HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: olson@anchor.esd.sgi.com (Dave Olson)
Subject: Re: Tunnels (was Re: Downtown CalTrain Station)
Organization:  Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 04:07:55 GMT

In <185qaaINNn9a@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:

| In article <185o46INN4oa@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
| > (I can see the destination 
| >signs now -- "E Embarcadero     Marina Safeway.")  
| 
| I've seen some evidence that the paved running walk along Marina Green
| used to be a rail corridor; you can see some of the rail pop up on the

Most of it was for the Army forts (Ft. Mason and the Presidio), from
what I remember.  The tunnel into Ft Mason was how the trains reached
the warehouses there, and then on to the Presidio.

--
Let no one tell me that silence gives consent,  |   Dave Olson
because whoever is silent dissents.             |   Silicon Graphics, Inc.
    Maria Isabel Barreno                        |   olson@sgi.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Cost of transit systems vs highways
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:51:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.192019.7379@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> 	I guess "new" might be more like it, since if the line is
|> electrified, the 20 F40's will have to be replaced with electric
|> locos. And if one really wants to get fancy, one might replace all the
|> rolling stock with the sort of MU cars doing service in the Philly
|> area or New Jersey.

True.  CalTrain advocates realize this stuff too, you know.  The
CalTrain electrification study includes stuff like cost to replace
locos and how much equipment is needed for what frequencies.  I'm
dying to get my hands on my own copy, but it (for reasons I don't
fully understand) is *still* not out yet (as in publicly available).


|> 	Can a CalTrain car really hold 145 people? I estimated the
|> seating capacity once, and it was about 78 people. By comparison, the
|> BART cars can seat 64 or 68 people.

Yes.  CalTrain trailer coaches *seat* 148 (52 upstairs, 96 downstairs).
Cab cars seat slightly less to because the control cab and the bathroom
take up some seat space.


|> 	I don't know if being too expensive and too politicized is a
|> fair criticism for a system of BART's size. If CalTrain was to be
|> expanded in a big way, I'm sure that it would go the way of BART in
|> this regard.

It might, but it doesn't have to.  The other *major* problem with BART
is the extension process takes forever!  CalTrain is already there and
can be incrementally upgraded to comparable service levels over a period
of years.  BART, on the other hand, won't reach SFO for a decade, and
has little hope of reaching San Jose via the Peninsula for another
couple decades.  This of course, is largely because it has certain
requirements that make it among the most--if not *the* most--expensive
rail transit in the world.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SkyTrain?
Date: 25 Aug 1992 19:42:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug22.010948.8814@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>Hmmm.  I remember reading postings (over in rec.railroad?) or articles (in
>some rail rags?) about SkyTrain being kind of a disaster...  I'll try
>to get/remember specifics later.
>
>If it's really as great as Jeremy says, then I'm all for it:  SkyTrain
>for everyone!

Other than the doors inexplicably freezing shut when it snows (not that
common in Vancouver, but it happens), forcing BC Transit workers to
walk around with spray bottles to warm them up, as far as I know
SkyTrain hasn't had any serious problems from the consumer end.  

(I don't really remember the details of the freezing incident, but I
remember hearing of people who couldn't get out of the cars for 45
minutes, and the normally 26-minute ride taking 3 1/2 hours...)

They were planning to expand SkyTrain when I left last year, but I
don't know what became of it.

 =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
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Cost of transit systems vs highways
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:27:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.010538.13782@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> 	I agree that rather low-level service is easy to start up, but
|> when it starts getting high-density, it will start being more and more
|> BART-like.

Yes, that's the idea!  BART-like service, for less cost.  The incremental
upgrade approach is nice because the existing service gets better sooner
and gradually approaches BART-like service over a period of years.  The
alternative is to forestall any CalTrain improvements and wait for the
"complete" BART solution (which is all-or-nothing) to be ready in 20 or
30 or 40 years--and at much greater cost.  We can't afford to wait the
extra DECADES and pay the extra BILLIONS for BART to replace EXISTING
CalTrain which can be EASILY upgraded SOONER & CHEAPER.

-- 

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: Re: Downtown CalTrain Station (was Re: Cost of ...)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:34:24 GMT

In article <17ul3gINNhgn@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug31.174220.12801@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> >
|> >This is true for the currently-being-studied official alternatives.
|> >There is an alternative not being studied which is much cheaper and
|> >is primarily surface-running.  
|> 
|> Wouldn't the land ROW costs be expensive for that?  
|> 
|> Also, would the surface version be separated from the streets it
|> would cross (Howard, Folsom, etc.) ?

Regarding the cheaper, mostly-surface (with the rest elevated),
electrified CalTrain extension to downtown SF (TransBay Terminal):

Not sure.  I don't have the detailed description of this alternative
in my hands yet.  I spoke with TRAC president Dan McNamara this morning
and he said he'd get one to me ASAP.  My guess is that the trains would
be crossing streets some streets at grade, but I'm can't be sure until
I see the plan.

-- 

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: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:04:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <17km7bINN3vs@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:

[ a good article that neatly summarizes the debate.  The essential points
  I agree with. ]

I have one little point to make with a piece of it.

>    I think busways have the great advantage of providing one- stop
> service between feeder routes and downtown.  I think increasingly
> "downtown" is ceasing to have any meaning in the Bay Area, and that we
> need to stop developing transit reactively, and start developing it
> actively: put new urban growth around transit instead of building so
> that no other transportation but the automobile is feasible.  (The kind
> of "transit villages" that was on the front page of the Oakland Tribune
> on Sunday is a start.)  That kind of transit-based growth will require
> high capacities, higher I suspect than the threshold between when
> busways are economical and when rail is economical.

Note that not only homes but also many businesses have to be served by
feeder routes.  Thus a busway can provide no transfer service along
one feeder route, along the main route, and then along the feeder route
at the other end, where rail will generally require two transfers.
The lack of a downtown is an increased disadvantage for rail.
That said, I agree with the rest of the paragraph.  If the concept of
transit villages did catch on, and development were densely concentrated
around stations, then economies of scale will most likely favor rail.

I read at one point that they (I don't remember who, maybe the county
supervisors) are trying to get some development started around the 
Almaden LRT station.  The plan would be to build above it, I think.
Similarly with Communications Hill in South Central (an unfortunate
name :-)) San Jose, they want to have high density development.

jeremy
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 00:52:40 GMT

In article <chris.714770831@loki>, chris@loki.amd.com (Chris Martin) writes:
> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> 
> 
> >In article <1992Aug22.010448.8754@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> >> 
> >> 	Q: Which technology can meet the objective for the least cost?
> >> 	A: Standard rail; especially due to the existing infrastructure.
> 
> >I have to agree with this one.  It's already there.  However, I should
> >note that for the cost of running one Caltrain, you could run about 8
> >buses.  That means that you could have a vehicle every 7.5 minutes
> >instead of once an hour.  Speed would be a bit less if all stops were
> >made, but there would be a lot more flexibility in providing limited
> >stops.  Average system speed could be about the same.
> 
> But, this assumes a dedicated right-of-way for the busses, no?
> 
> --
> 
> Chris Martin                                      chris.martin@amd.com
> Advanced Micro Devices; Sunnyvale, Ca.; U.S.A.    408/987-9047

Yes, it does.  Which is why it's nothing more than a mental exercise,
in this instance.  I was merely using the example to point out the
potential advantages of buses on transitways, as opposed to buses
on streets, which tend to come out poorly in comparisons.  Now it
should also be possible to use small rail vehicles to get low costs
similar to buses.  The disadvantages are that it would be difficult
to run express and regular service on the same line, and you obviously
can't use the omnipresent street network.  The advantages are
that you can combine vehicles when traffic is heavy and pay only
one driver, you can also run driverless, you can use (sometimes)
the rail freight network, and higher speeds are possible.  Choices
should be made based on these considerations.

When all is said and done, there isn't much more to it from a service
standpoint.  There is a certain amount of nostalgia to rail transit,
but that shouldn't have any place in a rational evaluation of modes.
Adrian has complained about lack of legroom, but that is also a
problem on many LRT vehicles (worse in some ways because you often
end up knocking knees with a stranger), and is taken care of by proper
specification.  Similarly with smoothness of ride, etc.

jeremy
From: james@cats.ucsc.edu (James C. Bohem)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: How did SkyTrain get built/run so cheaply?
Date: 27 Aug 1992 20:06:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


Skytrain is definitely light; most of the line is elevated. 
I'm pretty sure that it is linear induction driven -
can anyone comment about power requirements/efficiency
of such a system? I rode it in '86, right after it opened,
so the details are fuzzy...

-- 

James C. Bohem          +1 408 458 5358          fax: +1 408 423 6519
james@cats.ucsc.edu   (or preferably)  james@holycow.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: We need an FAQ list
Keywords: FAQ frequently answered question proposed
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:29:05 GMT

In article <17e1adINNlsi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> Metro -- term used for rail rapid transit in various areas, i.e., 
>    Washington D.C., Paris, San Francisco's "Muni Metro." 

San Francisco's Muni Metro is actually a light rail system.  BART is
basically a Metro system, as is MARTA, CTA, etc.  Metro is generally
synonymous with heavy rail (but not commuter rail).  It generally
operates completely grade separated.

jeremy
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cost of transit systems vs highways
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:24:36 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

Adrian Brandt <adrian@ntmtv.UUCP> writes:

	The max sustained lane throughput I've heard thrown around a
	lot is 1,800 to 2,000 cars/hr., or a car every 1.8 to 2
	seconds.

The last time I saw this number in the Comicle, it was 5k cars per
direction per hour.  That is, 120k/day in each direction.  My
understanding is that the bridge carries about 240k vehicles/day, so
we're near "saturation" ... the story also mentioned that at the
current growth rate, we'd have enough traffic to saturate two 10-lane
bridges by like 2014.

/jordan
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Disabled access
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:47:04 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <9208281415.AA05072@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> 
> >From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
> >It probably is true, but
> >from the handicapped point of view, this is greatly inferior service.
> >For one, you generally have to make reservations.  Second, you are also
> >quite limited in service area.  Third, if you want to go somewhere
> >with friends on transit, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> The APTA, Metra and Septa studies that I heard referenced(not read)
> indicated that full on demand chauffeured service would be cheaper
> than retrofitting existing systems. The other consideration was 
> that even on systems with complete access ridership is negligable.
> 
> 
>    Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com


I don't dispute that one bit.  But that does not change the fact that
on demand systems do not satisfy the disabled community, as evidenced
by the large disabled protests at APTA's triennial conventions.

jeremy
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: rail technologies (was: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution)
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:58:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


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.
>
>The Geary corridor (in San Francisco) does have busses running on it today.

Many, many, many buses; most are now articulated buses.  It really is
a good candidate for some kind of higher-capacity transit than what
it's got now.

>The J-line runs out Church Street (I hear it has been extended since I moved
>out of the city some years ago).

It has since been extended from Church and 30th down a few blocks to
San Jose Avenue, and from there down San Jose Avenue to the Muni Metro
center at Ocean and San Jose Avenues.  There is not currently service
scheduled along the line because there are not enough cars to service
it (!).  More are on order.  Eventually the idea is to run a single
car all the way around -- starting on the J line and then moving to
the M line at Balboa Park station, with a second car following and
turning around at various locations (I don't recall for sure, I but I
believe the idea is to run two cars from Embarcadero Station to S.F.
State and two cars from Embarcadero Station to Balboa Park Station;
the second car would turn around at those points and the first car
continue on.   Part of the problem is that there aren't the proper
turnarounds on 19th Avenue, and it's going to take part of the roadway
so locals are fighting it.)

>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.

Well, there's room underground for *lots* of things, just depends on
how deep you go. :)  I don't know what you mean by "small cabin" --
SkyTrain cars are about as big as your average bus, if I remember
correctly; it's been a while.  I think a regular light rail line makes
more sense on Geary; there is room there and it wouldn't be as
expensive as a fully-separated line would be.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
  Bring in the workers, and bring up the rails;
  We're gonna lay down the tracks, and tear up the trails. 
  Open her heart, let the life-blood flow,
  Gotta get on our way 'cause we're movin' too slow.
    -- Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy"
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cost of transit systems vs highways
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:21:59 GMT



>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>	And it works -- only half of the San Francisco -- East Bay
>commute traffic goes by the Bay Bridge. The other half goes by BART,
>which travels in a tunnel beneath the Bay. Guess who has the more

According to Greg Bayol(sp?) Caltrans district 4 in charge of the
Bay Bridge, it carries over 250,000 vehicles a day at an average 
occupancy of 1.13 per vehicle. Considerably less than half use
BART.


According to BART's ridership reports it carried 120,352 riders
in June( highest in last 3 months) in transbay service per day.
BART transbay travel has dropped 2.6% from June 1991. 

It is not working. Highway expansion along the BART corridors
continues.


>	The only criticism I consider really serious of BART I have
>seen is its cost, but I think it is difficult to avoid that for a
>system with its performance. If there is any good reason to think
>otherwise, then give reasons, rather than flames.


Using published facts instead of your personal unfounded conjecture,
it lacks the speed and seating capacity to lure people out of their
cars in sufficient numbers so as to prevent congestion or highway
expansion. In fact(as opposed to conjecture and fantasy) ridership
is decreasing in real numbers and in percentage of total travel
for the Bay Area. Your failure(refusal) to consult establish sources
negates any claim to reason.




	>And how much is a CalTrain tunnel to the Transbay Terminal
>expected to cost? At least $600 million, and probably $1 billion. And
>this for only 1 mile of tunnel.

That is less than a tunnel under San Jose, which you seem to support.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: busways (was Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:47:38 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <JET.92Aug27142527@win30.nas.nasa.gov>, jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend) writes:
> 
> Houston had a reserved buslane built into two of the major interstates
> going through the middle of town.  They soon changed it to a one-way
> HOV lane since the shortened bus-trip time didn't make up for Houston
> Metro's lousy bus service.

I read somewhere recently that Houston was going to expand their service
and add some more HOV lanes.  It does make sense to have a bus lane be
an HOV lane also if the bus agency isn't making full use of it.  The
powers that be have as their responsibility to set the HOV level at that
which still allows the buses to hit 55mph the majority of the time.
Usually that is accomplished by varying the number of people per vehicle
from 2 to 3.

> 
> After living in the bay for a month or two, I think that special-time
> HOV lanes are the way to go for buses-- just build an extra lane on
> the freeway or mark off an existing lane.  I dunno what the studies
> show, however...

This is a good, low cost measure.  It allows the buses to make travel
at 55 mph, without a lot of expense.  The only downside is that stops
require the bus to get off the highway.  On balance, I have to agree
with you, though.  It isn't practical in this budget climate to build
a busway with stations, etc.

> 
> --
>              J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
>            '91 CB750, soon to be replaced by a '92 R100R, DoD# 0378
>       "Heads.  Heads.  Heads.  Heads.  Heads.  Heads." -- R & G Are Dead

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.politics,rec.railroad
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: November election critical for CalTrain
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Keywords: CalTrain
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:15:55 GMT


This is a Peninsula Rail 2000 Flyer that was put out recently:


NOVEMBER ELECTION *CRITICAL* FOR THE FUTURE OF CALTRAIN

Two measures on the November ballot will allow us to complete a
regional rail transit system this decade...  Conversely, their
failure would set back plans to complete a rail transit system
that rings the south Bay by the year 2000.

In Santa Clara County, voter extension of Measure A--an existing
half cent sales tax now dedicated to highways--will reprogram it
so 92% of all funds will go to transit.  If approved, Measure A
would fund the upgrade of CalTrain to BART-level service, build
a rail connection to Fremont BART to ring the South Bay, and 
fund light rail extensions to Campbell, East San Jose, and
Mountain View, tripling the length of the LRT system.

In San Mateo County, an advisory ballot measure on CalTrain,
Measure C, will be put to voters to test San Mateo County's
continued support for CalTrain--along with another ballot
measure (B) that would OK negotiations to extend BART throughout
San Mateo County.  Preliminary polls indicate that the BART
measure will pass by over 70%, but the CalTrin measure will be
defeated.

This is partly because CalTrain is under attack by San Mateo
County Supervisor Tom Heuning for lack of a funding plan for
the extension of CalTrain to downtown San Francisco.  In fact,
the SF Extension's funding problem is because where BART has
obtained 70% of its funds from State and Federal sources, local
officials have only asked for 25% of the CalTrain project's
revenues to come from these sources.

If the BART measure finishes with this large plurality--and the
CalTrain measure B fails--the San Mateo County Board and SamTrans
could use it as an excuse to withdraw the County's previous
commitment to upgrade CalTrain to BART-level service.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

1. Come to the next Peninsula Rail 2000 meeting and help us
   organize our Yes on A (for Santa Clara County) and Yes on C
   (San Mateo County) campaigns.  Thursday, Sept. 3, 6:30 pm
   at the San Carlos CalTrain station's "Depot Cafe"--dinner
   optional ($6).  The meeting is timed to allow attendees to
   take the train both to and from the meeting.

2. Volunteer--even 1 our 2 hours, or the free time when you're
   waiting for the train--to distribute flyers, write letters
   to the editor, etc.  Call and leave your phone number on
   Peninsula Rail 2000's 24hr news/message line: (415) 737-1144.


RING THE BAY WITH RAIL TRANSIT WITH NO NEW TAXES -- YES on A / YES on C

Peninsula Rail 2000
2448 Watson Court
Palo Alto, CA 94303-3216

-- 

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