HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Heuning's SM BART "Plan"?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 04:10:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.001444.5414@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:

	[Long article on how one shouldn't expect BART down the
Peninsula without raising taxes]

	I'm inclined to agree, but...


>The 6.5 mile BART extension from Colma to near the San Francisco Airport
>will cost $972 million.  If extending BART from San Bruno/SFO to San Jose
>is as expensive per mile, it would cost $5.2 billion.  The Santa Clara
>County portion would be $2.5 billion...

	The San Mateo County portion: $2.7 billion.

	That presupposes that the rest of the extension cost would be
$150 million per mile, all from that Colma-SFO extension quoted cost.

	But some of the other extensions are slated to be cheaper than
that, like the Dublin/Pleasanton extension at only $50 million/mile --
a factor of 3 lower. It all depends on where the extension will go;
the D/P extension goes at ground level in the middle of a freeway.

	The SMC part will probably be along Hwy. 101, and will
probably not be much more expensive per unit length than the D/P
extension. In that case, it will be about $900 million.

	The SCC parts include some underground segments in the middle
of San Jose, so those parts will not be anywhere as cheap as the D/P
extension.

	I've seen the argument that SMC is just financing SCC
commuters with a BART line down the Peninsula; might the same hold of
CalTrain?

	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.

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: RR bridges, was Cost of transit systems vs highways
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:55:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.062246.4196@panix.com>, tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes:
> Similarly, I'm curious as to the flat-out maximum for the various types of
> Amtrak power.  Anyone know?  I've always wondered if the TurboTrain wouldn't,
> given sufficiently straight track and no speed limit, run faster than the
> F40.  Isn't the TurboTrain design derived from an early TGV prototype?

Two data points . . .  The Zephyr used to run at 80 mph across Wyoming
(before the route was changed between Ogden and Denver).  The Flying
Scotsman hit iver 100 mph in its heyday--and that was steam power.

One would expect Amtrak to be able to beat either of theose now.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: The Rebuilding of the Wrecked West Oakland I-880 Segment
Keywords: 880 BART traffic stuff
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:30:34 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Distribution: ba
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <4251@wet.UUCP> editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson) writes:
>Am I correct in assuming that this Oakland-area
>stretch of 880 was more civilized before October of 1989?

Yes--and not just during commute hours either.

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:32:41 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <ohk5fb8@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> You mistake me for someone else.  I'm getting a little tired of your
|> 'everyone who disagrees or seems to disagree is ignoring facts, living
|> in a fantasyland, etc.' statements.  I don't even know what the NEC
|> is (isn't it a Japanese computer company?).  The San Diegans and TGV
|> are not urban transit trains, they are long distance intercity.
|> 
The NEC is the North East Corridor of Amtrak.  It runs from Boston to Washington
DC with stops everywhere (and I do mean everywhere).  It is, I believe, the
most "profitable" segment of Amtrak and is one of the things that keeps
them from operating at a loss each year.

|> There are no publicly owned transit systems in this country or in
|> Canada that make a profit. 

I believe, that since they are publicly owned they are not allowed to,
but I could be wrong.

|> There are no transit systems of any
|> significant size (certainly no rail-based) that are not publicly
|> owned.  When I use the word transit, I use it in the traditional
|> sense, meaning urban transit, like BART, Caltrain, SCCTD, etc.,
|> not long distance like Amtrak, San Diegans, etc.
|> 

BTW Just for reference the "San Diegans" are a segment of Amtrak
that runs from LA to San Diego.  I believe there are five trains
each way daily, but I don't have my schedule at work with me.

Later,
George


-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: self supporting transport?
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:14:21 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <oo40uhs@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
<In article <133726@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
<> As a matter of fact, there is only one rail urban transit system in the
<> whole world that can support itself, including capital expenditures.
<> That is Hong Kong's subway.
<
<I wonder how many auto systems support themselves?  Do people consider
<the European systems, with $2.00+ per gallon gasoline taxes, high VAT
<on new cars, etc., to be 'paying' for themselves?

You are absolutely right, of course, and I didn't mean to imply that
auto roads are self supported.  In fact, I didn't mean to imply anything
about cars at all.  I was just responding to unrealistic demands that
rail transit be self supporting.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 20 Aug 1992 17:09:59 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <9208201405.AA02544@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>
>Since you are unable or unwilling to believe or understand what I
>tell you, ...

>Do your own homework, then maybe you would say such nonsense.
>
>You obviously haven't got a clue and you
>do not believe or understand 
>
>So much of what you post is absolute nonsense, `

Vaughn, once again you stoop to adhominum, insulting attacks on people
responding to you. Posting after posting, week after week. As many
people have posted before here, this style of arguement does not
belong on this newsgroup! Clean up your act!
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SC County Short Range Transit Plan
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:28:18 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug12.143941.2417@wdl.loral.com>, gjs@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Gregory Scott) writes:
> In article <9208110304.AA00684@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> >
> >My assertion all along has been that neither system is capable of 
> >providing adequate service to lure people out of their car or alleviate
> >congestion.
> >
> >
> >
> >   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Add to that the announced cut backs in Santa Clara county.  I
> had a discussion with a couple, last night at the county fair,
> that live and work along a major transit corridor.  The service
> cut backs have forced them back into their car.
> 
> Greg Scott
> gjs@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
> 

Is it that the proposed cutbacks will force them back to their car,
or the ones implemented in January forced them back?  The ones last
January mostly eliminated night service on lightly used lines, so
I'd be surprised if they caused the problem, given that the live and
work on a major transit corridor.  Do you know which line elimination
caused the problem?

jeremy
From: gjs@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Gregory Scott)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SC County Short Range Transit Plan
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:30:27 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <ohqapf8@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.143941.2417@wdl.loral.com>, gjs@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Gregory Scott) writes:
>> Amen!
>> 
>> Add to that the announced cut backs in Santa Clara county.  I
>> had a discussion with a couple, last night at the county fair,
>> that live and work along a major transit corridor.  The service
>> cut backs have forced them back into their car.
>> 
>> Greg Scott
>
>Is it that the proposed cutbacks will force them back to their car,
>or the ones implemented in January forced them back?  The ones last
>January mostly eliminated night service on lightly used lines, so
>I'd be surprised if they caused the problem, given that the live and
>work on a major transit corridor.  Do you know which line elimination
>caused the problem?
>
>jeremy
>

jeremy,

I am not sure which cut backs forced them back to their car.  What
they told me was that the last two busses in the evening had been
eliminated so they couldn't get home.

Have Fun
Greg Scott
gjs@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: SC County Short Range Transit Plan
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:04:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.173027.5593@wdl.loral.com>, gjs@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Gregory Scott) writes:
> In article <ohqapf8@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug12.143941.2417@wdl.loral.com>, gjs@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Gregory Scott) writes:
> >> Amen!
> >> 
> >> Add to that the announced cut backs in Santa Clara county.  I
> >> had a discussion with a couple, last night at the county fair,
> >> that live and work along a major transit corridor.  The service
> >> cut backs have forced them back into their car.
> >> 
> >> Greg Scott
> >
> >Is it that the proposed cutbacks will force them back to their car,
> >or the ones implemented in January forced them back?  The ones last
> >January mostly eliminated night service on lightly used lines, so
> >I'd be surprised if they caused the problem, given that the live and
> >work on a major transit corridor.  Do you know which line elimination
> >caused the problem?
> >
> >jeremy
> >
> 
> jeremy,
> 
> I am not sure which cut backs forced them back to their car.  What
> they told me was that the last two busses in the evening had been
> eliminated so they couldn't get home.
> 
> Have Fun
> Greg Scott
> gjs@wdl1.wdl.loral.com

That makes sense, then.  When I went to the public hearings last year,
I argued that eliminating night service was a very bad idea.  It would
be better to reduce daytime frequencies, even though average ridership
on daytime buses was higher, because there were alternatives (for
example, waiting for the next bus).  But if you miss the last bus,
you're stuck.  I'm concerned that with this year's bigger cuts, things
will get even worse, since they seem to take this simplistic approach.
Night time service is a key element of a transit system.

jeremy
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re:  East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:53:15 GMT


>From: editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson)
>To a pretty fair extent, I've come to agree with you,
>Vaughn, that significant cost savings could be achieved by
>using conventional rail technology for interurban rail
>transit in the Bay Area, particularly where conventional
>tracks and other infrastructure already exist.  

At least somebody has an open mind.


>But BART
>still has many more advantages than frequency, and you'd
>better own up to that if you want to convince others of the
>real advantages of conventional rail technology.


The whole point is that we can have all of BART's advantages
and quite a few others that BART cannot provide at a lower
cost. I never said that frequency was not important or 
desirable.


None of BART's advantages are a product unigue to its
technology or its cost.


   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re:  East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:16:52 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

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

	The whole point is that we can have all of BART's advantages
	and quite a few others that BART cannot provide at a lower
	cost.

When you say "we can have" do you mean "The Bay Area can have" or do
you mean "The parts of the Bay Area that need a better alternative to
buying into new BART lines can have" ...?

If you're saying that the Peninsula doesn't need BART, but could get
good bang for the buck out of an upgraded conventional rail commuter
system along the SP ROW, I'm with you.  If you're saying that people in
San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Concord, etc. are suckers because
they should have built a similar system along existing ROW, I'll
disagree.

/jordan
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant nose BART
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:08:22 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <25479@dog.ee.lbl.gov> wbrown@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (Bill Brown) writes:
>In article <9208121517.AA01036@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:

@>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)

@>One difficulty
@>might be in maintaining low grades; having experienced Amtrak trains'
@>slow accelerations, I'm not sure that a typical Amtrak train could
@>climb out of a duplicate of the BART tunnel (and a broader one at
@>that!) without a helper
@
@
@Amtrak trains (regular trains) can climb higher grades than BART.
@What does acceleration have to do with climbing ability? What do
@you know about the contours at the bottom of the bay or the 
@traction ability of real railroads? You haven't even read the study.

>I think you are mistaken in the case of grade-climbing ability. unless by
>the statement "Amtrak trains (regular trains) can climb higher grades than
>BART" you are refering to the Donner Pass line which is obviously "higher"
>than BART.

	The problem here is slope, not total altitude reached. BART
doesn't compete very well with Amtrak in total altitude range. The
lowest Amtrak gets are probably the Hudson River tunnels to Penn
Station; BART is probably comparable there. The highest BART gets is
either the Berkeley Hills tunnel or some nearby track on the Concord
Line, or a stretch near Daly City. And these probably don't compare
very well with some of the altitudes Amtrak achieves out in the
Sierras and the Rockies (Denver is at an altitude of 1 mile, for
example).

	As to the contours on the bottom of the Bay, they should be
easy to estimate from the Bay's depth. One of my BART publications
gives the depths at various points along the BART tunnel's route, and
I estimated a grade of about 2 to 3%. It should also be
straightforward to estimate the grade at the places that BART's route
goes into and out of tunnels.

	I mention this because 1.5% is the standard limit for freight
trains; some of the longer passenger trains are probably not much
different. The TGV can climb grades like 3% or so; but Amtrak would
have to buy TGV's -- and install LOTS of overhead cable.
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 15 Aug 92 22:12:57 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

Joshua Levy <joshua@Veritas.COM> writes:

	I don't think TGV turns a profit when standard commercial book
	keeping is used.

In 1987 (the only year I have statistics available for), TGV Southeast
had $291M in direct expenses with $737M in revenue.  The surplus of
$446M was used to pay back bonds, depreciate trains, contribute to
future track renewal, and some slush for SNCF overhead.  Those bonds
are paying about 10% ...

	I think the track was built with government money, which will
	not be paid back, and did not come from user fees on rail
	users.

TGV Southeast was built without subsidies.  They sold bonds in the
private capital markets.  Although TGV Atlantic was built with French
govt. money (some), it is expected to pay back (@ 12%) by the year
2000.

/jordan

ps: source: SuperTrains, Joseph Vranich
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:19:51 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <9208121508.AA01030@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> 
> >From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
> >So even with airplanes there is an advantage to not having to consult
> >a schedule when people fly the same route frequently.
> 
> 
> Ditto for commuter rail systems. Regularity and reliability are part 
> of the mix. All I am saying is that 15 minute frequency is not a
> deciding factor. No one factor is.

But BART is not a commuter rail system.  The idea behind improving
Caltrain is to make it into more than a commuter rail system.
The problem is that BART has partly assumed the role of a commuter
rail system, a role for which it isn't particularly well suited (due
to cost).  The problem is that the peninsula needs more than commuter
rail to get people out of their cars.

That does not mean that I think we need BART.  But 15 minute service,
speed, regularity, reliability, etc., are all probably necessary.

>    Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com

jeremy
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:56:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug13.153241@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <ohk5fb8@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> 
> |> There are no publicly owned transit systems in this country or in
> |> Canada that make a profit. 
> 
> I believe, that since they are publicly owned they are not allowed to,
> but I could be wrong.

There isn't anything in their charters that prohibits making a profit.
Plenty of government run businesses do (like liquor stores).

But anyway, the transit systems don't even cover their operating expenses,
not to mention capital expenses.  Recall that when a system covers some
percentage of its operating costs through fares, the percentage of total
costs recovered is actually less (especially for new rail systems).

jeremy
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: self supporting transport?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:15:17 GMT

In article <133875@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
> In article <oo40uhs@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> <In article <133726@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
> <> As a matter of fact, there is only one rail urban transit system in the
> <> whole world that can support itself, including capital expenditures.
> <> That is Hong Kong's subway.
> <
> <I wonder how many auto systems support themselves?  Do people consider
> <the European systems, with $2.00+ per gallon gasoline taxes, high VAT
> <on new cars, etc., to be 'paying' for themselves?
> 
> You are absolutely right, of course, and I didn't mean to imply that
> auto roads are self supported.  In fact, I didn't mean to imply anything
> about cars at all.  I was just responding to unrealistic demands that
> rail transit be self supporting.
> 
> Ed
> ed@wente.llnl.gov
> 

I guess I was starting a new thread (I did change the subject line).
I don't think it unrealistic to demand that rail or autos be
self-supporting.  You do have to get a realistic assessment of the
costs, however (I wouldn't trust Mr. Vandeman to assess the auto
costs).

I've seen a lot of posts that make the general statement that autos are
subsidized, and that's why they're so popular.  But it seems that they
are increasing in populararity even where not subsidized as a whole.
Or maybe people consider Europe to be subsidizing autos too . . . .

jeremy
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: A Message to the Riders about the New BART Schedule...
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:20:24 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: LLNL


	A couple days ago, there appeared a message handout for BART
riders about the new schedule, signed by Frank J. Wilson, BART's
General Manager.

	FW seemed rather contrite about the snafus in the early days
of the new schedule; he seemed to attribute their timing to
coincidence. He stated that the new schedule was intended to reduce
the number of trains needed while adding passenger capacity, and that
BART has now gotten to the goal of 94% on-time [being late < 5 min.].
He even stated that the type of management they have been using has
helped avoid a fare hike for the last 6 years [Don't you keep
wondering when it will be BART's turn?].

	He also stated that the original BART cars are starting to
feel their age, and that it is coming time to rehabilitate them. He
stated that he will be convening a blue-ribbon pannel to examine the
operation to see whether it will be necessary to slow down or else to
speed up the rehabilitation efforts.

	[Well, if worst comes to worst, they will probably slow down
their trains, while keeping the simultaneous arrivals of Fremont and
SF trains at MacArthur and of Richmond and Concord trains at 12th St.
Oakland at nights and Sundays]

	[I've seen some controversy over which company will get to do
the rehabilitation; it seems almost time.]
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:29:54 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <4671@bacon.IMSI.COM> jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
>Vaughn Wolffe <vaughnw@asia.fai.com> writes:
>
>	The reality is that even on systems like BART disabled people
>	do not ride transit enough to justify the cost.
>
>What's the "cost" to society if you make disabled people immobile by
>not providing access?  What formula did you use to come up with this
>statement?

Your implied conclusion does not follow from your premise.

What (for instance) is the relative cost/benefit to providing free
taxi service or special on-call vans against putting wheelchair lifts
on busses?

Clearly (to me, at least) there is considerable benefit to both those
who must use wheelchairs *and* to society as a whole to enable the
handicapped to move about freely and independently, but it doesn't
follow that each and every transit system has to be modified to make
that possible.  The reasonable condition is to see that those with
mobility problems be able to get around at least as well as those
without such problems.  If it's cheaper to do so with specialized,
dedicated systems, then that is a good method.  If it can be done for
less cost by modifying or implementing general systems with that
ability--then go that route.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare