HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Europe is "special"?
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:22:41 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <jjp2k1k@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> Why?
|> 
Because it's inefficient, wasteful of energy, pollutes the air, causes stress etc. 

|> I know it's inconvenient, but lots of things are.  One might just as
|> easily say that I should not have to compete with commuters to get
|> to the airport.  There is no implied duty that airports have to give
|> you a way to them that does not necessitate taking a street.  It
|> certainly isn't the duty of taxpayers to provide rail systems for
|> travelers to airports.  They should be expected to take care of their
|> own needs first.
|> 
Hmm.  Taxpayers have already provided a land wasteful, inefficient and mostly useless way to get to the airport.  Maybe now we can look a little harder and see that there are alternatives to driving everywhere.  Of course, we can wait till it becomes a crisis, it would, after all, be the human thing to do.

-- 
Excuse me, could you scream just a little louder ??  I can't seem to hear
you.
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Ross Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: airplanes vs trains
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:10:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32446
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)


While I am less interested in the airplanes vs trains discussion, it
seems to me that even if one accepts that the LA-SF distance is too
far to be worthwhile for train travel, it seems to me that the inner
midwest -- Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan -- would be perfect for the
introduction of relatively high-speed trains.

The Canadians are talking about a new TGV-like line in the
Windsor-Quebec City corridor (mostly by Bombadier, Inc., the big
Quebec rail firm).  I can't help thinking how much more money it would
make if it were extended to Chicago via Detroit...

Just a thought, I know this has little to do with ba.anything.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron R. Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
                   === Foster and Kleiser ===
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: airplanes vs trains
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:53:24 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <32446@darkstar.ucsc.edu> (ba.transportation), fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Ross Priven) writes:
> 
> While I am less interested in the airplanes vs trains discussion, it
> seems to me that even if one accepts that the LA-SF distance is too
> far to be worthwhile for train travel, it seems to me that the inner
> midwest -- Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan -- would be perfect for the
> introduction of relatively high-speed trains.
> 
> The Canadians are talking about a new TGV-like line in the
> Windsor-Quebec City corridor (mostly by Bombadier, Inc., the big
> Quebec rail firm).  I can't help thinking how much more money it would
> make if it were extended to Chicago via Detroit...
> 
> Just a thought, I know this has little to do with ba.anything.

Ohio got really interested in a high speed rail system for a while
in the 80's.  The idea was to connect the major cities there.

I believe the idea has dropped by the way side.

--  Michael Peirce         --   peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org
--  Peirce Software        --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--  Macintosh Programming  --   San Jose, California USA 95117
--           & Consulting  --   voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
--                         --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Europe is "special"?
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:28:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: sgi.jkl7s8g
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Apr16.102241@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <jjp2k1k@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> Why?
> |> 
> Because it's inefficient, wasteful of energy, pollutes the air, causes stress etc. 

Ok.  For the sake of argument, I'll accept that.  But you could also say
that about many other things -- "I shouldn't have to compete with traffic
to get to work", "I shouldn't have to compete with traffic to get to the
doctor", "I shouldn't have to compete with traffic to buy food", etc. etc.
No one should ever have to compete with traffic.  No one should ever have
to go hungry, without shelter, etc.  On my list of things that could be
should be done, there are many that are higher than providing people a
special way to the airport that does not compete with traffic.

> |> I know it's inconvenient, but lots of things are.  One might just as
> |> easily say that I should not have to compete with commuters to get
> |> to the airport.  There is no implied duty that airports have to give
> |> you a way to them that does not necessitate taking a street.  It
> |> certainly isn't the duty of taxpayers to provide rail systems for
> |> travelers to airports.  They should be expected to take care of their
> |> own needs first.
> |> 
> Hmm.  Taxpayers have already provided a land wasteful, inefficient and mostly useless way to get to the airport.  Maybe now we can look a little harder and see that there are alternatives to driving everywhere.  Of course, we can wait till it becomes a crisis, it would, after all, be the human thing to do.

See above.  Of the thousands of crises waiting to envelop us with destruction,
I think that alternatives to getting to the airport ranks well down there.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: kane@EE.Stanford.EDU (David E. Kane)
Subject: Re: SF Belt Line (was Re: Santa Cla Summary:
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 06:59:19 GMT

Vaughn Wolffe writes:

>The density requirement is often use to discourage implementation of 
>rail service or to justify implementation of some overly expensive
>infrastructure. Road builders like to say the density between point
>A and point B is low so we should build roads. Once they build the
>roads then they say "See everyone is driving we do not want rail".
>But there is still demand for travel from A to B and back that would
>support rail. My point here is that ridership and travel patterns 
>require multiple considerations in which density is just a part.

It is the densities at A and B, not between them, which counts. In any case, 
ridership prediction models make use of actual trip demand information. It is 
invalid to look at freeway usage and conclude that demand is sufficient to 
support rail service. Trips which start or end in a low density area are not 
candidates for replacement by conventional mass transit, even if they include 
a portion on a well-traveled freeway. The reason why rail projects have poor 
cost/rider numbers is that not many people live and work near train stations, 
and multiple-transfer trips are a pain.
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Modern Passenger Rail Service
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 18:52:55 GMT

Inter-city rail can be a win over trains sometimes, but if the distance is
short enough then you must either have a destination city that
	a) Has good public transit / cheap cabs, or
	b) Rent a car at your destination

Which many would rather not do, so they'll just drive their own car.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Europe is "special"?
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:25:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: adobe.1992Apr6.232502.16049
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <ktvnqmINNjfp@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>Orlando might make much sense.  The distances there are less than 300 
>miles, I believe (Tampa-Orlando is something like 100, Orlando-Miami
>something like 200).  It's flat, warm, and probably has weather less

Orlando-Miami 200 miles? I think it's a little more than that.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Europe is "special"?
Date: 6 Apr 92 05:19:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <3503@bacon.MooreNet.COM> jordan@MooreNet.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
>Vaughn Wolffe <vaughnw@asia.fai.com> writes:
>	There are lots of big cities in this country that are separated
>	by a couple hundred miles for which modern passenger rail serve
>	better than planes.
>Name some. 

There's a possibility that trains might do better in the
Houston-Dallas-Austin/San Antonio triangle.  Houston-Dallas is
something like 220 miles, Houston-Austin is 165 miles, Houston-SA is
about 200 miles.  I lived there, I flew there, I drove there.  Planes
(yes, SW airlines) spend a chunk of time fooling around on the ground,
and the weather there has delayed me as much as four hours in the
past.  My standard method for getting from Houston to Austin was
taking the bus (it was cheap, and I could use city buses in Houston to
get to and from the station in a predictable fashion.  In Austin, the
bus station is marginally more central than the airport, but it's not
a big deal).

Similarly, some sort of a fast train running from Miami to Tampa via
Orlando might make much sense.  The distances there are less than 300 
miles, I believe (Tampa-Orlando is something like 100, Orlando-Miami
something like 200).  It's flat, warm, and probably has weather less
friendly to airplanes than the weather here.  However, car rental is
FL is dirt cheap, so one might argue that the cheapest way to go would
be to rent a car.

Oddly enough, those seem to be places where modern rail has been
seriously proposed.

David Chase
Sun
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: amdahl\!ntmtv\!ames\!ucbvax.berkeley.edu\!ba-transportation
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:03:09 GMT



>From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
>I think you misunderstand the point.  We have a road system.
>Road based mass transit would require a fraction of the current
>system.  There is no need to create a military fleet, police
>force, hospitals, etc. for a road based transit system any

Expanded use of the existing roads requires expanded use of the 
subsidized support systems which are not included in right of way
costs in order to make the road-base mass transit system sound 
cheaper than it is. Besides no moving vehicle uses "a small 
fraction of one lane". It requires all the streets to provide the
flexability that is its suggested benefit. There is a need and an
existing reality to provide and maintain a naval fleet in the 
Persian Gulf for the express purpose to provide for the 
uninterrupted flow of oil. We do not maintain such a fleet in 
other parts of the world where wars continue but do not threaten
oil flow.




>Great!  When you have 1500 passengers that want to travel point A to
>point B regularly, build a train.  If you only have 55, the train is
>overkill.



Check out downtown San Francisco and Highway 101 during "rush" hour.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Amtrak to operate CalTrain
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:48:45 GMT


CalTrain's Joint Powers Board makes Amtrak the new operator.

Last night, Tuesday, April 7, the Peninsula Joint Powers Board
voted to switch from ATE to Amtrak.  There were too many
uncertainties and questions surrounding ATE's bid to become the
new CalTrain operator by July 1.

Earlier, Amtrak and ATE were competing for the right to become
the new CalTrain operator (taking over from Southern Pacific).
The JPB, in an earlier decision, chose ATE over Amtrak due to
ATE's slightly lower bid and it's plans to continue use of 2
people (engineer AND fireman) in train cabs.  JPB members also
said that ATE seemed "hungrier" and more eager to run the service
and do a good job.  Also,  during the original competition between
Amtrak and ATE, Amtrak didn't send their top execs to meetings.
There was a feeling among the JPB that Amtrak would view CalTrain
as just another small fish in a big pond whereas ATE would give
the service more attention.

Though ATE originally won the five-year contract to run CalTrain,
the subsequent negotiation of many details not specifically spelled
out in the original contract/proposal ran into problems.  The main
deal-killer seems to have been liability insurance.  ATE was making
non-negotiable demands for very high levels ($100M) of insurance
and was attaching very detailed and restrictive conditions on it
that would allowed ATE to withdraw from operating the service on
only a 90-day notice.  This issue wound up killing ATE's chance
to run the service last night.

The JPB needed to get something going quick because SP (the current
CalTrain operator) is only going to continue operating CalTrain
until July 1, 1992.  Amtrak has always had a standing offer that
they could step in and start running the service within 90 days.
I think the original loss of the contract to ATE was quite a blow
to Amtrak.  They made some mistakes and didn't really show their
eagerness to run the service strongly enough originally.  Last night
Amtrak tried to fix all that by opening with a speech by Graham
Claytor (their CEO/President).  Perhaps this, plus the bumbling
fumbling and none-too willing to compromise demeanor of ATE's Mr.
Olsen at last night's meeting tipped the scale and Amtrak is now
CalTrain's operator-elect.

--

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: {amdahl|ames|hplabs}!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Modern Passenger Rail Service
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:06:04 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <3572@bacon.MooreNet.COM> jordan@MooreNet.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
>Face facts -- these Interstates would be perfect corridors for rail.
>The biggest problem, I'd guess, is what to do once you get there.
>Dallas has LA-itis, being so spread out as to make most trips there
>*require* a car for getting around.  Houston is getting the same.

Texas cities are a bit of a special case.  There's just about no
zoning, and little land-use planning, so things just grow where they
grow.  The upshot of this is that Houston has fragged into several
"centers" (Downtown, Medical Center, Galleria, Greenway, Woodlands,
plus some blob out near Katy).  If you only need to visit one of those
centers, then life is not too bad without a car.  If, on the other
hand, you need to do anything more than that, you're hosed.  The lack
of physical barriers to growth (mountains, bay, ocean) means that the
city has grown in a fairly low-density manner that is efficient for
individuals in cars -- that is, it has grown as a disk.  Of course,
this is not terribly efficient for conventional mass transit.

David Chase
Sun
From: gnn@mastodon.cs.berkeley.edu (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Technology choice matters
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:50:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sa0q9INNrh5
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: mastodon.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <9204081446.AA06778@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>
>Grade separations are a lot cheaper than aireal or subways. Besides their 
>are lots of freight spurs along the route to San Jose which BART would
>need to separate from and CalTrain would not. In addition CalTrain 
>rolling stock is a quarter of a million dollars cheaper while providing
>more than twice the seating capacity.
>
>
>

Yeah 250,000 cheaper thn 2M dollars !?!?!  What the fuck ?!?! The cars
better whipe your ass when you use the can too.  The new California
cars don't even havce motors !!!  1.7M dollars a car for a trailer car
with some controls, room for bikes and wheelchairs ??!!  What a waste
of money !!!

Later,
George


-- 
Why don't they just hire taller ballet dancers instead of making
them dance on their tip toes ??		M. Rochlin
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: *Is* rail self sufficient?
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:47:11 GMT


>From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
>Concrete and gas are both paid for by car drivers, the people who
>use the concrete and gas.  Train costs are mostly paid for by random 
>tax payers, who don't use the services.  Bus and light rail are
even worse than heavy rail.



Concrete and gas are both paid for by  all tax payers(not just random).
Some of these tax payers are drivers whose property and sales taxes
pay for trains and roads.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: BART and Caltrain
Date: 7 Apr 92 07:02:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: queernet.1992Apr7.070240.8034
Reply-To: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Organization: QueerNet

In article <3468@bacon.MooreNet.COM>, jordan@MooreNet.COM (Jordan Hayes)
writes:
|> My point, to belabor it, was that most European airports have
|> "conventional rail" links to their far-out airports...

...like the Tube to Heathrow, you mean? 
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: karplus@cse.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Modern Passenger Rail Service
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:26:41 GMT
Reply-To: karplus@ce.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus)


Brad Templeton says 
   Inter-city rail can be a win over trains sometimes, but if the
   distance is
   short enough then you must either have a destination city that
        a) Has good public transit / cheap cabs, or
        b) Rent a car at your destination
    Which many would rather not do, so they'll just drive their own car.

I assume Brad meant that rail can be a win over CARS sometimes.
There is another way to increase the radius around the train stations:
allow bicycles on-board the train (as is done in much of Europe).
Bicycling distance of a train station is much larger than walking distance.

I understand that commuter rail surveys have shown a radius of about
1/4 mile for walking, and about 2 mile for either bicycling or
park-and-ride---I'm not sure but I think this is the mean distance
traveled to the station.  Sorry, I don't know where to look up the
reference any more.  Note: I expect that inter-city rail has a much
larger radius 

All my intercity rail trips in the last few years have been with my
bicycle.  I took the train (rather than fly) partly because it is
easier for me to cycle the 40 flat miles to Salinas than to ride over
the Santa Cruz Mountains to San Jose.

Unfortunately, Amtrak makes it almost as hard to travel with a bike as
the airlines do, with much less excuse.  There is no reason for Amtrak to
require that bikes be boxed---they have large enough luggage cars that
they could hang the bikes out of the way, and roll them in and out of
the cars with less chance of damage than tossing the boxed bikes
around.  I've often wondered why Amtrak copies the airlines, rather
than the railroads of the rest of the world, in their luggage policies.

Kevin Karplus
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Europe is "special"?
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:54:03 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Apr13.203617.22187@clipper.ingr.com> fenwick@clipper.ingr.com (Stephen Fenwick) writes:
>Couldn't let this one pass...
>
>
>Trains are *more* susceptible to fog than aircraft, not less--aircraft,
>can fly over fog, snow, and rain; trains have to slog
>their way through it at greatly reduced speeds. This is true for
>all surface obscurations to visibility, and all surface transport.
>
Not true for trains (in Europe at least). In England the AWS sounds an
alarm when the train passes a distant signal that shows the next signal
to be at danger. If the brakes are not applied then full emergency
braking is automatically done. This system dates back to the early years
of the century. I have travelled on Inter City 125s (yes 125mph) that
arrived on time in spite of heavy fog. The French and German systems
are even better. But then in Europe the railways have been kept
up-to-date with continuous small improvements.
>
>Steve Fenwick
>Railfan *and* private pilot
>
Chris Lee
From: fenwick@clipper.ingr.com (Stephen Fenwick)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Europe is "special"?
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:36:17 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

Couldn't let this one pass...

In article <1992Apr2.225827.11108@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, olaf@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Olaf Brandt) writes:
> henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
> >sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions) wrote: 
> >->As for energy consumption, insensitivity to weather, trains win hands down.
> >ever ride a train through a snowstorm or a flood?
> Ever land a plane in the fog?

Not personally, but it is routinely done at many major airports.
It's called a Cat IIIa approach, and the autopilot flys the aircraft
from ILS interception through the landing flare. Visibility and ceiling
requirements are greatly reduced from a normal ILS approach. 
It does require special aircrew and aircraft certification.

Trains are *more* susceptible to fog than aircraft, not less--aircraft,
can fly over fog, snow, and rain; trains have to slog
their way through it at greatly reduced speeds. This is true for
all surface obscurations to visibility, and all surface transport.

Aircraft are much more at risk from high surface winds, but then so
are trains/cars/buses.

Steve Fenwick
Railfan *and* private pilot

-- 
Stephen C. Fenwick, Simulation Engineer  |  fenwick@clipper.ingr.com (work)
Intergraph APD, 2400 Geng Road           |  scf@btr.com (home)
Palo Alto, California  94303    +----------------------------------------------
(415) 852-2325/494-8800         |   PP-ASEL-IA (and looking for cheap wings)