HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Proof of payment
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:47:22 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Sep2.171247.7050@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <pas0htc@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> There are no proof of payment systems for local transit service that
> |> I know about.
> 
> Santa Clara County, Los Angeles, San Diego (aka "Tijuana Trolley") and
> Sacramento LRT are all proof of payment (POP) systems.  POP is where you
> are responsible for being able to produce proof of payment of correct
> fare via some sort of self-ticketing system (usually ticket machines)
> to an inspector (preferably plainclothes) conducting a random inspection
> (usually, but not always, aboard the transit vehicle).  Those passengers
> caught "cheating" are fined some large amount that is typically in the
> range of 40 to 100 times the correct fare.  Using statistical methods,
> compliance ratios are easy to calculate and can be "tweaked" by adjusting
> inspection frequencies and/or size of fines.

But those are all limited stop services.  I used local in the sense of
a local route vs. limited vs. express.  I.e. stops every block.

> 
> |> Do they use such in Europe?
> 
> Extensively.  Although it's pretty much the "wave of the future", there
> are still plenty of systems that don't though.

Do they use such in stop-every-block services?

jeremy
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cost of transit systems vs high
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:21:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:9208281421.AA05078@asia.fai.com:1769291767:cdp:1326100014:000:918
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jlohrmann    Aug 29 10:21:00 1992


Regarding 15 minute service:

SOMEBODY would build track if there was a truely comprehensive
marketing and planning effort to give the people of the greater
Bay Area the kind of train service we want.  That's the basic problem
with BART.  They get to approve everything, but they can't afford
to do anything expeditously.  Hopefully somebody will come along
with a plan that will justify the needed track improvements AND
provide a feeder system to BART that will allow them to maintain
revenue.  Soon I hope.  Traffic, pollution, morale and
public accessibility are going to heck fast.

BTW, Jeremy, since your at NASA, do you know any of the people who
have done some of the better work on GIS technology that would
allow us to go through levels all the way from an aerial shot to
property ownership, sewer easements and even political jurisdictions
on a piece of land?

Jeff Lohrmann 415/626-0277
jlohrmann@igc.org
From: burke@doright.Tymnet.COM (John Burke)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: How did SkyTrain get built/run so cheaply?
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:46:18 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

subj: How did SkyTrain get built/run so cheaply?

We're missing something here: can someone who knows some details
explain to all of us how Vancouver's SkyTrain acheived such a low
cost per passenger mile?  I think $0.09 per passenger mile was
quoted.

I'm not expressing disbelief; if it's true, we need to understand how
this was done and why our systems are so much less efficient.

I think I have read most of the postings that showed up in the last
month discussing SkyTrain.  It just doesn't make sense.

If I understand about SkyTrain (I've never seen it)

	It's fully automated.

	It's fully grade-separated (elevated structures? tunnels?)

	It runs through some congested metropolitan areas.

	I presume its speed is not ridiculously slow.

This sounds like the complete recipe for a high-cost urban rapid transit
system.  I can pose some questions:

	Would it still be cheap if the system's capacity were
	drastically increased?

	How fast could such a system go, without serious cost
	increases?

	Is the trick to not use switches to move trains to different
	lines in normal service?  This simplifies a lot, and I could
	see it being practical in large systems: the Paris Metro
	runs a very comprehensive service, and almost all the lines
	are run in a simple end-to-end manner without any switching
	between lines in normal operation.  (Connections exist but
	are not used in normal routing.)

So, can anyone out there tell us what the secrets are behind SkyTrain's
low passenger-mile cost?  Inquiring minds want to know.


John Burke (burke@hobbes.Tymnet.COM)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:53:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.003317.10867@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <p0hoh2c@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> How about
> |> 	A: Frequent, rapid, transit service for the peninsula.
> |> 	   It doesn't have to be rail!
> |> 
> |> 	Q: Could a bus only transit way be used to meet the objective?
> |> 	A: Yes
> 
> 
> Sorry Jeremy, I know you're a bus fan, but I'm not convinced as many
> people will ride a bus for the same distance, and as frequently as
> they would a train.

Since you're a rail fan, it's not surprising you feel that way.  But
I've already said that for long trips, yes, there will be a difference.
But for trips under an hour, it is negligible.  How much can you get
up and walk around on an LRT, anyway?  Or a Caltrain, for that matter.
There is an undeniable advantage to Amtrak, where you can walk around
and get food, and the corridors are wide enough to do so.  But for
urban transit trips under an hour (the vast majority), it just isn't
there.

That said, charter bus tours to places like Reno are quite popular,
so a lot of people don't mind long bus trips.

I've given numerous examples in the past to support my case.  I can
repost if people want.

>                      To be fair, I probably shouldn't have explicitly
> put "rail" in the requirements question.
> 
> There are also some well-known advantages of rail having to do with
> permanance of routing that influences land-use patterns more strongly
> than a change-on-a-moment's notice bus line routing.  I am also aware
> that bus advocates and rail opponents like to point out how fixed and
> inflexible the routing dictated by rail is.  A good rail service will
> commonly influence land-use and investment decisions whereas this is
> not as true of bus lines.

In practice, main bus and rail routes never change.  There will always
be a bus route up El Camino (or a rail route to replace it), for example.
That's really not an issue for either mode, in my opinion, which is why I
didn't mention it.  Especially if a busway were built, that makes the
bus option as fixed as the rail.

I'm not anti-rail.  I just think that it should only be used where the
service provided will better or equal to that provided by buses or
where it can be provided cheaply.  For example, I think that the Caltrain
line should be used for frequent transit service, since it probably has
the greatest ridership potential.  It should have the greatest priority
for expansion (certainly above the Tasman LRT) on the peninsula.  I
also think that Vancouver Skytrain is better than a busway would have
been.  But for Santa Clara county, the LRT really seems inappropriate.

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

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: rail technologies (was: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:21:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.215101.22623@octel.com>, marc@octel.com (Marc Lewert) writes:
> In article <p1hn5n0@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >
> >
> >Sorry to go on about this.  Anyway, I don't remeber where the
> >J-line is, but it seems to me that the Geary corridor might be
> >an ideal candidate for a Skytrain-like system.
> >
> >jeremy
> 
> The Geary corridor (in San Francisco) does have busses running on it today.
> The J-line runs out Church Street (I hear it has been extended since I moved
> out of the city some years ago).
> 
> The problem, as I see it, is a "Skytrain-like" system is an automated
> small cabin system with no operator.  You might want to run that on a 
> dedicated right of way without grade level road crossings.  I do not think
> there is room for that on Geary, though if you put it under ground there 
> might be.

You might be right.  I was thinking of an elevated system (which could
actually be a tourist attraction, too) down the middle of Geary.  They
might lose a lane in each direction, though.  A surface system doesn't
seem worth it.  It wouldn't be any faster than the current A/B/Limited
bus network.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Proof of payment
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:53:29 GMT

In article <pbtrd84@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep2.171247.7050@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> > In article <pas0htc@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> > |> There are no proof of payment systems for local transit service that
|> > |> I know about.
|> > 
|> > Santa Clara County, Los Angeles, San Diego (aka "Tijuana Trolley") and
|> > Sacramento LRT are all proof of payment (POP) systems.
|> 
|> But those are all limited stop services.  I used local in the sense of
|> a local route vs. limited vs. express.  I.e. stops every block.

Oh, sorry.  I think of light rail as local service.  Especially in the
areas where stops are every couple blocks (same as buses).  Most Santa
Clara County and SamTrans bus stops are much more than a block apart
anyway--even in "downtown" areas.  I suppose your local vs. limited stop
thing is really not a function of mode (bus/rail) as it is stop spacing
characteristics.


|> > |> Do they use such in Europe?
|> > 
|> > Extensively.  Although it's pretty much the "wave of the future", there
|> > are still plenty of systems that don't though.
|> 
|> Do they use such in stop-every-block services?

I'm not sure.  When in Europe I generally find the rail coverage is 
good enough so that walking can easily make up for what the rails
don't reach.  This is not to say I haven't needed, or ridden buses,
but that I did it very infrequently.  I can say, however, that few
buses I did ride were not POP.  This is probably because there needs
to be a driver anyway, so going to POP isn't as big a win as it is
for multi-car, multi-door rail systems.  After all, buses only have
two doors, and the back one is for people exiting anyway.  Also,
buses generally don't have as many people clamoring to board per
stop as do rail systems.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: How did SkyTrain get built/run so cheaply?
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:04:23 GMT

In article <2403@tymix.Tymnet.COM>, burke@doright.Tymnet.COM (John Burke) writes:
|> So, can anyone out there tell us what the secrets are behind SkyTrain's
|> low passenger-mile cost ($0.09/mi.)?  Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't know much about SkyTrain, but I bet keeping labor costs down has
a lot to do with it.  Labor has got be among the biggest (if not *the*
biggest) contributors to transit operating costs.  Remember that with
labor it's not only the salary/wages that get you, but other associated
costs like benefits, etc.

Santa Clara County Transit is a perfect example of a system suffocating
under skyrocketing labor & benefits costs.  That's part of why SCCTD's
cost recovery ratio is so bad.

Incidentally, $0.09/mi. is the average CalTrain fare if I remember correctly.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Rail on Geary (Was: Re: rail technologies)
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:05:50 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <8!knb5b.loren@netcom.com>, loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart) writes:
> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> : In article <painpc0@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> : |> The main stumbling point with proof of payment on local service (rail
> : |> or bus) is that it's too easily avoided.  You see the fare inspector
> : |> and get off at the next stop.  That can happen with either rail or bus.
> : 
> : I've never been inspected in the US on any proof-of-payment system.  Just
> : lucky, I guess.  But, I have been inspected numerous times riding in
> : various European cities.  The inpectors were wearing plain clothes and
> : were not identifiable as inspectors until the vehicle's doors had closed.
> : Sometimes they work in pairs.  In one instance they asked the LRT driver
> : to stop the LRV until they had finished.  Believe me, I was caught by
> : surprise every time (luckily I always had a valid ticket too; I did
> : cheat a couple times!).  
> 
> The inspections on SCCTD LRT seem to be pretty effective.  The transit
> officers are uniformed, but they get on a train and have the whole
> train pretty well checked out by the next stop.  I suppose that it may
> be possible to cheat on this, but I doubt that much cheating goes on on
> the SCCTD Light Rail.  I have been on many trains when the transit
> police have boarded to check for tickets, and I haven't seen anyone get
> off when they see the officer in the station.  The stations also
> require proof of payment, so they could catch you in the station if
> they thought you were exiting suspiciously.

Right.  I don't know if you understood my post or not.  SCCTD light rail
is basically a limited service.  Unfortunately, the terms "local" and
"limited" are overloaded.  In this case, the term local refers to
a service that has stops typically every 1/4 mile or less.  Limited
(for limited stop) has a much greater distance between stops.  Local
service pretty much is curbside (or traffic island for streetcars).
Even here, POP would work if they could stop the vehicle and not let
anyone off while checking fares.

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Why SC Measure A is good
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:57:59 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Sep3.182603.20578@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Hirsch) writes:
> 
> Alan Hirsch can't post, but here's his response to Bill Michel's
> piece on what is wrong with Santa Clara County Measure A:

I don't know if you want to be the intermediary, Adrian, but
here goes anyway.

> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Bill's comments are all about process, not about specific projects.
> Other than on highways, his are philosophical criticisms.  They're
> rather academic arguments about what would be the ideal solution and
> methods of getting things done.  People in the real world who want
> to get things done are willing to settle for the very good solution
> instead of waiting around for the perfect solution Mr. Michel seems
> to want. 

Here's a specific one.  8.25% sales tax is too high.  7.75% is
bad enough.  We already have .5% for transit, and it is being
inefficiently spent.  This measure would make it .95%.

> Mr. Michel wants to raise the gas tax instead of sales taxes for funds.
> I agree.  That is the right tax to fund transit.  However to get the
> same revenue as a half cent sales tax, you would need a 19-cent gas
> tax--and 85% of the people oppose this, where only 30% oppose a sales
> tax for transit.  Do we wait around until people change their mind,
> or do we get better transit now? 

Of the 70% that support a sales tax, do they support the existing one,
or do they support both the existing one and the proposed new one.

> 
> Academic arguments are nice, but we need to improve our transportation
> system now by building more transit now.  SCCo's measure A is the
> best, most heavily transit-oriented transit plan and funding measure
> to come out of any county in the state.

How is it the most transit oriented?  Both San Diego and LA passed
half cent sales tax measures in the '80s which go for transit.  How
is Measure A better than theirs?

The ends don't justify the means.  There has to be more than just putting
in rail lines.  There is currently no plan to get a reasonable farebox
recovery from transit in Santa Clara county.  Just putting in light rail
lines is not enough.  There have to be changes to make transit more
appealing and accessible so that it gets more ridership (the minimum walk
from a house to a light rail station in South SJ is over 1/4 mile in all
but a few cases; people who can look over their fence at the Capitol
Station can't reach it without walking a mile or more).  There also need
to be concrete plans to reach a higher farebox recovery.

The current half cent sales tax was sold in '76 as the answer to Santa
Clara county's transit needs.  Now it is used up just to run the system
we have; there's nothing left over for capital projects.  There is nothing
in Measure A to make me believe that the proposed additional tax will be
spent any more wisely.

>  
> -Alan Hirsch

jeremy
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:44:40 GMT


>>Vaughn Wolffe <vaughnw@asia.fai.com> writes:

>>	Outside of the Bay Area BART is seen as an drastically
>>	expensive mistake in engineering.


>From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
>... as well as *inside* the Bay Area.  What's your point?  My reading

               {   stuff deleted  }
>I know you're against BART cheerleaders, but there's a system there
>today, and it serves a quarter of a million riders per day, and we need
>more coverage.


My point is that there are tracks there today that could reach 6.5 
million and we need more coverage. The cost of BART precludes its use.
In any realistic time frame or expected future demand BART is totally
incapable of providing for our needs.



> Should we rip it all up?  His biggest point about the "failure" of


Certainly not. Just as certainly we should improve CalTrain and 
expand it beyond any resemblence to either of the two systems.



>I know you're against BART cheerleaders, but there's a system there


I am pro rail and against bad transportation, rail or road.



>me tell you that I'm all for increasing CalTrain's role and product.
>If I were in charge of funds for transportation, CalTrain certainly
>would get more money to become a "real" commuter railroad, since I
>believe the demand is there.  But really, maybe it's just that people
>must grow "beyond the CalTrain perception" which is that it's not
>useful at all.  I am not a "railfan" though I do enjoy *riding*



I couldn't agree with you more.


   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com



Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: "The only sensible way to proceed"
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:24:13 GMT

In article <17e1g5INNlsp@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> Jordan Hayes in <4673@bacon.IMSI.COM> writes:
> 
> > I'll assume that BART published some document that said that if there
> > was a good CalTrain link in downtown San Francisco that no one would
> > use it, but if BART went to SFO people would use it.  Are you
> 
> Since I happen to have a copy of the SFO extension DEIR in front of 
> me, I'll copy down parts of "Table 2.1", Transit Operator System 
> Characteristics For The Year 2010".  I don't want to type for a 
> week, so the only "build" alternative given in the DEIR I will talk 
> about is the one actually approved, alternative 5.  Each alternative 
> has the "A" subalternative, without a CalTrain extension, and an 
> subalternative "B", which assumes a CalTrain extension to an 
> underground station at 2nd and Market streets (connecting to 
> Montgomery BART). 
> 
> They talk like that with words like "subalternative."
> 
> These are figures for total annual boardings for the systems (in 
> millions), projected in 2010 -- not just trips to SFO. 
> 
>            Do nothing   TSM 2A  TSM 2B  Build A  Build B
> 
> BART       104.23       105.64  105.02  116.66   112.05
> CalTrain    13.01        16.84   22.80   15.82    19.61
> SamTrans    27.32        26.91   24.94   24.48    24.94
> Muni       313.01       306.81  299.60  301.20   298.90
                          ------  ------  ------   ------
			  456.20  452.36  458.16   455.50

So building the downtown Caltrain extension will reduce total
transit ridership, whether or not BART is extended to SFO.
Presumably that's because many current Caltrain riders get
counted twice, once on Caltrain and again on Muni.  This
example shows the problem with these studies and the first
level conclusions that can be drawn from them.  It also
points out the problems in counting ridership that occur
when you count vehicles taken, not trips made.  Still, even
presuming that the number of annual transit *trips* increased
by 4,000,000 with the Caltrain downtown extension (the upper
limit, based on the above info), is that worth one billion
dollars?  That's 250 dollars per annual rider (more when you
have to pay the interest on the bonds that built it).  I
guess if Caltrain were made into a real transit service, the
cost per new rider figure for the extension would go down
substantially.  Until the counties ante up for that (running
a real rapid transit service on the peninsula), I don't see a
downtown extension in Caltrain's future.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: RR bridges, was Cost of transit systems vs highways
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:45:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.154836.25241@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
|> That Amtrak *does*not* run at higher speeds that were available a
|> century ago suggests that Amtrak is technologically backward.

It suggests that Amtrak is cash poor.

Running at high speed takes capital investment money that Amtrak is very
short of.  There's nothing fancy about the "technology" or know-how to
run at 100mph since it was done a long time ago w/o using high tech.

France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden and Japan all have high-speed rail.
The US is just (deliberately) out to lunch when it comes to rail.

-- 

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