From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:33:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.175741.26998@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan7.230704.2696@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
 
|> >At home I have an excerpt of the schedule of trains departing the Transbay
|> >Terminal.  There are something like 130 trains and/or streetcars in a 2-hour
|> >span.  The Transbay Terminal is one hell of a high throughput train station.
|> 
|> I'm not so sure you've got quite the effect you think you have.  There
|> were rather more than one set of rails inside the Terminal, and the
|> street cars still run (last time I was by) *outside*.  It's more like
|> the ends of two different systems meeting.

The terminal had six tracks (with platforms) running through it.  All
they connected to was the 2 tracks across the bridge.  I've got pictures
of this stuff.  I also have a partial reprint of an article that appeared
in "Construction News" magazine (or maybe it was a journal?) about the
Transbay Terminal.  Trains ran off third rail while on the bridge, but
then switched to running off overhead catenary wire.  Also, there were
2 or 3 different voltages in use!  Nowadays, it's hard to get some 
people to bellieve this stuff.  They nearly poop in their pants when
you suggest running services that are half as aggressive as what they
did in the "old" days. 
 

|> >It had a design capacity to handle something like 55,000 people per hour!
|> 
|> That 55,000 per hour was probably primarily transfers between trains
|> and street cars.         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Probably primarily?  Huh?  The building was designed to have 55,000 people
come/go per hour.  It's in the article.


|> >Drivers "use" mass transit in that those that do are getting out of the
|> >drivers' way and alleviating the need for that new lane or interchange
|> >or bridge or whatever.  
|> 
|> I agree that this is a valid point.  Unfortunately it is a very *poor*
|> way to sell a system. 

Let 'em see what it's like if we shut down *all* subsidized Bay Area public
mass transit (bus, rail, boat AND plane) for a week or so...
 


|> >Also, I think society, drivers included, benefit
|> >when there's something for people to ride when they can't or don't want to
|> >drive because they're too young/old/poor/drunk/scared/tired/incompetent/
|> >disabled/nervous/upset or tired of traffic or parking or driving itself.
|> 
|> This approach is also telling those who pay for
|> the systems that they *don't* want to ride it--that it is full of
|> people they feel superior to, full of the 'human trash' they don't
|> want to associate with....  Let's face it--anyone reading and
|> commenting on this network is *probably* paid reasonably well and is
|> reasonably bright.  Do you *really* want to 'share your space' with
|> drunks, rowdies, and incompetents? 

Whoa!  Re-read all the categories I listed.  The only unpleasant
category of person is "drunks".  Drunks are typically NOT a problem
on mass transit.  There just anren't that many of them--especially
where and when most people are traveling.  Even among drunks, there
are only a few that are a "problem", and they should be refused
service or thrown off when they make their unpleasantness known.

Now, if you will realisticly consider the percentage breakdown of
the typical transit user, the vast majority of them fit into a perfectly
acceptable category of transit user you could civily share a bus or train
with.


  
|> >Getting around is a key part of being a fully functioning, productive,
|> >happy, autonomous member of society.  Good mass transit ensures that
|> >people can get around even if they can't or don't want to own and operate
|> >a car.
|> 
|> This is a circular definition.  If whatever transit system exists does
|> *not* provide these opportunities, then it isn't a "good" one.

Huh?   Please re-read, perhaps more slowly this time.  Now, what is
"circular" about what I said.  Besides, I wasn't giving a "definition"
of anything.  I was merely statin my opinion as to *a* necessary
characteristic of good mass transit.
 
 
|> Look at what folks in Tokyo will spend to get a parking space so that
|> they're *allowed* to register a car, for one example.  Yet Japan in
|> general and Tokyo specifically is held up as some sort of transit
|> paradise...

But it is.  *I* never said that the demand for cars will/would or should
disappear in the presence of good mass transit.  Is that an impression
that you've been (falsely) laboring under?


|> If you cannot
|> make a sound case for your 'opponents' position, then you don't
|> understand the issues well enough to make your *own* case.

Not quite.  I guess it depends on what you'd consider a "sound case".
It is ludicrous to suggest that because I can't make a "sound case"
for Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the flat earth, God in the skies
above, <fill in the blank>, etc. that I "don't understand the issues".
I always thought that "a sound case" is unassailable, that all of its
premises and conclusions check out and are more or less irrefuteable.


|> My academic background (such as it is) is in Engineering.  I
|> firmly believe in redundancy.  I'd like to see *both* BART and
|> CalTrain running down the Peninsula--and along separate (as widely
|> separate as possible) ROWs.  That way, if one system goes down for
|> more than a trivial amount of time, the other can pick up at least
|> some of the load.

I guess they (engineering school) didn't convey the concept of
real-world constraints, and of cost/benefit and opportunity-cost of
resources such as money.  I suppose in a fantasy world of unlimited
resouces we could afford to over-engineer everything...

|> It will certainly take a lot of 'selling' to make that happen, though.

You bet.  Who's going to do it?


|> >CalTrain also has an image problem and has poor visibility at all levels
|> >when compared to it's sleeker-looking, sexier competition.   CalTrain
|> >doesn't have as many political champions or as large a constituency.
|> 
|> Nostalgia doesn't sell too well does it?

Did I miss something?  Where's the nostalgia?  Where do you get this stuff? 


|> How much of the fondness for CalTrain is just that?

A lot less than people like you think (or suggest you think).  If this was
all about nostalgia, then why do advocates talk about upgrades and modern-
izations like electrification and automatic ticket machines with random
proof-of-payment (POP) fare inspections?  I see *no* basis for the oft-
heard (or initmated) nostalgia brush-off.  It seems more like a handy
label to slap on people and ideas to avoid dealing with them thoughtfully.


|> I like trains too.  I also like steam engines, but I don't seriously
|> expect anyone to build a new interurban rail system around them.

Nor do I.  Do you know of *anyone* who does?  I don't.  Cut the crap, Hal.



|> I suggest an experiment on the Penisula....  Get the loan of enough
|> rolling stock to run a high-frequency service for about 90 days.  See
|> what happens to ridership.  If it does show a consistently *sharply*
|> rising line, then (I think) you can bet the riders aren't really
|> there.  If it *does*, then the experiment can be used to justify
|> buying enough stock to make a permanent improvement.

I'm sure you meant "are" instead of "aren't" in the above paragraph.  I'd
go further and allow for a slowly (moderately) rising "line" of passengers
too.

Another thought experiment (since it isn't possible) is to imagine if
tomorrow BART literally replaced CalTrain.  Don't you think BART would
run more than 60 trains per day?  Of course they would.  Don't you
think there'd be tons more riders because it ran frequently *all* day
long (well, at least until midnight)?  Of course there'd be!  Why?
Because the market for way more service is there.  (I believe, anyway.
Just take a look at the corridor served!)

  

|> >do conduct passenger surveys and on-board passenger counts and with a
|> >little statistical analysis, it seems like you can figure such stuff out
|> >pretty easily.
|> 
|> This also assumes that people tell the truth on surveys...

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.  CalTrain riders are secretly steam train
luvin' train buffs and would lie their asses off to make it seem like
they ride for miles and miles.  Remember too, that CalTrain can use
ticket sales data to determine zones paid for (and presumably traveled)
and then do some more statistical analysis (uh oh!  There's that nasty
thing again...).  You know, for someone with an engineering background,
you display a surprising lack of faith in surveying and statistical
analysis methods.


|> It hasn't
|> been just lots of fun playing Devil's Advocate.  I *hope* a few folks
|> are starting to think seriously about *why* the rosy projections
|> aren't believed and why systems do as poorly as they do.  I done my
|> best to see that this group isn't just 'preaching to the choir'.

Thanks.  It'd be pretty damn boring without a few naysayers.  I suppose
it can be pretty subjective, but I don't feel like transit systems do
all that poorly.  I think they all do about as well as one can expect,
given how they are run.  Projections being off and a particular transit
system being a failure are not the same thing.  Sure, if BART runs at
4-minute headways instead of 3- or 2.5-minute headways as projected,
it has not lived up to projections.  But is the system a failure merely
because there are some projections that it hasn't met?  Of course not!
I doubt there are even a handful (if that) of systems as complex and
with as many unknowns as an urban mass transit system that anyone could
make specific rock-solid dead-on projections for.

(However, *engineering*-type estimates of system performance, involving
things like speeds and headways really *ought* to be right...)

 
|> >But I think we (collectively) generally want mass transit.  
|> 
|> I don't think so.  What we want (collectively) is to be able to move
|> about freely and easily.  For some, mass transit will do that job.
|> For others it will not.  To say that we want mass transit is, I think,
|> to put a specific solution in place of a general wish.  One could as
|> easily claim that we (collectively) want bicycle paths everywhere.

Yes, probably.  I just took the liberty of taking the general wish a step
further toward a specific solution that I think many/most feel is a good
one.  I mean, if you want to deal in general wishes, why not just go back
to something like we (generally) all want to live and be happy?  Boy, now
that'd really make the conversation flow smoothly, eh?
 

|> >But even if the smallest fraction of people took an active
|> >interest in watching over and watchdogging transit operators and the
|> >regional agencies like MTC, transit would be much, much better.  But
|> >then that could be said for anything the government does...
|> 
|> I have 24 hours in each day.  Beating up on transit agencies to do
|> things right competes for that time.  In general--it loses out on a
|> 'time slot'.  (I.e. There are a *lot* of things I rather be doing.)

I never said *you* have to or should do it.  As I said, I think if only
the smallest fraction of people did it, things would be lots better.  As
it is.  There are probably less than 100 hard-core transit advocates/watch-
dogs in the Bay Area.  I mean ones that regularly speak at public meetings
and write letters and regularly communicate with elected officials.  I'm
only making a ballpark guess here on the actual number, but my point is
that it isn't even 1% of people that are in some way involved.  Yet, even
this small "group" is really making a difference.  I can only imagine how
strong we'd be if 1% were involved.
 
 
|> the money is spent.  Note that for all the money spent on BART (and
|> the complaints in this forum about cheaper alternatives *not* being
|> funded), it has a--comparatively--high fare-box-recovery ratio

All the money spent on BART construction in the past, now, and in the
future does not figure into fare-box recovery ratios.  If it did, BART
might very well be among the *lowest* farebox recovery systems.

|> and is a generally "successful" system while the competing systems are
|> not viewed in as positive a light.

First of all, we shouldn't have "competing systems" in mass transit.
At least not in the sense of trying to steal the other system's revenue
or passengers.  We should have one big co-operating system (or system
of systems, but a single system is better, IMO).  Secondly, "not viewed
in as positive a light" isn't saying much.  Sounds like you're treading
carefully to me.  From a cost/perfomance point of view, I think both
CalTrain and Muni are viewed in "positive light".  There are probably
others too.  This also depends on who is doing the viewing.  The average
man on the street doesn't take any kind of transit--ever.  He will view
the neatest, sleekest-looking system in the best light.  It's the one he
hears, reads, and sees the most about.  It looks and sounds neat, other
people generally know about it and like it too, so it's what he likes
best.  Sir, do you want/like BART?  "Sure.  It's neat."  But sir, some
say we should keep CalTrain and upgrade it;  what do you think about that,
sir?  "Huh?  CalTrain?  What's that?  Ohhhhh, yeah, that train over there.  Uh-huh.  Gee, don' know much 'bout that.  BART's good though..."
 

[IBM vs. non-IBM computer analogy deleted]
|> Then there's what happens when your 'better choice' is bought out by
|> another company or just goes out of the business....  Talk about egg
|> on face...

Yeah, but it's not quite like that with electing to upgrade CalTrain
over extending BART down the Peninsula.  If anything, it's the reverse.
Just about any train equipment can run on the Peninsula right of way,
whereas BART is the uniquely different/special technology.  With BART
suddenly (in the last year or so) saying "hey, folks, we need $1 billion
to completely rehab our 20-year old (relatively young) system" and MTC
executive William Hein saying BART will have to raise fare to pay for
it, I'd be more worried about BART proving to be more costly than any-
one thought right now.

 
|> What with CPUC and Federal regulations, the paperwork to
|> get subsidies to run the system and all, I'm surprised that SP ran the
|> line as long as they did.

I don't think SP was getting subsidies.  They were eating the losses
themselves.  NOW I'll bet you're even MORE surprised.


|> Since carrying passengers was a condition of getting the ROW in the
|> first place it would have been interesting to see the state tell SP
|> "carry passengers or forfit the ROW--free" instead of paying for it. 

As I recall, SP *bought* the right of way from the San Francisco - San Jose
Railroad around the 1890s.

Also, during the right of way purchase negotiations, Senator Kopp tried
to argue something along the lines of what you are suggesting.  His main
thrust was to try to scare (or take on) SP in a big way state-wide.  His
contention was that they should sell the right of way for what they were
claiming it was worth for the purposes of paying property tax.  His point
was that you can't have it both ways.  And if you persist, I'll pass
state-wide legislation that'll propery-tax railroad rights of way 
commensurate with the sell-off value you guys are demanding for this
right of way.  The railroad(s) successfully argued/defended their case
and Kopp backed down, as I remember it.  I don't remember the specifics
of the railroad argument for why rights of way should have lower values
for property tax assessment purposes.
 
-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov