HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Midnight 1.5-mile trip to Safeway
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:51:38 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Dec18.005550.10409@adobe.com> jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli) writes:
>Geez, only 1.5 miles?  Leave the car at home and hop on your bike.
>
>  "but... *Midnight*???"
>
>Big deal.  Throw on a jacket and reflective vest or triangle.  And turn 
>on your lights -- just like a car.

My wife doesn't like walking in the dark. Riding a bike leaves her feeling
about as exposed to crime as walking does. Sure, there are car-jackings in
the ant-farms but in the suburbs, driving a car gives her a much better sense
of security and that is worth a very high price.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: bjork@telebit.com (Steven Bjork)
Subject: BART concrete ties, was Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:04:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.183159.1500@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>	Having durable track. BART has this; a very large fraction of
>BART's roadbed is either concrete slab or concrete ties on gravel. The
>only wooden ties I've ever seen are at the switches or some leftovers
>from the original test line that had been incorporated into the BART
>system.

The line to Concord has only every fifth tie concrete. 
It's the *quietest* part of the BART system I've ridden.

Note that Harre Demorro forcast Dire Results when this was
done. Demorro wrote hysterical articles for the SF Chronicle
about the cost overruns that led to the decision to place
wooden ties along that stretch of line.

Of course, Demorro thinks that anything on rails that lacks
a trolley pole or external boiler should be scrapped.

His columns in Pacific Rail News were just as turgid. When 
he was dropped from the magazine a number of folks wrote
in congratulating the magazine for their good choice.

--Steven
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:51:42 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <tj0gd9k@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>In article <1510@dosbears>, mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie) writes:
>> Some recent discussions in this group made me wonder about the
>> requirements for more frequent scheduling on the CalTrain line.
>> 
>> Assumptions:
>> 	- 15 minute frequency between SF and Cahill
>> 
>> It requires 10 trains running constantly to provide 15 minute frequency.
>> Throw in two more and you can take care of the zero turnaround time,
>> the exactly 1:30 trip, and maybe include Tamien.  Service to Gilroy
>> would require, maybe, two additional trains to meet the current service
>> level.  It would require about 20 trains to serve SF to Gilroy every
>> 15 minutes.
>
>Actually, with no turnaround time, that would be 12 trains.  A more

Mea culpa.  My only defense is that this is not my first math
error and everyone should be suspicious of my calculations.

>realistic number would service Tamien and allow about 20 minutes at
>each end.  That would require 16.  Using the standard 20% spares makes
>19, and then you need to service Gilroy.  So figure on 22 trains
>(locomotives, really, right?) to provide 15 minute service from
>Tamien to SF and 45 minute service to Gilroy.

I think your 16 is a bit high but I like your 45-min Gilroy
service (except that I would make it hourly).  In any case,
the numbers are in the same ballpark so there is no real
argument.

>> Currently there are four "stations" with proper separation of
>> passengers and track - SJ, Lawrence, Palo Alto, and SF.  (I'm
>> ignoring south of SJ because I don't know that area and it is 
>> new to the system.)
>
>What do you mean by "proper"?  What's wrong with Sunnyvale or
>Redwood City, for instance?  They seem perfectly serviceable.

The key word was not "proper" but "separation".  Only in those 
four stations is it not required to cross a track to get to
the train. (There is a fence at Lawrence and Palo Alto and it
is silly to cross the tracks in SF.  Of the four, only SJ does
not make it difficult to impossible -- but they do have an
undercrossing.)

The stations at Sunnyvale, Redwood City, and all the rest are
"serviceable" but dangerous.  Note that CalTrain does not allow
a train to enter a station if another train is already there
(except for the four stations I mentioned).  
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2858 ca.environment:1102 sci.environment:13690
From: forags@smokey (Al Stangenberger)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:20:57 GMT
Organization: U.C. Forestry & Res. Mgt.
NNTP-Posting-Host: smokey.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec18.170216.18078@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>First methane isn't lighter than air, nor are the heavier propane or
>butane.

Methane certainly is lighter than air, one can use it to inflate balloons which
will fly (although admittedly with much less lift than helium or hydrogen will
provide for the same volume).

According to the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, air has a density of about
1.29 grams per liter at 0 C and 760 mm Hg, while methane's density is
.7168 g/liter.  Relative to air, methane has a specific gravity of .5544.


-- 
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: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:08:24 GMT
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Distribution: ba
Organization: lbl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

re: train frequency and grade separations

It seem as though any traffic problems that the lack of grade
separations causes would be worst during commute hours,
when there are the most trains running and cars driving.

Thus, I can't see how running extra trains during non-commute
times would make much difference in this, so should not
be an impediment.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:03:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.180254.29270@adobe.com> jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.021225.242@netcom.com> ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
>
>>Isn't natural gas a non-renewable resource?  Is it a good idea to tie 
>>our economy to something else that will evenutally run out, even if it 
>>is found in great quantities in the United States?

Strictly speaking, yes.  In practice, not neccesarily.  Methane can be
made from a variety of other carbon-containing materials including the
very renewable wood.

>Why hydrogen?  Solar cells are rapidly becoming economical, and solar 
>electric plants can be used to "renewably" generate hydrogen from 
>seawater.  Such a solar/hydrogen-based economy doesn't require massive-
>scale power plants, and could be replicated worldwide.  Hydrogen can be 
>shipped using conventional gas pipeline technology, and probably in 
>immobilized solid form using some emerging materials.  

You don't really want to try for solid Hydrogen.  The best means of
handling and storing Hydrogen was developed by NASA (that's what takes
up most of the space in the Shuttle external tank) which makes a slush
out of it.  It's pumpable and has reasonable density.  You do need to
do it in a way that has the nuclei of the Hydrogen atoms as an up-down
pair, though, or the evaporation losses become excessive no matter how
good your refrigeration is.

For automotive work, one of the favored storage methods is
Metal-Hydride.  The weight is OK for busses or other large vehicles,
but cars need some work yet.  There are some fairly nasty problems
with both pressureized gases and cyrogenic materials--especially in
the hands of amateurs.  (At one time it was propased that there would
never be very many cars because there was a limited pool of
professional drivers to draw upon and develop.  Instead--the cars were
improved enough to be handled by fairly inept 'ordinary' people.  The
same needs to be done for ahndling exotic fuels.)

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Subject: Re: Socialized parking
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 01:20:31 GMT

In the referenced article, ehouse@Apple.COM (Eric House) writes:
>And if it wants to provide some service to white customers at the expense
>of those not so lucky, should that also be permitted?  If not, what's the
>difference?

Because a black person could buy a car if they wanted to, but would
have a really hard time becoming white? (Michael Jackson aside)

-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Dec17.175914.5248@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
	<ELM.92Dec19183251@sparc.berkeley.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:30:32

I don't understand what this 575 Tg/yr is.  If it is spontaneous
emission through the soil all over, it is extremely difficult
to capture for human use.  Must we spread plastic over the whole
world including the oceans and then separate out the CH4?
Anyway 575 Tg is only 575 million tons.  The U.S. used to produce
500 million tons of petroleum, and in 1988 produced 288 million
tons of natural gas.  It appears, therefore, that collecting the
surface emissions from the entire world would not satisfy U.S.
domestic needs.

Avoiding mining is a fantasy.  Why do you think we should?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Socialized parking
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:12:20 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Dec15.021035.29683@netcom.com>, ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
> 
> 	It may well be true that mass transit is subsidized at a far greater
> level than the automobile, when the subsidies are compared to the incomes
> generated by each method of transportation.  However, your argument complete-
> ly ignores the reality of economies of scale.  If there were only a few routes
> connecting some of the most frequently-travelled areas of cities, as is the
> case with mass transit today, then most of the population would not want to 
> own a car.

I'm not sure this is the case.  There is plenty of evidence that in many
countries where the transit is good and automobiles inconvenient and heavily
taxed, people can't wait to get their own automobile.  Former East Germany
is a prime example, but I believe you'd find the car an object of desire
everywhere from Alaska to Zambia.  Japan is perhaps a better example of an
industrialized country.  People pay thousands of dollars annually just for
a parking space, three or four dollars a gallon, and put up with horrible
traffic, even though they have great transit.

>             Let's face it, the automotive industry enjoys the benefits of
> economies of scale more than just about any industry in the world.
> 
> 	In this light, I think it is perfectly reasonable for one to advocate
> taxing automobile use to fund mass transit, or some other selective subsidy,
> *for a certain period of time.*  When the mass-transit infrastructure enjoys
> the same economy of scale enjoyed by the automotive infrastructure,  *then*
> let's talk about equalizing and/or eliminating subsidies.   Right now, the 
> playing field is hardly level.

Right.  Plus, the incredible weight of regulations and bureaucracy that
mass transit suffers from doesn't help either.  As long as federal, state,
and local governments are involved, subsidies will be required.

The only way to get rid of subsidies would be over a long period of time,
with a government dedicated to the task.  It won't happen in the next
four years, but maybe in the next 50.

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Re: Socialized parking
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:10:35 GMT

J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
[large amount of stuff deleted]
>Oh, and hypocrisy?  Many of the car-is-the-root-of-all-evil types whine about
>"subsidizing the auto."  If I'm not mistaken, most forms of mass transit are
>subsidized *far* more when considering income per dollar of outlay (gas taxes
>versus "farebox recovery").  In absolute dollars, yes, there is more of an
>auto subsidy, but if you want to *eliminate* the entire "auto subsidy" in order
>to subsidize mass transit even more, then YOU are the hypocrite.  Some of us
>see the need for many forms or transportation.  I use mass transit often, but
>I'm not complaining about EITHER subsidy.  I only complain about the hypocrites
>who selectively complain based on their political agendas.

	It may well be true that mass transit is subsidized at a far greater
level than the automobile, when the subsidies are compared to the incomes
generated by each method of transportation.  However, your argument complete-
ly ignores the reality of economies of scale.  If there were only a few routes
connecting some of the most frequently-travelled areas of cities, as is the
case with mass transit today, then most of the population would not want to 
own a car.  Let's face it, the automotive industry enjoys the benefits of
economies of scale more than just about any industry in the world.

	In this light, I think it is perfectly reasonable for one to advocate
taxing automobile use to fund mass transit, or some other selective subsidy,
*for a certain period of time.*  When the mass-transit infrastructure enjoys
the same economy of scale enjoyed by the automotive infrastructure,  *then*
let's talk about equalizing and/or eliminating subsidies.   Right now, the 
playing field is hardly level.

>Tim Irvin
>*****************************************************************************
>"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
> teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke

-- 
== 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
============================================================================
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:31:59 GMT

In article <liptmtINNgec@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM writes:

	[On train jams on the CalTrain line...]

>I'm all for Caltrain being upgraded.  I'm for anything that improves the quality
>of mass transit in the Bay area.  I just think that many of the upgrade cost
>discussions (especially the Bart vs. Caltrain things) don't take a lot of 
>necessary Caltrain costs into account.

	These include:

	Building over- and/or underpasses so that none of the tracks
_ever_ have to be crossed to get to one of them. BART has this
feature, but CalTrain doesn't for the majority of stations.

	Eliminating all grade crossings and fencing off the tracks.
BART has this, but CalTrain still has several grade separations and
un-fenced track. This has the added merit of making the tracks more
difficult to stop up, since for a grade crossing, the rail tops are
level with the road, leaving only slots for the wheel flanges. These
slots are vulnerable in a way that away-from-street rails aren't.

	Having durable track. BART has this; a very large fraction of
BART's roadbed is either concrete slab or concrete ties on gravel. The
only wooden ties I've ever seen are at the switches or some leftovers
from the original test line that had been incorporated into the BART
system.

	Electrification. Standard on heavily used lines. Maintenance
and breakdowns for the trains are probably a lot less. BART has proved
highly reliable in the time I have used it, while there are numerous
CalTrain horror stories.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Socialized parking
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:32:30 GMT

In article <19754@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com>, tilley@fsh.UUCP (Tom Tilley) writes:
> In article <tk3npn0@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >The problem today is that supermarkets are forced to provide free parking.
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Supermarkets are "forced" to provide free parking by their customers who
> will not shop at stores which do not provide free parking.  They have the
> legal right to charge for parking: they choose not to.
> 
> (I was puzzled by this point since elsewhere you argue that supermarkets
> should be allowed to provide free parking, or not, as they wish, which is
> the current situation).

I don't think you are correct.  Current zoning regulations require a certain
number of parking places depending on store size, don't they?  I know that
my company was required to have a certain number of spaces in its parking
lot.  If a supermarket decided on its own to charge for parking, its
neighbors would complain mightily, since they would get the cars from
shoppers.  Even if it isn't in the law (but I think it is), it is a current
business requirement that supermarkets provide free parking, except in a few
downtowns.

jeremy
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Socialized parking
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:47:51 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Dec15.021035.29683@netcom.com> ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
> When the mass-transit infrastructure enjoys
> the same economy of scale enjoyed by the automotive infrastructure,  *then*
> let's talk about equalizing and/or eliminating subsidies.   

But mass-transit existed before cars did!  In the early 1900s and late
1800s, what we call mass transit enjoyed total market dominance.  If your
argument was correct, cars would be little used today.  The fact that
they have almost totally replaced cars shows that the automotive 
infrastructure was earned via free market forces.  Your argument seems
to be that whatever transportation system is worse (and therefore has
less market share) should be subsidized.  If a transportation system
is really bad, and only 3% of the population uses it (like mass transit
in the Bay Area) then it should get a big subsidy.

>Right now, the playing field is hardly level.

This is true, but only because trains are such a horrible way to build
a transportation grid, but the mass transit folks need them at the core
of their systems.  Trains had their chance in the early 1900s and late
1800s, before the car was widely used, they have since been replaced
with something better.  

Mass transit: the technology of the late 1800s.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Socialized parking            
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Distribution: ca
Date: 12 Dec 92 18:05:27 GMT

joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:

>Haven't you figured out that socialism doesn't work in real life?

   I read an article in the newspaper recently in which the author
pointed out that parking in our society is supplied along the principles
of Soviet-style centralized planning:  a central organization, be it
government or a private employer, takes it upon themselves to try to
supply the desired amount of the resource by fiat rather than by
marketing it.  And the result is that distribution of parking in the
U.S. encounters the same problems as distribution of sausages in Russia:
continual shortages, and structural inequities in which the elite (party
officials in Russia, corporate big shots here) are unfairly supplied
with the scarce commodity at the expense of everyone else.

   There's a lot to be said for this idea.  I personally think that all
public and private parking should be charged directly to those who use
it at what-the-market-will-bear rates -- and I mean all parking,
including public curbside parking, employer-provided parking, and the
lot at your local Safeway.  The resulting fees would no doubt be
apalling, and a damn good thing too:  people ought to be aware of what
parking really costs.

   Since many of the people who denigrate public transit on this
newsgroup seem to be generally conservative, one might think that they
would heartily endorse a proposal to end socialized parking and allocate
this resource according to market principles.  But somehow I doubt we'll
see this happening.  Like hope, hypocrisy springs eternal in the human
breast.       
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Natural Gas?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:10:56 GMT


-- 
== 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: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SFO rail transit setback?
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:15:41 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <8482@public.BTR.COM> ullman@btr.btr.com (Joseph Albert ullman@btr.com) writes:
>
>Joshua Levy writes:
>
>>...in spite of the fact that the car drivers not only
>>pay for all the highways, but also subsidize the mass transit systems.
>
>Not true.  the tax on car licenses does *not* cover the total cost of
>highway maintenance.  

My claim, which I've never seen refuted with data, is that building
and maintaining the road system is a profitable activity for governments.
When you sum up the gas tax, DMV fees, sales tax on automobiles, etc.
that sum will be greater than the money to build and maintain the
road system.

Furthermore, most transit projects get a huge chunk of money from the
federal highway fund, which is funded by gas tax, pays for federal roads,
and currently contains 100s of millions of dollars in _surplus_, even
though it is used as a slush fund for transit projects.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad