HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Downtown CalTrain Station (was Re: Cost of ...)
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:24:36 GMT
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Organization: lbl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

<<re: Adrian's comments about the possibility of bringing CalTrain
      into the top level of the Transbay terminal rather than underground>>

Has any serious study been done of the cost comparison between
an elevated CalTrain and an underground one?  My intuition would
suggest that elevated ought to be cheaper, but thats just a guess.
Also, is there any possibility of having an elevated line that would
initially be single-tracked into the Transbay Terminal, to reduce
costs, with the idea to double-track it later?
Regarding crossing of Howard, Folsom, etc., keeping the track
elevated over those streets would seem to be the key, and perhaps
necessary, given track grade requirements.
(If CalTrain came in, the name "TransBay Terminal" might need adjustment).

And to mix topics, I assume (without knowing for sure) that plans
for putting Muni rail back on Geary would keep it underground
to about Fillmore, and tunnel under the hill after that (topped
by Masonic?) then back to street running after that.
That is, it would look much like the other streetcar lines.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: "The only sensible way to proceed"
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:26:49 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <17hao0INNs9v@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> In article <p1ddvfk@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >In article <17e1g5INNlsp@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> >> 
> >> [Table with projected total boardings of various transit systems in
> >>  2010.  Totals added by Jeremy Higdon.] 
> 
> >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. 
> 
> I wouldn't know if these studies are valid or not, but *you* are the
> one who added the numbers together, not the MTC/BART people.  You
> can't blame MTC if *you* take their numbers and add them up
> meaninglessly.  You, not they, called this "total transit ridership."
> This table doesn't have any totals on it.  (It also has other
> information, like the number of vehicles required for each system and
> annual vehicle miles, but I didn't feel it was worth typing in.)

What was meaningless?  I suppose I should have substituted
combined total annual boardings for total transit ridership.
Sorry for the slip of the finger.  If total annual boardings
for Muni is 300 million and total annual boardings for Caltrain
is 20 million, I don't need the MTC to say that total annual
boardings for Caltrain and Muni combined is 320 million!
Nor would I say that 320 million was any more meaningless
than the 300 million or 20 million figures.  In fact, if
Caltrain and Muni were under the same management, you would
only see the one figure in these studies.

Since there are no other transit systems that compete for
ridership within San Francisco, I think it a reasonable
conclusion that combined total annual boardings will go
down if the downtown extension is built, according to the
figures.  The point of my article was that total annual
boardings can be misleading, especially when it is called
ridership (which it often is).

I'll be more specific.  The combined total annual boardings of
BART, Caltrain, Muni, and Samtrans in the year 2010 will be lower
if the Caltrain downtown extension is built than if it is not built.
Note that boardings != riders, although ridership is often
expressed in terms of number of boardings.

jeremy
From: loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart)
Subject: Re: Rail on Geary (Was: Re: rail technologies)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 02:35:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

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.


-- Loren
-- 
=============================================================================
Mr Loren L. Hart                                       The Ada Ace Group, Inc
loren@netcom.com                                       P.O. Box 36195
				                       San Jose, CA  95158
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Rail on Geary (Was: Re: rail technologies)
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:15:46 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <180e0jINNjoo@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> In article <p9l0pjc@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>  
> >Even with its own lane, it would still stop for traffic
> >lights, and they would be unable to run limited stop service.  Unless
> >it became the limited stop service, in which case they would still
> >need local buses, in which case it seems like a lot of capital for
> >service that is little if any better than today's (worse in some ways).
>  
> It would have to become the limited stop service; but I think you 
> underestimate the difference between rail transit and bus 
> transit.  Muni is going to a proof-of-payment system on the Metro 
> cars.  (This is from their 1991-2000 capital plan.)  That means 
> that they will be able to hook several cars together with only 
> one driver, and people will be able to enter and exit from all 
> the doors.  This gives a much higher capacity *and* faster time 
> in stops (because there will be more entrances), with one driver, 
> just like a single bus.

You could use proof of payment on limited stop buses also.  Given
three wide doors on the artics, that should give about equal dwell
time at stops.  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.

> Moreover, most of the streetlights on Geary are rather long (that 
> is, Geary gets a much longer green than the crossstreets) so 
> that it wouldn't be too much of a burden to auto traffic to have 
> signal pre-emption (where a remote control in the light rail car 
> controls the traffic lights).

You'd still have to stop for pedestrian traffic, since pedestrian
signals generally last 30 seconds.  Streets like 19th also probably
couldn't be preempted.

> There would still have to be local bus service for the elderly 
> and others who cannot easily walk the few blocks to the LRT 
> stations (looks like the maximum would be about four blocks; 
> eight blocks between LRT stations) and to serve the VA center at 
> Fort Miley.  West of 38th Avenue the LRT would probably turn into 
> local streetcar service, just like on the N or the L.

How about reserving the outside lanes for bus service?  Then both
the locals and limiteds would benefit.  They could do this right
away for the capital cost of some signs and paint.

How frequent are the current 38L's anyway?


Regarding NIMBY and elevated structures, are there many houses
actually facing Geary?  I don't get out there often, but I remember
that it was almost all commercial.

Regarding the tourist draw, I know it's not a big factor, and
shouldn't be built just for that (unless it would make money,
which it wouldn't).  However, Skytrain reports that a lot of
riders are visitors, and every bit helps.

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: November election critical for CalTrain
Keywords: CalTrain
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:52:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.194541.26105@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> 
> Santa Clara County Measure A deserves a YES vote.
> San Mateo County Measure C deserves a YES vote.

I can't comment on the San Mateo county measure, but I think that
bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel @ Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.)
had some good points on Measure A.  Given that we already have a
1/2 cent tax for transit in Santa Clara county, and given that
the new 1/2 cent tax would be used to operate the new lines that
are built, since the current 1/2 cent can barely operate what we
have, it seems that what we're really voting for is a permanent
1 cent tax for transit.

Because SCCTD has shown itself to be very inefficient and because
the sales tax is regressive, Santa Clara County Measure A deserves a
no vote.  Voting NO, does not doom us to auto depedence.  It just
says that we want the supervisors to come up with a better plan.
Many communities have voted down bad transit funding bills only to
pass better ones one or two years down the road.  Dallas is a good
example of this.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: ehouse@Apple.COM (Eric House)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: November election critical for CalTrain
Keywords: CalTrain
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:58:09 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

[contents of flyer advocating yes vote on Santa Clara County's Measure A
sales tax extension deleted]

One of the major criticisms I've heard of Measure A is that there are no
built-in guarantees that the revenue will be spent on transit, in spite of
the fact that the transit aspect is what is being used to sell the tax to
voters.  The general cynical view is that the real motivation for the measure
is the completion of the freeway system the original tax was intended to
fund, and that once Measure A passes our local politicos (none of whom would
be caught outside a SOV) will funnel as much money as possible into the
freeways.

So here's this flyer promising that 92% of the revenue will go to transit.
Does this sound reasonable to people?  Would someone care to explain where
the figure comes from, and to suggest how confident we ought to be that the
politicos will be forced to honor it?

If I could believe this figure I'd vote for Measure A.  But unless convinced
that it's pretty certain I'm going to vote against paying more sales tax
for freeways I'm not allowed to use.
-- 
****************************************************************************
Eric House			"My employer doesn't share its opinions with
			   	 me, so I can share only mine with you"
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2276 rec.bicycles:22171 rec.bicycles.soc:99
From: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.bicycles,rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: HOW TO GET A CALTRAIN BIKE PERMIT
Summary: 1-800-660-4287 for application, fill it out, mail it in
Keywords: caltrain bike permit
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:16:25 GMT
Followup-To: rec.bicycles.soc
Distribution: ba
Organization: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC)


               
	       HOW TO GET A CALTRAIN BIKE PERMIT
               
Here's how to get a permit to take your bike on CalTrain, under the 
limited-capacity program that starts Saturday, 19 September (approved
yesterday at the CalTrain Joint Powers Board meeting):

1) Call SamTrans/CalTrain information at 1-800-660-4287 and ask them 
to mail you a bicycle permit application.  (I just tried this; the 
wait was fairly short and the operator who took my call was 
enthusiastic about the new program).  Starting next Tuesday (8 
September), applications will also be available at CalTrain stations.

2) When you receive the application, read the rules (one reason for 
permits is so you'll do this :-), fill it out, and mail it to the 
Amtrak address that should be on the application.

3) Receive your permit in the mail


NOTE:

This initial phase provides *very* limited capacity (4 bikes per 
train, weekends and specific non-peak weekday trains only).  Though 
this means you won't yet be able to really depend on CalTrain as a 
bike/train/bike transit system, obtaining your permit now will show
the JPB and Amtrak that demand exists for expanded capacity service 
-- such as 30 to 50 bike spaces per train, all trains.  (Please be
patient, the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and San Francisco 
Bicycle Coalition are working on it...)

Please pass the word to interested cyclists who don't read netnews.

John Ciccarelli
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition

###
-- 
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: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: The San Diegans
Date: 25 Aug 92 12:44:29 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

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

	The San Diegans regularly go 90 mph.

Let's look at a "typical" San Diegan, the 572.  From the Amtrak
National Schedule:

Dep.		Arr.		Miles	Time	  MPH
-----------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles	Fullerton	   25	0:38	39.47
Fullerton	Anaheim		    6	0:10	36.00
Anaheim		Santa Ana	    5	0:08	37.50
Santa Ana	San Juan Cap.	   22	0:19	69.47
San Juan Cap.	San Clemente	    7	0:14	30.00
San Clemente	Oceanside	   22	0:21	62.85
Oceanside	Del Mar		   18	0:19	56.84
Del Mar		San Diego	   24	0:46	31.30
-----------------------------------------------------
Total				  129	2:55	44.22

I guess I don't see where the San Diegans "regularly" go 90 mph.

/jordan

ps: SkyWest serves LAX->SAN 30 times per day in each direction, leaving
every 35 minutes, taking 35 scheduled minutes on the route.
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Downtown CalTrain Station (was Re: Cost of ...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 07:30:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <25917@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
><<re: Adrian's comments about the possibility of bringing CalTrain
>      into the top level of the Transbay terminal rather than underground>>
>
>Has any serious study been done of the cost comparison between
>an elevated CalTrain and an underground one?  My intuition would
>suggest that elevated ought to be cheaper, but thats just a guess.

Elevated lines are usually cheaper than underground lines.

>Also, is there any possibility of having an elevated line that would
>initially be single-tracked into the Transbay Terminal, to reduce
>costs, with the idea to double-track it later?

I think that would be very difficult to run any kind of high frequency
service on a single-tracked line; even the frequencies they're running
now, at rush hour.

>(If CalTrain came in, the name "TransBay Terminal" might need adjustment).

Actually, it used to be the "East Bay Terminal."  

>And to mix topics, I assume (without knowing for sure) that plans
>for putting Muni rail back on Geary would keep it underground
>to about Fillmore, and tunnel under the hill after that (topped
>by Masonic?) then back to street running after that.
>That is, it would look much like the other streetcar lines.

I don't think that's a safe assumption at all.  There were streetcar
lines on Geary without there being a tunnel; in fact, the very first
Muni streetcar was over this route in 1912.  The reason tunnels were
built under Twin Peaks and Buena Vista Park is that the streetcars of
the day couldn't make the grades of the hills.  This is not the case
on Geary.

It is certainly possible that a new B line could run underground, but
it will not follow the pattern of the old streetcar lines.  (Indeed,
the streetcar lines that were never removed -- the J through N -- were
precisely those that ran through tunnels in the first place (or in the
J's case, ran on a private right-of-way through Delores Park).
 
 =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: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: blah
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:28:30 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu



> In article <1992Aug15.002542.5517@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian 
> Brandt) writes: 
>According to him [Ussury], the counties of Santa Clara, San Joaquin, and
>Solano are likely to join the BART district in a few years.

In article <1992Aug15.045829.19459@s1.gov> Loren I. Petrich 
(lip@s1.gov) writes:

>        I wouldn't bet on that anytime soon, however desirable the
>association might be.

The California Public Utilities Code, sections 28600-28602, state that
San Joaquin County is not eligible for inclusion in BART.  (More
specifically, they state that the nine Bay Area counties are eligible
for inclusion.)  To change this will require state legislation.

 =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: Santa Clara County Measure A
Keywords: CalTrain
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:10:25 GMT

In article <pbtpf1g@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> > No.  We do NOT have an existing 1/2 cent for transit in Santa Clara
|> 
|> You need a lesson in Santa Clara county sales taxes.

Apparently I do.


|> The current California state tax is 7.25 percent.  The sales tax in
|> Santa Clara county is 8.25 percent.  .5 percent if from 1984's Measure A.
|> .5 percent is from a permanent sales tax enacted in 1976.

I stand corrected.  Before I responded to your posting, I checked
with someone that "ought to know" and they gave me a bum steer.  I
should've known better!



-- 

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: Santa Clara County Measure A
Keywords: CalTrain
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:57:12 GMT

In article <palitog@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> I can't comment on the San Mateo county measure, but I think that
|> bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel @ Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.)
|> had some good points on Measure A.

I have asked the Measure A Campaign/Coalition to respond to Bill's
points.  They will be sending me something soon.  I will be very
interested in their reply, because I too, think many of Bill's points
were good.  If, and when, I get a response from the Measure A folks,
I will share it with ba.transportation.



|> Given that we already have a 1/2 cent tax for transit in Santa Clara
|> county, and given that the new 1/2 cent tax would be used to operate
|> the new lines that are built, since the current 1/2 cent can barely
|> operate what we have, it seems that what we're really voting for is
|> a permanent 1 cent tax for transit.

No.  We do NOT have an existing 1/2 cent for transit in Santa Clara
County.  The existing Measure A 1/2 cent is a 10-year sales tax for
road & freeway projects only.  The *new* Measure A will *replace* the
*old/existing* Measure A in 1994 and will in effect re-direct the 1/2
cent being collected to transit.  So the sales tax you and I pay
remains *unchanged*.  So it does not go up to "1 cent tax for transit".


-- 

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