting was affirmitive, but I'm not aware of its funding status.

With SF budget problems and especially with the failure of state
Prop. 156 (Rail Bonds) in November, the funding status is looking
very bad. Plans for the 3rd Street Muni-Metro extension are on
indefinite hold.  Also, plans for a south-of-Market Muni-Metro
yard/maintenance facility and the extension to Mission Bay/CalTrain
are also on indefinite hold.  The loss of Prop 156 hit San Francisco
especially hard.  San Francisco voters did, however, pass it by
195,065 (70.3%) - 82,383 (29.7%) margin, the largest in the state.
The worst counties were Modoc (16.3%), Glenn (16.4%), Lassen (18.6%)
and Shasta (19.5%).  These are typical of the counties that voted
no, in that they are rural and pretty far removed from any potential
rail service.  

LA (53.7%) and Orange (42.0%) were the killer counties, however. 
A rail bond proposition needed a slightly higher percentage in
these counties to pass.  Prop 156 failed by 1.6% statewide.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Date: 9 Jan 93 21:53:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1541@dosbears> dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com writes:
>>The only part of the idea proposed above that I consider to be of
>>questionable value is shutting down the CalTrain line as it now
>>exists from San Bruno to 4th and Townsend.
>
>The stretch of SF served by CalTrain is poorly served by MUNI as
>well. [..]
>
>My point?  None.  Except that if CalTrain were to go away, I
>don't think those people would notice.

Hopefully, the conversion of the 15 Bus to a MUNI Metro line will
solve this problem, at least inside the city; the 15 and the Caltrain
tracks are within three or four blocks of each other, except directly
around Mission Bay.


>In article <1537@dosbears> dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com writes:

>CalTrain's population has always been people who work
>in SF and live on the Peninsula (and South Bay).  That has been one
>of its failings.

I agree it is one of its failings, and its the motivation for my idea;
by removing 1/5 of the rail from the present system, and by removing
SF from the JPB, the focus of the line can tilt down the Peninsula.
It frees up miles per day, allowing them to be used connecting Silicon
Valley to itself more frequently.

As a sometimes-commuter from SF to random small companies in the
valley, the real problems are not in leaving SF, but in trying to get
to a random industrial park (from Fremont to Redwood City) in a
reasonable time, using public transport, especially in non-peak
periods. Its clear the dollars need to spent down there, to get
service up to the level of places like SF.
From: jf@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Jim Fong)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:18:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Getting to the 'Stick
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA
Newsgroups: ba.transportation

As previously suggested, you should call SamTrans directly.  For my situation,
the bus from the Palo Alto Caltrain station which leaves at 11:00 is best.
The bus from the Park 'n Ride at 101 and 92 in San Mateo leaves at
11:30.  

I called the 49ers office and they said that the private lots around Candlestick
are about 70% usable right now.  Those lots will go fast and will turn to mud
if we get more rain before game time.
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: shuttle bus costs, Castro shuttle options
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:50:48 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1993Jan9.004844.25747@adobe.com> jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli) writes:
>
>There's also County Transit bus #40 that runs through the North 
>Bayshore area, but the bus folks have made no effort to have it 
>serve the Castro or downtown MV stations; this bus (unless recent 
>service reductions changed or discontinued it) runs from San Antonio 
>Shopping Center to the bus yard (a real popular destination :-).

Well, it is for County Transit employees who happen to be a more
than significant percentage of the passengers.  :-)

When I used to work in that area, the #40 served the Castro station
except that (a) there was no real co-ordination between the schedules
and (b) CalTrain does not serve Castro except for a few rush hour
stops.  The shuttle was much more convenient.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:58:47 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) wrote: 
->	Some of you Peninsula Rail 2000 people might take exception to
->some of the characterization of the system, so you are hereby invited
->to flame away. The stations were described as "much less sophisticated
->affair than their BART cousins"

umm, this is the truth.  

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: SCCo Measure A challenged
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:21:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.164514.15617@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan12.002648.17974@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> >
|> >Coalition files suit to nullify Measure A
|> 
|> I think this could be viewed as the reverse of the endless
|> environmental suits filed against various freeway projects.


One of the co-plaintiffs (or whatever) is TAG (Transit Advocates Group).
They opposed Measure A all along for a variety of reasons.  Among them
was that they were against the road/highway money.  (I think they also
were not happy with the light rail emphasis and that sales tax was
being used instead of a gas tax...)

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Kopp Capitulates!
Date: 11 Jan 1993 00:43:59 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154
Keywords: BART SFO CalTrain

Last month when I wrote to Kopp's office complaining about his proposal,
they sent me back a defense, and some sketches of his idea of an
under-the-parking-garage BART station.  I had always assumed that
this would have been a stub station with the trains following
a similar trajectory to cars driving into the parking garage
(but underground).  However, the sketches they enclosed showed a
single-track station perpendicular to the above, that is,
parallel to the freeway/Caltrain tracks.  A single-track loop would
run in a circle that included both the parking garage station, and
the Caltrain/BART station west of the freeway.

What is interesting about this is that one could build BART to
the Caltrain/BART station and decide later whether or not to
build the loop to the parking garage and it wouldn't change
the design at all.  If the parking garage station were built,
and BART continued further south down the peninsula, many
trains could (and I suspect would), bypass the parking garage
station, which would save two station stops (the parking garage,
and a second stop at the Caltrain/BART station) and the time
to run around the loop.

The point of all this rambling is that under this design, an
eventual run under the parking garage could be retained as a
future option, to satisfy those who want that.  In the meantime,
the people-mover could be built, Caltrain upgraded, and BART
run to the Caltrain/BART station, and after all that, then
decide whether or not to build the extra BART loop.
Given the rather high cost of the extra loop, this would probably
be the scenario anyways, so a "truce" of sorts could be called,
by agreeing to postpone the decision a decade or so.

Just a thought.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: getting from SJ to east bay
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:08:11 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1993Jan12.203156.21730@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <1993Jan12.160503.6039@projtech.com> sanjiv@projtech.com (Sanjiv Gossain) writes:
> >Can anyone tell me what is the best way to get
> >from the San Jose area to the East Bay (around Oakland/berkeley)
> >on public transportation. This would be a one off trip.
> 
> >Any help/advice appreciated.
> 
> 	Easy. The Santa Clara Transit 180 bus runs from downtown San
> Jose to the Fremont BART station, and one takes BART the rest of the
> way. Inside of Oakland and Berkeley, there are plenty of local buses
> run by AC Transit.
> 
> 	I mean by "downtown San Jose" the Civic Center, St. James
> Park, and the CalTrain/Amtrak (former SP) station. I hope that you
> won't be having too much trouble finding any of those landmarks.

There is also the main transfer point at 1st and Santa Clara.
And there are plenty of buses from various points in San Jose
that can get you to transfer points with the 180.  Call 408 287-4210
for more info.

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: WHAT is so HORRIBLE about San Bruno? (was Re: CalTrain Article)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Distribution: ba
Date:  9 Jan 93 18:33:23 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:


>	Now WHAT is so HORRIBLE about San Bruno?

>	The planned BART/CalTrain station will be a next-door
>operation, something like the Richmond BART/Amtrak station. One will
>not have to walk through downtown San Bruno. So what are you so
>worried about?

   I suppose it is a bit unfair to suggest that San Bruno is a bit dull,
since it's bound to suffer by comparison with its famously cosmopolitan
neighbor, the glittering metropolis of South San Francisco.

   Now that that's taken care of, perhaps someone would care to respond
to the two screenfuls of discussion of a major transit issue which my
posting consisted of in addition to the single wisecrack about San Bruno
which is being objected to above.
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Date: 7 Jan 93 05:10:11 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1993Jan6.230216.21279@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.194258.16100@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.000033.5796@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>
>>I'm told that there are some CalTrain runs that it's difficult to find a
>>seat on.  On the day after Thanksgiving, some CalTrains were reportedly
>>so full that you could hardly get in the door!  I've seen some of the
>>special 10-car special-event CalTrains that had damn-near *every* seat
>>taken.
>
>Great--CalTrain is jammed full one day a year.... How much extra
>rolling stock should be purchased (and out of whose pocket...) to
>support that?

I'm afraid you misread Adrian.

The Thanksgiving trains were over-full.

There are some trains on "regular" days that are full.

I can't swear to the Thanksgiving trains but when I was commuting to
SF and back I've been forced to stand until enough people got off so 
I could get a seat.  More than once.

(For CalTrain, "full" means "all seats occupied".)



>I agree, but the maximum capacity cited for freeways is one that is
>actually seen--indeed, isn't that capactiy determination from actual
>measurement?

False.

The maximum capacity for freeways has NEVER been seen.  Maximum 
number of vehicles, perhaps.  People, never.

>                  There are, however selected routes--Orinda to SF,
>near North Berkeley BART to SF, Claremont and College in Oakland that
>are known sites for informal car pooling.  

But do even those areas have more than 1.2 people per car?


--
Mike Lipsie                            584 Castro #614, San Francisco, CA 94114
dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
mikel%dosbears.uucp@ingres.com    Running rn (for DOS) with UUPC/Extended 1.11k
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:39:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <unkt9g0@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>
>You edited the original posting some.  Here it is:
> 
>> > The stretch of SF served by CalTrain is poorly served by MUNI as
>> > well.  The Bayshore station is fairly near a major MUNI line but
>> > Paul and 22nd St are irregularly served.  (Not that CalTrain's
>> > service is that good.  They tend to skip those stations with
>> > the express and then have 1-2 hours frequency at other times.)
>> > 
>
>So will this conversion actually run closer to the Paul and 22nd
>street stations?  If not, how does it help?
>
>jeremy

A little confusion here, between the "serving the Paul and 22nd St
Caltrain stops with MUNI" idea, and the "the stretch of SF served by
CalTrain is poorly served by MUNI" idea. I was addressing the latter
one, on the assumption that if Caltrain goes away servicing those
particular two stations is no longer an issue.

The 15 bus, which is a relatively high-performance bus line (5 minute
intervals during commute time, 10 to 15 minute the rest of non-owl
hours, seven-days-a-week service, part of the 91-owl service for
1-5AM), roughly parallels the Caltrain route, from the Bayshore
station up to the depot; except around Mission Bay, the distance
between the two services is never more than three blocks or so. So,
for service inside the city, I would dispute that the North-South axis
is "poorly served" as it is, from a frequency standpoint; the buses on
that route are the huge articulated ones, indicating heavy usage or
bad MUNI bus allocation :-). The conversion should help in the ways
light rail typically helps a well-used bus route, better left
specified by others participants in this forum :-).
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:3110 rec.railroad:10493
From: pierpont@snax.enet.dec.com (Howard Pierpont)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Tokens Tickets Maps info and sample request
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:40:05 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


I am working on an independent study of tokens/tickets, fares and maps.
As part of this study I am trying to acquire a token [ala: Boston or NYC]
or ticket [ala: Washington DC or Montreal] and one of those "free" maps 
that the authority always claims are available at the booth.

I will cover your expenses including mailing and let you know what
I find out [if you really care 8^)].

Howard Pierpont
Work					Home --preferred mailing address
Digital Equipment Corp.			P.O. Box 128 84 Dog Hill Rd.
77 Reed Rd. Hudson MA 01749		Dayville, CT 06241-0937

All opinions are mine. If they knew I was interested in any kind of rail,
they' make sure that I was ridden out of town on one."
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:47:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.182853.1946@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>A BART car seats about 70 people, a little less than half what a CalTrain
>car seats.  However, BART is designed for standees and so has lots of
>grab bars on the ceiling that tall people (such as myself) could hit our
>heads on.  

Actually BART *wasn't* designed for standees.  Those grab rails were
added *after* they discovered that they had lots of standees--and grab
rails across the entry areas were added later still.  BART was
designed around the promise that there would be seating for everyone.
It was sold (in part) on that and the claim that a train would leave
San Francisco every 90 seconds in rush hour.  Some of us who remember
the days of those promise are still waiting for delivery....

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: ba.transportation