HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: 20th Birthday Party for BART
Date: 14 Sep 1992 21:32:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <192n35INN91b@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.175842.14451@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>	One of the big problems with San Francisco is its rather steep
>>hills; I don't know offhand what its steeper grades are, but I'm sure
>>that they are greater than BART's upper limit of about 3.5%.
>
>	A great chance to plug a map sold at the Berkeley commute
>store, the San Francisco Biking/Walking guide, that is a color-coded
>map showing the grades of every street in the city. 

Sounds tempting.  Maybe I'll go get one if I ever get any money.

>All of the main
>streets in this discussion (Geary, Van Ness, Lombard) have a few short
>stretches in the 5-10% grade range, but most of the blocks are in the
>0-5% grade range. Considering any BART implementation will be
>underground, it would seem that selective tunneling along these
>streets would be sufficient to keep the constant grade under 3.5%.

I would think so.  It might affect station placement, but I don't
think it's much more expensive to build a tunnel 20' deep than one 50'
deep, unless you're doing a cut-and-cover tunnel, which I don't think
BART would do.  I could be wrong, of course.

>Note that some streets bordering these main drags are much steeper,
>some are over 18% ...

This is to be expected; the streets with the least grade are precisely
those streets that streetcars could have used most easily, and thus
these are the ones that became the main streets.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, 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: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:48:21 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1992Aug31.101940@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>In article <17m2ccINN5tq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>|> 
>|> In article <1992Aug28.193556.23180@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>|> >(Witness San Franciso's plan to put a regularly
>|> >scheduled surface-running LRT service back on Market Street.)
>|> 
>|> I think the plan to put streetcars back on Market Street (and they are
>|> planned to be old PCC streetcars, not new fancy LRTs) has more to do
>|> with the PCCs having higher capacity than the electric buses now on
>|> the 8-Market line, and the desire to use equipment that will be
>|> maintained anyway to support the historic trolleys, than a preference
>|> for street-level LRT over subway-level.  
>
>For those who have not heard this yet, it's a TOURIST LINE!

My understanding is that the street levels systems are being revived
because the subway is running at capacity at rush hour.  (I sure hope
that is capacity;  I shudder to consider what a higher capacity would
be.)

As a data point (according to my train-freak friends in SF -- not George :-)
Agnos was adamantly against the historic trolleys (not for any good
reason but because they were a pet project of Feinstein).  I don't know 
what Jordan's policy is -- I suspect benign incompetence.

--
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
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: The "toll booths" have disappeared
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 14:32:37 GMT

   On my way home on Thursday evening, I noticed that the toll booths were no
longer in place.  On Tuesday, the light rail operator brought them to our
attention with an announcement.  On Wednesday, there were people running around
near the booths--I'd say about 100 people--and it looked like the media were
there also.  Yesterday, the booths were gone...

   I still haven't heard any official reasoning why they were there?  Were they
experimenting with putting them in before the freeway opened?  Were they plan-
ning to sneak the booths in and were met with outrage?  I still don't know.  In
any event, maybe the people of Willow Glen can breathe a sigh of relief now...


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Taxes, Development, and Transit
Date: 11 Sep 1992 21:35:33 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <18qe6aINNdkj@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>
>Providing the infrastructure
>that allows high-density development to exist is precisely what SCCTD
>should be doing.

In general I agree with the statement, but I don't know how much sense
it makes for Santa Clara County. Growth is dying in this region, and
unlike places like Oakland, San Francisco, and Berkeley, there isn't a
lot of high-density places that could be redeveloped and served by
transit (like SOMA and the Financial district, downtown Oakland, and
downtown Berkeley were developed and redeveloped, aided by the
presence of BART). Designing a transit system to serve the South Bay
is a lot more practical than re-designing the South Bay to fit a
transit system ...
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Taxes, Development, and Transit
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:41:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <prn1kus@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>In article <18s1uuINNpr1@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>> 
>> If I were going to pick a place to start -- a place to begin
>> transforming the South Bay from what it is now to a real *city* -- as
>> opposed to a "suburban fabric" connected by arterial roads -- I
>> wouldn't have picked the current route of the Light Rail.  

>Many of the high density developments in Santa Clara county are already
>served by rail -- downtown Palo Alto, downtown Mountain View, Santa Clara,
>San Jose, etc.

Well, I was sort of assuming that the light rail wouldn't replace
CalTrain.  Naturally, the high-density places in Santa Clara are the
ones that have always existed on the SP rail service.

>One of the problems with Caltrain is that it is run by three different
>agencies.  Imagine how far BART would have gotten if Muni, AC Transit,
>CCCTA, WestCat, and the Flea were responsible for funding it.

It's pretty clear that politics, not anything else such as technology
or whatever, drives Bay Area transit decisions.

>Could Santa Clara county go it alone?  I.e. could the Santa Clara county
>part of Caltrain be upgraded to 15 minute service without upgrading the
>rest?  I know that wouldn't be optimal, but it still seems better than
>any of the other transit corridors, not to mention cheaper.

I don't see why a siding couldn't be built north of Palo Alto to
provide places for existing equipment to turn around if this was what
was desired.  Much of the ROW has room for *four* tracks, doesn't it?
It would, of course, have to be paid for, and so on.

Via Rail operates a small passenger service from Victoria to Courtenay
that uses a self-powered diesel car, bigger than a light rail car but
not much.  These kinds of cars could be used if existing locos were
too big for Santa Clara-only demand.

Of course, it would be much better to simply run the whole line at
frequent intervals, but politics plays an important role in this.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, 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"
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Did I see...toll booths on 87?
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:42:30 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.


   There's been a lot of talk about the new Measure A and about transportation
projects.  Since this topic is dominated by mass-transit afficionados, I'm sure
you'll all be glad to hear what I saw going home on the Light Rail last night.
Northbound, on what will be the new Highway 87, are what appear to be toll
booths in each of several different lanes.
   These booths are just south of I-280 just before downtown and are plainly
visible from the light rail vehicles.
   Does anyone know when this was decided?  If these *are* toll booths, then
it's the first time I've heard of it.  I haven't heard the newspaper or the
news talk about it.
   I'm not sure that this will work.  You see, one set of booths is just going
to make people exit before the booths, clog the city streets and re-enter 87
(or 280) to avoid the booths, and could cause *far* more problems than they
solve.  Tolls on bridges can work, since there are no side roads or alternate
routes.  Tolls on turnpikes work, because they exist for hundreds of miles
(not just one set of booths) and you pay no matter where you enter.  Unless I
am misunderstanding something, this is just one "all-or-nothing" toll gate.
   Many in this subject love to talk about how much the auto is subsidized,
when many types of mass transit are subsidized even more (in terms of what
percentage the user pays in direct fees).  But even from a car-haters point
of view (as some of you seem to be), this seems to cause more traffic,
congestion and pollution than it eliminates. I'll check it again on my way
home from work today.  I need to make sure I wasn't hallucinating...


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Taxes, Development, and Transit
Date: 12 Sep 1992 19:00:59 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <18s1uuINNpr1@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>
>In article <18r3f5INN3ip@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>>In article <18qe6aINNdkj@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>>>
>>>Providing the infrastructure
>>>that allows high-density development to exist is precisely what SCCTD
>>>should be doing.
>>
>>In general I agree with the statement, but I don't know how much sense
>>it makes for Santa Clara County. Growth is dying in this region, and
>
>Even if the computer and defense industries continue a decline, 
>business from the north Bay Area will seep down into the South Bay if
>the price of office space will support it.
>

Straying from ba.transportation territory, but the trend for expansion
for the North Bay seems to be on a North-South line from Dublin and
Pleasanton up to Fairfield, sweeping eastward out of the Bay Area into
Sacremento area and the Central valley. I don't think the South Bay
can compete for the development of non-technology industries with this
geographic area, and the recent action of Apple planning to move its
Fremont plant to the Sacremento area is an ominous indicator that the
core industries of the South Bay may not be immune as well.  What will
happen to the South Bay when the some of the large core companies of
the region decides to move headquarters to this region (HP, Intel,
Apple, AMD, Sun)?  Will the region move to re-invent itself like San
Francisco has when major business flights have happened, or will it
begin to disintegrate into a second-tier bedroom community for other
parts of the Bay Area?
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Tunnels (was Re: Downtown CalTrain Station)
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:41:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <185qaaINNn9a@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>In article <185o46INN4oa@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>I've seen some evidence that the paved running walk along Marina Green
>used to be a rail corridor; you can see some of the rail pop up on the
>street crossings. Of course, the NIMBY factor would be off the scale
>on any above-ground LRT on this path. 

Yeah, I think it's pretty dream-land time here.  Oh well.  I do think
a line ending at the Fort Mason piers would be possible.  Might not be
worth it though.

>The electric buses on Chestnut
>and Union seem to service this part of the city pretty well, 

Well, I wasn't thinking about a real line as a service for the Marina
District; I just thought it would make a good tourist service to Fort
Mason.  Meet up with the 28, and all that.  (Hey, it just occurred to
me -- I was talking (not even half seriously, of course) about
extending the line to the Golden Gate Bridge lookout point -- isn't
that exactly what the 28 does?)

I like your idea for the 55 Chestnut-Sacramento, but I think it's more
likely that the buses would use Van Ness rather than Fillmore for the
trip down from Chestnut to Sacramento.  I think it's open to question
though whether Sacramento or Sutter (give it line #40?) would provide
the better service to where people want to go.  I don't know the
patterns in downtown SF really to know.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, 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: Re: 20th Birthday Party for BART
Date: 12 Sep 1992 06:25:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Sep11.235206.11471@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	The MUNI Metro Extension Project goes from Market Street to
>the CalTrain station

Hmm.  I thought the point was more to serve new development at
"Mission Bay" than to serve the CalTrain station.

>	Northwest San Francisco may be tricky to connect to because SF
>has some pretty big mountains in it -- more than a 3.5% grade, I'm
>sure. I'd have to consult some maps before I can even guess at the
>routing.

BART is required by the State act authorizing its existence to serve
Northwest San Francisco.  I really hope they get their acts together
and realize that BART support of a Geary Metro extension is the best way
they could support that part of San Francisco (without pointless
duplication of services).  There are passes in the San Francisco
"mountains" that I'm sure could handle BART grades, but they'd have to
put most of it underground anyway, I'd wager.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, 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"
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: zbear@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Stewart Kramer)
Subject: Re: The "toll booths" have disappeared
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:57:34 GMT

In article <92255.26913.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>   On my way home on Thursday evening, I noticed that the toll booths were no
>longer in place.  On Tuesday, the light rail operator brought them to our
>attention with an announcement.  On Wednesday, there were people running around
>near the booths--I'd say about 100 people--and it looked like the media were
>there also.  Yesterday, the booths were gone...

The city of San Jose was trying to get film-makers to use the unopened freeways
to make films (pay a fee to the city, don't need to close an existing freeway, 
etc.), or so I remember from a newspaper story several months ago.

Maybe they were fake toll booths?
---
Stewart Kramer

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Caltrain at San Antonio Road? (was: Spinning Crank Sept/Oct 92)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:29:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.033532.13810@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU (Vince Fuller) writes:
|> Does this mean that there are plans afoot to build a Caltrain station at San
|> Antonio Road near the Palo Alto/Mountain View border?

Yes.

There is a plan to eliminate the Mountain View station called "Castro"
(which is really at Rengstorff Ave.) and replace it with a station at
San Antonio Road.  This plan has been "in the works" for quite some time
and I'm not sure what its status/timeline is right now.

The HP site across Central Expy., the nearby (and soon to be fully
remodeled) San Antonio shopping center, the adjacent (and soon to
be redeveloped into high density housing) Old Mill shopping center
and cinemas, as well as the convergence of many Santa Clara County
bus routes nearby, all make this a much better station site than the
"Castro" station at Rengstorff.  The already existing ped/bicycle
underpass at this site will probably allow this station to use
"outside boarding" like Palo Alto's University Ave. station.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Taxes, Development, and Transit
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:52:12 GMT

In article <1930v4INNghk@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
|> Much of the [SP/CalTrain] ROW has room for *four* tracks, doesn't it?

Yes, most of it can easily accommodate 4 tracks.  The ROW is not as wide-
seeming north of Palo Alto.  There is more stuff built right up to the
edge of it on both sides in parts of San Mateo County.  I've heard that
in some cases (like in San Mateo), that some roads/structures are actually
encroaching onto the legal right of way and that technically they could be 
bulldozed or trimmed back to make room for an extra track or two.
Politically, this may not be so easy...


|> Of course, it would be much better to simply run the whole line at
|> frequent intervals, but politics plays an important role in this.

Yes.  But if Santa Clara comes forward with a strong commitment/desire
to upgrade and/or run transit-level CalTrain frequencies, it'll put a
lot of pressure on San Mateo to join in and pay their fair share.  As
I see it (and as has been alleged by some of my friends), a lot of the
recalcitrance of San Mateo County-based SamTrans to put more of an
agressive vision into this year's version of the CalTrain 9-year plan
has to do with waiting to see what Santa Clara is willing to commit to
and do.  Also, there is the whole issue of SMCo conserving funds to
spend (waste) on BART stuff.  As long as the BART-into-SMCo issue
is up in the air, there may be a reluctance to commit to anything that
will cost much money for CalTrain.  The BART question in SMCo needs
to get resolved quickly, as I see it, because until then, we won't
see a lot of leadership or vision or funds for CalTrain coming out of
SMCo.  If SMCo decides to "go for BART" (whatever that ends up meaning),
it's likely that CalTrain will not get much in the way of improvements
while we WAIT DECADES and PAY MORE TAXES for BART to come down the
Peninsula and ring the south bay.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Southern Pacific Commuter Line Tryout
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:13:18 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: LLNL


	As I mentioned in an earlier posting, SP will be running a
commuter train between Fairfield and Oakland on Sept. 17 and the week
of 21-25. Here is the schedule:

	Morning:

	Suisun-Fairfield: 6:00 AM
	Martinez: 6:20
	Richmond: 6:49
	Oakland (16th & Wood Amtrak sta.): 7:04
	Oakland (Kirkham St.): 7:17

	Evening:

	Oakland (Kirkham St.): 5:30 PM
	Oakland (16th & Wood Amtrak sta.): 5:39
	Richmond: 5:54
	Martinez: 6:24
	Suisun-Fairfield: 6:47

	It will be free.

	Judging from what I can see from the BART line, between the
Kirkham St. stop and BART's West Oakland station is some rather
run-down industrial neighborhood. Not a very good advertisement for a
new commute line.

	From 16th and Wood, one would presumably have to take an
Amtrak bus to San Francisco. This might not be too surprising, since
the train will be run by an Amtrak crew. The trains themselves will be
1 loco and 4 passenger cars from the LA MetroLink commuter system.

	It would be interesting to see which is faster between
Richmond and West Oakland: this commuter train or BART.

	One might ask why SP has become so interested in passenger
railroading lately, since its record for the last couple of decades
has been one of indifference at best. A cynical suggestion is that SP
is hoping to board a gravy train of rail-transit subsidies, which
would include such things as track maintenance.

	If this venture proves successful, can we expect some other
railroads to get into the game? Might Union Pacific have a similar
test run on its Fremont-Stockton line? Since I live along that line,
I'm not likely to complain :-)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation