HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:23:41 GMT


>In article <9208041541.AA03001@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
	The $100 M/mi BART cost _includes_ stations.

>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>Some BART lines will be a lot cheaper than that, such as the
>Dublin-Pleasanton extension, which will be at $50 M/mi. BART is
>handicapped by being "new", which means that a lot of land has to be
>bought for the system (one of BART's biggests costs).
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a claim you should prove with publically available 
documentation.
Look at a couple of the studies and breakout the cost of
the land relative to the cost of the project.





>Furthermore, BART has a host of things that CalTrain has
>little or none of, like tunneling, big parking lots at its suburban
>stations, complete grade separation and over/underpasses at stations,
>electrification, and so forth. And all these things cost lots of
>$$$'s.

Warm Springs has no tunneling in the existing(original) alternative
yet it is still $100 million a mile. CalTrain's stations are almost
all suburban. Complete grade separation is not required for more 
modern technology. Electrification is less than $500,000 a mile
(not counting engines) for CalTrain or for any of the more modern 
overhead systems.

You keep avoiding the obvious. BART's costs are specific to its 
design. Those costs are not necessary to provide a rail system with
the same or better performance.



>crossing the other one. I've seen the Tamien station, and it is the
>most BART-like of CalTrain's stations; I wonder how much _it_ cost.

$24 million.


>Tamien has a humongous parking lot (perhaps because it's new :-). And
>how much would a tunnel to Market St. from its 4th and Townsend
>terminus cost? I've seen estimates like $1 billion -- that's only for
>a 1-mile route. 


Where did you see this estimate? Samtrans has stated $650-850 
million. Both are based on a "dual-mode" operation. Neither has been
offered for public review. Both include the electrification and the
cost of new locomotives. The larger one includes tunneling from 
16th due to the request of a private builder for the Mission Bay 
project.


>BART to SFO will almost certainly connect with
>CalTrain at San Bruno and/or SFO -- and cost less while serving more
>people.



According to the BART/SFO DEIR(which you conveniently choose not to
read) the rosiest ridership for BART is 46,000 while for CalTrain 
is 57,000, 67,000 with no BART and a SF downtown relocation. The
original projection for cost was $647 million. Now Samtrans is 
talking $927 million(bunch of additional tunneling). No additional
ridership.


   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: chris@loki.amd.com (Chris Martin)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cost of transit systems vs highways
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:58:08 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:

>>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>>	And how much is a CalTrain tunnel to the Transbay Terminal
>>expected to cost? At least $600 million, and probably $1 billion. And
>>this for only 1 mile of tunnel.

>That is less than a tunnel under San Jose, which you seem to support.

Are they seriously considering a CalTrain tunnel from 4th/Townsend to
the Transbay Terminal?  I had always just assumed that they would more
or less position it near or under the freeway.o
	
--

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: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:15:19 GMT

In article <p1n2sts@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug26.003317.10867@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> > Sorry Jeremy, I know you're a bus fan, but I'm not convinced as many
|> > people will ride a bus for the same distance, and as frequently as
|> > they would a train.
|> 
|> But for trips under an hour, it is negligible.  How much can you get
|> up and walk around on an LRT, anyway?  Or a Caltrain, for that matter.
|> There is an undeniable advantage to Amtrak, where you can walk around
|> and get food, and the corridors are wide enough to do so.  But for
|> urban transit trips under an hour (the vast majority), it just isn't
|> there.

I still disagree.  Rail has far better ridership "drawing power" than
bus for any distance or trip length.  Part of it is based on real
differences and part may be based on perceived differences or image
problems.  I don't know for sure.  There are many who would either
not take transit if it meant riding the bus, or choose rail over bus
if given the choice.  The fact (as you point out) that there are
plenty of people that are willing to ride buses today doesn't refute
this point.

As I recall, the Vasona Corridor Study examined busway vs. light rail,
and light rail won out in the ridership department.  Not surprising.

Your argument, as I understand it, is either to deny this point, or
to explain it away by saying that buses are (or can be) much better
than people think.   You may be right about buses being min-understood,
but unless and until that changes, people will continue to have a
strong preference for rail.

All that said, I'd like to point out that I'm not anti-bus either.
Buses are an important part of a transit network.  Every mode has
its place and role.  (i.e. nobody would dream of building rail lines
into neighborhoods to feed a busway, or heavy rail to feed light rail,
etc., right?)

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: marc@octel.com (Marc Lewert)
Subject: Re: rail technologies (was: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution)
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:51:01 GMT

In article <p1hn5n0@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>
>
>Sorry to go on about this.  Anyway, I don't remeber where the
>J-line is, but it seems to me that the Geary corridor might be
>an ideal candidate for a Skytrain-like system.
>
>jeremy

The Geary corridor (in San Francisco) does have busses running on it today.
The J-line runs out Church Street (I hear it has been extended since I moved
out of the city some years ago).

The problem, as I see it, is a "Skytrain-like" system is an automated
small cabin system with no operator.  You might want to run that on a 
dedicated right of way without grade level road crossings.  I do not think
there is room for that on Geary, though if you put it under ground there 
might be.

Now, why is BART so expensive?  Is it the right of way?  Is it the support
for the automated control system?  Is it the rolling stock?  Is it the
cost of the people?

I suspect it is more than one of these put together.

While we are on the subject, BART was one of the early systems to use
a number of new technologies.  Part of the problem was the number they
tried to use at the same time, and always going with the lowest bidder.

	marc


-- 
[ Marc Lewert                      Phone: (408) 321-6626                 ]
[ Octel Communications Corp.       AspenNet(tm): (408) 321-6700 MB 6626  ]
[ 890 Tasman Dr.		   USENET: ...!uunet!octela!marc         ]
[ Milpitas, CA 95035               Smart Mailer: marc@octel.com          ]
[ Disclaimer:  The company knows what I think, I tell them often enough. ]
[ zen hugs - the hugs that you would get, if we were there,              ]
[            if we could hug you, but we aren't, and we can't            ]
[            - Anne McCaffrey, Mercedes Lackey, "The Ship Who Searched"  ]
From: jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: busways (was Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:25:27 GMT
	<1992Aug27.194606.12012@ntmtv>
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames

"Adrian" == Adrian Brandt <adrian@ntmtv.UUCP> writes:

Adrian> On the issue of busways costing less, I'm not so sure.
Adrian> Ottawa's busways *looked* rather expensive to me.  Also, as I
Adrian> recall, the Vasona Corridor study (I know you say it was
Adrian> flawed, Jeremy) indicated that the busway alternative would
Adrian> have about the same capital cost, but higher operating cost
Adrian> and lower ridership than light rail.

Houston had a reserved buslane built into two of the major interstates
going through the middle of town.  They soon changed it to a one-way
HOV lane since the shortened bus-trip time didn't make up for Houston
Metro's lousy bus service.

After living in the bay for a month or two, I think that special-time
HOV lanes are the way to go for buses-- just build an extra lane on
the freeway or mark off an existing lane.  I dunno what the studies
show, however...

--
             J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
           '91 CB750, soon to be replaced by a '92 R100R, DoD# 0378
      "Heads.  Heads.  Heads.  Heads.  Heads.  Heads." -- R & G Are Dead
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: The San Diegans
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:40:12 GMT

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!"

-- 

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: Sorry!!! (was Re: Cost of transit systems vs highways)
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:01:07 GMT
Organization: LLNL


	Sorry about the quadruple posting.

	The local news system here was being cranky and I wasn't sure
whether or not my message would get through.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: BART vs. CalTrain speeds
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:05:51 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <9208281429.AA05090@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
@ From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
@ 	Calm down.

@ 	First off, CalTrain's current locomotives are unsuited for
@ traveling inside of tunnels. They will have to be replaced with
@ locomotives capable of running on electric power from either third
@ rails or overhead cables. 

>The current locomotives run through 3 tunnels everyday on the 
>present route from San Francisco to San Jose. There are 
>thousands of tunnels in the world through which steam and 
>diesel locomotives have run and do so daily.

	I recall only one tunnel on all of CalTrain's route, just
south of San Francisco. Where are the other two???

	The reason that steam and diesel locos can run through many of
the tunnels they run through without too much trouble is because they
are _in motion_. The crew and passengers are not exposed to a
continual buildup of exhaust. But that's _exactly_ what would happen
at the proposed Market Street (or Mission Street) end-of-the-line. It
would have to be underground, or else it would take up a lot of mid-SF
real estate. And that real estate costs lotsa $$$'s.

	In NYC's Penn Station, they don't allow diesel locomotives to
run for very long, if at all. I learned this in a report on some new
Amtrak locos; some of them will be dual-powered, so they can go into
Penn Station.

@ If one budgets $5 million/loco, that is $150
@ million for 30 locos.

>The current fleet of CalTrain locomotives is a count of 20. 
>The $150 million estimate includes locomotives, power stations
>and overhead wire and structure to Gilroy. 

	So what? Then it's only $100 million.

>Amtrak's electrification for the remaining portion of the NEC
>is estimated at $1 million a mile including new rolling stock.

@ Stringing overhead electric cables is the easy part; getting
@ new locos is something else.

>They (locos) are off the shelf items available from American
>suppliers. The could be delivered starting in 18 months.

	I remember now. I guess they could order a big batch of
AEM7's, like what are currently running on the NE Corridor.

	I see that you are conceding the necessity of getting new locos.

@ Second, CalTrain is not very fast at accelerating or braking.
@ According to Amtrak engineers, CalTrain was the slowest-braking system
@ they ever had experience with.

>The braking system could be modified. Amtrak already has the 
>estimate and the know how on doing it. With CalTrain's current stations
>and route, that change alone would make CalTrains average speed
>for all stop service faster than BART's.

	Although the locos could be modified, I think that this is a
concession of the inadequacy of present-day CalTrain.

	Although it's probably true that CalTrain with dynamic braking
could be at least as fast as BART, it must be kept in mind that
CalTrain is not handicapped with a tricky junction and a lot of close
stops in San Francisco and Oakland like BART is.
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: busways
Date: 27 Aug 1992 23:19:13 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

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
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Rail on Geary (Was: Re: rail technologies)
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:41:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <181sodINN50v@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> In article <painpc0@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>  
> >How about reserving the outside lanes for bus service?  Then both
> >the locals and limiteds would benefit.  They could do this right
> >away for the capital cost of some signs and paint.
>  
> Most-for-the-least is always a good plan, but you can't reserve outside 
> lanes; deliveries, people turning right, people waiting for parking 
> spaces, and so on, all use outside lanes.  I've never heard of an 
> outside lane being reserved; just inside lanes.  And, as I'm sure you 
> realize, inside lanes wouldn't help that much.  

What about the transit mall in SJ?  You allow cars to turn right, but
prohibit them in the middle of the block.  It isn't perfect, but it's
better than nothing.

In Montreal, they have a service on a boulevard where the buses run
in the middle of the street in an express service.  The actually run
counter to the flow of traffic (there is some sort of separation,
I think).  The stops are all in the median.  This may or may not
work on Geary.

Anyway, you are probably right about light rail on Geary.  If they
can make it faster and operate it cheaper than they can do with
buses, it sounds like a win.  It does sound like tunnelling under
the one-way areas will probably be necessary, though.  A bit of
money to build, though.  If nothing else, it's a lot more of an
LRT corridor than Tasman Drive!

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Cost of transit systems vs highways
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:23:23 GMT

In article <p5i4tek@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> If Caltrain gets BART level service (every 15 minutes), how would that
|> affect the expresses?  Do you think they would still run them, thereby
|> foregoing 15 minute all-stop service, or would they do something else?
|> Is this in a plan or EIR or study somewhere?

The electrification study (I haven't actually held a copy in my hand,
but have talked with CalTrans guy in charge of it) talks about various
scenarios.  Some involve high frequency with A/B skip stop service.

In today's CalTrain, the expresses are run during the time and in the
direction of the highest train densities--not lowest.

The best/optimium schedule is a matter that should be studied, but I
can well imagine running some peak expresses as they do today, and
15 or 20 minute non-express frequencies for the rest of the day.  Non-
expresses will see the biggest increase in average speed with an
upgraded CalTrain that features electric operation--or even the mere
retro-fitting of the diesels with the blended brake.



|> Also, assuming 15 minute service, how would they schedule Amtrak service?
|> Would it slot in behind some particular run, following it at 35 mph or
|> whatever the average speed is up the peninsula?

The guys at Berkeley IURD (Institute for Urban and Regional Development)
that have studied LA-SF TGV-type service are looking at bringing it down
the SF Peninsula with a stop in Palo Alto and San Jose before crossing
over to the Central Valley.  They envision 4 tracks down at least parts
of the Peninsula.  In many places the CalTrain right of way is wide
enough for 4 tracks.  With CTC signalling, it is possible to schedule
trains to share tracks for a while and then to diverge so that one may
pass the other.  Another option is to make some stations 3 or 4 tracks
wide.  The stopping trains would pull off the main line to what amount
to sidings that have the passenger loading platforms.  Through trains
pass on the main tracks running down the middle of the station.

I've seen an old picture of the Palo Alto station that shows it used to
have three tracks.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Rail on Geary (Was: Re: rail technologies)
Keywords: SkyTrain Geary light rail San Francisco Muni Metro elevated
Date: 2 Sep 92 07:13:42 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


>In article <180e0jINNjoo@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>>
>>
>>(I suppose it is vaguely possible that an elevated train might be
>>built in industrial districts where there are few residents to
>>complain that their neighborhood life will be disrupted.  That's why
>>nobody's asking that I-280 be torn down.  

In article <180fv6INNmfv@agate.berkeley.edu> forags@yogi.berkeley.edu (Al Stangenberger) writes:
>If the people south of Market are so powerless, why has I-280 never been
>connected to the I-80 approach to the Bay Bridge?  It's only a few blocks
>and would keep a lot of through traffic off city streets.

My understanding is that all the freeway building in San Francisco was
stopped at the same time because of a coalition of community activists
all around the City.  I expect they were more interested in stopping
than in being picky, something that I think makes some sense (if
they'll finish it *there*, eventually they'll finish it *here*).  

My memory *may* perhaps be faulty, however, since I wasn't actually
born till a few years after this occurred.  :)

I think it has less to do with the powerlessness of South of Market
people than that relatively few of them actually live there.

 =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
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Proof of payment
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 05:10:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.235329.12335@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <pbtrd84@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> But those are all limited stop services.  I used local in the sense of
> |> a local route vs. limited vs. express.  I.e. stops every block.
> 
> Oh, sorry.  I think of light rail as local service.  Especially in the
> areas where stops are every couple blocks (same as buses).  Most Santa
> Clara County and SamTrans bus stops are much more than a block apart
> anyway--even in "downtown" areas.  I suppose your local vs. limited stop
> thing is really not a function of mode (bus/rail) as it is stop spacing
> characteristics.

Correct.  Most stops on SJ's LRT south of downtown aren't within
walking distance of each other (at least not within 15 minutes).
From downtown north, I would guess that they are 1/2 mile apart.
Certainly less frequent than the route 75 bus that was replaced.

> |> Do they use such in stop-every-block services?
> 
> I'm not sure.  When in Europe I generally find the rail coverage is 
> good enough so that walking can easily make up for what the rails
> don't reach.  This is not to say I haven't needed, or ridden buses,
> but that I did it very infrequently.  I can say, however, that few
> buses I did ride were not POP.  This is probably because there needs
> to be a driver anyway, so going to POP isn't as big a win as it is
> for multi-car, multi-door rail systems.  After all, buses only have
> two doors, and the back one is for people exiting anyway.  Also,
> buses generally don't have as many people clamoring to board per
> stop as do rail systems.

Few buses you rode were not POP?  Or the few buses that you rode were
not POP?  I gather that the latter is what you meant, given the
context.

jeremy