From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:19:54 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <9208121507.AA01027@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> 
> 
> >From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
> 
> In article <9207301507.AA00347@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> >> People wait for infrequent airplanes, that doesn't seem to stop them
> >> from flying. Besides if BART riders "don't need" schedules then why
> >> did BART start printing them?
> 
> >From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
> >I'm sorry, but that is a silly response that does little to strengthen
> >your position.  Waiting for things that you do infrequently is more
> >acceptable than waiting for things that you do frequently.  That should
> >be obvious.
> 
> 
> The point that you and many others are trying unsuccessfully to assert 
> that frequency is such an important consideration that all others
> are inconsequential. With the additional reach of logic that since 
> BART is more frequent then an upgraded CalTrain or any other service 
> is not possible or that it must conform to 15 minute headways. Some 
> are even trying to assert that no other service can run as frequently 
> as BART without BART costs.

Whoa!  That isn't the point I'm trying to make at all.
I do think short headways are important to the success of a transit
system, but there are many other important considerations.  By the
way, you may want to add a comma or two to second from last sentence
in the preceding paragraph; I wasn't sure how it was supposed to be
parsed.

> This is simply not true. Depending on how far you must go and how much
> you must pay(to mention just a couple items) it doesn't matter a damn
> how often it runs. If it takes 3 hours(exaggeration) to get to work or
> if it cost too much that you can't afford to ride then frequency is
> worthless. CalTrain can be upgraded to provide whatever frequency is
> needed at a speed greater than BART's with more seats at lower cost.
> The reality is( if you look beyond the Bay area) that systems exist
> in this country and others that carry more people than BART at lower
> cost some with better frequency and some with worse.

No kidding.


> >The other is that you
> >may want to make sure that you don't have to wait 20 minutes for a
> >train.  I frequently use a schedule when taking BART for just those
> >reasons.  But I have to agree that you don't need one (given that you
> >don't need to make connections) the same way that you do with Caltrain.
> 
> 
> For the same reason you do not need one for CalTrain. For the same 
> trip every day you know when to meet you train. Once you know the
> half hourly times the train departs your stations you do not need
> to check a schedule.

I don't leave at the same time every day.

My simple point is that to avoid a long wait, you have to use a schedule
when taking infrequent service.  You can not always find something else
to do in the meantime.  Therefore, infrequent service can be inconvenient.
To be successful transit service must be convenient (not that that does
not imply the reverse).

> 
> >But this is hardly a new revelation to this group.  Is it my imagination
> >or do we seem to cover the same territory over and over?  Should we
> >create a new group ba.bartvscaltrain?
> 
> Your correct ofcourse. I underestimated the emotionalism surrounding 
> BART and the total inability of its followers to consider alternatives.
> Actually the only reason I used CalTrain is because it so obviously
> less modern and less expensive. It has become so repetitive because
> the followers have no real data to support their undestanding.

And you're not emotional about this subject?!?
BART followers?  You make it sound like a religion.


>    Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com

jeremy