HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: RR bridges, was Cost of transit systems vs highways
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:02:05 GMT
Keywords: motor

In article <5703@osc.COM> Joe Keane <jgk@osc.com> writes:
>I think it would be fun to take a BART car and soup it up, say better motors
>with tons of cooling, better power electronics (things have come a long way
>since BART was built), maybe better pickups from the power rail, and probably
>some other things i can't though of right now.  I don't see any reason why
>BART can't run as fast as TGV.
>
>Of course this is kind of pointless since BART stations are so close together
>that they rarely have a chance to get to 80 MPH anyway.  I mean, what good is
>it to be able to do 200 MPH between Fremont and Union City?  If you wanted to
>do it right you'd have to have express and local tracks like real subways.
>And use standard gauge, heh heh.

There's certainly nothing in your proposal that requires standard
gauge.  Broad-gauge would--if anything--be better.  Wasn't higher
speed and greater stability why I. K. Brunell was using broad-gauge on
the Great Western Railway in the 1830s?

	--Hal
>--
>Joe Keane, amateur mathematician
>jgk@osc.com (uunet!amdcad!osc!jgk)


-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain/Amtrak ROW maintenance
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:18:57 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug13.195621.21092@wdl.loral.com> gjs@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Gregory Scott) writes:
>I was just out looking around the Santa Clara CalTrain station
>and noticed that weeds are growing all over the place, between
>the tracks and even between the rails.  Is this a foreshadowing
>of the kind of service we are going to see on CalTrain from
>Amtrak?  Maintenance is so low on the priorities that weeds
>are over taking the Right of Way?

	First off, one might ask if it is really necessary to get rid
of the weeds.

	But one might bring in some goats to eat them. Or even some
cows, giving new meaning to the moniker CowTrain.

	As to the problems with CalTrain after the Amtrak takeover, I
would like to comment that Amtrak has been managing CalTrain only for
the last couple of weeks, and any maintenance problems CalTrain may
have must be a lot older than Amtrak's time as manager.

>BTW, in the Santa Clara yard is a long string of gons filled
>with coal.  Does anyone know where they are going?  What 
>around here uses coal for fuel?

	Electric power plants, most likely.

	The only other big present-day use of coal in the US I know of
is iron smelting, and I've never heard of an iron-smelting center in
the Bay Area. The US synfuels industry (if any of it is operating!) is
hardly a big business.
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:06:58 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <4671@bacon.IMSI.COM> jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
>Vaughn Wolffe <vaughnw@asia.fai.com> writes:
>
>	The reality is that even on systems like BART disabled people
>	do not ride transit enough to justify the cost.
>
>What's the "cost" to society if you make disabled people immobile by
>not providing access?  What formula did you use to come up with this
>statement?

For once, Vaughn is probably right about something.  In most
Canadian cities, including Montreal and Ottawa, the local transit
agency provides free, chauffered door-to-door van services for
disabled people.  They believe, and it certainly may be true, that
this is cheaper than equipping all the buses and subway stations
for handicapped people.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Standing Room Only on BART
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:20:54 GMT



>From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
>People stand on BART for short periods of time.  It only really happens
>on the most crowded runs (victim of its own success?) for the portion


BS. My friends ride everyday from Fremont(some from SJ). There is almost
always some standing. One of the original promises was that trains would
run so frequently that no one would stand for that distance. Another
promise was that it would reduce congestion and be a boon to the 
communities it served. Yet highway congestion and expansion have 
continued along all the BART lines. It took them until 1991 to carry the
amount of people they promised to carry in 1975. That's hardly a measure
of success. I have seen standing on CalTrain and some parking lots are
full. I still do not call that a success.




>goes at over 70/MPH and dumps a large number of people off at
>Embarcadero, so the overall speed figure of 35? doesn't apply here.


It applies if you are standing on a train for 30+ miles.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Disabled access
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:35:23 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bike2work

With regards to handicapped access, this is something that offers
great potential with regards to bicycle access to transit, since
the two modes share common needs ( e.g. stairs are often 
problematic, room to park vehicles on transit vehicles).

I think that if transportation agencies tried to enfranchise cyclists, and
use common facilities for cyclists *and* handicapped (of course, with
the proviso that handicapped folks would have priority), that the
additional expense could be compensated for.

I've also often wondered what the deal is with these lifts? It seems
that the mechanisms are often so complex that they break down 
frequently. What would be the problem with using a ramp, the 
steepness of the incline? If this is the problem, couldn't some
sort of "winch" mechanism be used?

It constantly amazes me that despite our society's abiltiy to create
all sorts of high-tech wizzy things that this problem remains so
intractible.

Bill

--
Bill Michel			
bm@eng.sun.com		These views are my own, not Sun's.
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: So why not a water taxi?
Date: 21 Aug 1992 00:24:50 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: ca
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154
Keywords: Alameda,boat

Water Taxis sound like fun -- I wonder if there are examples from
other US cities that could serve as a model?

Between Oakland and Alameda, it would probably be simpler to just
equip all buses that go through the tubes to have good bike racks.
I know people have lobbied AC Transit on this for years, but don't
know the status of it.

On SFO, how 'bout a water-taxi connection to the Oakland Airport,
so that the AirBART buses could travel
   Coliseum BART <--> Oakland Airport <--> San Francisco Airport
(with the vans/buses driving onto the small boat).  That would be
a relatively cheap/fast BART connection for those of us on the East Bay.
I'm sure this won't happen though.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: RR bridges, was Cost of transit systems vs highways
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:02:40 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: na
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Aug18.155515.28562@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
|> Two data points . . .  The Zephyr used to run at 80 mph across Wyoming
|> (before the route was changed between Ogden and Denver).  The Flying
|> Scotsman hit iver 100 mph in its heyday--and that was steam power.
|> 
|> One would expect Amtrak to be able to beat either of theose now.
|> 

Bwahahahah.  Sorry, but Amtrak going anywhere near one hundred miles
per hour give me the hebe gebes.  I don't think an F40 can do more
than 80 with a full load of passenger equipment.  One of the diesel
watchers would know better than I.

Later,
George


-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Speed of Portland LRVs
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:10:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> Most current LRVs can travel at 55mph, which they do on private rights of 
> way.  MAX (Portland) is very speedy once out of downtown, ...

It isn't that fast.  I was recently in Portland. It takes about
25 minutes from (I think Gateway station, near I-205) to downtown.
The Clark County express buses that make the trip do it in less
than 15.  Unfortunately, they do not run very often.

jeremy
From: wbrown@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (Bill Brown)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant nose BART
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:22:10 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.243.192.17

In article <9208121517.AA01036@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>
>>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>
	...
>>One difficulty
>>might be in maintaining low grades; having experienced Amtrak trains'
>>slow accelerations, I'm not sure that a typical Amtrak train could
>>climb out of a duplicate of the BART tunnel (and a broader one at
>>that!) without a helper
>
>
>Amtrak trains (regular trains) can climb higher grades than BART.
>What does acceleration have to do with climbing ability? What do
>you know about the contours at the bottom of the bay or the 
>traction ability of real railroads? You haven't even read the study.

I think you are mistaken in the case of grade-climbing ability. unless by
the statement "Amtrak trains (regular trains) can climb higher grades than
BART" you are refering to the Donner Pass line which is obviously "higher"
than BART.

>	...	

>   Bullshit. Do some homework.

Perhaps sir, in this particular case, you might take your own advice.

Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own and have	    |
    nothing to do with the official policy or the   |  -bill
    management of L.B.L, who probably couldn't      |   wlbrown@lbl.gov
    care less about employees who play with trains. |
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: The Rebuilding of the Wrecked West Oakland I-880 Segment
Keywords: 880 BART traffic stuff
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:06:40 GMT

In article <4251@wet.UUCP>, editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson) writes:
> 
> In the second case, however, the traffic is bad enough (and
> for little enough reason) that more southeast-Bay commuters
> could probably be lured onto BART (or any other useful
> transit system) if it actually went where and when they
> wanted to go.  So long as BART ends in noFREMONTwhere, it's
> not going to do many southeast-bay people much good.

Perhaps some of the express routes serving BART should be expanded
to all day service.  Currently, the 180 is the only one with all day
service.  It makes the trip from Fremont BART to downtown SJ in
pretty good time -- only about 45 minutes.  I don't know how
many miles that is (probably about 20, for an average speed of
27 mph), but it certainly seems faster than LRT would make the
trip, based on current examples thereof.  The worst part of the
trip is the section on 880 between Montague and Brokaw where the
pavement looks to be the original concrete.  Once that is fixed,
it should be a pretty smooth ride.  It will also help to have
HOV lanes on 880.

jeremy
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: self supporting transport?
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:12:45 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <133726@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.142835@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> >For the most part they never have and never will.  As early as the 1910s and
> >1920s transit systems could not support themselves.
> [This]
> >seems to be acknowledged now by those who plan transit systems.  Without
> >a subisdy from the gov't transit systems don't exist.  This goes for
> >rails as well as roads.
> 
> As a matter of fact, there is only one rail urban transit system in the
> whole world that can support itself, including capital expenditures.
> That is Hong Kong's subway.  A large part of its income comes not from
> fares, but from the selling and leasing of air rights over its tracks
> and stations.  Real estate in Hong Kong is so expensive that this 
> provides the transit agency with a large, secure, source of money.
> 
> Ed
> ed@wente.llnl.gov
> 
> 

I wonder how many auto systems support themselves?  Do people consider
the European systems, with $2.00+ per gallon gasoline taxes, high VAT
on new cars, etc., to be 'paying' for themselves?

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: So why not a water taxi?
Keywords: Alameda,boat
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:32:19 GMT

   I always thought another good idea would be a water taxi from the San
Francisco Airport to the San Francisco Ferry Building.  But maybe this
makes too much sense ... 
--


Jon Corelis               jon@lindy.stanford.edu
Stanford University       BITNET:  BR.JGC@RLG.STANFORD.EDU
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:37:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug20.093259@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>In article <9208201405.AA02544@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>|> CalTrain per passenger mile  19 cents   BART  23 cents.
>
>Hmm.  Well Vancouver's Sky Train costs about 9.8 cents
>per passenger mile and is much more like BART then CalTrain.
>
>Maybe we should replace CalTrain with SkyTrain technology?

I lived in Vancouver in 90-91.  SkyTrain is automated.  No drivers.
The system does work, and I won't knock it because of that, but it
seems to me all the cost of complete grade separation and so forth that
is what people complain about BART also comes with SkyTrain.  SkyTrain
is probably cheaper, but I suspect that this is because the cars,
platforms, and trains are much smaller (it's light rail, compared to
BART or CalTrain's heavy rail).  I haven't seen any figures on it
really, though -- these are speculations, based on riding it occasionally.

Personally I have fantasies of seeing a single rail system, running on
the four existing tunnels under Market Street, the existing BART
tracks (converted to standard gauge), light rail corridors on El
Camino Real on the Peninsula and San Pablo/14th St in the East Bay 
and in San Jose, and on express lines down major freeway corridors...

I'm not holding my breath, though.  It's probably not even *possible*,
what with varying tunnel and car dimensions.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
        "Men make history, but they do not do so under 
         conditions of their own choosing." -- Karl Marx
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:45:08 GMT

In article <171odjINN2s2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug20.093259@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> >In article <9208201405.AA02544@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> >|> CalTrain per passenger mile  19 cents   BART  23 cents.
> >
> >Hmm.  Well Vancouver's Sky Train costs about 9.8 cents
> >per passenger mile and is much more like BART then CalTrain.
> >
> >Maybe we should replace CalTrain with SkyTrain technology?
> 
> I lived in Vancouver in 90-91.  SkyTrain is automated.  No drivers.
> The system does work, and I won't knock it because of that, but it
> seems to me all the cost of complete grade separation and so forth that
> is what people complain about BART also comes with SkyTrain.  SkyTrain
> is probably cheaper, but I suspect that this is because the cars,
> platforms, and trains are much smaller (it's light rail, compared to
> BART or CalTrain's heavy rail).  I haven't seen any figures on it
> really, though -- these are speculations, based on riding it occasionally.

Skytrain's classification is a matter of debate.  BC Transit calls
it ALRT (Advanced Light Rapid Transit).  Others debate whether it's
really light or heavy rail.  It doesn't really matter what you call
it; it seems to work well.  I don't see why they couldn't use overhead
catenary rather than third rail for it, if grade separation is a
problem.  By the way, one key advantage it has is that the cars are
about 1/3 the weight of a so-called light rail car (means a lot less
electricity to move it).

> Personally I have fantasies of seeing a single rail system, running on
> the four existing tunnels under Market Street, the existing BART
> tracks (converted to standard gauge), light rail corridors on El
> Camino Real on the Peninsula and San Pablo/14th St in the East Bay 
> and in San Jose, and on express lines down major freeway corridors...
> 
> I'm not holding my breath, though.  It's probably not even *possible*,
> what with varying tunnel and car dimensions.

I don't think this would be so great.  Light rail is too slow to
be an express line.  Given a corridor/ROW, light rail is the
slowest alternative between BART type/commuter rail/light rail/buses.
It is also more expensive to run (per vehicle) than either Skytrain
or buses, meaning that it would be less frequent at a given operating
cost.

My fantasy would be a mix of Skytrain-like automated transit (ALRT),
high speed rail, and bus service.  Put the high speed rail on the major
corridors with a parallel ALRT for local service, and the buses on
the minor corridors, allowing for extra lanes at stops (so that skip-stop
service is easy).  If pollution is a concern, you can use trolley buses
for the locals and diesel/CNG for the express service.

jeremy
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:39:08 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <9208201523.AA02558@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
|> >quarter million Bay Area commuters.  There are still people who
|> >would rather sit in traffic than have to be subject to the 
|> >vagaries of CalTrain.  
|> 
|> The same is true for those people on I-80, 24, 880, 580 and the 
|> Bay Bridge with respect to BART.
|> 
Did you know that 2 in 10 vehicles using 580 are coming from further away
than where BART reaches?

|> 
|> The expansion of BART is not taking place in downtowns but it still
|> is costing $100 million a mile. It doesn't matter if it has the
|> potential of carrying more people if the overwhelming majority do
|> not choose to ride it.
|> 
|> 
I believe someone pointed out that one of the extensions is only
costing 50Million/mile.  So I guess your blanket 100 is now bunk.

|> First, you must get your facts straight before you make anymore
|> sweeping conclusions. According to BART's own ridership reports
|> is carries a little less than 250,000 riders or 125,000 people
|> a day. Three quarters of whom travel to or completely within 
|> SF.
|> 
As compared to the paltry 20,000/day on CalTrain?


-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: pete@frosty.Rational.COM (Pete Coe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Mass Transit Construction in History
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:26:59 GMT
Distribution: ba

Much of the London underground was built out of the urban areas, and was
financed by property development along the lines.  This even gave rise 
to terms such as Metro lands, the area bordering the Metropolitan line.
Within the urban part of London, the lines were nearly always built
under roads, Mainly because there would then be no claims against the 
railway for subsidence.  More recent lines have been built on direct 
routes because the shorter distance saves enough money to pay for
any claims.  

In Britain if a property owner will not sell their property the 
government can impose a compulsory purchase order, which imposes a
fair market rate for the property.  So the owner comes away with 
something at least.

--
-- Pete Coe
-- RATIONAL
-- Object-Oriented Products
--
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: AirBART shuttle question ...
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:46:59 GMT
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Distribution: ba
Organization: lbl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

I've taken AirBART lots of times.  I recall that it used to be $1
each way and is now $2 each way.  I think its great, but wish that
it was on its own roadway and so could speed past other traffic.
Plenty of space for luggage.

re: the slow-maglev discussion, I certainly hope that the airport/BART
link doesn't get caught up in that, as I'd like to see something
built before I retire...........

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:47:33 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <1992Aug17.142835@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>For the most part they never have and never will.  As early as the 1910s and
>1920s transit systems could not support themselves.
[This]
>seems to be acknowledged now by those who plan transit systems.  Without
>a subisdy from the gov't transit systems don't exist.  This goes for
>rails as well as roads.

As a matter of fact, there is only one rail urban transit system in the
whole world that can support itself, including capital expenditures.
That is Hong Kong's subway.  A large part of its income comes not from
fares, but from the selling and leasing of air rights over its tracks
and stations.  Real estate in Hong Kong is so expensive that this 
provides the transit agency with a large, secure, source of money.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov


Newsgroups: ba.transportation