HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Stopping at Signs (was Re: Pushbuttons at crossings...)
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:42:21 GMT

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.

Possibly its becasue you misunderstand the nature of teh law regarding
these practices.  That yellow between the green and red functions as a
green and notifies that it will soon be red.  Any vehicle *already*in*
*the*intersection* has the right of way when the light changes.  If
the light changes--the cross traffic is supposed to let the folks the
light changed on *out* of the intersection before proceeding.  The
major caveat on this is that you're not supposed to even *enter* the
intersection if you can't get out of it (not matter that you have a
green light).

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Goodbye
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:02:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


Goodbye, all.  I am moving in the next day or so and will lose net
access.

I've learned a lot here, most of it very valuable.  I'd especially
like to thank Adrian for sharing his extensive knowledge.  If I
eventually get a commercial account on a system like Netcom, it will
be to get back to ba.transportation.

Thanks again.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
  Bring in the workers, and bring up the rails;
  We're gonna lay down the tracks, and tear up the trails. 
  Open her heart, let the life-blood flow,
  Gotta get on our way 'cause we're movin' too slow.
    -- Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy"
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: vaughnw@hadar.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Subject:  Re: CalTrain Article 
Originator: vaughnw@cotati
Organization: Fujitsu NTS
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:12:53 GMT



>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.



>CDC or any of the other '7 dwarfs'.  If CalTrain is so great--why
>isn't it successful?  "Politcs" is a damn poor answer.  You can blame
>*anything* on it--especially failure.  The answer to politcs is to
>politic better than the other guy--and (from your response) it appears
>>that that's just what CalTrain has signally *failed* to do.  (And

"Politics" in this case means to promote something that cost more 
even though it has less potential. The main thrust of transportation
planning is to spend as much money as possible so as to buy as many
votes(jobs) as possible. So picking the least efficient mode is the
best way to spread the pork. It doesn't matter if it is road or 
rail. The most expensive wins. Out politicing BART would simply 
give us a system that does not do what we need in a time frame 
that would allow us to retain the economic viability of the region.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: tilley@leads15.UUCP (Tom Tilley)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Price of Gas
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:18:48 GMT
Reply-To: tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: LOCKHEED, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1993Jan26.165903.8680@informix.com> nickh@informix.com (Nick Hecker) writes:
>
>... 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?

I use regular unleaded gasoline.  When I went to MI over Christmas,
the price in Davison, MI was $0.949/gal (I understand $0.05/gal. of
the difference is explained by the fact that the fuel there is not
oxygenated like it is here from 11/1 - 1/31).  Here in Sunnyvale,
it is $1.279/gal.  The cheapest I've seen in the bay area is $1.229
in San Carlos.

The entire difference, however, is not found in state taxes (which
according to the sign posted at ARCO amount to $0.15/gal).  I travel
to Truckee during the winter (for obvious reasons), and on the way
to Truckee I fill the tank at the Rocklin Rd. ARCO (Rocklin, CA).
The price there is 1.129.  The price at the Hammer Rd. ARCO (Stockton)
is similar.

I have normally noticed a $0.05/gal. difference between Central Valley
and Bay Area prices (Bay Area higher).  The difference has risen to
$0.15/gal (oxygenated fuel in both places).  I too am curious as to why.

Tom.
#--------------------------------------------------#
| Tom Tilley                                       |
| Internet : tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com   |
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.politics,ca.environment
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: SPUR meeting on SF Transbay Terminal
Summary: Downtown SF rail access threatened
Keywords: CalTrain extension Transbay Terminal
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:41:41 GMT


SPUR (San Francisco Planning & Urban Research) will be having
a "brown-bag lunch style" meeting on the "Fate of the Transbay
Terminal" and its connector ramps.  The meeting is free and is
open to the public.  There will be several speakers and mayor
Frank Jordan's transportation aide, Stewart Sunshine, will be
among them.  

There are some very serious plans by both the City of San Francisco
and Caltrans to demolish and/or redevelop the Transbay Terminal.
This building is a train station (now being used for buses only)
that is ideally situated and constructed to serve as the terminus
for one or more of the following:

	1. CalTrain's long-awaited, and much-needed downtown San
	Francisco extension.  Using this structure and its ramps
	should be significantly cheaper than any of the "official"
	alternatives that have been studied to date.

	2. BayLink.  A bold proposal put forth a little over a
	year ago by the Modern Transit Society (MTS) to restore
	train service to the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge using light
	rail equipment.  This proposal envisioned services
	running from the Transbay Terminal (via the existing
	connector ramp infrastructure) to the Bay Bridge and
	fanning out into various east bay lines.  Much of this
	proposal involves rebuilding and/or reusing historical
	rights of way.  Also, joint-use of the bridge tracks
	by high speed inter-city trains to get into and out of
	San Francisco was also suggested.

	3. The CalSpeed High Speed Rail service currently being
	studied.  This is an estimated $9 billion TGV-type rail
	service connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles with
	200mph trains via SFO, San Jose, Fresno and Modesto with
	end-to-end travel times of less than 3 hours.

Statewide as well as local transit advocacy and environmental groups
are *very* concerned that San Francisco will lose an invaluable
resource that will be key to bringing excellent transit and inter-
city rail connections into the heart of its financial district if
the Transbay Terminal is destroyed.  Without the Transbay Terminal
and its associated connector ramp infrastructure, bringing any of
the above-mentioned services downtown to connect with Muni and BART
via an underground pedestrian passageway may prove technically
and/or politically and/or financially prohibitive/impossible...

The meeting time and place:

	Wednesday, January 27th, 12:30 PM
	SPUR
	312 Sutter Street, Suite 500
	San Francisco, CA 

For more information call SPUR at (415) 781-8726.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Stopping at Signs (was Re: Pushbuttons at crossings...)
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:47:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.215009.12676@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <jyc.727721777@Leland>, jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>> 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.
>
>Better yet, do what I've seen used on some intersections in Germany:
>Install, as part of the signal-light and auto-sensing system, pole-
>mounted photo units that photograph any auto running a red light.
>This should help improve revenue and/or compliance and at least that
>way the nice policeman can do something a little more useful than
>watching an intersection...  This is a great application photo-radar
>type technology.  As with photo-radar, the registered owner gets the
>ticket in the mail.

Just a couple of minor problems...  First there's the one about being
able to face one's accuser in court, second (and, I think more
important) you'd better get an identifiable picture of the face of the
offending *driver*.  The fine or other penalty isn't for the car,
after all....

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Bringing CalTrain to Market St. (or nearby)
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:12:01 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1jt9v3INN5js@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>
>In article <1555@dosbears> dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com writes:
>>In article <murphy.727799200@well.sf.ca.us> murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy) writes:
>>>
>>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.  
>
>What about an elevated route?  It's not as expensive as a subway and I
>think there's more than enough clearance under the Bay Bridge.  And
>it would be only a few blocks in what is not considered the swankiest
>part of town.

Good point.  The major problems I see with it are (a) who would be
displaced (or would it be mostly above roads) -- it may not be the
swankest part of town but those are occupied buildings, (b) which
route -- the only approach with enough clearance would be along the
Embarcadero, and (c) would San Francisco allow another elevated
structure after finally getting rid of the dreadful Embarcadero
Freeway.

--
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: geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM (George Atkins)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Pushbuttons at crossings (was Signal Sy
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:21:11 GMT
Reply-To: geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: shilah

In article 19227@athena.mit.edu, rnewman@athena.mit.edu (Ron Newman) writes:
> 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


It's not a good idea for a cyclist to disobey traffic signs and signals.  While
I must admit I've rolled through my share of stop signs on my bike, and have
run red lights when it looks like nobody's coming late at night, it's what you
don't see that can kill you.  Traffic patterns at intersection are often
hard to decipher at a glance.  A cyclist may think it's clear to scoot through
an intersection only to be intercepted by a turning car that has the arrow.

-George
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: rail car capacity
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:37:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.015211.2762@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> In article <C1DH8L.7v6@news.fai.com> vaughnw@hadar.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) 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).

Why don't you stick to commenting on things you know something about?
Here, once again, you've shown that you have no qualms about running
on about something that you are less than sure about.  Cleaning up
after your "misstatements" is a bore.  Everyone messes up once in a
while, and I think that's ok.  But it seems to me, some of your posts
contain too much speculation disguised as first-hand knowledge.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: lau@ocean.ai.sri.com (Stephen Lau)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Price of Gas
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:30:19 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
In-reply-to: nickh@informix.com's message of 26 Jan 93 16:59:03 GMT



Having recently moved up from San Diego to the Bay Area and having
travelled between the two frequently, I've noticed a fairly
large discrepency in fuel prices. Bay Area prices are usually
about .20 higher than San Diego's.

Steve

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Lau                 lau@ai.sri.com| 
SRI International                         | "Frosted milk with cereal and juice
333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA. 94025|  forms a complete breakfast!"
(415) 859-2925              (415) 326-6200|            - Ren & Stimpy     
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Pushbuttons at crossings (was Signal Synchronization)
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:46:20 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

As a hardened and inveterate defier of stop lights (when cycle-borne, 
that is), perhaps I can at least explain one reason why some of us do 
this dreadful thing. The fact is that if a cyclist stops for a light, 
and a line of cars builds up behind him, when the light changes *every 
one* of those motorists will go stark, staring crazy, and do all kinds 
of mad things trying to get around the two-wheeler, or, better yet, 
force him off the road. I speak from experience; don't anybody try to 
tell me this doesn't happen.

If, however, you can get carefully through the light and twenty or 
thirty meters down the road before it changes, the poor caged lunatics 
in their gleaming metal coffins seem to be able to sort themselves out 
with a little less agita.

I know that facts generally have very little impact on moral 
indignation, but what the hell -- thought you might like to know.

--Michael Smith
From: lau@sunset.ai.sri.com (Stephen Lau)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Bringing CalTrain to Market St. (or nearby)
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:25:31 GMT
	<1jt9v3INN5js@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <1557@dosbears>
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
In-reply-to: mikel@dosbears.UUCP's message of 24 Jan 93 20:12:01 GMT


Another elevated right of way in downtown San Francisco? Remember the flak
about the Embarcadero and connecting 280 to the Bay Bridge? I think
San Franciscans would rather choke in ground level traffic then see an
elevated anything go up.


Steve

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Lau                 lau@ai.sri.com| 
SRI International                         | "Frosted milk with cereal and juice
333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA. 94025|  forms a complete breakfast!"
(415) 859-2925              (415) 326-6200|            - Ren & Stimpy     
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Pushbuttons at crossings (was Signal Synchronization) 
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:07:27 GMT

In article <C16tzF.HDz@queernet.org>, rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
|> When most bicyclists actually start *stopping* at red lights and
|> stop signs -- a full, no-motion stop -- then we can worry about how
|> to make [triggering traffic light sensors] more convenient for them.

Why?  I see no linkage between the issues.  It sounds like you've got
a chip on your shoulders on this issue.  This attitude is like opposing
crosswalk buttons, striping, and WALK/DON'T WALK signal lights because
there is a lot of jay-walking going on.  

Besides, I don't often see cars make a "full, no-motion stop" at stop
signs either.  I also don't often see cars that obey the 55mph speed
limit either.  I guess we shouldn't worry about improving any road or
highway facilities until they do...

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:18:44 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <C1DHH1.7yz@news.fai.com> vaughnw@hadar.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>
>[Discussing having BOTH CalTrain and BART on the Peninsula]
>
>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. 

EXCUSE ME.

When the 89 Loma Prieta earthquake struck, I was at the Castro
station waiting for the [slightly] late train.  After about an
hour, I (and another fellow) decided to walk the short distance
to El Camino and take the bus to SF.  (There was only one transistor
radio among the people waiting and we never heard any announcements
about any services.)  This was at rush hour.  We were expecting
trains in both directions.

As I recall, neither train system began running until after
midnight (for the newcomers to the area (especially those who 
are not baseball fans), the earthquake was at 5:04pm).

Over the next few weeks, there were many significant aftershocks.
After each, both CalTrain and BART had similar policies.  STOP,
proceed slowly (examining by eye the track) to the next station,
wait for clearance from Central.  (Basically, wait for all trains
to get to a station and gather any other information, such as
police, fire, ...)

Then both systems seem to feel that they could not trust the tracks
until a train had gone over them.  Note that for CalTrain this takes
hours.

To claim that CalTrain was "on schedule" in the period after the
earthquake redefines "chutzpah".

--
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,ba.politics,ca.environment
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Dumbarton rail bridge was Re: SPUR meeting on SF Transbay Terminal
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:37:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1993Jan26.200434.21612@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> 
> Then, once you (as in your speculation) decide to restore rail
> service, it is likely that you'll have to rip up some or all of the
> roadway in order to do it--unless you invested in all the necessary
> trackwork up front and then paved over it...

You could do like Seattle did and put rails down the middle of
the roadway.  Still, it does seem there would be some nasty 
problems.  Buses need a somewhat wider ROW (unless they use
a guideway like in Australia (I forget which city)).

> Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think this is a very
> practical idea.  If anything, putting buses on first and then trains
> is liable to cost *more* than just going to trains in the first
> place.
> 
> Why not just start rail service and use buses and/or shuttles as
> feeders where needed?

We could also convert a lane on Dumbarton to carpool use, or use
the rail line during peak hours.  The problem with feeders is with
transferring.  Unless the train waits for all the bus feeders (or
the train runs frequently enough that it doesn't matter), there
has to be a substantial overlap time programmed into the schedules.

With the SGI to Caltrain shuttle, it's nearly 20 minutes from the
time you board the shuttle until the scheduled arrival of the train.
The trip to the station takes less than 10 minutes in a car.
A bus from Shoreline industrial area down 101 and then down Lawrence
would be the fastest commute for me (of course, it would have to run
pretty strange schedules).

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation