HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: The new California Cars for CalTrain
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:04:57 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <9207281515.AA04075@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:

::From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
::Hah !! Right.  Currently there are 23 on order for the JPB.  They 
::are all commuter cars.  Looks like food on the currently hour long
::commute down or up the peninsula will simply not happen.  Looks like

:Huh?  Food and drink are already allowed on CalTrain. What kind of 
:food service is provided on the hour long BART commute? 

	Give me a break! It takes me only 30 minutes to get from
Hayward or Bay Fair to San Francisco or Berkeley.

:darn! I keep forgetting that the average trip on BART is 12 miles
:because nobody can stand up or stand it for much more.

	20 or 30 miles more likely.

	I've never used BART on the heaviest commute routes, so I
can't say what it's like from direct experience. Off-peak, it's
remarkably nice.
From: forags@nature.Berkeley.EDU (Al Stangenberger)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Buying up old polluting cars
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:12:02 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: U. C. Forestry & Resource Mgt.
NNTP-Posting-Host: nature.berkeley.edu

In article <14r04oINNpk8@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> karplus@ce.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus) writes:
>There has been a lot of discussion on this newsgroup about the
>advantages of buying up old cars as a pollution reduction measure.
>While getting highly polluting cars off the road would be a big help,
>there is some difficulty in estimating how much pollution is reduced,
>as many of the cars being junked were not being driven much anyway.
>

Carrying this point a bit further, assuming that the pollution from these old
cars would naturally decline over time through attrition, doesn't this proposal
sanction permanent installation of a large pollution source in exchange for a
reduction in pollution which would have happened anyway?

The amount of mitigation required should be equal over the life of the plant to
the total amount of pollution emitted.  IMHO, a one-time purchase of cars which
would have been retired soon anyway is not sufficient.

-- 
Al Stangenberger                    Dept. of Forestry & Resource Mgt.
forags@nature.berkeley.edu          145 Mulford Hall - Univ. of Calif.
uucp:  ucbvax!ucbnatur!forags       Berkeley, CA  94720
BITNET: FORAGS AT UCBNATUR          (510) 642-4424 FAX: (510) 643-5438
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 24 Jul 1992 08:18:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1312@dosbears> dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com writes:
>>	And I've yet to see how a CalTrain upgraded to BART-quality
>>service will avoid BART-level costs.
>
>It is a simple matter of definition.  What is BART-quality?
 
All the things you described are important -- CalTrain *does* 
have inferior stations, it *is* much better to have no grade-
level crossings (although I'm not sure that the full extent of 
this that BART has is really necessary), high frequency and 
number of trips (both peak and non-peak) *are* important.
   
   The advantage of standard rail service is that these things 
can be phased in gradually.  At the present level of service in 
most parts of the Bay Area, more service is preferable to better 
service.  It is possible with standard rail to institute lousy 
service *now* and gradually improve it.  With BART, you have to 
wait for the good service to get any service.
 
>Summary:  Don't ever say "BART quality" or any other non specific
> term.  Instead, state the specific feature that you are
> interested in such as "BART frequency".
 
True enough, but I think to those of us who are mainly familiar 
with the Bay Area, BART sets the standard for rail service.  The 
only other rail services with which I am familiar enough to talk 
about are the light rails in San Francisco and San Jose, and 
Vancouver's (B.C.) SkyTrain, which is basically a 1986 version of 
BART (with smaller cars). 
 
>Personally:  I am convinced the "BART quality" will cost
> "BART dollars".  And it's worth it.  But the train
> freaks here obviously differ.
 
I don't think I'm a "train freak" (I like the term "trainhugger" 
myself).  I like BART as is a *lot* more than CalTrain, for many 
reasons.  I agree that "BART quality" will cost "BART dollars" 
and I am skeptical that less will do in the long run.  But I 
think that it *would be* possible to do well with compatible 
equipment what was done well with BART, and that this would be 
better than having no service in so many places. 
 
 =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
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Third rail without fences (Was: San Mateo County BART)
Keywords: third rail bart safety right of way
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:28:55 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: ba
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <14hus1INNak5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
|> I wish I had the book here, I don't remember all of it.  This fight was
|> supposed to have occurred in the 1900-1910 period and had something to
|> do I thought with permission for the merger of the various street
|> railway companies into United Railroads.  (I'm really not up on this,
|> sorry.)  It didn't have anything to do with the removal of the
|> streetcar lines later on after WWII.
|> 

The fight you are thinking about was pre-1906 quake.  You couldn't have
wire over the streets by a city ordinance.  This is why everything was
cable cars, including Market St.  After the quake the city rescinded
the ordinance so that they could rebuild quickly.  The cables
were ripped out and electric overhead installed.

The book that I got this information from is something like:
100 Years of San Francisco Street Cars
by Fred <mumble>
c) 1991

If you want specifics I'll have to look at home where the books is.

The books that I have that talk about DC and NY underground third
rail are:
Beneath The Sidewalks of New York
by Brian Cuddahy

and

The Story of Metro
by <mumble>

If you want more specifics I can post all this stuff tonight when
I get home.

|> Now *there's* an idea.  Put a cable under CalTrain, say at 40-50
|> mph...
|> 

Hehehe.  Not very practical, remember that the cable would have to move
at a constant 40-50 mph.  The jolt you got when you picked
up the cable would be quite painful :-) 


Later,
George


-- 
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Measure A : Transportation solution?
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:32:57 GMT


>From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
>How is it that a private organization like the Sierra Club has a seat
>on a committee that has any type of veto power over tax money?



They do not have veto power. They are simply there to participate
in the discussion. Only the 5 member Authority board has voting
power.



>What ever happened to representative democracy?


When it comes to tranportation funding, there isn't any.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:07:15 GMT



In article <9207161436.AA02022@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
:How about a CalTrain ride from Livermore across the Dumbarton rail
:bridge either directly to the airport or transfer at Redwood City
:in 1996. For less than $30 million and in time for the airport
:peoplemover you could have a direct connection. Talk to your
:county supervisor Ed Campbell.

>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>	Less than $30 million? 


The Dumbarton Bridge Feasibility study said $29 million. Five of
that is for locomotives. If we were to electrify CalTrain we could
use some of the existing ones instead pay that additional cost.
A BART bridge would cost $3.5 billion according to the SCR20
study.



>	And what quality of service will come out of this?


Infinitely better than exists there now. Infinitely better than 
BART is planning for that corridor.

More to the point. Starting from 2 trains a day each way to whatever 
is needed. 

>First off, the rail line that runs through Livermore is a UP
>line, while the Dunbarton bridge is a SP bridge. A UP-SP connection
>wil be required, probably in Fremont. 

Already exists. For $500,000 it could be improved.



>Furthermore, I don't know if the Dunbarton rail bridge is
>single- or double-tracked. I'm not even sure if it is still in use by

Double.



>And to serve Livermore and other areas effectively will
>require a LOT of new rolling stock. And would a commute-time service
>be good for trips to the airport?

Kind of depends when you need to be at the airport compared to when
you would have to leave home by car and the expense of driving and 
parking. Even hourly rail service would be quite beneficial.



>However, BART delivers frequent, fast, reliable service to

For the last couple of weeks BART's reliability is being questioned.


>wherever it goes. 

It does not go to SFO or Livermore in this decade.






>arrive well in advance of one's plane's departure. Is CalTrain's
>service good enough for _that_?


It is good enough for bus and short taxi connections to SFO.



>As to the projection that there will be only 7500 BART users
>of the proposed SFO station by 2010 as opposed to over 100,000 airport
>users, I think that there are two critical questions:

>	How many CalTrain users will there be?


They serve different corridors so what is your point. Besides the 
study conveniently ingores CalTrain service levels past the year 2000. 
With enough brain washed voters they will wait until 2020 to extend
a 60 year old BART.




>And I've yet to see how a CalTrain upgraded to BART-quality
>service will avoid BART-level costs.


Except for frequency and disabled access CalTrain already has superior
service. Disabled access will come with the new cars and frequency is
mostly a matter of more rolling stock.


   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: More negative BART stories
Date: 24 Jul 1992 22:45:56 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

Well, I certainly hope BART sticks with faster trains.  I use BART
only about twice a week, but haven't gotten stung yet by a late train,
and have saved time by the increased speed.

However, at the same time as BART made evening SF->Berkeley transfers
instantaneous (impressive to experience), they made the evening
Berkeley->SF transfer a 15-minute wait (I was looking at the weekend
schedule -- I'm just assuming weekdays are the same).  Two thumbs
down for that.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:57:19 GMT


>From: mmoore@epx.cis.umn.edu ("None of ya Bizness")
>That's what I like about BART:  You can always get a ticket, and the
>MOST you'll EVER be waiting for a train is 20 minutes, period.  Caltrain
>just won't offer that kind of service no matter where it's extended.  It



The only technical inhibitor for 20 minute frequency on CalTrain is lack
of rolling stock.

You may be right about never doing it, but that would be because of 
politics.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:18:35 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <9207311535.AA00360@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> 
> >From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
> >So you mean people should have to take a train that only shows on the 
> >hour since the trains carry so many more people ??  Trains should
> >be slaved to people and not vise versa.
> 
> 
> Even as an ardent rail fan I would not suggest that people be slave
> to trains. To answer you question I believe the frequency should be
> what is supported by the ridership at a level such that they are 
> willing to pay its complete operating costs. This obviously involves
> a more practical consideration than some marketing moron picking 
> 15 minutes out of thin air.

But you are ignoring the problem.  There is no level of service above
the infrequent railfan excursion level where ridership will pay for
a train's operating costs.  With a transit system, if you want people
to use it and like it, 15 minute frequency is a good number to shoot
for.  Train service should only be provided if it can economically
provide the 15 minute service.  If it can't, due to lack of demand,
use another mode.
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Measure A : Transportation solution?
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:39:14 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: ba
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <D2150035.95nh2w@outpost.SF-Bay.org>, peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:
|> How is it that a private organization like the Sierra Club has a seat
|> on a committee that has any type of veto power over tax money?
|> 
I trust them more than I trust the S&L bankers :-)

|> This alone sounds like reason enough to not vote for this measure.
|> I surely don't want people controlling tax money who are not elected
|> representative or controlled/appointed by elected representatives.
|> What ever happened to representative democracy?
|> 

US and representative democracy, never had it, never will.

Later,
George

-- 
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:1790 alt.activism:13471 ca.environment:754
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Date: 25 Jul 1992 00:40:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul23115719@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>We don't need a national
>energy policy.  Last time we had one, the lines at the gas
>stations stretched for blocks.

Aren't you confusing cause and effect here?  "Every time I take
aspirin, I have this awful headache."

David Chase
Sun
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: APAC meeting in Livermore
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:55:05 GMT




       The APAC meeting that was scheduled to meet 10:00 A.M.
in Livermore has been cancelled until September. It was 
cancelled because of a conflict with a League of Cities 
meeting on the same day in Monterey.



Xref: sparky ba.transportation:1747 alt.activism:13312 ca.environment:744
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,scruz.politics
Subject: Re: Santa Cruz-San Jose CalTrain?
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:57:11 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: ba
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <14n69gINNj3i@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
|> I don't have anything more to say about that.  I just like it so much 
|> that I want to quote it.  I think you're 100% right.  The problem is 
|> that there is this denial in Santa Cruz, people think that zero growth 
|> initiatives are simply going to solve everything.  It won't, even if 
|> Scotts Valley and Capitola weren't having building sprees.  Santa Cruz 
|> County, anyway, *is* going to be a bedroom community.  The question 
|> is, what kind? 
|>  

There is another option that I've heard seriously discussed
by people who live in Santa Cruz.  It has to do with the destruction
of Hwy 17 if Caltrans tries to widen it.  I don't know that they were
serious but I was very surprise at how many people have mentioned
it in passing.  It's a bit extreme, but then, this is Santa Cruz
we're discussing :-)

Later,
George

-- 
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:1791 alt.activism:13474 ca.environment:755
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:52:30 GMT
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul23115719@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>self-serving approach to problems?  We don't need a national
>energy policy.  Last time we had one, the lines at the gas
>stations stretched for blocks.

Japan and Germany have national energy policies and they don't have gas
lines stretching for blocks. Why is that Mark?
								MPA
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: How much pollution from motor vehicles?
Originator: lip@s1.gov
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:20:09 GMT


In article <14nq6gINNkh0@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
#- >	To do this calculation properly, one needs to compare cars to
#- >urban, suburban, and intercity railroad systems. However, I'm sure
#- >that cars will still lose :-)

	Add buses to railroad systems for a full comparison.

#- >/Loren

#- The point of this was not to 'make a calculation', there are other
#- numerous areas that we can identify the hidden pollution cost.

	But in a lot of cases how serious it is depends on how much of
it there is. And one has to ask how the various alternatives work out.

/Loren
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:06:24 GMT
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul28173235@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>That's because they have population densities
>to support the ridership that you and I wouldn't
>put up with.

Oh but Mark, those densities are coming to a Sunnyvale near you. Your
mission, should you decide to accept it, is to plan for the future. Should
you choose to ignore the obvious fact that automobile transportation in
the SillyClone Valley is obsolete...well, I know you will so have a nice
lifestyle.
							    Sincerely,
							    Your Good Buddy,
								MPA
From: jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Japanese Highways
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:02:09 GMT
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames

"Michael" == Michael Peirce <peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org> writes:

Michael> Of course then there are the Germans.  Darn good trains and
Michael> darn good highways (at least in the west part of the
Michael> country).

A friend of mine from Ger. claims that the reason their roads are so
good is that the contract is not awarded based on "low-bid", but on
"longest guarantee of free repairs".

Think about it for a few seconds.  Do you buy the cheapest car that
meets some arbitrarily minimum set of requirements, or do you think
about reliability, durability, etc?

--
J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
'91 CB750, DoD# 0378
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Buying up old polluting cars
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:05:01 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4

This concept is getting more attention.  Here's a brief article from
today's Wall Street Journal:

CALIFORNIA MULLS CREDITS IF FIRMS SCRAP OLD CARS

SACRAMENTO, CALFIRONIA - The state of California is developing guidelines
to give companies pollution credits for such actions as buying up
old cars which produce many times more pollution than new cars, and
scrapping them.

Companies could also earn credits by buying low-polluting buses and
giving them to a city or transportation district.  In return, the
companies would delay more expensive remidies at their own businesses.

Such cas-for-clunker programs have been a hot topic lately [especially
on the usenet...mp]  General Motors Corp. and the Environmental Defense
Fund, an environmental group, recently jointly proposed one such
program.  The federal government is expected to announce guidelines
for a vehicle-scrapping program within a few months.

Two years ago, Unocal Corp. conducted an extensive demonstration project
in Southern California in which it purchased 8,376 pre-1971 cars for
$700 each, or a total of $6 million.  The scrapped cars were producing
12.8 million pounds a year of pollution, according to Unocal, which
say it would have cost at least $120 million to eliminate that much
pollution at its own operations.

[all typos are mine!]

--  Michael Peirce      --   peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org
--  Peirce Software     --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--                      --   San Jose, California USA 95117
--  Makers of...        --   voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
--            SMOOTHIE  --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Japanese Highways
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:09:00 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4

I was reading today about a big Japanese push to improve their standard
of living.  It includes things like cutting the work week to 5 days
and such.

What I though interesting is that part of this program is to substantially
upgrade their highway system to make highway travel faster and less congested.

Funny how we have an excellent highway system and are talking about
upgrading our train service and they have an excellent train system
and are talking about upgrading their highways system.

Of course then there are the Germans.  Darn good trains and darn good
highways (at least in the west part of the country).

--  Michael Peirce      --   peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org
--  Peirce Software     --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--                      --   San Jose, California USA 95117
--  Makers of...        --   voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
--            SMOOTHIE  --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
Newsgroups: ba.transportation