From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Should CalTrain be Saved?
Keywords: BART CalTrain
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:31:18 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1992Sep3.183143.20672@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Hirsch) writes:
>
>Op-Ed Piece "Battling BART" from the Peninsula Times Tribune,
>Sunday, August 23, 1992.
>
>Should CalTrain be Saved?
>by Alan Hirsh

This piece contained some "facts" that I wish to expound on.

>- Schedule
>
>Outside rush hour, BART runs every 15 minutes, light rail in San 
>Francisco and Santa Clara County runs every 10 minutes, but CalTrain
>now only operates every hour--every two hours in the evening and on
>weekends.  Yet, CalTrain's switching/signaling system can handle
>trains up to every three minutes today, and there are currently
>enough rail cars and engines here, or on order, to run it every 30
>minutes.  The obstacles preventing even more frequent trains are
>financial, not technological.

No argument with the CalTrain details but there is some missing data 
on the BART data.  Unlike CalTrain, which is a simple staight line
system, BART is four lines laid out in an almost-X.  The meaning
of this is that for San Francisco and Oakland the daytime frequency
is about 5 minutes (15 min per line, three lines each).  At night,
two of the lines stop and the frequency does become 15 minutes.
Because of this X, comparisons of frequency and headway are slippery
beasts and should be avoided if possible.

BTW, BART has recently (in the last year or so) upgraded its system
through SF to handle headways of 2.5 minutes.

>- Speed
>
>BART's average speed is 33 mph while CalTrain averages 32.  But, 
>CalTrain can operate express trains at average speeds of 45-50 mph, 
>something BART can't do with its current computer control system.  

This is an even slippery-er beast.  BART is slightly faster than
CalTrain and can accelerate and deaccelerate slightly faster but
the controlling feature of "average speed" is the number of stops.
CalTrain "express trains" have a higher average speed because they
"skip" stops.

>- Comfort
>
>People want to sit down when they use transit.  CalTrain's double 
>deck cars have 148 seats per car--compared to 68 for BART.  This is 
>because BART's design was optimized for peak hour crush loads and 
>San Francisco and East Bay transit trip lengths that average half
>that of the Peninsula (12 miles vs. 23 miles). 

"Want" is too strong a word.  "Would rather" is more correct.

Some other details are that those 148 seats are almost never
utilized except on the few jam packed express runs.  This is
because some seats face each other at an uncomfortablely
close distance for strangers.  (Ignoring the seats that are
unuseable because people have attempted to make them face
the other way like they used to be able to do.)

Also, because the wider BART cars mean wider aisles (are the
BART seats slightly wider?, they seem to be) mean that standing
is more comfortable.  And those with the longest commutes
usually get to sit at least a portion of their commute.

>Comfort		68 seats/car  	148 seats/car

And what will CalTrain do if they actually become as popular
as BART?  BART runs ten car trains most of the time on the
busy lines and on all lines at rush times.  CalTrain runs
three and four cars most of the time and up to six cars on 
the busiest run.  What is the longest train that the stations 
can load and unload?  (Although some stations, like Castro,
have been known to be "overshot" and let the passengers get
on and off in the field.)

--
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