HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: 20th Birthday Party for BART
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:35:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.235206.11471@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> district, and the other was to bring out an old study claiming that it
|> was safe for BART to go across the Golden Gate Bridge and take it to
|> Marin County.

That would be on a second deck, right?  A couple years back I remember
a SF Chronicle article saying that a second deck on the GG Bridge for
rail is feasible.


|> San Francisco's mayor, Frank Jordan, also showed up. He
|> expressed hope that the voters of San Mateo County would choose to
|> join the BART district this November.

Too bad that's not what they're voting on.  Measure B is an ADVISORY
measure that says that SMCo Supes should begin NEGOTIATIONS w/BART
to determine costs, etc. of extending BART throughout the county (which
really means to Menlo Park, I guess).


|> 	The BART cake? Certain net.CalTrain-champions will probably
|> make fun of me because of this, but I actually ate a slice of it.

Not me.  I like cake, especially when its free.


|> 	I even got a sheet advertising some trial runs of a commuter
|> train from Suisun City / Fairfield to West Oakland and back, courtesy
|> of Southern Pacific and using some of the new Los Angeles commuter
|> train rolling stock. Dates: Sept. 17 and 21-25.

This is quite an interesting attitude change with SP.  They've figured
out that they can make some money off commuter rail now.  So have a lot
of other freight RRs.  Monkey see monkey do.  I'm not complaining though,
it's what rail transit advocates like me have been advocating all along.


|> One interesting side note is that one place, along
|> Rte.4 near Willow Pass Rd., a grade of 7% will be reduced to 3.5% for
|> the BART line; I guess that's the maximum grade permitted along the
|> BART lines.

I noticed this too.  I'm surprised that BART being an EMU system with
motors for each car can only climb 3.5% when the French TGV super
high speed (which is essentially locomotive hauled) train can climb
5% grades at very high speeds (approaching 200mph).  Of course, it
can also start from a stop on a 5% grade too, so it isn't just doing
it because it got a "running start" (although it helps).


|> 	Be that as it may, I did get a copy of BART extension plans
|> from a handout, one that gave plans after the ones most familiar. Here
|> they are:

[plans deleted]

I wish they would at least provide some ballpark costs and completion dates.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Measure A Rebuttal Rebuttal
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:40:20 GMT

In article <#brnb2_.ladasky@netcom.com>, ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
> 
> 	The priority-setting decisions for T2010 would simply seem to 
> have been, "do we want to fund project X, or not?"  I've collected a bunch
> of information on Measure A, and I have to agree with Bill.  I only know
> what they want to fund, not when they want to complete things.  I would
> feel a lot more comfortable knowing that the rail projects would be com-
> pleted before any competing highway projects.  Lastly, this year's Measure
> A includes funds for projects that 1984's Measure A was unable to fund to
> completion.  What if this happens again?  Which transit systems won't we
> have?

By the way, I haven't seen much about the reasons for Measure A not
completing what they originally planned.  My understanding is that
the sales tax revenue projections were too optimistic.  To my
knowledge, there haven't been any glaring cost overruns.  Also,
certain projects were slowed down by a lawsuit (which increases
costs).

Also, you may be in a minority in wanting to see transit projects
completed before highway projects.  Not saying you're wrong, just
that highways are still very popular among the masses (along with
BART).  So the highway provisions may actually increase its chances.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Re: Did I see...toll booths on 87?
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 01:41:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel) writes:
>J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
[regarding a possible toll booth on highway 87 just south of 280]
>>   I'm not sure that this will work.  You see, one set of booths is just going
>>to make people exit before the booths, clog the city streets and re-enter 87
>>(or 280) to avoid the booths, and could cause *far* more problems than they
>
>Whether or not people leave the freeway to avoid the toll would depend,
>I would imagine, not only upon the dollar savings, but time savings as
>well. The congestion you predict, along with the locals' desire to keep
>freeway traffic *off* surface streets would mean that it wouldn't be
>easy *or* fast.

	Well, 87 is an internal-city route.  I would think that much of the
traffic that 87 is meant to carry is already there, on Almaden Boulevard.
Almaden Blvd. already a fairly high-capacity road.  People drive it all the
way into the downtown area.  It wouldn't be that much of a sacrifice to
get off of 87.

>>   Many in this subject love to talk about how much the auto is subsidized,
>>when many types of mass transit are subsidized even more (in terms of what
>>percentage the user pays in direct fees).  
>
>What evidence can you cite to support the contention that auto subsidies 
>are lower?

	Indeed, I've seen studies that suggest that automobile subsidies are
a good deal higher than those for transit.

>Toll booths would not *cause* traffic. They might contribute to 
>increased congestion, but that's bound to happen anyhow until market
>forces are brought to bear, leveling the transportation playing 
>field economically.

	However, in order to give non-automotive transit systems a fair
shake, I think that we must continue to fund alternative transit with public
money, for at least a few years beyond the (hypothetical) time at which we 
phase out auto subsidies.  The automobile enjoys the advantage of estab-
lished infrastructure (big, fairly-permanent freeways), which we've all paid
for in advance.  After we've compensated for this and internalized all the
external costs, then privatize and let the market decide.

>Bill Michel			
>bm@eng.sun.com		These views are my own, not Sun's.

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
============================================================================
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Southern Pacific Commuter Line Tryout
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:06:15 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Sep14.234618.2737@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.211318.16999@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ 	It would be interesting to see which is faster between
@ Richmond and West Oakland: this commuter train or BART.

>Hmmm.  If BART is faster or reaches your final destination better than
>a bus over to the TransBay Terminal, you'd probably be better off
>transferring to BART at the Richmond.  Since you said the trial commuter
>train will be free, I doubt many will do this until they start charging.

	I checked out how fast BART is, and it's 30 minutes from
Richmond to West Oakland. That's about as fast as this commuter train
is.

	In the morning, there is the problem that the incoming BART
trains at West Oakland have lots of passengers; one will more likely
have a seat if one gets on at Richmond than at West Oakland.

@ 	One might ask why SP has become so interested in passenger
@ railroading lately, since its record for the last couple of decades
@ has been one of indifference at best. A cynical suggestion is that SP
@ is hoping to board a gravy train of rail-transit subsidies, which
@ would include such things as track maintenance.

>Gravy train or not, it can be a hell of a lot cheaper to pay an existing
>railroad with operable tracks and right of way to run a service for
>you than to build and run your own infrastructure...

	Furthermore, passenger rail service usually requires higher
track standards than what one can get away with for freight rail
service, so if it's subsidized, a freight railroad will get track
maintenance for free or will be paid to upgrade its track (depending
on the arrangement). By higher standards, I mean such things as high
speeds and double-tracking along much, if not most or all, of the
line. Double-tracking is not necessary for one-way commuter service,
but anything more makes it a virtual necessity, because every
single-tracked segment acts as a bottleneck for two-way traffic, and
the longer, the worse.

@ 	If this venture proves successful, can we expect some other
@ railroads to get into the game? Might Union Pacific have a similar
@ test run on its Fremont-Stockton line? Since I live along that line,
@ I'm not likely to complain :-)

>The UP will be running a their test/trial/demo train for VIPs and pols
>on Friday the 18th.  It'll run from Sacramento to San Jose via Stockton
>and Livermore.  It looks like UP wants to run a two year trial service
>from Stockton to either Union City BART or San Jose (they haven't
>decided yet).  Like CalTrain's interim Gilroy service, the two year UP
>trial might have two trains coming in in the morning and two going out
>in the evening.

	I just can't wait :-)

	Any info on times?
From: marc@octel.com (Marc Lewert)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Should CalTrain be Saved?
Keywords: BART CalTrain
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:10:25 GMT
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.

In article <1992Sep3.183143.20672@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Hirsch) writes:
>
>Op-Ed Piece "Battling BART" from the Peninsula Times Tribune,
>Sunday, August 23, 1992.
>
>
>Should CalTrain be Saved?
>by Alan Hirsh
>

Generally a good piece, but I have one correction.

>- Speed
>
>BART's average speed is 33 mph while CalTrain averages 32.  But, 
>CalTrain can operate express trains at average speeds of 45-50 mph, 
>something BART can't do with its current computer control system.  
>Routing is another consideration for speed: the planned BART routing 
>from the Peninsula to San Francisco swings west through Colma, 
>Daly City and the San Francisco Mission District before reaching 
>downtown San Francisco.  CalTrain's routing to downtown is 5 miles 
>and 5 stops shorter--meaning a 15 minute shorter trip.

The problem of express trains is not speed, but track and headways.
The express trains on CalTrain run at a faster average speed bacause
they start with a larger distance between the express train and the
one ahead of it.  The express train closes the gap during it's run
by not stopping at particular stations.  It is my guess that BART
could do this too if it wanted to do so.

An even better solution is to use a third or fourth track at stations
for express train to use as a bypass.  This is the approach used by
a number of subways (NYC included) for years,  and has been shown to work.

On another area, I have seen a lot of numbers thrown around for the cost
of upgrades to the various systems.  What is not clear is the breakdown
of those numbers.  How much for land?  How much for fixtures for exclusive
right-of-way?  How much for the tracks?  etc.

When people are comparing the upgrade of CalTrain vs. the extension of BART
they need to remember that the two systems are not the same.

I beleive that both BART and CalTrain have their good points and their
problems, and I suspect we "really want" something that is a combination
of the two.

	marc
-- 
[ Marc Lewert                      Phone: (408) 321-6626                 ]
[ Octel Communications Corp.       AspenNet(tm): (408) 321-6700 MB 6626  ]
[ 890 Tasman Dr.		   USENET: ...!uunet!octela!marc         ]
[ Milpitas, CA 95035               Smart Mailer: marc@octel.com          ]
[ Disclaimer:  The company knows what I think, I tell them often enough. ]
[ zen hugs - the hugs that you would get, if we were there,              ]
[            if we could hug you, but we aren't, and we can't            ]
[            - Anne McCaffrey, Mercedes Lackey, "The Ship Who Searched"  ]
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: ari@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ari Ollikainen)
Subject: Re: Caltrain at San Antonio Road? (was: Spinning Crank Sept/Oct 92)
Summary: WHAT? Another Embarcadero Crossing?
Keywords: Not so high priority
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:56:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.033532.13810@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU (Vince Fuller) writes:
>In an excerpt from ba.transportation article 5517 (the SVBC newsletter), I
>happened to notice the following piece:
>
>    ISTEA FUNDS FOR BIKES
>	    by Ellen Fletcher

>
>    In Santa Clara County, three projects ranked high for funding:
>
>    Mountain View - bike lockers at the yet to be built San Antonio
>    CalTrain station Sunnyvale - Mathilda Avenue path & bridge
>    crossing Palo Alto - Bike/ped bridge over Embarcadero by the
>    CalTrain tracks
					  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What lunacy is this? Is this a bridge for PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL, or 
a bridge east  of PAHS? There is an existing bridge across Embarcadero
namely Alma...

We don't need more Fletcheresque bike/ped barrier equipped bridges!!

Ari Ollikainen
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: 20th Birthday Party for BART
Date: 14 Sep 1992 18:53:25 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep14.175842.14451@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	One of the big problems with San Francisco is its rather steep
>hills; I don't know offhand what its steeper grades are, but I'm sure
>that they are greater than BART's upper limit of about 3.5%.

	A great chance to plug a map sold at the Berkeley commute
store, the San Francisco Biking/Walking guide, that is a color-coded
map showing the grades of every street in the city. All of the main
streets in this discussion (Geary, Van Ness, Lombard) have a few short
stretches in the 5-10% grade range, but most of the blocks are in the
0-5% grade range. Considering any BART implementation will be
underground, it would seem that selective tunneling along these
streets would be sufficient to keep the constant grade under 3.5%.
Note that some streets bordering these main drags are much steeper,
some are over 18% ...
From: forags@smokey (Al Stangenberger)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: 20th Birthday Party for BART
Date: 14 Sep 1992 23:03:43 GMT
Organization: U.C. Forestry & Res. Mgt.
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: smokey.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep14.183522.28763@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.235206.11471@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>|> district, and the other was to bring out an old study claiming that it
>|> was safe for BART to go across the Golden Gate Bridge and take it to
>|> Marin County.
>
>That would be on a second deck, right?  A couple years back I remember
>a SF Chronicle article saying that a second deck on the GG Bridge for
>rail is feasible.
>

Since the original concrete deck was replaced with a lightweight steel deck
a few years ago, the bridge engineers feel a small second deck is feasible.
As I remember, one could put a couple of tracks or two reversible vehicle
lanes underneath the current deck. These would not be visible except at each
end.

-- 
Al Stangenberger                    Dept. of Forestry & Resource Mgt.
forags@violet.berkeley.edu          145 Mulford Hall - Univ. of Calif.
uucp:  ucbvax!ucbviolet!forags      Berkeley, CA  94720
BITNET: FORAGS AT UCBVIOLE          (510) 642-4424  FAX: (510) 643-5438
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: 20th Birthday Party for BART
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:37:01 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <18s2goINNq38@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep11.235206.11471@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>	The MUNI Metro Extension Project goes from Market Street to
>>the CalTrain station
>
>Hmm.  I thought the point was more to serve new development at
>"Mission Bay" than to serve the CalTrain station.

I think you are right but it is nice that they can kill two birds with
one ..., er, maybe that is not the best metaphor.

Also, I wouldn't really call this a "BART extension", which is what Loren's
initial posting implied.  Yes, it does improve the service to a BART
station but ....

--
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: vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU (Vince Fuller)
Subject: Caltrain at San Antonio Road? (was: Spinning Crank Sept/Oct 92)
Organization: BARRNet, Stanford University
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:35:32 GMT

In an excerpt from ba.transportation article 5517 (the SVBC newsletter), I
happened to notice the following piece:

    ISTEA FUNDS FOR BIKES
	    by Ellen Fletcher

    This past May local jurisdictions (at least in the SF Bay Area)
    submitted applications for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
    (CMAQ) Program funds, part of the (federal) Intermodal Surface
    Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The applications were
    submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
    which ranked all the submittals. MTC will hold a public hearing
    on the list of projects on September 11th, and final adoption is
    scheduled for September 23rd. MTC's decision will be final under
    the new ISTEA rules.

    In Santa Clara County, three projects ranked high for funding:

    Mountain View - bike lockers at the yet to be built San Antonio
    CalTrain station Sunnyvale - Mathilda Avenue path & bridge
    crossing Palo Alto - Bike/ped bridge over Embarcadero by the
    CalTrain tracks

Does this mean that there are plans afoot to build a Caltrain station at San
Antonio Road near the Palo Alto/Mountain View border? As someone who lives
about a half mile from there, I'd be very interested to hear more about any
such plans (one of my big regrets since moving from a place off Ravenswood in
Menlo Park has been the loss of Caltrain access). Personally, I've thought for
some time (since before I moved to my present location) that San Antonio/Alma
is an excellent spot for a station, given that its distance from any other
Caltrain station and its proximity to the Old Mill and San Antonio mall shopping
areas.

	--Vince
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Did I see...toll booths on 87?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:04:34 GMT

In article <x9sn+5.ladasky@netcom.com>, ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
> bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel) writes:
> >J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> 
> >>   Many in this subject love to talk about how much the auto is subsidized,
> >>when many types of mass transit are subsidized even more (in terms of what
> >>percentage the user pays in direct fees).  
> >
> >What evidence can you cite to support the contention that auto subsidies 
> >are lower?
> 
> 	Indeed, I've seen studies that suggest that automobile subsidies are
> a good deal higher than those for transit.
> 
> >Toll booths would not *cause* traffic. They might contribute to 
> >increased congestion, but that's bound to happen anyhow until market
> >forces are brought to bear, leveling the transportation playing 
> >field economically.
> 
> 	However, in order to give non-automotive transit systems a fair
> shake, I think that we must continue to fund alternative transit with public
> money, for at least a few years beyond the (hypothetical) time at which we 
> phase out auto subsidies.  The automobile enjoys the advantage of estab-
> lished infrastructure (big, fairly-permanent freeways), which we've all paid
> for in advance.  After we've compensated for this and internalized all the
> external costs, then privatize and let the market decide.


There is an interesting editorial in today's Mercury news that speaks
tangentially to this point, regarding auto use in Europe.  I'd encourage
people to take a look at it.  It's at the bottom right of the second
op/ed page.

jeremy
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: BART vs. CalTrain speeds
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:30:51 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1992Aug28.180551.23898@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <9208281429.AA05090@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>@ From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>@ 	First off, CalTrain's current locomotives are unsuited for
>@ traveling inside of tunnels. They will have to be replaced with
>@ locomotives capable of running on electric power from either third
>@ rails or overhead cables. 
>
>	The reason that steam and diesel locos can run through many of
>the tunnels they run through without too much trouble is because they
>are _in motion_. The crew and passengers are not exposed to a
>continual buildup of exhaust.

That's part of it.  But mostly it is because (a) the tunnels are open
on both ends and (b) San Francisco is a windy city.

--
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: marc@octel.com (Marc Lewert)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: BART's "manifest destiny"
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:15:10 GMT
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.

In article <1992Sep3.183541.20747@ntmtv> rail2000@aol.com writes:
>
>Posted for Alan Hirsch of Peninsula Rail 2000:
>
>Supervisor Rod Diridon, Santa Clara County, observed that San Mateo
>County's ballot measure on BART (B)--which gives no cost or time frame
>is "kind of like asking people if they would like a free Cadillac." 
>(At the Wed Sept 6 CalTrain JPB Meeting)
>
>----------------------------
>
>
>BART general Manager Frank Wilson was heard on KQED FM's "Forum"
>show comparing CalTrain to a "Toonerville trolley" and stating
>that "if you want to get BART service, it will cost BART type money".  
>
>This, of course, is a lie: anyone can review the schedules and see
>BART is at best marginally faster than CalTrain--and slower than
>CalTrain's express trains.

I dealt with express trains in my previous posting.  BART, if the  computer
is able to deal with it, is quite capable of running a similar type of
express train.

BART and CalTrain are not the same type of system.  I suspect the ideal
system is somewhere between the two.

	marc

-- 
[ Marc Lewert                      Phone: (408) 321-6626                 ]
[ Octel Communications Corp.       AspenNet(tm): (408) 321-6700 MB 6626  ]
[ 890 Tasman Dr.		   USENET: ...!uunet!octela!marc         ]
[ Milpitas, CA 95035               Smart Mailer: marc@octel.com          ]
[ Disclaimer:  The company knows what I think, I tell them often enough. ]
[ zen hugs - the hugs that you would get, if we were there,              ]
[            if we could hug you, but we aren't, and we can't            ]
[            - Anne McCaffrey, Mercedes Lackey, "The Ship Who Searched"  ]