HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Should CalTrain be Saved?
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:19:55 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <r63n!a-.loren@netcom.com> loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart) writes:
>mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie) writes:
>:In article <1992Sep14.213008.681@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>:>In article <1415@dosbears>, mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie) writes:
>:>|> In article <1992Sep3.183143.20672@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Hirsch) writes:
>:>|> >People want to sit down when they use transit.  [...]
>:>|> "Want" is too strong a word.  "Would rather" is more correct.
>:>Debatable.  I want to sit down when I use transit, don't you?
>:>I think you're splitting pretty fine hairs here.
>: 
>: I don't think they are that fine. :-)  Seriously,  words carry
>: a great deal of extra baggage than just their dictionary meaning.
>: "Want" implies a strong sense of "and if I don't get my way, I
>: won't play."
>: 
>: I really like to sit whenever (not just on transit) but it is 
>: hardly a want or a need for me.
>
>Actually I know several people that would rather drive than
>consistantly commute on a system that they can't regularly sit down
>on.  So I would say that want is not too strong.

Adrian posted something to the same effect.  I don't believe it.

I definitely believe both of you know people who say such things but 
I don't believe those people.  We can't get people to car-pool and
everyone gets to sit down on every trip.  

I think the "... but I can't get a seat. " whine is just a flimsy
excuse for not getting out of their single occupant vehicle.

>-- 
>=============================================================================
>Mr Loren L. Hart                                       The Ada Ace Group, Inc
>loren@netcom.com                                       P.O. Box 36195
>				                       San Jose, CA  95158

--
Mike Lipsie                            584 Castro #614, San Francisco, CA 94114
dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
mikel%dosbears.uucp@ingres.com    Running rn (for DOS) with UUPC/Extended 1.11k
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.general,ca.environment,ba.politics,alt.activism,rec.bicycles,rec.bicycles.soc,ca.politics
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Make Room for Bikes! (San Jose, 10/3)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:07:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ba



	M A K E   R O O M   F O R   B I K E S !
	- - - -   - - - -   - - -   - - - - - -

    a rally in support of alternative transportation
		in Santa Clara County
	sponsored by the Green Party of San Jose

-----------------------------------------------------------

Date	: Saturday, October 3, 1992

Time	: 11:00 am - 1:00 pm

Location: various places throughout downtown San Jose.

Details : A group bicycle ride begins at 11:00 am, at the
	  Student Center at San Jose State University
	  (San Carlos and 7th streets).  A one-hour bike
	  ride through the downtown area ends at Plaza
	  Park (Market Street and San Antonio) at noon.
	  Representatives of the Green Party will speak at
	  the park about bicycle transportation, Measure A,
	  and other matters of interest to those who come.
	  Bring your water bottle!

Contact : If you need more information, please contact
	  John Ladasky by email (ladasky@netcom.com) or by
	  telephone (408-929-5447).

------------------------------------------------------------

		     Please join us!


-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
============================================================================
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: bjork@telebit.com (Steven Bjork)
Subject: If coast, no valley was Re: SP Coast Line (San Jose-LA) may be sold
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:16:15 GMT

In article <26556@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:

>problems with getting over the Tehachapi mountains now, but it

The SP doesn't want passenger trains cluttering up operations
over Tehachapi. If the coast route is indeed sold, I'll bet SP
will then say no to passenger trains over Tehachapi.

--Steven
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Commute Checks
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:55:19 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <h0#p5bq.jfh@netcom.com>, Jack Hamilton writes:

>Are commute checks (or whatever they're called) actually being sold now, or
>are they still in the vaporware stage?

They are real, though they are generally issued by employers.  My employer, for
example, doesn't usually give them out.  Occasionally, they will get about 150
of them and hold a drawing for them.  Usually, almost 1000 people enter the
drawing.  I haven't been successful yet.

My employer chooses to fund a rather inefficient in-plant transportation system
rather than use the Commuter Checks.  If they were generally available, I'd be
the first in line for one.  Until then, I'll use transit, albeit only once or
twice a week.  Perhaps some day they'll do this, or better yet, let me
telecommute so I can escape the overcrowded, overpriced Ripoff Valley...


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Commuter Checks
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:02:52 GMT

In article <h0#p5bq.jfh@netcom.com>, jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
|> Are commute checks (or whatever they're called) actually being sold now, or
|> are they still in the vaporware stage? 

The Commuter Check program has been going for about a year now.  I got
my employer to start participating in the program about 5 months ago.

Here's how it works:

The employer buys "Commuter Checks" and makes them available to their
employees so as to encourage/subsidize transit use.  The "Commuter
Check" is essentially a $20 voucher (or coupon) good toward the purchase
of any high-value transit pass/ticket that is worth $20 or more.  The
checks are called "checks" because that's what they look like.

The employer pays from $20.40 to $20.70 per check, depending on
quantity ordered.  So the employer is paying slightly more than the
check's face-value.  This is what "pays" for the program.  The
company that prints and issues the checks makes their money off of
this difference between face-value and price paid by the employer.

Typically the employer give the Commuter Checks it has purchased
out to any employee that requests one.  Depending on the company,
it may have the employee sign for the check and/or prove that they
are taking transit by showing their transit pass.  The number
of checks each employee may receive per month is up to the employer,
but is typically only one.  The US tax code allows employers to
subsize employee transit use up to $21 per month as a tax free
benefit to the employee (soon to go up to $60/mo).  The cost of the
checks for the employer is a tax-deductible business expense.  So
after taxes the employer usually only winds up paying about $13 per
check.  When the tax-free nature of the benefit to the employee is
considered, the value of the monthly $20 Commuter Check is
equivalent to getting about $30 more pay per month (depending on
tax-bracket, etc).

The employee can use the Commuter Check just like a $20-off coupon
when buying a high-value transit pass (like a flash pass or CalTrain
monthly or 20-ride ticket).  All Bay Area transit operators and
their retail outlets honor the Commuter Checks.

For an info-pack all about the Commuter Check program and details
on how to get your employer to participate, call RIDES at:

	(800) 755-7665

-- 

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: Average speed survey
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:31:04 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <lc6kpuINNm96@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM (George Atkins) writes:
> 
> And even dealing just with the work issue, there's more to transit than getting
> someone to work in the quickest time possible.  What saves one person twenty
> minutes might cost someone else 30.  Some people work in obscure places, or at
> least opposite the general flow. This is why express
> trains aren't necessarily such a great idea.  Sure, during commute hours when
> there are lots of people going to a few areas, it can be a convienience.  (Unless
> it passes *your* stop.)
> 
> There's a trade off involved here.  A full train that adds twenty minutes to a
> person's commute (compared to an express train) but that can serve more people
> adequately is more efficient than having *two* half filled skip stop trains.

But two full skip-stop trains can be more efficient than two full local (or
non-express, or all-stop, whatever you want to call it) trains.  People get
where they're going faster, and it costs less to run.

> 
> As far as the trade off between taking longer to get places by mass transit as
> opposed to driving, that's something people have to decide for themselves.  Never
> having owned a car in the state of California (yet renting one on occasion)
> I can verify that it isn't nearly as inconvenient as some people try
> to make it out to be.

To the extent that many people think that it's completely impossible to
go anywhere on mass transit, you are right.  However, my schedule of
activities would have to change dramatically if I didn't use a car
(sponging rides off friends and co-workers counts as using a car).
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Average speed survey
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:36:51 GMT

In article <1aai7gINNc4f@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> In article <qe6859c@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> 
> >But two full skip-stop trains can be more efficient than two full local (or
> >non-express, or all-stop, whatever you want to call it) trains.  People get
> >where they're going faster, and it costs less to run.
> 
> But it doesn't always work.  If your skip-stop pattern looks like
> this:
> 
> ----O---=----O----=----O----=----O----=----O----=----O----=----O----=----
> --------O----=----O----=----O----=----O----=----O----=----O----=----O----
> 
> (O is a stop, = is a skipped stop)
> 
> It becomes a real problem going from a stop on the bottom line to a
> stop on the top line.  Any kind of new development along transit
> routes will by necessity assume that people can go from any stop to
> any other stop.  It doesn't mean you can't skip-stop, but it does mean
> that you must have good local frequency.

More commonly, a skip-stop is like this:

A----A----X----A----X----A----A----X----A----A
B----X----B----X----B----B----X----B----X----B

Major stops are serviced by both.  Going from minor stop to minor stop
has a 50% chance of requiring a transfer.  For short trips, a parallel
local bus line can be used.

CTA uses this model for their rail lines.



Another possibility is

A----A----A----A----A----A
B----X----X----X----X----X----B----B----B----B

This is the model for the SF Muni's AX and BX express buses.


Caltrain uses variations of the above (without short turns, of course).

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com.mcm.hp.com (John Mosbarger)
Subject: Re: SP Coast Line (San Jose-LA) may be sold
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:20:48 GMT

Jeremy Higdon (jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com) wrote:
> In article <1992Sep29.215003.9085@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> > 
> > A Los Angeles transportation agency wants to buy Southern Pacific's
> > 416-mile rail line between San Jose and Burbank and establish frequent
> > passenger train service between the Bay Area and Southern California.
> 
> From SJ to Burbank is only about 330-340 by car.  Is the train
> route that much longer, or does the 416 include spurs?
> 
> jeremy
> 
     According to the Starlight's timetable, it's 418 miles from San Jose
to Glendale, so am I assuming correctly that's there's a 2-mile difference
between Glendale and Burbank?

--
John Mosbarger
HP McMinnville, OR
johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: SP Coast Line (San Jose-LA) may be sold
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:11:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.174241.8447@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> In article <qflm4k8@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> >From SJ to Burbank is only about 330-340 by car.  Is the train
|> >route that much longer, or does the 416 include spurs?
|> 
|> 	The train route _is_ longer. I once followed it on a map, and
|> there are some relatively straight parts, and some very twisty parts,
|> due to all the mountains along the way.

SOUTHERN PACIFIC LINES COAST LINE FACT SHEET

1. Length: San Francisco to Los Angeles

	SF - LA Union Station		483 mi.
	San Jose - Burbank Jct.		424 mi.
	San Luis Obispo - Burbank Jct.	219 mi.
	S.L.O. - Watsonville		152 mi.
	Watsonville - San Jose		 53 mi.

2. Date completed: December 30, 1900 (at Gaviota)

	Other Key Dates:

	1862 - begin construction of SF to San Jose
	Jan. 1864 - completion of SF to San Jose
	May 1864 - line reaches San Luis Obispo
	1886 - ground breaking, southern segment
	1887 - begin Santa Barbara - Los Angeles service
	Dec. 1990 - last spike driven at Gaviota

3. Projected cost to upgrade track and signals for fast train
   operations (110 mph max speed running): $360 million.


-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: SP Coast Line (San Jose-LA) may be sold
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:21:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.232938.23671@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.194221.5300@Veritas.COM>, joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
> |> Is there any demand at all for a 10 hour trip between LA and SJ?
> 
> Yeah, actually there is.  The Coast Starlight is often sold-out for
> weeks in advance for this stretch.  It is known to be a very nice,
> scenic ride.  I doubt anyone rides for it's speed--though I am told
> the train is faster than Greyhound.

I used to take Greyhound (before I had a car).  It made the trip in about
7 hours via I-5, so it is definitely faster.  Greyhound via 101 is probably
a wash with the train, though it depends on how many stops it makes.

jeremy

Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2413 rec.railroad:7660
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: SP Coast Line (San Jose-LA) may be sold
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:44:41 GMT
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Organization: lbl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In the long run, it seems that speed, and not scenery, will be the
dominant issue for LA<-->Bay Area service, and so that going down
the central valley will be required.  I remember people mentioning
problems with getting over the Tehachapi mountains now, but it
seems as though the Coast route should be just an interim one
and not worth putting lots of capital into--rather to direct
the capital to the central valley route.  I assume some slower,
scenic, routes would always go down the coast, as could overnight
sleeper trains.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Commute Checks
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 03:18:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ba

Are commute checks (or whatever they're called) actually being sold now, or
are they still in the vaporware stage? 

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Ticketing & expresses (was Re: Average speed survey)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 21:49:57 GMT

In article <lc6kpuINNm96@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM (George Atkins) writes:
|> People do take mass transit for more reasons than going to work.  Some
|> people take it to get everywhere, making multiple stops along the way
|> from start to ultimate destination.  That's why Bart is so handy.

As compared to what?  (By the way, Bart is a brat and BART is a train.)

I've said it before, but the thing about BART that discourages even more
frequent use is that it doesn't offer a time-based ticket.  I think all
transit ought to have tickets like a day pass (great for tourists) and
weekly, biweekly, or monthly passes that allow for unlimited rides for a
specified time period.  (CalTrain has a monthly, but lacks a day pass and
got rid of their weekly pass because they said too few people bought them.)

Washington DC's BART-like system has variable rate fares based on time
demand.  A particular ride during peak period might debit your farecard
*twice* as much as it would during off-peak.  But at least they have
a time-based, unlimited ride ticket option (so we know BART ought to be
able to do it too, since they use the same ticketing model).



|> There's a trade off involved here.  A full train that adds twenty
|> minutes to a person's commute (compared to an express train) but
|> that can serve more people adequately is more efficient than having
|> *two* half filled skip stop trains.

Ah, but you're assuming that the riders will ride whether they've got
an express or not.  It is not as simple as your analysis might suggest.
There are those who would not ride if all they had were slower non-
express trains.  For those that ride longer distances their commute
by train might become excessively long.  The average CalTrain rider
rides about twice as far as the average BART rider.  (I'm not sure if
express trains are the cause or the effect here.  Historically, the
Peninsula commute was primarily for getting people to work in SF, so
this shaped the express train pattern evident in today's CalTrain
schedule.)


-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: If coast, no valley was Re: SP Coast Line (San Jose-LA) may be sold
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:43:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.192341.20733@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> 	One way out of this conundrum is to build a new LA-Bakersfield
|> connector. It would start from the existing line at Saugus and Santa
|> Clarita and go northward, roughly paralleling I-5, all the way to
|> Bakersfield. The only really rough part is going over the mountains;
|> the valley part near Bakersfield should be easy. Has that possibility
|> ever been studied?


Yes.  The Berkeley I.U.R.D.'s "CalSpeed" very high speed (~200mph)
rail alignment study recommends a 5% grade (with some tunneling and
viaducts) roughly paralleling I-5.  The study evaluates a base-tunnel
alternative and also a 3.5% grade.  The 5% grade is recommended because
the cost is least and would offer nearly the same running time when
using TGV trainsets.  TGV of France ran some running time and speed
analyses for the study.  TGVs can start from a dead stop on a 5% grade,
which is an important requirement.  The 5% grade over the mountains
option is also favored because that portion of the well-under 3-hour
SF to LA journey promises to be among the most scenic.

The estimated cost for building the San Francisco-Los Angeles part of
the line is $9 billion.

That's a bargain when one considers that 6.5 miles of BART extension
to the San Francisco airport will ultimately come in at somewhere near
$1 billion.


At the press confrence announcing the potential sale of its Coast Line,
SP, and others, made it quite clear that this line was not seen as
competition for, or a replacement for, a very high speed Central Valley
line connecting the SF Bay Area and Los Angeles/San Diego.  Many
speakers felt that *both* lines will be needed.  The Coast Line, as
SP envisions things, would require about a $380 million capital
investment to bring it up to 110 mph standards.  Of course, 110 mph
would not be possible everywhere due to curves and other factors...


California residents: vote YES on Proposition 156!

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: CalTrans Sued over I-80 reconstruction
Keywords: transportation environment air pollution
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:25:37 GMT

In article <lch2u0INNsjt@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel) writes:
|> They [Caltrans] are claiming that it will cost as much as $39,000
|> just to gather the record for this case!  Consequently, Urban
|> Ecology and the other plaintiffs need to conduct rigorous
|> fundraising campaigns to continue the case.

What is the $39,000 for, exactly?  Legally, why is it incumbent
upon the plaintiff to pay this fee? 

If "the record" for this case is just all the studies and paperwork
that led up to the decision to build the project in question, wouldn't
Caltrans already have all of that around?  Is the $39K just for 
assembling the information?

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Should CalTrain be Saved?
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:18:00 GMT
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton

dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com wrote: 
->I think the "... but I can't get a seat. " whine is just a flimsy
->excuse for not getting out of their single occupant vehicle.

exactly ... 

what i don't understand is why these buttheads don't see how flimsy
this argument is ... unless you are infirm, differently-abled, or
elderly, there is no good reason to spend so much time thinking about
"will i be able to sit for the fifteen minutes it takes to get from A
to B?"

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: ggg9y@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Garth G. Groff)
Subject: Re: Tehachapi double track, was Re: If coast, no valley
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:21:53 GMT

SP LOGO

One reason that you don't see the old SP circle and bar
logo is that it was discontinued about 1957.  It was
replaced by a billboard "SP" or "Southern Pacific" on
most freight cars.  The circle and bar was still used
on stuff like employee timetables for may years, but
was not in keeping with the management's modern image.
I suspect it is still a registered trademark and I'm
glad to hear it is making a comeback.

~S
--
Garth (Haridas) Groff
"Not yet famous author"
ggg9y@poe.acc.virginia.EDU         Chant "Govinda Bohlo Hare"