HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:33:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.125458@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
|> The other cars ordered with the California car are significantly more
|> expensive and carry less people than the commuter cars

But still seat more than BART's measly 60 or 70 seated passengers per car.

But then BART is designed for of standees, while CalTrain & California
Cars are not...


|> |> The future market for California Cars is significantly larger.
|> 
|> The California cars are not compatible with Amtrak rolling stock

What!  Don't tell Amtrak this, because they'd be pissed.  Amtrak will
be a major user of the California Car.  They lots of input into its
design & specifications.

Here's how I understand it:

The low-level passage cars will connect with Amtrak's low-level passage
equipment (like Amtrak's Horizon Fleet coaches and CalTrain cars).  The
high-level versions would be able to connect with Superliner cars.  The
transition car (if any ever get built) will marry the two types together
so they can be used in the same train...  I don't know how many of each
type are being ordered.  I think Vaughn said that none of the transition
coaches will be built/ordered in an earlier posting...  but I could've
misunderstood that...


-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Buying up old polluting cars
Date: 23 Jul 1992 18:08:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bike2work

Given the  current situation in which no level of government
seems to have any cash to do *anything*, such a proposal seems
problematic from a revenue standpoint.

Increasing the gas tax would 1) place a disincentive on driving
2) place a disincentive on inefficient vehicles *and* 3) *raise*
revenue.

Similarly, tax policies should be re-evaluated in terms of 
required space for parking lots for business, and subsidized
parking in the form of free public parking.

It's strange how many so-called supporters of free market 
principles seem to change their tune when it comes to market-based
approaches to solving our auto-based transportation problems.

Bill

In article <D2150035.96hdtm@outpost.SF-Bay.org> peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:
>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


--
Bill Michel			
bm@eng.sun.com		These views are my own, not Sun's.
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: How much pollution from motor vehicles?
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU's message of 23 Jul 1992 22:44:33 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:14:16 GMT

In article <14ncohINNjjf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:

> 1) Exhaust emissions.
> 2) Hydrocarbon emissions.
> 3) Tires wearing away on roads.
> 4) Old tires stacking up.
> 5) Old cars stacking up.
> 6) Pollution caused by building roads/bridges/tunnels.
> 7) Pollution caused by road tar/oil.
> 8) Noise pollution.
> 9) Oil leaks.
> 10) Gasoline leaks.
> 11) Oil pollution disposal, garbage, on the ground.
> 12) Air Conditioner Feron emissions.
> 13) Anti-freeze pollution.
> 14) Rusting metal pollution falling off of vehicles.
> 15) Cleaning compounds and waxes.
> 16) Water pollution from cleaning vehicles.
> 17) Old batteries (cores).
> 18) Glass, plastics, foam rubbers.
> 19) Visual pollution, eyesores.

  20) Noise pollution from everybody whining about
      how terrible cars are without taking into
      account how much of a benefit they are.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:1727 ba.general:3103
From: Bert_-_Raphael@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.general
Subject: Re: Plane tickets
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 09:23:38 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ba

Re: cheap domestic airfares:

Yes, the lowest "legitimate" airfare RT Newark/SFO right now is $490, except
for Continental which is selling it for $420 for tickets purchased by
July 27.
(Continental, like TWA and America West, is operating under bankruptcy
Chapter 11.  Buy your tickets with a credit card to be sure to get your money
back if they stop operation within 60 days after you make the purchase.)

Anyone selling tickets for less than the current full price is probably
selling tickets that were purchased in someone else's name during the fare
war at the end of May (when they were selling for under $200), or is using
some "gray market" frequent traveler awards for part or all of the purchase
price.  Such tickets or awards are "non transferable" under airline rules
and the airline has the right to request photo ID if they get suspicious--
and to pull the license of any appointed travel agency who promotes such
deals.

Another possibility is that there are some promotional coupons floating
around: $125 off an airline ticket for signing up for a certain charge
account or buying a certain brand of something-- and some of these coupons
might legitimately be transferable; also credit coupons for being "bumped"
from an overbooked flight might be used for new tickets (but these are
rarely transferable).

Bottom line: Read the fine print on the back of whatever coupons are involved
in the deal; or travel under whatever name is printed on the ticket, if you
are so inclined and willing to take the risk; or pay $420; or take a bus!
(Lowest Amtrak price is $339, but those are pretty much sold out.)

  --Bert
    Compass Point Travel, Mountain View
    raphael@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Santa Cruz-San Jose CalTrain?
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:35:37 GMT

In article <15354@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, hill@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Rich Hill) writes:
|> I think that in the later days (post 1940) the Sun Tan Specials did run
|> through Watsonville Junction.  A storm in 1940 closed "the hill" for good.

I've heard repeatedly that some branch of the military used one or more
of the tunnels for blasting practice.  Another version of the story goes
that the tunnels were blasted for fear that they would assist a Japanese
invasion to come through the hills and into the valley (or some such
nonsense).

|> >You can still clearly see parts of the old right of way in the canyon
|> >next to the highway and below the dam.  I don't know the route of
|> >the line after it "rams" into the foot of the then-non-existant dam. 
|> 
|> Actually, it's pretty easy to follow it from this point.  It returns
|> above the water somewhere along the south side of Lexington Reservoir
|> (the opposite side from rt. 17) and a water pipe uses an old wood
|> trestle.

Getting around (up & over) Lexington dam will be interesting if & when
this line is rebuilt...

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: BART extensions & funding priorities
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:00:01 GMT


>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
> Getting BART quality starts yielding BART costs...



This is not true. This is exactly what BART and the politicians would
like you to believe so you will keep throwing money at them. It is
a fact that we could have BART "frequency" and much better QUALITY
for less cost using modern rail technology. It already exists in
other places.





   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:13:02 GMT


From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
>Great!  BART costs 10 times what CalTrain does!

Operating costs are roughly 7 times  219/29.


>BART carries 10 times the number of passengers CalTrain does!


Slightly more than 10 times  247,000/23,000.


Cost considerations are not what is limiting CalTrain. They 
are what is limiting BART.


	For the cost of extending PORKBART down the Peninsula we could
	extend the upgraded version of CalTrain around the bay to
	Sacramento and to Montery while at the same time extending at
	least the CalTrain level of service over the Altamont Pass and
	to Pittsburg/Antioch.

>Does ths include the connection to BART in San Francisco?


Yes


   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Captitol Routing
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:10:29 GMT


>From: hill@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Rich Hill)
>Does anyone know when the Capitol started taking the Hayward line?  I took the 
>train this morning and it took the Centerville/Hayward route.  It doesn't seem



Weekend of the July 18th is what I heard.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.politics
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Captitol Routing
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:47:47 GMT

In article <15358@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, hill@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Rich Hill) writes:
|> Does anyone know when the Capitol started taking the Hayward line?

I don't know the exact date, but it must have been within the last month
or so.  SP had been working to upgrade/rehab the tracks & signalling for
the switch from the Mulford to the Centerville/Hayward routing for many
months.


|> It doesn't seem as direct as the Mulford line but it sure is nice and
|> smooth with all that new track.  It's pretty fast too.

The track & signal upgrades were needed to provide the equivalent running
time between San Jose and Oakland as they were getting on the shorter
Mulford routing.  The switchover onto the Centerville/Hayward line
routing was at SP's insistence.  Caltrans/Amtrak reluctantly agreed to
SP's demand with the condition that the trains' running time would not
increase...



|> Lots of grade crossings, seemed like the whistle (horn?) was blowing
|> continuously!

Hey, its advertising.  That way people will know the train is there :-)

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: CalTrain on-time
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:29:33 GMT

I'm happy to report that CalTrain has been running on-time as
ever for all the trains I've either ridden or been able to hear
passing by my place.  I'm still observing some delays on north-
bound trains, but they're getting much better and are usually
only 5 minutes or so.  In my subjective view (I haven't seen
any "official" stats yet), Amtrak is running on-time at least
as well (and usually better) than SP did within 3 weeks of
taking over the service.  They had to contend with a lot of
track that SP had let fall into "deferred maintenance" mode
and with labor/staffing shortages in addition to the numerous
operational differences and service extensions/increases...

I heard a story on KGO AM 810 last night about how riders are
giving the new BART schedule changes (speed up) a big thumbs
down.  Apparently BART is having many operational and learning
curve glitches leading to late trains & equipment shortages
in connection with the new & improved service they are trying
to offer.  The report also pointed out that with the new
operating schedule, the problems BART has had keeping its
aging equipment operating at levels sufficient to provide
reliable on-time service have been exacerbated.  The report
was accompanied by the typical "man-on-the-street" style 
interviews of BART riders complaining that they're trains
are messed up/late.

Gee, at least CalTrain had the excuse that they changed lots
of stuff (including the service operator)... all BART did was
try to optimize their schedule, right?

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: SC County Transit Cutbacks in store
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:25:21 GMT


   According to an article in the July 29 Peninsula Times Tribune,
major across the board cuts in Santa Clara County public transit services are
in store for 1993.

   Though cuts will affect all services, bus service is expected to be
particularly hard hit.  Buses scheduled for elimination include lines 24
(SJ-PA) and 84 (PA-San Antonio,) with weekend services to be eliminated
on routes 86 (Stanford-San Antonios malls) and 88 (PA Vet Hosp-Louis
Road.)  On other routes, frequencies will be increased up to 30 minutes
longer than at present.  These include routes 32, 34, 35, 50, 51, 52,86,
88, 182, and 304.  Some of these routes will also begin up to 30 minutes
later and/or end up to 30 minutes sooner than at present.

   Reasons cited for the cuts include a reduced county transportation
budget, a decline in sales tax revenues, and increased costs associated
with expenses arising from the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
count's share of financing the new CalTrain service. 
--


Jon Corelis               jon@lindy.stanford.edu
Stanford University       BITNET:  BR.JGC@RLG.STANFORD.EDU
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Local quality of life
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:13:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

>In article <l6sk7rINNjgo@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>>We could leave.  ...

In article <14ma80INNhj8@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>Good.  The last thing the Bay Area needs is people who don't want to
>be here.

Thanks for the encouragement, but you are making (an apparently
common) fundamental mistake in your interpretation.  "Don't want to
be here" is not the same as "it isn't worth it."  Perhaps I wasn't
clear enough.  

Is this relevant to transportation?  Yes.  The same mistake seems to
be made in discussions of the various transportation alternatives.
"Can't afford" != "Can't abide".

If it got a lot nicer or a lot cheaper, I'd change my mind.  If I
changed my mind, then I'd care a lot more about the quality of life
here, long-term.  Note that BART won't be useful to me (in my present
location, Menlo Park) for at least 15 years.  (Guess I'll just hang
around for another couple of decades to see if the local
transportation improves.)

David Chase
Sun
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SC County Transit Cutbacks in store
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:47:54 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes: [about SC Transit Cutbacks]
>   Reasons cited for the cuts include a reduced county transportation
>budget, a decline in sales tax revenues, and increased costs associated
>with expenses arising from the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
>count's share of financing the new CalTrain service. 

I'm sure these didn't help, but the real reason is the huge subsidy
that the bus system needs.  Every time you pay $1 to ride a bus, the
county pays $9.  This 900 % subsidy is the largest of any local mass
transit system.  

Of course, busses are a lot cheaper to run (per passanger mile) than 
light rail.  Santa Clara's light rail system costs $1.53 per passanger 
mile.  That makes it about six times more costly than driving a car 
the same distance.  (That $1.53 just covers operational costs, not
total costs, BTW.)

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: JPB & artificial CalTrain requirements
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:47:56 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <9207281943.AA04096@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>
>>From: karplus@cse.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus)
::What I'd like to see (but don't expect in the next 20 years) is a
::train that runs from Santa Cruz down to Watsonville, then up though
::Gilroy, turning into a Caltrain.  I know that there is currently
::active planning for a train between Santa Cruz and Watsonville, but
::without a Silicon Valley connection i think they'll find that there
::isn't enough ridership to justify the expense.  Can anyone out there
::give me some back of the envelope estimates of the time it would take

:There is currently a study from prop 116 to extend CalTrain to 
:Monterey. Santa Cruz Regional Transit is doing a complimentry study
:on connecting to that CalTrain extension at Watsonville. The track
:is already there and is pretty flat. With 90 mph trains it shoul do
:it in less than an hour.

	CalTrain at Watsonville? Did you mean Gilroy?
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Local quality of life
Date: 23 Jul 1992 06:26:03 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <9207220032.AA02879@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:

> ... If people would
>look at the facts and realities of rail technology in use today, and
>give up their unrealistic perception of the BART system as exists then
>we might even get what we want and need before quality of life here
>goes into the toilet.

We could leave.  Enough people doing that would ameliorate congestion,
pollution, the price of housing, and (to some minor degree) water
shortages.  (Yes, I am volunteering to go.  Anyone else?)

It's not just transportation problems.

David Chase
Sun
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: JPB & artificial CalTrain requirements
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:43:37 GMT


>From: karplus@cse.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus)
>What I'd like to see (but don't expect in the next 20 years) is a
>train that runs from Santa Cruz down to Watsonville, then up though
>Gilroy, turning into a Caltrain.  I know that there is currently
>active planning for a train between Santa Cruz and Watsonville, but
>without a Silicon Valley connection i think they'll find that there
>isn't enough ridership to justify the expense.  Can anyone out there
>give me some back of the envelope estimates of the time it would take



There is currently a study from prop 116 to extend CalTrain to 
Monterey. Santa Cruz Regional Transit is doing a complimentry study
on connecting to that CalTrain extension at Watsonville. The track
is already there and is pretty flat. With 90 mph trains it shoul do
it in less than an hour.




>Even the limited Santa Cruz-Watsonville route would require extensive
>track work: adding passing sidings to the one-track line and
>repairing the rails---there have been several freight derailments in
>the last few years, even with only three slow freight trains a week, and so
>the track must be truly awful.  Does anyone have any idea how much it
>would cost to extend Caltrain all the way to Santa Cruz (even as
>commuter service only)?



SP spent 4 months and $14 million to upgrade the Hayward line. Some of
which is now 100 mph capable from the track geometry car's analysis.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Santa Cruz-San Jose CalTrain?
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:38:42 GMT


In article <14hlslINNa1b@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, karplus@cse.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus) writes:
|> Does anyone have an address or phone number for the Central Coast
|> Railway Club in San Jose that publishes the Ferroequinologist?



The National Railway Historical Society
Central Coast Chapter, NRHS Inc.
P.O. Box 434
Santa Clara, Calif.  95052-0434





Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Subject: Re: Third rail without fences (Was: San Mateo County BART)
Keywords: third rail bart safety right of way
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:16:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.080906@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>In article <14ge9lINN8a2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>|> 
>|> So, to make a long story short, what happened to underground third
>|> rail?  Is it still possible?
>|> 
>
>Several cities used the underground power pickup, Washington DC and
>NY City (Manhattan) are the two I remember.  


Washington, DC does not use underground third rail.  The Metro uses an
exposed third rail at the same level as the track.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: How much pollution from motor vehicles?
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:49:40 GMT

In article <14ncohINNjjf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
:1) Exhaust emissions.
:2) Hydrocarbon emissions.
:3) Tires wearing away on roads.
:4) Old tires stacking up.
:5) Old cars stacking up.
:6) Pollution caused by building roads/bridges/tunnels.
:7) Pollution caused by road tar/oil.
:8) Noise pollution.
:9) Oil leaks.
:10) Gasoline leaks.
:11) Oil pollution disposal, garbage, on the ground.
:12) Air Conditioner Feron emissions.
:13) Anti-freeze pollution.
:14) Rusting metal pollution falling off of vehicles.
:15) Cleaning compounds and waxes.
:16) Water pollution from cleaning vehicles.
:17) Old batteries (cores).
:18) Glass, plastics, foam rubbers.
:19) Visual pollution, eyesores.

	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 :-)

/Loren