HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Over the Edge (was Re: Cable grips are like clutches)
Date: 22 Jul 1992 19:42:30 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: ba
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

re: crossing cable-cars and CalTrain

So long as we're being silly, here's my $.02.

One could have several cables, say at 10mph, 20mph, 40mph, 60mph,
and gear up from one to the next, so that the difference between
cable and car speed could be reduced.

Also, so long as this is (mostly) a dedicated ROW, why not put
the cables up in the air, like moving pantograph wires?
Would make maintenance a lot easier.

Or maybe we could use huge, long rubber-bands..................

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Third rail without fences (Was: San Mateo County BART)
Keywords: third rail bart safety right of way
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:20:34 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: ba
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Jul22.151657.11882@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul21.080906@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
|> >In article <14ge9lINN8a2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> So, to make a long story short, what happened to underground third
|> >|> rail?  Is it still possible?
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >Several cities used the underground power pickup, Washington DC and
|> >NY City (Manhattan) are the two I remember.  
|> 
|> 
|> Washington, DC does not use underground third rail.  The Metro uses an
|> exposed third rail at the same level as the track.
|> 

You misunderstood the tense of my statement.  I said "used" that is
past tense.  This was for the early DC streetcar system, long before
Metro.

Later,
George



-- 
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: As bad as it seems?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:11:41 GMT

In article <9207311533.AA00357@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> 
> >From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
> >last few weeks (5:30-6:30 PM, the area bounded by california, market,
> >and montgomery) and I was really impressed how the streets formed
> >one giant parking lot. The number of MUNI and SAMTRANS buses that were
> >stuck in the middle of it was particularly notable. Is it always this
> >bad? Its hard to imagine being able to time a bus connection to
> >Caltrain to meet an express train if this traffic is the norm. 
> 
> 
> 
> One significant advantage of relocating the SF CalTrain station
> closer to Market would be the removal of the Samtrans buses.
> 

Is that actually part of the plan or just your guess?  Samtrans
provides pretty competitive service (where it overlaps) for a
lot less money.  But much of the Samtrans service does and will
not overlap Caltrain.  If you want to visit the city hall area,
for example, a Samtrans trip will be quicker, in many instances,
than a Caltrain trip, since the Transbay terminal is almost as
far as the current Caltrain terminal.

jeremy

Xref: sparky ba.transportation:1788 alt.activism:13470 ca.environment:753
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Distribution: ba
Organization: lbl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

>> bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel) writes, transcribing
a conversation on NPR:
> <<this from a representative of AAA, responding to suggestions
>   for significant increases in the gas tax. >>
> B: Well, I think the actual response is that we are dealing with
> an energy situation in this country where our energy consumption
> per vehicle is going down, our energy consumption per person is
> going down, whereas in Europe and Japan where they have high
> gasoline taxes, they are also having consumption increases that
> are twice ours and their reliance on foreign oil is dramatically
> higher than ours, so they really have been embarked on a
> progression of higher taxes that hasn't provided them with
> anything as far as a benefit.

I wonder if this guy actually believes that his statement makes
any sense.  While I disagree with him, I would think that it
would be possible to construct an argument in his favor that
doesn't rely on people not knowing the most important fact
(in this case that absolute consumption levels in Europe and
Japan are considerably lower than ours for comparable quality
of life).

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
From: bjork@telebit.com (Steven Bjork)
Subject: Re: How much pollution from motor vehicles?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:06:19 GMT

In article <14ncohINNjjf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
>1) Exhaust emissions.
>2) Hydrocarbon emissions.
>3) Tires wearing away on roads.
>4) Old tires stacking up.
>5) Old cars stacking up.
>6) Pollution caused by building roads/bridges/tunnels.
>7) Pollution caused by road tar/oil.
>8) Noise pollution.
>9) Oil leaks.
>10) Gasoline leaks.
>11) Oil pollution disposal, garbage, on the ground.
>12) Air Conditioner Feron emissions.
>13) Anti-freeze pollution.
>14) Rusting metal pollution falling off of vehicles.
>15) Cleaning compounds and waxes.
>16) Water pollution from cleaning vehicles.
>17) Old batteries (cores).
>18) Glass, plastics, foam rubbers.
>19) Visual pollution, eyesores.


20) WAR! (Iraq/Kuwait, you know)

I recommend reading The Seven Sisters, a book on the Oil companies.

--Steven
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:37:02 GMT


>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>And could even an electric CalTrain start and stop as fast as
>BART can?



Stop, yes. Start almost. It is not necessary to match BART since
stations are farther apart and express service is available.





>Tunnel from where to where? Are both of them across the Bay?
>What else did these studies include?

You asked for references. Since you do not believe what I say 
then perhaps you should stop griping and do your own homework.





>I'm sure that the BART tunnels would be cheaper, since the

For the second time:
Additional BART tube  $3.5 billion
Amtrak/CalTrain tunnel $1.9 billion   MTC SCR20 cross bay study.


Please define "cheaper".




>But BART's expensive tunneling makes it more accessible in the
>urban areas it serves. It's a very clear trade-off.

Nonsense. "In the urban areas it serves" CalTrain is more accessible.
Under that consideration anything that already exists is more
accessible than whatever alternative.





>That CalTrain to Market Street tunnel will cost $1 billion and
>will only go about a mile.


$650 million for the most expensive, $200 million for the cheaper.



>Why bother consulting a schedule with BART?


I have better things to do than stand around train stations.


> With 20 minute intervals (at most), one doesn't have too long
>to wait.

I do not wait more than 5 minutes(unless its late) for CalTrain.





>>The BART train would all have to be replaced because they would not
>>pass FRA buffing standards. Which means they could not sustain a hit
>>with another train or car or shopping cart.

>Why is it necessary to have BART run on existing lines? If
>worst comes to worst, one may simply build extra tracks near an
>existing right-of-way for BART. 


Wake up and read a little. Building the "extra tracks" is what costs
$100 million a mile.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Buying up old polluting cars
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:01:24 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <l6ttctINNmvb@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> (ba.transportation), bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel) writes:
> Given the  current situation in which no level of government
> seems to have any cash to do *anything*, such a proposal seems
> problematic from a revenue standpoint.
> 
> Increasing the gas tax would 1) place a disincentive on driving
> 2) place a disincentive on inefficient vehicles *and* 3) *raise*
> revenue.

As I understand it, there is no state revenue needed.  They are talking
about private companies doing the buying.  In return for taking X
number of cars off the road, they get credit to not reduce their pollution
from their plant.

What you have is a requirement for a company to reduce pollution by
a certain amount, say X.  They can do it only one way right now. 
Spend Y dollars on directly changing their plant to reduce emissions
(by installing things like scrubbers, or switching from coal to natural
gas for example).  

What this proposal is allowing them to do is buy up enough old cars
that would have produced as much pollution as X above.  Buying up
the cars is much cheaper than changing their factory.  This saves
them big bucks and reduces air pollution just as much.

The example given was paying $6 million for cars vs. $160 for changing
their plant.  The air pollution reduction is exactly the same: 12.8
million pounds.  

Given these economics, I'd almost say they'd go for it even if they
had to reduce emisssion twice as much when going the buying up cars
route.  $12 million is still a lot less than $160 million and we'd
reduce emissions twice as much.

--  Michael Peirce      --   peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org
--  Peirce Software     --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--                      --   San Jose, California USA 95117
--  Makers of...        --   voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
--            SMOOTHIE  --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
From: frankm@resonex.com (Frank Muennemann)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
Subject: Re: How much pollution from motor vehicles?
Date: 28 Jul 92 08:59:04 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA

Other pollution mechanisms:

n+1) social and commuting dependency on cars
n+2) reduced support for mass transit & bicycle commuters==> more cars
n+3) more social and commuting dependency on cars
n+4) reduced support for mass transit & bicycle commuters==> more cars

...ad nauseum...

And let's not forget road kills, either.
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:17:27 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1992Jul20.212013.23579@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <87AI02Mq1ar501@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:

>> I commute from the E.Bay to Silicon Valley and because my work
>> finishes any time between 4:30 and 6:30, I cannot use a typical
>> commuter service.
>
>Why not?  The times you give are typical peak operation times for
>"commuter" services ...

The times that I completely agree with Adrian are rare enough that
there is no way that I am going to ignore an opportunity ....

That time period is almost exactly the time period that CalTrain
runs its "rush hour" service.  Depending on which end of the east
bay you are headed for, the train to SJ, Palo Alto or SF will allow
you to connect with BART and/or a bus to your destination.

Having seen 101 and 880 at that hour, .... well the less said the
better.

--
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: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain on-time
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:57:15 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Jul21.172933.2900@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> I'm happy to report that CalTrain has been running on-time as
|> ever for all the trains I've either ridden or been able to hear
|> passing by my place.  I'm still observing some delays on north-
|> bound trains, but they're getting much better and are usually
|> only 5 minutes or so.  In my subjective view (I haven't seen
|> any "official" stats yet), Amtrak is running on-time at least
|> as well (and usually better) than SP did within 3 weeks of
|> taking over the service.  They had to contend with a lot of
|> track that SP had let fall into "deferred maintenance" mode
|> and with labor/staffing shortages in addition to the numerous
|> operational differences and service extensions/increases...

Well, you may have seen on time trains but train number 30
on Monday was 20 minutes late into Palo Alto since it "caught"
train (29) at about Redwood City.

I have to say one thing for CalTrain, they haven't missed
Castro station yet this week ;-)  Of course it's only Tuesday.

Later,
George

-- 
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: A hell of a way to run a railroad
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:22:36 GMT



In article <1992Jul2.095935@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George
Neville-Neil)
writes:
>>Yeah, this is what I did yesterday.  You should also call 1-800-660-4287
>>and complain.  They take complaints and put them into a form.

>From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
>Then they take the forms and put them into a book, and then throw away the
>book.

>At least, that's what I'd based they do based on the response I've gotten
>from suggestions and complaints, i.e. none at all.



I recently received a response from Samtrans. Maybe things are changing.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: CalTrain on-time
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:38:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.105715@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
|> Well, you may have seen on time trains but train number 30
|> on Monday was 20 minutes late into Palo Alto since it "caught"
|> train (29) at about Redwood City.

This doesn't make sense.  I'm not sure how the southbound #30 can "catch"
the northbound #29 in RWC.  Besides, train 29 & 30 are scheduled to meet
somewhere around San Bruno.  The only way they can meet in RWC is for
#29 to be about 40 minutes late.

If, by chance, you meant to say that your express #30 caught #28 in front
of it, that would make a lot more sense.  When an express "catches" the
train in front of it, it is either because the leading train is late or
because the express was going a little too fast.  This isn't a dangerous
situation because the express will start getting yellow signals (to
proceed at reduced speed and to prepare to stop) and then finally red
signals (indicating to come to a full stop and then only proceed at
super-slow speed until it is safe or until a less restrictive signal
indication is given) as it gets too close to the train in front of it.


|> I have to say one thing for CalTrain, they haven't missed
|> Castro station yet this week ;-)  Of course it's only Tuesday.

At what times and dates and what trains have missed Castro (or any
other stations)?  I've heard about Castro once and Tamien once, both
some time ago now ...

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SC County Transit Cutbacks in store
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:21:34 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <1992Jul30.234754.11767@Veritas.COM> (ba.transportation), joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
> jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes: [about SC Transit Cutbacks]
> >   Reasons cited for the cuts include a reduced county transportation
> >budget, a decline in sales tax revenues, and increased costs associated
> >with expenses arising from the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
> >count's share of financing the new CalTrain service. 
> 
> I'm sure these didn't help, but the real reason is the huge subsidy
> that the bus system needs.  Every time you pay $1 to ride a bus, the
> county pays $9.  This 900 % subsidy is the largest of any local mass
> transit system.  

There is an interesting distinction between the type of subsidy that
bus and rail systems have and type that the road system has.

All these systems require capital costs: roads for autos and buses,
and railroads for railways.  Also bus and railcar purchases are subsidized,
though I don't think anyone will claim that personal car purchases
are subsidized.

The big difference is that buses and railways require operating subsidies.

If government has a lean year with lower tax income because of a recession,
it's easy enough to cut capital spending until the recession is over.
Nothing really noticable happens if a new road or rail station is
delayed a couple of years because capital spending has to be cut maybe
20% some year.

With operating subsidies, noticeable things *do* happen.  Cutting
an operating subsidy 20% affects service that people have grown use
to and it often cutting operations disrupts peoples established transit
patterns.

So in an important way, any transit system that depends on operating
subsidies (bus & train) will be more affected by periodic (and inevitable)
recessions, that a system that doesn't (private cars).

--  Michael Peirce      --   peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org
--  Peirce Software     --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--                      --   San Jose, California USA 95117
--  Makers of...        --   voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
--            SMOOTHIE  --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Santa Cruz-San Jose CalTrain?
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:47:23 GMT

In article <14hvaoINNakm@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
|> Given the attendant problems with the "existing" ROW -- tunnels down or
|> being used for other purposes, bridges nonexistent, the Felton track
|> being owned and used by a tourist railway, part of the ROW being under
|> water, and so on, *and* the fact that one of the most important cities
|> to serve with any new transit system, Scotts Valley, is simply bypassed
|> by the "current" ROW, doesn't it make more sense to buy a new ROW
|> rather than try to excavate the old one, at least from Santa Cruz
|> through Scotts Valley to Lexington?

Yeah, sounds reasonable.  I forgot about Scotts Valley, but then I haven't
given this all that much thought lately either...  There really needs to
be a study to provide cost, ridership, and feasibility figures for both
the old right of way and an alternate one that serves Scotts Valley too.
The study ought to consider different service levels and equipment types
(such as CalTrain/heavy-rail, light rail and of course cable-cars & BART 
& monorail for good measure!).

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: More negative BART stories
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:12:08 GMT

The media is really starting to sock it to BART in the last few days.
The issue is that BART's new & improved schedule is causing major
service glitches.  I'm not directly affected, so I can't say first
hand what the deal is, but it seems that BART was already running
on the verge of pushing the equipment too hard.  Now, with the newer
schedule they're trying to run, all kinds of mechanical problems are
showing up...  Anyway, it sounds like they haven't been able to
achieve their 94% on-time target ever since the schedule change.

The first story I heard was on KGO AM 810, then I saw an article
above-the-fold on the front page of the Contra Costa Times, and
last night KQED FM 88.5 and KPIX TV CH 5 did fairly extensive
stories as well.  There is already talk of giving up on the new
schedule and going back to the old one since it appears they are
gambling with their aging equipment's health and they are pissing
lots of riders off because they haven't been able to get it "right"
for several weeks now...

I said it before, but I think it's somehow comforting to know that
BART, like CalTrain, doesn't walk-on-water and that a service change
can foul them up for a while too.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Keywords: bart caltrain handicapped wheelchair costs
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:36:58 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1992Jul23.030738.27905@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:
>Isn't it much more difficult for wheelchair users to get on CalTrain than
>BART?

I don't believe that "difficult" is the proper term.

On the BART system, the wheelchair user needs the assistance of the
station agent only to activate the elevator.

On CalTrain, the wheelchair user doesn't need to worry about elevators.
There aren't any.  Instead they need the assistance of two or more
strong people to help them over the rails (or up and down the subway --
Lawrence station is totally out of the question) and then into the
train where they will sit in the "vestibule" like cargo since the 
chair will totally block traffic in the car itself.  At their
destination, they need to repeat this procedure in reverse.

CalTrain is NOT wheelchair accessible.  If you doubt it, ask someone
who uses a chair to go with you.

For proof, choose a random day.  Count the number of wheelchair
users on CalTrain.  Count the number of wheelchair users on
BART.  Do the ratios reflect the ratios of non-wheelchair users?
(This is a trick question - division by zero is an undefined
operation.)

There are rumors that "new cars" will improve the situation.  I'll
believe it when I see it.  I don't expect the system to ever be half 
as accessible as BART even with new cars.

The last time I remember this subject coming up, Vaughn Wolffe (I
think) described the "new cars" approach.  It was clear that no
wheelchair users had been consulted.

--
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