HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Santa Clara County Measure A
Keywords: CalTrain
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:45:17 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Sep2.165712.6865@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <palitog@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> 
> |> 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".

You need a lesson in Santa Clara county sales taxes.

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.  The full
proceeds of the 1976 tax go to Santa Clara county transit.  So it
will be a one cent sales tax for transit (minus the small amount to
be spent on the roads -- call it a .95 cent sales tax for transit if
you really want).

jeremy
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: BART's "manifest destiny"
Date: 3 Sep 1992 19:32:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Sep3.183541.20747@ntmtv> rail2000@aol.com writes:
>Is it because "for the man with a hammer, everything looks like
>a nail", and the BART bureaucracy only has one technological
>hammer.

I think that is fundamentally it.  I think there is a real problem with
a different agency for each different line.  I think we need a new
BARTD, one that encompasses the *whole* Bay Area and has control of
*all* transit in the Bay Area other than local bus routes.  (So, for
example, SamTrans would still control its local feeder lines, but lines
like the 7M and 7F would be run by the New BARTD.)  The structure of
the agency would NOT be divided by technology except for maintenance
and operations -- planning, administrative, etc., would all be the
unified.  This would reduce sharply this "hammer, hammer" attitude of
existing agencies.  

And I'm really sick of the "we've paid in to BART for 20 years so others
should buy in too" attitude.  The biggest beneficiaries of the SFO
BART extension are supposed to be Alameda County residents!! We're one
large region, and we have to start thinking that way.

 =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"
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.general,rec.bicycles
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Bikes allowed on CalTrain
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Keywords: bicycles bikes CalTrain
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:40:18 GMT


I have just learned that the CalTrain JPB has voted to start a
"demonstration project" to allow bikes on off-peak, weekend and
holiday trains.

The plan is to allow 4 bikes per train on the north end (nearest
San Francisco) of the train.  A bike permit will be required, and
must be obtained in advance, but will be free of charge.  

Starting Tuesday, September 8th, applications for the bike permits
should be available at CalTrain ticket offices, or you may call
the CalTrain information number (800.660.4287) to have them send
you an application.

The application will explain the exact rules and what trains qualify
as "off-peak" for bikes.

You must be 16 or older.

The first day bikes will be allowed is Saturday, September 19.


-- 

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: Why SC Measure A is good
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:52:14 GMT

In article <pd8bces@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> I don't know if you want to be the intermediary, Adrian, but
|> here goes anyway.

I forwarded your comments (posting) to Alan.


|> 8.25% sales tax is too high.

No higher than we've got now.


|> We already have .5% for transit, and it is being inefficiently spent.

While I understand that SCCTD isn't exactly the most efficient operation
in the world, isn't the .5% you're talking about keeping them alive?  I
guess I'd rather have SCCTD as it is today (warts and all) than nothing.
Efficiency and raising money for capital projects (which is what the new
Measure A will do) don't really seem to be that related.  I mean, whatever
efficiency problems there are, can, and should be, addressed whether or
not Measure A passes.  It's a separate problem, as I see it.  


|> There has to be more than just putting in rail lines.

Which of the "just putting in rail lines" projects do you have a problem
with?  Do you deny that they are needed and useful things to have?


|> There is currently no plan to get a reasonable farebox recovery from
|> transit in Santa Clara county.

So because of this you want to hold capital upgrades to CalTrain and
the building of new light rail lines to connect things like CalTrain
and BART in Fremont hostage?  I dunno, maybe you're right and that will
make farebox recovery skyrocket, but I *really* doubt it.  Probably, the
best thing we can do for farebox is to do the Measure A projects so that
transit usefulness and consequently ridership increases.


|> The current half cent sales tax was sold in '76 as the answer to Santa
|> Clara county's transit needs.  Now it is used up just to run the system
|> we have; there's nothing left over for capital projects.  There is nothing
|> in Measure A to make me believe that the proposed additional tax will be
|> spent any more wisely.

Measure A is for the *capital projects* you complain there's no money for.

If Measure A fails, the Tasman light rail extension to Mountain View is
in jeopardy.  As most of you know, it will extend light rail to connect
with CalTrain in downtown Mountain View and will serve Lockheed.  The
other end of the Tasman project will extend eastward to the area of
Capitol Expy. & Hostetter Road.  If Measure A fails, CalTrain upgrades,
including electrification will become far less certain.  Etc.

-- 

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: Proof of payment
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:32:18 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Sep1.225526.27886@ntmtv>, 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!).  

tsk tsk!

> At any rate, is your "stubling point" hypothetical, or based on personal
> experience?   I have confidence in proof-of-payment fare collection.  The
> potential stumbling block that I see has to do with keeping riff-raff
> out of the stations.  This is mainly a problem in inner-city areas with
> underground stations.   The way to control vagrants and such is to make
> the whole station area for valid ticket holders only.  That way the 
> station security guards (if there are any) or ticket inspectors can use
> selective enforcement on people that don't look/act like the belong in
> the station area.

It's hypothetical.  There are no proof of payment systems for local
transit service that I know about.  Do they use such in Europe?
Portland's Trimet tried it out on all buses in the early 80's, but
they had too much fare evasion and put an end to it.  Too bad, since
I'm sure it would speed transit service.  If they used plainclothes
checkers and stopped the vehicle until they were done, then it should
work.  North American systems seem to use uniformed personnel, though.
Don't know why.

By the way, Seattle's bus tunnel is pretty interesting.  When I was
there in July, I went through it.  Rides in the tunnel are free, since
it is in the free ride zone.  It seemed to be pretty heavily
patronized (36000 boarders per day I read somewhere).  It was
interesting because the buses speed along underground and because
lots of people board and alight at the same time at stops.  Both are
very unusual for bus service.  The other unusual aspect was a
pay-as-you-leave system for routes leaving downtown -- you can only
alight from the front door.

jeremy
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: We need an FAQ list
Keywords: FAQ frequently answered question proposed
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:29:57 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug28.202000.23760@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <17kmb3INN401@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>Hmmm.  I think "fixed guideways" is redundant.  Anyone know of portable
>guideways (other than my old "Hot Wheels" (TM) or slot-car set)?  Is a
>road a guideway if it doesn't "guide" the vehicle?  Granted, roads give
>drivers cues as to how to steer, but I have never considered (or heard
>someone call) roads guideways.  Whatever.

All I know is that I read a hundreds-of-pages study of transit options
from downtown Santa Cruz to the university, comparing monorail,
gondola system, and light rail, referring to the choices generally as
"fixed guideway".

>|> Kiss and ride -- a very short-term parking facility where 
>|>    passengers are dropped off or picked up by motorists.
>
>Often inside of, adjacent to, or an official designated part of,
>"Park and Ride" facilities.

Okay, fair enough.

Thanks again.

 =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: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:19:40 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

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!

The PCCs cannot be considered real transit any more than the
historic trolleys were.

Sheesh.
-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Downtown CalTrain Station (was Re: Cost of ...)
Date: 2 Sep 1992 18:10:44 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <181qikINN4g7@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>
>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).
> 

Are there large stretches of abandoned tunnels in SF that could be
rehabilitated for transit use? Or are most of the existing tunnelling
in use?  A short list of tunnels in active use would include all the
Muni Metro tunnels, the Caltrain Tunnels, the BART tunnels, the
Stockton tunnel and the Broadway tunnel.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: The San Diegans
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:31:48 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <4766@bacon.IMSI.COM> jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
>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.

	But how long does it take to get to and from LAX and SAN?

	How comfortable is the ride?

	And how much are fares for each?

	Bonus question: how much would fares be if all subsidies,
direct and indirect, were removed?

/Loren
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: rail technologies (was: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution)
Date: 25 Aug 1992 19:41:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <oratqs0@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>
>Skytrain's classification is a matter of debate.  BC Transit calls
>it ALRT (Advanced Light Rapid Transit).  Others debate whether it's
>really light or heavy rail.  It doesn't really matter what you call
>it; it seems to work well. 

I think of it as light rail, because the cars are so small.  I've
never really had a good definition of light vs heavy rail.  I agree,
semantincs are pointless.

> I don't see why they couldn't use overhead
>catenary rather than third rail for it, if grade separation is a
>problem.

I would hesitate to have a driverless system cross traffic.  To say
the least.  The idea of children running in front of a driverless
train is *not* a pretty sight.  Of course, you can't stop a CalTrain
on a dime either, but still...

>I don't think this would be so great.  Light rail is too slow to
>be an express line. 

Why (he asks ignorantly) can't one run heavy rail and light rail on
the same track?  Why couldn't one build heavy rail cars low enough for
light rail cars to use the same catenary on the same track?  Yes,
drivers and cabs would cost money, but you'd save some of it back in
flexibility of equipment, and if one line of the rail system went down
you'd just detour the cars around to another line.

I just don't like to see people transferring all the time.  It reduces
ridership.

>My fantasy would be a mix of Skytrain-like automated transit (ALRT),
>high speed rail, and bus service.  Put the high speed rail on the major
>corridors with a parallel ALRT for local service, 

I find it difficult to imagine ALRT on a corridor such as the
J-extension in San Francisco or the Santa Clara light rail, which is
what I am thinking of when I talk about local light rail service.

 =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
From: chris@loki.amd.com (Chris Martin)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:27:11 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:


>In article <1992Aug22.010448.8754@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>> 
>> 	Q: Which technology can meet the objective for the least cost?
>> 	A: Standard rail; especially due to the existing infrastructure.

>I have to agree with this one.  It's already there.  However, I should
>note that for the cost of running one Caltrain, you could run about 8
>buses.  That means that you could have a vehicle every 7.5 minutes
>instead of once an hour.  Speed would be a bit less if all stops were
>made, but there would be a lot more flexibility in providing limited
>stops.  Average system speed could be about the same.

But, this assumes a dedicated right-of-way for the busses, no?

--

Chris Martin                                      chris.martin@amd.com
Advanced Micro Devices; Sunnyvale, Ca.; U.S.A.    408/987-9047
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Rail on Geary (Was: Re: rail technologies)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:55:26 GMT

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!).  
 
At any rate, is your "stubling point" hypothetical, or based on personal
experience?   I have confidence in proof-of-payment fare collection.  The
potential stumbling block that I see has to do with keeping riff-raff
out of the stations.  This is mainly a problem in inner-city areas with
underground stations.   The way to control vagrants and such is to make
the whole station area for valid ticket holders only.  That way the 
station security guards (if there are any) or ticket inspectors can use
selective enforcement on people that don't look/act like the belong in
the station area.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart)
Subject: Re: The San Diegans
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 02:28:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
: In article <4766@bacon.IMSI.COM>, jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
: |> Vaughn Wolffe <vaughnw@asia.fai.com> writes:
: |> 
: |> 	The San Diegans regularly go 90 mph.
: 
: [table of average speeds deleted]
: 
: |> I guess I don't see where the San Diegans "regularly" go 90 mph.
: 
: I'm pretty sure Vaughn's right about the San Diegans going 90 mph,
: Jordan.  You might not realize this, but average speed doesn't tell
: you much about top speed and how long it was held.
: 
: I can imagine Jordan fighting a speeding ticket in court: "I couldn't
: have been speeding your honor, my average speed was only 36.82 mph!"

Or even better: "I know the speed limit is 55 mph, but I wasn't going
to be out that long."

-- 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: busways
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:08:58 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <25816@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
> I like buses, but I always prefer a train.
> 
> On the LRT vs busway issue, would it be possible or desirable
> to allow buses on all LRT right-of-way?  The thought is that when there
> are sections of LRT tracks that are off regular roads, to add
> enough paving to allow a bus to travel through the same space.
> Perhaps it could be a 'guided-busway' (I don't know how these work
> personally), to minimize the amount of paving needed.
> 
> I've never taken the SJ LRT, but have taken Portland's and Sacramento's.
> I haven't studied the bus route maps, but I would suspect that there
> might be some bus routes that could make use of parts of the rail
> right of way.
> 
> There might be technical problems with this, such as signaling.
> The busses might also introduce too much traffic on the lines,
> particularly during peak hours when they would be most useful.
> However, for less-traveled LRT ROW, or systems in their growing
> stages, this might be useful.
> 
> In some cases, such as the west line in Sacramento, it looks
> like there might be room for one bus lane next to some of the
> light rail ROW (even when the second rail line is added), so
> there could ultimately be a parallel single-lane busway (with
> turnouts for passing busses).
> 
> I also expect this might have political complications (not sure
> what though).
> 
> As I mentioned, I am not familiar with SJ LRT lines or politics,
> so don't know of applicability there.
> 
> Bruce Nordman
> B_Nordman@lbl.gov

This sounds like a good idea.  In fact, the Seattle trolley bus
subway has rail tracks down the middle.  It's probably even doable
in San Jose, though it would probably require a bit more ROW,
since bus ROW generally should be 12 feet wide.  The place to
apply this would be on the South Line in the 85 and 87 median.
They would also have to implement a proof of payment system on
the buses to avoid long stops.  Unfortunately, there are no
turnouts, so they would have to have good scheduling, but worst
case would be that the bus would be slowed down a bit.

By the way, in Pittsburgh PA, they have busway and LRT ROW
side-by-side.

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation