HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Pushbuttons at crossings (was Signal Synchronization) 
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:47:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.054030.20958@resonex.com> frankm@resonex.com (Frank Muennemann) writes:
>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 this more
>>convenient for them.
>
>When most MOTORISTS actually start *stopping* at ... stop signs --
>a full, no-motion stop -- then we can worry about how to make this more
>convenient for them.

This name calling can continue forever.  You have counted cars
ignoring a specific sign and signal.  I've seen many cyclists sail
through stop signs and fewer, but significant numbers ignore signals.

I've heard the arguments from cyclists about "inconveniece".  I have
yet to hear a driver make that claim.  The drivers seem to be aware
that they should--and are legally obligated to--stop.  The cyclists
don't seem to give a damn.  This "it's okay if I do it because you do
it too" won't wash.  If a driver fails to stop--he can be cited.  If
an accident results, he *will* be cited (caveat--if caught and/or a
report is filed).  If a cyclist 'tangles' with a car, the cyclist will
come off second best.  That *alone* should be enough to get cyclists
to obey stop signs and signals, but apparently, it is not.

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jag@ampex.com (Rayaz Jagani)
Subject: Re: Price of Gas
Organization: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:25:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.201848.9405@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.165903.8680@informix.com> nickh@informix.com (Nick Hecker) writes:
>>
>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 cheapest I have seen is 1.159 in Redwood City.... I presume,
	charge what the market can bear!!.
-- 
#include std.disclaimer
Rayaz Jagani jag@dst.ampex.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.politics,ca.environment
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: SPUR meeting on SF Transbay Terminal
Keywords: CalTrain extension Transbay Terminal
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:19:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.183958.4117@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.225817.20544@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

: ramps will also be troublesome; I don't think there's enough real
: estate around to make them gentler.

>Curvature is okay for all standard 85 ft. rail equipment.  TRAC and
>TGV are looking into curvature with respect to the extra-long bogies
>under the articulated part of a TGV trainset.  In the worst case,
>the TGV equimpment could run push-pull in/out of the TBT (enter &
>leave via the same side).  

	But there's still a jag from the Bay Bridge to the TBT.

: 	CalSpeed? Much the same as for CalTrain, only probably worse.
: Same length and curve problems, and an additional one, the question of
: crossing the Bay Bridge. A TGV-type trainset (2 electric locos + 10
: passenger cars) will probably weigh at least 500 tons or so (30
: tons/car and 100 tons/loco), and it would have to cross at about 60
: mph or thereabouts so as not to take too much time there.

>The TBT and bridge were designed for 90 ton cars such as the all-steel
>cars run by the Sacramento Northern.  TGV equipment is limited to
>17 tons per axle and the TGV locos only weigh 67 tons.  TGV cars are
>in the 30 ton range.

	So a 2-loco, 10-car TGV trainset would weigh about 430 tons.

>There is nothing stopping several 40 ton trucks from driving near each
>other on the bridge!

	But they are only 8 tons/axle if they have 5 axles (standard
for 18-wheelers).

>The biggest weight problem is with CalTrain.  Cars are about 60 tons
>while the F40s (locomotives) are about 105 tons.  CalTrain would need
>locomotives in the 90 ton range in order to access the TBT.  Height
>is not a problem either.  TRAC believes even Amtrak Superliners would
>fit into the TBT.

	A 6-car CalTrain using present rolling stock would weigh 465
tons. The loco has 26 tons/axle and the cars 15 tons/axle.

	For comparison, a BART car weighs about 33 tons and 10 of them
(BART max) will weigh about 330 tons. The cars have only 8 tons/axle.

: 	Personally, I think it would be easier for a CalSpeed train to
: stop at the East Bay, at least in the immediate future.
>
>Probably.  However, I don't anticipate many people being enthusiastic
>about the last leg of the journey to SF being via ferry boat (as some
>others have suggested).

	I agree that a ferry would not be particularly fast (I've
estimated the Golden Gate ones at about 20 mph), which amounts to
about 15-20 min travel time to SF. But aside from that, the Bay Area
ferries are rather pleasant vehicles to ride in.

	Any comments on Bay Area ferries?

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Solectria EV
Summary: Santa Clara County General Services Agency is getting some
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:32:29 GMT
Reply-To: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Distribution: ba
Organization: Adobe Systems, Mountain View, CA

In article <1993Jan21.025025.23364@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	In the most recent (Jan. 1993) BART Times pamphlet I got at a
>BART station, I saw some interesting news...
>
>	One article was called "Get a Charge in the Volts-Wagen",
>describing the article's author's experience with a new electric car,
>a Geo Metro converted to run on batteries by the Solectria Corp...
>....
>	The BART connection to electric cars? BART and PG&E are
>founding members of CalStart, a public/private consortium hoping to
>build a California electric-car industry and BART is involved in the
>National Station Car Consortium and the American Public Transit
>Association's Electric Car Task Force, which hope to push small
>electric cars for local trips and for commuting to park-and-ride lots.
>
>	Also in the works, courtesy of CalStart, is some 160 charging
>stations for electric cars across the state.

The Mercury News ran a detailed test-drive and review of the Solectria 
"Force" on the front page of the Friday "Drive" section several weeks ago.  
I believe the Santa Clara County General Services Agency is getting three 
of them.

/John

-- 
John Ciccarelli           Adobe Systems,  1585 Charleston |    _~C      __C
jciccare@mv.us.adobe.com  Mountain View CA USA 94039-7900 |  ='\<,    ='\<,
uunet!adobe!jciccare      415/962-6677,  fax:415/903-0584 | (&)/(\)  (&)/(\)
=== "If you live within 7 miles of your job, why drive?" === BIKE TO WORK ==
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Oppose Signal Synchronization Projects!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 02:33:51 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154


In article <6094@bacon.IMSI.COM>, jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
|> An excellent point.  But, even with well-designed bike routes, you
|> *still* see lots of ("too damn many") bicycles on College Avenue in
|> Berkeley during rush hour for instance.  There's a great bike route
|> system in the East Bay (particularly Berkeley-Oakland) and there's just
|> no excuse for seeing bikes on a street not designed for it.
|> 
|> /jordan

Hmmm -- I hope you post the great alternatives for College for the
rest of us.  I've traversed College many times over the years at
various times of the day, and for many trips there are no good
alternatives to College (agreed that for some there are, and I
take them when they exist).  Riding with lots of cars is a pain,
and _most_ bikers will take the better alternatives if they really
are better.

What gets me is that I *still* see lots of ("too damn many") cars
on College getting in the way of others of us such as in buses
and on bikes.  Maybe we can just shut down some of the freeway
off-ramps and keep some of the cars there ( :) :) :) ).

Actually, rush-hour, when the cars are going very slowly, is in
many ways an easier time to bike on College than other times.
Must be a lesson there somewhere!

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Stopping at Signs (was Re: Pushbuttons at crossings...)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:50:09 GMT

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.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Pushbuttons at crossings (was Signal Synchronization)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:01:34 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: ba
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <C18Lr7.9K5@queernet.org>, rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
writes:
<<text deleted>>
|> ...  Because let's face it: in a confrontation
|> between a bicyclist and a motorist, no matter who's write, the bicyclist is
|> pizza.

No doubt a sausage, _mush_room, and 0live pizza!         (zero-live; get it?)

Happy cycling!

--Bruce
From: bq834@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark  Panitz)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: question
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:50:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Not sure where to post this-but this is ba.transportation, but I
live in Southern Cal. and I was wondering how can we (southcals)
get a silmar news group(like ba.transportation)only it wouldbe
la.transporation, ifany can help- please reply via email
thanks
-- 
send all replies/email to my 'main' account 
markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com
thanks a lot! and have a nice day !
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Stopping at Signs (was Re: Pushbuttons at crossings...)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 02:25:35 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: ba
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

I'm willing to agree for purposes of conversation that there
are plenty of bad/unsafe car drivers AND bicyclists, and that
we don't need to quibble about which there are a higher
percentage of.

The disparity arises more, I think, from the fact that a bad
biker can cause the car driver inconvenience and fender damage,
but the bad car driver can be fatal to the bicyclist.

I'm inclined to think that 10 years from now there will still
be plenty of bad/unsafe car drivers and bicyclists--the question
is what we should do in response to this.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov

PS: I'm amazed at how many car drivers seem to think that turn
signals are to mean "watch out--I started turning 5 seconds ago",
whereas I thought they were to mean "watch out--I intend to
turn (up to) 120 feet ahead".  Grrrrrrrrr.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: vaughnw@hadar.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Subject: rail car capacity
Originator: vaughnw@cotati
Organization: Fujitsu NTS
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:09:57 GMT



>	Actually, the maximum BART train length is 10 cars. And each
>car can seat 64 or 68 people. This leads to a maximum of 640 people.
>The BART cars are also roomy enough to allow for a lot of standees.
>How many? Probably 40/car before the crowding gets too bad. I wonder
>if the BART folx have ever done their version of a car-stuffing
>contest -- see how many people can fit inside.


According to the BART/SFO DEIR page 4-33:
"BART car are designed for a maximum passenger of three times the 
seeting capacity. At 72 seats per car this would be 216 passengers
per car. However BART policy defines a maximum load standard of 
1.15(83 passengers) during peak perionds and 1.0(72 passengers)
during off-peak."

Obviously with the newer cars with 64 seats more than 3 times
that amount can fit.



>It would be interesting to see how CalTrain would fare here,
>since its aisles are rather narrow and its upper floors are open with
>only a railing to keep people from falling through.


According to the same source:
"CalTrain passenger cars are designed to carry a seated load 
averaging 145 persons per vehicle plus up to 100 standees."

In truth CalTrain cars have 148 seats with 139 in the cab cars.
That is 1471 per 10 car train, more than double the number of
seats on a BART car and several hundred more than their "policy
loading factor".

>since its aisles are rather narrow and its upper floors are open with
>only a railing to keep people from falling through.
 ^^^^

I suppose this was supposed to be some monumental indication of 
inferior design or capacity. The reality is that railing is a
common technigue for literally millions of applications to aid
people in traversing precarious or limited spaces. In this case
and along with the handhold on CalTrain seats plus padding on 
corners and edges, this car design that is about 40 years old is
superior the BART cars as originally designed with no handholds,
no fire extinguishers and toxic/flammable seats.

Since the point of this was really capacity it should be noted that
20 minute or half hour CalTrain provides higher seated capacity
than 15 minute BART. At a lower capital and operating cost.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com


Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Subject: Re: Price of Gas
Summary: Higher during winter due to oxygenation
Reply-To: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Organization: Adobe Systems, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:57:45 GMT

[Nick Hecker (nickh@informix.com) asks why California gas prices seem
higher lately]

Starting this winter, California fuels are oxygenated for lower (CO ?)
emissions during cold-weather conditions.  I believe this started
at the end of October and will end at the end of January.  I seem to
recall this adds about 14 cents per gallon, but reduces winter smog
by 30% or more.

/John

-- 
John Ciccarelli           Adobe Systems,  1585 Charleston |    _~C      __C
jciccare@mv.us.adobe.com  Mountain View CA USA 94039-7900 |  ='\<,    ='\<,
uunet!adobe!jciccare      415/962-6677,  fax:415/903-0584 | (&)/(\)  (&)/(\)
=== "If you live within 7 miles of your job, why drive?" === BIKE TO WORK ==
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Dumbarton rail bridge was Re: SPUR meeting on SF Transbay Terminal
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:04:34 GMT

In article <28636@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
|> How 'bout retrofitting the Dumbarton line so that busses, as well
|> as trains, could run on it?  Maybe it could speed up the DB bus
|> (which I've only taken off-rush-hours).  If it got enough traffic
|> then it could help make the case for (re)starting rail routes.

I think that would be enormously more expensive.  Consider that there
is no roadway along that route right now.  The existing railroad track
needs minimal work to be readied for passenger trains.  The approaches
to the bridge are train-worthy today.  The biggest capital expenditure
(after buying the right of way) will be rehabilitating the bridge.

In order to put a roadway down would involve lots more civil engineering
and cost than simply restoring rail service.  Aside from the grading
and paving, the right of way is mostly single tracked.  Besides, I
don't think that running heavy rail (which is what is being
contemplated for the Dumbarton line) in conjunction with buses is very
safe.  The signalling issues would be unique and tricky at best.  The
bus can't just pull off into the Bay mud to allow a train to pass.

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...

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?

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: frankm@resonex.com (Frank Muennemann)
Subject: Re: Pushbuttons at crossings (was Signal Synchronization) 
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:02:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.173841.19227@athena.mit.edu> rnewman@athena.mit.edu (Ron Newman) writes:
[... stuff deleted]
>
>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"

That's fine--- IF it's really safe (IMHO it usually isn't).  Maybe
this would be appropriate at "T" intersections with a bike lane,
where the cyclist doesn't cross traffic anyway.

>(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.

Many intersections with streetlights here in California are wide enough
and busy enough that a cyclist may be taking a substantial risk by
running a red light.  I don't think any municipality should expose
itself to the potential lawsuits arising when a cyclist "dutifully"
fails to stop at the light and gets creamed.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Stopping at Signs (was Re: Pushbuttons at crossings...)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Distribution: ba
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:56:17 GMT


   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.

   Surely this behavior causes many deaths and injuries -- does anyone
have any figures?  Why on earth don't the police enforce this blatant
lawbreaking?  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.
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: BART handout news
Date: 21 Jan 93 05:39:18 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1993Jan21.025025.23364@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	In the most recent (Jan. 1993) BART Times pamphlet I got at a
>
>	Some high-tech BART plans: BART has contracted studies to
>develop a precision trackside train detector for allowing smaller
>headways, mentioning 80 seconds as a possible goal (!). (Original
>plans: 90 s, current: 3.5 min or 210 s). 

According to a similar BART handout a year ago or so, the system
through San Francisco can now run at 2.5 minute headways (150 second).

--
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: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: rail car capacity
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:52:11 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: LLNL

In article <C1DH8L.7v6@news.fai.com> vaughnw@hadar.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:

	[A lot of stuff on railcar capacity deleted...]

>>since its aisles are rather narrow and its upper floors are open with
>>only a railing to keep people from falling through.
> ^^^^

	[Sarcastic comments deleted...]

	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).
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
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 19:16:06 GMT






In article <jyc.726615803@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>
>In other words, the best argument that
>can be made for the San Bruno option is that it is somewhat less stupid
>than the present situation.  This is a case where the better, if it is
>better, is still the enemy of the good.

>From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
>That's what you gain by going to an option that is, in the best
>argument, "less stupid than the current situation." Kicking SF county
>off the JPB is an extra bonus.


MUNI is planning an extension to 4th and King, which is essentially
up to CalTrain. The south of Market area is being developed so that
in the comming years it will become as busy and as dependent upon rail
service from the peninsula as the CBD(central business district).
Transferring to BART at SFO would not service the Bayshore corridor
or the Third St. or the Mission Bay area if it ever developes. 
Abandoning the present CalTrain corridor would be absolute stupidity
for SF or the peninsula supporters of CalTrain. Even if SF pulls out
of the JPB, that does not in any way alter the right of CalTrain to
run trains to 4th and Townsend in perpetuity. There is absolutely 
nothing SF can do(including build a stadium) to prevent the trains
from running short of an act of congress that all major industry would
fight and a possible change to the constitution. It has been tried
a couple of times.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com




Newsgroups: ba.transportation