HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article 
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:54:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.020055.2939@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> In article <C1DHDH.7xn@news.fai.com> vaughnw@hadar.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
|> 	I'm not sure that CalTrain's staff is good at this kind of
|> promotion. The most they seem capable of is special trains to the Bay
|> Meadows racetrack and the Stanford U stadium, though I'd be happy to
|> see counterexamples.

I agree.  CalTrain has lousy to non-existant promotion.


|> But BART _does_ perform very efficiently, it must be conceded.

Efficient performance means getting a lot for a little.  It means
delivering a lot of performance with minimum resources.  Just because
BART runs frequently and works pretty well, doesn't mean it's an
efficient operation.  I don't feel qualified to say whether BART is
"efficient" or not, but I my impression is that there is a lot of
room for improvement.  That's based on the steady stream of articles
in the papers over the years about internal BART problems of all
kinds.

I also don't think that BART is very efficient to extend.  The
SFO and more threoretical extensions down the peninsula and from
Fremont to San Jose seem to have price tags on the order of $150
million/mile or more.  That's not so efficient-sounding when compared
to the cost of installing a standard transit rail service running
on standard railroad tracks with overhead electrification.

|> So much so that some CalTrain supporters use BART as some kind of
|> model of service ("We'll get BART performance at half the BART
|> cost!!").

Because some transit advocates would like to see BART-like performance
on the Peninsula, that doesn't mean (or say) anything about its
*efficiency*.  They are really quite different statistics.  So how
is BART efficiency?  How do *you* meaure it?  It might be good, it
might be bad, but most people like it's performance.

Now, if we can get BART performance for half the cost, then that
would be efficient use of limited transit capital, wouldn't it?

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Pushbuttons at crossings (was Signal Synchronization)
Date: 22 Jan 93 03:59:30 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1993Jan21.054030.20958@resonex.com> frankm@resonex.com (Frank Muennemann) writes:
>IMHO ANYONE who believes that motorists deserve more respect than
>cyclists/pedestrians or that they deserve more convenience or govenment
>resources (read "tax money") just because they own and operate private
>automobiles has his head screwed on backwards.  In too many respects,
>motorists already get a free ride from the rest of us.

I agree.

>As a cyclist (and motorist!)  who obeys traffic laws, I'm frankly pissed
>off that Mr. Klorese thinks I have to convert cyclists to perfect
>compliance with laws which were written to disadvantage them before
>he'll even WORRY about my safety and convenence.

It's not even the rolling stops I'm principally worried about.  At least
two out of three bicyclists I see make no attempt at stopping before
making a right turn at a light or stop sign...

I *am* worried about your safety and convenience, but *your* and *my*
safety much more than your *or* my convenience.  Anything that will make
it more difficult for bicyclists to throw themselves, uninterrupted, into
intersections is OK in my book.  Because let's face it: in a confrontation
between a bicyclist and a motorist, no matter who's write, the bicyclist is
pizza.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Sometimes you wake up.  Sometimes the fall kills you.  And sometimes, when
you fall, you fly."                                                -- N. Gaiman
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SPUR meeting on SF Transbay Terminal
Keywords: CalTrain extension Transbay Terminal
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:17:18 GMT
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Organization: lbl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <1jq1pj$730@agate.berkeley.edu>, forags@smokey (Al Stangenberger)
writes:
|> In article <1993Jan22.225817.20544@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
|> writes:
|> 
|> >There is the question of how much room there will be at the TT: there
|> >are four lanes inside, and a CalTrain and a CalSpeed train would
|> >occupy one lane/track each, and would possibly be long enough to
|> >occupy some of the access track.
|> >
|> For railroad operations, Transbay can (did) support six tracks.  Each of
|> the three vehicular lanes had two tracks, and some trains loaded from
|> the left side of the train.

This is particularly clear when you are in the terminal waiting
for a bus and gaze blankly up at the ceiling.  You can see where
they cut out some columns and put in others.  As I recall, the
columns were moved from between the train tracks to the middle
of the platforms so the buses can pass each other.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy)
Subject: Bringing CalTrain to Market St. (or nearby)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:26:40 GMT



With all the talk about a ballpark South of Market, the inevitable
issue arises:  What can be done to get CalTrain to link up to the
Muni Metro and BART system downtown.  Studies have shown that CalTrain
ridership would soar dramatically if this were done.  Right now, the
station is in the middle of nowhere, and those working downtown must
take a bus from CalTrain to Market St.
-- 
-------------------
Daniel A. Murphy        Net:         murphy@well.sf.ca.us
San Francisco, CA       GEnie:       D.MURPHY11
U.S.A.                  MCI Mail:    377-7947
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: rnewman@athena.mit.edu (Ron Newman)
Subject: Re: Pushbuttons at crossings (was Signal Synchronization) 
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:38:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.054030.20958@resonex.com> frankm@resonex.com (Frank Muennemann) writes:
>Let's try to be sane about this issue: If govenrnment is going to 
>spend money to make motoring more conveneient, let's at least bring
>cyclists up to a comparable level of convenience and safety.  Marking
>trip wires, and keeping them calibrated so that a bicyle can trip
>them would be the MINIMUM!  Special lights for cyclists or laws which
>permit cyclists to safely cross the street (e.g. at T-intersections)
>against the light can't cost very much compared to what 5-lane freeways
>cost to build.

I've never understood why there is so much emphasis put on getting
bicycle-friendly detector loops.    I can think of at least two
approaches that cost less and are better for the bicyclist:

(a) Put a sign at the intersection reading, "Bicycles Need Not Stop
At This Light"

(b) Get your town or city to pass a resolution saying that no municipal
funds will be spent to enforce any traffic laws against bicyclists.

In Massachusetts, we effectively have (b).   The result is that
bicycles can get where they want easily, often faster than cars,
and no money is spent at all.




--
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article 
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:00:55 GMT

In article <C1DHDH.7xn@news.fai.com> vaughnw@hadar.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>
>
: Instead of complaining about how much BART costs and how much better
: and cheaper Caltrain is--and blaming the difference on
: 'salesmanship'--wouldn't it be more effective to learn to sell
: CalTrain as effectively?  Perhaps BARt has found *effective* ways to
: sell itself to commuters that CalTrain has (virtuously) avoided.  If
>
>
>I think you are right. All CalTrain has to do is make a bunch of 
>promises that it can't keep but that people believe are doable.
>Obviously people will pay more for image than substance, so CalTrain
>should tell them want they want to hear.

	That's not the point. I have a whole collection of BART
handouts, and many of them advertise BART as a way to getting to
destinations other than one's place of work. I have a little pamphlet
calling BART a "Shoppers' Express", describing how to get to various
Bay Area shopping centers, for example. Another such pamphlet
advertises how to get to various other interesting spots, like
museums. There are also lots of handouts describing how to get to
various special events via BART. In effect, BART's staff advertises
BART as being very _usable_.

	I'm not sure that CalTrain's staff is good at this kind of
promotion. The most they seem capable of is special trains to the Bay
Meadows racetrack and the Stanford U stadium, though I'd be happy to
see counterexamples.

[BART == pork flame deleted...]

	But BART _does_ perform very efficiently, it must be conceded.
So much so that some CalTrain supporters use BART as some kind of
model of service ("We'll get BART performance at half the BART
cost!!").
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: nickh@informix.com (Nick Hecker)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Price of Gas
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:59:03 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Originator: nickh@infmx





I recently noticed something about gas prices in California
after making a couple of trips back to Michigan and Kansas.
Maybe I just missed something (like a new tax!).

I use super unleaded in my old Chevy so it doesn't ping and
while I was in both Michigan and Kansas I noticed the average
price running from $1.12 to $1.16 per gallon.
When I got back to CA I realized that the average price, even
at ARCO, was any where from $1.38 to $1.52.

I haven't been able to keep track of local tax issues lately,
but has some huge new tax been added to the price of CA gas?
It seems to have been this high since the beginning of last
summer.

nick
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Stopping at Signs (was Re: Pushbuttons at crossings...)
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:27:30 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <jyc.727721777@Leland>, jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
> 
>    What astonishes me more than any other traffic phenomenon is how
> often drivers run red lights.  I can say without exaggeration that in
> most places it is routine for drivers to do this.  The notion that the
> yellow light means you're supposed to slow down and prepare to stop
> rather than speed up in a (usually futile) effort to beat the red seems
> never to have occurred to most motorists.
> 
>    Surely this behavior causes many deaths and injuries -- does anyone
> have any figures?  Why on earth don't the police enforce this blatant
> lawbreaking?  I think the fine for running a red light should be raised
> to several hundred dollars, and then communities should consider the
> bozos who run lights as a sort of "cash cow" to be milked by stationing
> policemen to hand out tickets to every one of them.  It would be like
> shooting fish in a barrel.

Careful what you wish for.  You might get it, and more.  If this happened,
you'd also have several hundred dollar fines for bicycles running red lights
or stop signs and for pedestrians jaywalking.  In the south bay, there
aren't too many red lights run, in my opinion.  The number is tolerable.
Remember also that completing a left turn after a light goes red is not
considered running a red light.  And also that you aren't considered to
be running a red light as long as your car's front bumper is in the
intersection when the light changes to red.

jeremy
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: rail car capacity
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:53:44 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1993Jan26.015211.2762@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	Maybe I should have been clearer. It looked like there wasn't
>much of a railing; maybe to about a foot or so. If there was a
>standard-height railing on the upper floors of the CalTrain passenger
>cars, then I may not have noticed it (I've never stayed long up there
>because the windows there are so Ikky).

[Aside:  The windows are just as ikky on the lower level.  Maybe
Amtrak will speed up the replacement schedule.]

The view from below is a bit decieving.  There is a rail a little bit
lower than most people's waist and then the storage shelf is about
head level.  There is enough metal there to keep you from accidentally
falling through.  In fact, it is a bit difficult for some of the
children (read:brats) to crawl through.

--
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,rec.railroad,ba.politics
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:31:11 GMT

Jeremy Higdon includes about 40 lines of old text just to write:
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> In fact, for many hours after the quake, the only transit in SF was
> the good old diesel bus.

Let's try not to include more than is necessary for proper context.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:3207 ba.politics:8288 ca.environment:1210
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.politics,ca.environment
Subject: Re: SPUR meeting on SF Transbay Terminal
Keywords: CalTrain extension Transbay Terminal
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:28:30 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1jr143INNh7l@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>
>I was shocked to read that someone thought the Transbay Terminal
>needed to be torn down and eliminated in the Examiner the other day.
>It struck me as one of the most idiotic, short-sighted things that
>could be done in this day and age; *reducing* a transit facility.  All
>I saw, though, was the Examiner's editorial on it.  What possible
>reason could they have *for* doing it?

Perhaps they see it as an entire city block devoted solely to being
a bus stop.  They might see the same service with on street bus
zones and free up very valuable downtown real estate.  (Personally,
my view is between those two.)

>I was just up in the Federal Jobs Center on 2nd and Main Streets
>yesterday.  The cafeteria on the 2nd floor has a good view of where
>they are tearing down the freeway ramps.  From that perspective it
>looks like the bus access will be next, but that doesn't stop it from
>being an utterly stupid thing to do.

The ramps are being torn down because they used to lead to the late,
unlamented Embarcadero Freeway.  There are no plans to rebuild that
freeway, so the ramps are going too.  The bus ramps go somewhere so
they are not slated for demolition.

--
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: lile@netcom.com (Lile Elam)
Subject: Need a ride to Usenix...
Keywords: Usenix ride share
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:10:54 GMT


Hi,

I have a friend who needs a ride to Usenix. She is in the Bay Area
and would be willing to split the cost of gas. She would like to
arrive there by late Tuesday afternoon so that she can attend the
GNU BOF. So, if anyone is interested, please send her mail 
directly.

You can reach her at jennifer@eitech.com


thanks!

-lile





-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lile Elam	    |  "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are."
lile@netcom.com     |		
Un*x Admin / Artist |			 Buckaroo Banzai
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: CalTrain windows
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:23:59 GMT

In article <1562@dosbears>, mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie) writes:
> [Aside:  The windows are just as ikky on the lower level.  Maybe
> Amtrak will speed up the replacement schedule.]

Point of clarification: Amtrak doesn't call the shots on the window issue.

This is up to the JPB to fund.  And while we're on the subject, yes,
the JPB has agreed to accelerate the window-replacment program.  At
the previous rate of replacement (something like 24/month), it would
have taken another 7 or 8 years to finish.  Under the accelerated
replacement program I think they said they'd be done in a year or
two.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment
From: vaughnw@hadar.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Originator: vaughnw@cotati
Organization: Fujitsu NTS
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:15:01 GMT



>Well....  My academic background (such as it is) is in Engineering.  I
>firmly believe in redundancy.  I'd like to see *both* BART and
>CalTrain running down the Peninsula--and along separate (as widely
>separate as possible) ROWs.  That way, if one system goes down for
>more than a trivial amount of time, the other can pick up at least
>some of the load.  I don't think it should be an "either-or" choice.


There two things wrong with this. One, you would appreciate as an
engineer, is that railroad engineering is an established field that
has developed techniques and methods that allow not only redundacy 
but fast recovery. For the 89 quake CalTrain was up and running
almost immediately with enough capacity to handle the surge of 
people that missed the earlier train and those who decided to leave
earlier than scheduled. It continued on schedule without the rapid
deterioration of equipment that BART experienced. For the 1906 quake
SP carried 130,000 car loads of food and supplies into the city and
224,000 people out to safety. Most if not all of BART's problems and
excessive costs stem from its pushers(promoters) ignoring established
railroad engineering knowledge and practice.

The second thing wrong with this opinion is that this region cannot
even afford the present BART let alone the $8-10 billion it would 
require to continue along the peninsula and over to Fremont. Adding
CalTrain to that cost would be even more detrimental. The state and 
federal government are in serious serious economic trouble. Due in 
no small part to overspending on pork barrel projects that not only
fail to provide the necessary societal benefit but, end up costing 
even more government resources. Not having a transportation system 
that will get people around the region efficientyly within the next
10-15 years will be be the death knell for the region. Expending
$8-10 billion alone or plus road projects and other non-BART projects
would also be a death knell for the region. 

It is an "either-or" choice. The history books and the study of
cultural anthropology are full of the results of societies that
made the wrong choice on the allocation of resources.


   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Bringing CalTrain to Market St. (or nearby)
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:22:45 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <murphy.727799200@well.sf.ca.us> murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy) writes:
>
>With all the talk about a ballpark South of Market, the inevitable
>issue arises:  What can be done to get CalTrain to link up to the
>Muni Metro and BART system downtown.

A recurrent theme in this newsgroup.  

First, ignoring the ballpark issue, there are two ways to decently
link CalTrain and Muni.  Either extend CalTrain to Market Street
or extend the subway to the train.  The latter alternative does
not connect [directly] CalTrain and BART but would provide a much
better situation than exists today.  I think that the current
Metro extension "to Potrero Hill" might accomplish that.

Extending CalTrain to Market Street is a more complex problem. A
subway route would be quite expensive and would, additionally,
require electrification of CalTrain (which is, I think, planned.)
A surface route would be politically unfeasible.  Either CalTrain
would not be used frequently (in which case why spend the money)
or it would totally strangle auto and commercial traffic along 
its route (which won't be popular).

Second, the ballpark proposed site(s) have been China Basin or
7th & Townsend (which is the west end of the current yard).  That
site would compound the problem.  (Although, having a large
subway station under the stadium would really ease the problem.)

--
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: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Dumbarton rail bridge was Re: SPUR meeting on SF Transbay Terminal
Date: 26 Jan 1993 02:20:47 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <C1FGw4.KvD@telebit.com>, bjork@telebit.com (Steven Bjork) writes:
|> The Dumbarton line is already owned by JPB as part of the
|> deal for the Peninsula line, trackage rights to Gilroy,
|> and sale of the Vasona and Moffett branches.

<< completely idle speculation follows >>

How 'bout retrofitting the Dumbarton line so that busses, as well
as trains, could run on it?  Maybe it could speed up the DB bus
(which I've only taken off-rush-hours).  If it got enough traffic
then it could help make the case for (re)starting rail routes.
I've been wondering about this in other circumstances, such as
for the BayLink idea, to allow busses, as well as trains, on the
rail line, to help sell it.

<< end of idle speculation >>

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation