HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:28:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.204719.2637@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan5.182853.1946@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> >A BART car seats about 70 people, a little less than half what a CalTrain
|> >car seats.  However, BART is designed for standees and so has lots of
|> >grab bars on the ceiling that tall people (such as myself) could hit our
|> >heads on.  
|> 
|> Actually BART *wasn't* designed for standees.  Those grab rails were
|> added *after* they discovered that they had lots of standees--and grab
|> rails across the entry areas were added later still.

That's interesting.  BART's relatively large amount of open floor space
(not occupied by seats) is suggestive of a design that expected standees.
I've seen pictures of some Japanese (subway/commuter-type) train interiors
that were about 80% floor space with lots of doors.  I think I even
remember hearing/reading about equipment that only featured fold-down
seats that can be centrally locked in the "up and away" position during
rush hour by train crews...  now that's a "cattle car", if there ever was
one!


|> BART was designed around the promise that there would be seating for
|> everyone.  It was sold (in part) on that and the claim that a train
|> would leave San Francisco every 90 seconds in rush hour.

Hmmm, well, it sounds like if BART had as many seats per car as CalTrain
does, it'd be equivalent to more than halving it's headways or more than
doubling it's train lengths.  Too bad BART can't do either of these
because a longer train won't fit into all its stations and double-decking
is impossible because all its tunnels are only big enough to accommodate
its rather diminutive 10-foot height.  But then BART is extra wide with
wide gauge track to make up for it :-(

So, does anyone think BART will be getting the $1 billion it says it'll
need to rehab the system?  I've often heard that one of the poliical
problems with upgrading CalTrain is that politicians like to cut ribbons
for sexy new projects/extensions.  Upgrades and rehabs don't just don't
"sell" as well politically.  Politicians get fired up about projects
they can point to help them get campaign contributions and votes and
ultimately re-elected or promoted to a higher office.

If BART falls off the track a few more times, I'm sure they'll have no
problem getting the political interest and money needed.  Afterall, BART
has a comparatively huge constituency that will get tired of living in
fear of bouncing off tunnel walls as their BART car gets shredded open.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:3080 rec.railroad:10450
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Grade Separations (was Re: CalTrain scheduling musings)
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:20:04 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1993Jan5.131932.1468@ryn.mro4.dec.com> pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson) writes:
>
>	While grade seperation with third rail may be a "good thing" (tm), it is
>not necessary.  Both LIRR and NYCRR have operated with highway crossings at
>grade thru thrid rail territory.  One simply leaves a longish gap.  (Works best
>with EMU equipment...)  (This was true in the past,  Unknown if such crossings
>remain...)

I agree. You can see this all over southern England. But when I posted
this I was told that nobody cared if they used dangerous  and unsafe
practice over there. This is the USA after all.

Part of the problem here is that people think that they can use the tracks
as public right of way, which they ain't. If the tracks are fenced off,
then all you need at the crossings (apart from the usual barriers) is the
kind of animal grid you sometimes see on rural roads to keep people and
animals from straying onto the track. But however well you fence the
track, there is always somebody whose divine right to break the fence to
take a short cut overrides everything else.

>
>thanks
>dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
>Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
>40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
>Stow, Mass, USA	
>01775				pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
>"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Chris Lee
From: forags@smokey (Al Stangenberger)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:22:44 GMT
Organization: U.C. Forestry & Res. Mgt.
NNTP-Posting-Host: smokey.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan8.233351.18117@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>.. Trains ran off third rail while on the bridge, but
>then switched to running off overhead catenary wire.  Also, there were
>2 or 3 different voltages in use!

Actually some trains used catenary on the bridge (SP and possibly
Sacramento Northern), while Key System used the third rail.  Both
systems naturally used the running rails as common ground.  Two of the
three carriers were running on designed voltage, and the third was
slightly underpowered on the bridge.

-- 
Al Stangenberger                    Dept. of Forestry & Resource Mgt.
forags@violet.berkeley.edu          145 Mulford Hall - Univ. of Calif.
uucp:  ucbvax!ucbviolet!forags      Berkeley, CA  94720
BITNET: FORAGS AT UCBVIOLE          (510) 642-4424  FAX: (510) 643-5438                      
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:07:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.194534.9282@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	Actually, the maximum BART train length is 10 cars. And each
>car can seat 64 or 68 people. This leads to a maximum of 640 people.
>The BART cars are also roomy enough to allow for a lot of standees.
>How many? Probably 40/car before the crowding gets too bad. I wonder
>if the BART folx have ever done their version of a car-stuffing
>contest -- see how many people can fit inside.

The original cars (A & B) seat 72 with (according to BART) room for
another 72 standing.  I don't know if that's actually possible, but
I've been on BART trains that sure *felt* that crowded.  The new 'C'
cars are (I think) 68, but there's a bit more standing room.  Agian,
I'd like to remind folks that there's a near-empty BART train headed
the other way for every jam-packed one.  Plus, there's lots of empty
space in the middle of the day and (often) towards the ends of the
lines.  It's a case of spot-overcrowding on a system that (on paper)
has lots of capactiy availabel.

>	These figures are scheduled to be improved as the BART folx
>develop improved train-control systems that allow for headways as low
>as 2 minutes, which is almost the original goal of 90 seconds. This
>yields 19,000 people/hr at full seating or 31,000 people/hr at full
>stuffing.

Half full or half empty?  :-)

That's fully 33% *longer* between trains than was promised over 20
years ago.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Date: 11 Jan 93 02:52:03 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1inhhh$m7t@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
> In article <1541@dosbears> dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com writes:
> >>The only part of the idea proposed above that I consider to be of
> >>questionable value is shutting down the CalTrain line as it now
> >>exists from San Bruno to 4th and Townsend.
> >
> >The stretch of SF served by CalTrain is poorly served by MUNI as
> >well. [..]
> >
> >My point?  None.  Except that if CalTrain were to go away, I
> >don't think those people would notice.
> 
> Hopefully, the conversion of the 15 Bus to a MUNI Metro line will
> solve this problem, at least inside the city; the 15 and the Caltrain
> tracks are within three or four blocks of each other, except directly
> around Mission Bay.

You edited the original posting some.  Here it is:
 
> > The stretch of SF served by CalTrain is poorly served by MUNI as
> > well.  The Bayshore station is fairly near a major MUNI line but
> > Paul and 22nd St are irregularly served.  (Not that CalTrain's
> > service is that good.  They tend to skip those stations with
> > the express and then have 1-2 hours frequency at other times.)
> > 
> > My point?  None.  Except that if CalTrain were to go away, I
> > don't think those people would notice.

So will this conversion actually run closer to the Paul and 22nd
street stations?  If not, how does it help?

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Distribution: ba
Date:  7 Jan 93 22:34:19 GMT

lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>The most obvious solution to the Caltrain downtown problem is not only
>free, its a money-saver and (latency) performance enhancer. Let
>Caltrain terminate at the shared BART/Caltrain San Bruno station, and
>make everyone transfer to BART. 

   This is an absolutely atrocious idea.  Currently the worst thing
about Caltrain is that you have to get off in the middle of nowhere
South of Market, transfer to a Muni bus to get down town, and then often
transfer to another bus or streetcar there.  The only thing I can
imagine worse than this would be to have to get off the train in the
godforsaken boondocks of San Bruno to start the whole same process.

   Damn it, when I want to go to San Francisco I want to go to San
Francisco, not all the hell and gone over the place. 
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:51:04 GMT

In article <jyc.726446059@Leland>, jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
|> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
|> >Let Caltrain terminate at the shared BART/Caltrain San Bruno station,
|> >and make everyone transfer to BART. 
|> 
|> This is an absolutely atrocious idea. 

This is the same reaction that I've heard from many people
that use CalTrain to get to/from San Francisco.  I've heard
many people say they'd stop riding if they had to take the
Colma and Daly City detour near the ocean just to get into
San Francisco.  Another oft-cited point on the subject, is
that not only will their commute be longer distance-wise,
but it will take longer and add more station stops.  This
is especially true for those who regularly ride one of the
many CalTrain express trains.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: I hate "Rapid" Transit District (RTD)
Keywords: rapid RTD transport
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:16:55 GMT

In article <145377@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
> In article <ui6o5ak@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >Well, Mr. Bzzt, I think you just made both my points very well.  Taking
> >the subway to Logan requires a transfer to a shuttle bus.  Assuming
> >it doesn't get derailed (heh heh), SF will have a shuttle car that
> >takes you from an external airport Caltrain/BART station into the
> >terminals.  It sounds like LAX is planning something similar.
> 
> But the thing is that LAX is far too large to be served by a single rail
> station in its center.  There are eight terminal buildings, for heaven's
> sakes!  So there MUST be some sort of interterminal transit system --
> buses now, some sort of rail or people-mover system later.  Consider a
> rail line coming into the airport.  Does it make sense to continue this
> line around the airport, stopping at all the terminals?  Or isn't it
> cheaper, and almost as convenient, to end the line at one of the stops
> of the inter-airport transit system, WHICH MUST EXIST ANYWAY.  The
> situation is different than at SFO.  At SFO BART might be brought into
> the center of the airport, from which it's not terribly far to walk to
> anywhere in the airport.  Such a location does not exist at LAX.
> 
> Ed
> ed@wente.llnl.gov

From what I understand, it would be a considerable walk from the
proposed BART station to the terminals.  And apparently, the shuttle
system will exist anyway.  I don't think that a short wait for a
shuttle is too onerous, especially if it cuts down on walking that
would need to be done.

I've only been to LAX once, and only to drop someone off.  I agree
that having a central station would be difficult.  Note that Chicago
has a central station, and it is quite a walk to get to it.  It's
also at the end of the line, and if they ever wanted to extend to Des
Plaines, they'd probably have to create a spur (though I'm just
guessing).

jeremy
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:05:08 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <jyc.726615458@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie) writes:
>
>>There are NOT "fairly good" connections.  The 42 runs every 10-15
>>minutes during rush hours (30 minutes othertimes).  The 15 runs every 
>>5-10 minutes.  The 15/45 runs frequently (average about every 3
                     ^^ - typo should have been 30
>>minutes between them).  ALL of those lines go across Market near
>>a BART stop.  Only the 32 (which runs every 10-15 minutes at rush
>>hour and does not serve 4th&Townsend during midday) does not go

>   But you left out the most useful line:  the 30-Stockton runs I think
>every 3 to 5 minutes during peak hours and every 10-15 minutes on
>weekends.  [ ... ]
>             And that bus tales you without transfer to or within an
>easy walk of Downtown, the Financial District, Chinatown, North Beach,
>Fisherman's Wharf, and the Marina.  

I lumped the 30 Stockton and the 45 Union because (a) they use the 
same stop at 4th & Townsend (each bus line leaves from a different
spot on the adjacent streets, the 30/45 stop is the furthest away
at about 1/2 a block down Townsend) and (b) they follow the same route
through downtown and Chinatown (at Powell, Union & Columbus the 30 
goes to Fisherman's Wharf and the 45 goes west down Union.

First, any route that goes THROUGH downtown (and especially,
Chinatown) is non-optimal.  A faster route to Fisherman's Wharf 
is the 32 Embarcadero; to Union, one of the Van Ness lines.

Second, my original statement that EVERY one of the lines from 
4th & Townsend goes by a BART station still holds.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: I forgot about my proposed FAQ -- here it is
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:13:41 GMT

In article <1iu0pgINN3nq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> SCCTD -- Santa Clara County Transit District.  Known locally as 
>    "County Transit."  Runs local bus service for Santa Clara County 
>    and the Santa Clara County light-rail system. 

They are changing their name to TA (Transit Authority).  The new buses
have a big TA on the side and the new schedules also use TA.  I don't
know why this was done.

jeremy
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: California Boy comes home
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:01:30 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <C0pB16.7DI@news2.cis.umn.edu>, mmoore@staff.tc.umn.edu (Malcolm D. "None of ya Bizness" Moore) writes:
> 
> I got a copy of the nice little pink guide of County Transit's
> schedule changes...oooh, that's baaad.  You *know* when they start
> lopping off parts of the 68 and 180 routes, things are quite crusty.  I
> don't understand why, though, that they would have the last 68 bus leave
> downtown San Jose at 12:45AM and get to Santa Teresa and Cottle at 1:15.
> You would think that they would have the light rail come out to Santa
> Teresa, and you could pick up a bus there into Gilroy!  That sounded
> like either a misprint or some County Transit drone was smokin
> something.

The 68 line actually serves quite a different area from the LRT.  It
comes in contact downtown and at the Cottle and Santa Teresa stations,
but the rest of the line is quite a distance away.  A lot of 68 riders
embark and debark along Monterey highway, which is a significant distance
from the LRT.  They could short turn the 68 at Seven Trees, connecting
with the 66, but they can't replace the service in SJ with the LRT.  They
probably weren't getting many riders south of Santa Teresa after 1:00AM,
and with the closure of the south county yard, they save quite a bit of
money by ending it early.

I didn't agree with some of the cutbacks, this year or last, since they
tended to come at the end of the service day.  Granted, there are fewer
riders at that time, but having late service can make the difference
between transit being usable or not.  I would have preferred to see
the runs cut during the daytime.

jeremy
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:3018 rec.railroad:10374
From: M00209@MBVM.Mitre.Org
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Grade Separations (was Re: CalTrain scheduling musings)
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:56:36 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA 01730

In article <930104184055@cream.ftp.com>
jbvb@vax.ftp.com  (James B. VanBokkelen) writes, in part:
 
>This and the one above it are frequently combined, so the RoW only needs
>to shift one track's worth in the end.  Two examples on the B&M are:
>1) Haverhill, MA on the B&M in the '20s - combined grade-crossing
>separation, new station, new bridge over the Merrimack River.  You can
>still see the old river bridge abutments.  2) Winchester MA, in the
>mid-50s - grade-crossing elimination, new station, leaving an old
>1-story tower slightly to one side at ground level.
>
Hey, man, Haverhill's my home town!
 
I think you're slightly mistaken about the station.  The old Haverhill Depot
about which I could tell you many stories, some pretty gross, was certainly not
built in the "20s".  I do not know exactly when the grade was raised, but I
think that was also earlier.  My guess on raising the grade, without looking it
up, would be between 1905 and 1910.  The station, I think was built earlier
than that, and was remodelled to add the upstairs waiting room/ticket office/
operator's office.  I could be wrong on that point - it may have been built at
the time the grade was raised, but it certainly was a lot older than 1920.
 
As for Winchester, what they did there was build a whole new railroad on
elevated structure above the streets.  The grade of the streets (Winchester
Square) was changed very little if at all.  I THINK I remember that it was
built one track at a time, but can't be sure of that as I was much younger and
really not yet a railfan when that project was going on.  I also remember,
though, the extension of the Salem Tunnel, which was a whole nother type of
project.  Basically , to over-simplify, they left the railroad grade alone at
the east end, and dug it out a little at the west end, and then built a whole
new street system over the railroad.
 
 
Len Bachelder        Archives Committee, Boston and Maine RR Historical Society
MITRE Corp.           Secretary, Massachusetts Bay Railroad Enthusiasts
Bedford MA 01730      Member, 470 Railroad Club
<M00209@mbvm.mitre.org>
 
"Amazing love, how can it be that Thou, my God, should'st die for me!"
                                                 - Charles Wesley
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:40:20 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1533@dosbears> dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.230216.21279@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.194258.16100@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan6.000033.5796@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>>
>>>I'm told that there are some CalTrain runs that it's difficult to find a
>>>seat on.  On the day after Thanksgiving, some CalTrains were reportedly
>>>so full that you could hardly get in the door!  I've seen some of the
>>>special 10-car special-event CalTrains that had damn-near *every* seat
>>>taken.
>>
>>Great--CalTrain is jammed full one day a year.... How much extra
>>rolling stock should be purchased (and out of whose pocket...) to
>>support that?
>
>I'm afraid you misread Adrian.
>
>The Thanksgiving trains were over-full.

I believe I read him correctly--on the day cited, the trains were 'so
full that you could hardly get in the door", I rephrased as 'jammed
full'.  I.e. So full it is hard to get on for lack of standing room.

Note that this is *one*day*per*year*.  Is that a justification for
additional rolling stock, and (if so) at whose expense?  

Now that you've criticized my reading ability, how about answering the
question.

>There are some trains on "regular" days that are full.
>
>I can't swear to the Thanksgiving trains but when I was commuting to
>SF and back I've been forced to stand until enough people got off so 
>I could get a seat.  More than once.
>
>(For CalTrain, "full" means "all seats occupied".)

Noted.

For BART, I would use "full" to be elbow-to-elbow standing room.

>>I agree, but the maximum capacity cited for freeways is one that is
>>actually seen--indeed, isn't that capactiy determination from actual
>>measurement?
>
>False.
>
>The maximum capacity for freeways has NEVER been seen.  Maximum 
>number of vehicles, perhaps.  People, never.

Most of the figures we've been using were calculated on the number of
vehicles and then modified for occupancy.  Now cite a rail line that
is full even in the sense of 'as many trains as *can* be run'.  At
least in the case of freeways and vehicles, it's a measurement--not a
theory.

>>                  There are, however selected routes--Orinda to SF,
>>near North Berkeley BART to SF, Claremont and College in Oakland that
>>are known sites for informal car pooling.  
>
>But do even those areas have more than 1.2 people per car?

The cars leaving the informal car-pooling areas certainly do.  They
meet the Bay Bridge criterion of 3 persons per car.  Sometimes more.
I haven't ridden in one since I worked in SF and there was a transit
strike or other 'outage'.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |