HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: CalTrain/Amtrak ROW maintenance
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:03:25 GMT


>From: gjs@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Gregory Scott)
>BTW, in the Santa Clara yard is a long string of gons filled
>with coal.  Does anyone know where they are going?  What 
>around here uses coal for fuel?

Easy question first.  It is used in the furnaces at 
Permanente.


>I was just out looking around the Santa Clara CalTrain station
>and noticed that weeds are growing all over the place, between
>the tracks and even between the rails.  Is this a foreshadowing
>of the kind of service we are going to see on CalTrain from
>Amtrak?  Maintenance is so low on the priorities that weeds
>are over taking the Right of Way?


Almost all of the following is crystal ball, but it is my
read from what I understand.

The Short Range Transit Plan contains $86 million for track 
upgrade. From converstations with Amtrak and the Samtrans
rail manager most of that will go toward the track south
of Sunnyvale. The part between SJ and Santa Clara is the
slowest so would show the greatest improvement once upgraded.

If the BART issue passes in San Mateo the Samtrans staff
would become less inclined towards any role beyond a minimal
caretaker. It would then be up to Santa Clara. If the SC
measure A passes then they would be under incredible pressure
from industry to upgrade and electrify CalTrain possibly 
at the same time Samtrans is backing out. 

There is also the measure to extend CalTrain measure on  
the San Mateo ballot also. If it fails Samtrans will seriously 
back peddle on CalTrain even though another vote would be 
required to actually divert existing and planned funds.

There is kind of a "Catch 22" here. In order for the JPB to
get access to more of the prop 116 funds, it needs to improve
CalTrain. It needs those funds to do the grade crossing
upgrades which will also accomodate BART. They will not be
able to use those funds when or if BART replaces CalTrain.
So in order to upgrade the ROW with crossing so that it
will accomodate BART at lower cost they have to improve
CalTrain which will in turn provide a deterrent to the
feds to finance removal of a perfectly good rail line to
replace it with a much more expensive one. 


I am trying to arrange a presentation by Amtrak or the
Samtrans rail manager to provide in some detail a 
description of what specifically they are planning with
the funds already committed. It might be at one of the local
railroad historical meetings in October. Since I will not
be posting anymore after this week I will email you a
notice when I find out.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: "The only sensible way to proceed"
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:48:05 GMT


>From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
>[ what's a DEIR -- not up on my 4-letter bureaucratese ]



Draft Environmental Impact Report. It is a document requied by
the FTA for federally financed projects. Feasibility studies
are more open and less targeted.




>I'll assume that BART published some document that said that if there
>was a good CalTrain link in downtown San Francisco that no one would
>use it, but if BART went to SFO people would use it.  


Wrong. It says more people would use CalTrain would use a BART 
extension to SFO. 67,000 vs 46,000 per weekday.



>Where did you get a copy of this "DEIR" thing?



The MTC.


   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Date: 31 Aug 1992 04:10:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <p5d5k98@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>In article <17km7bINN3vs@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>
>[ a good article that neatly summarizes the debate.  The essential points
>  I agree with. ]

Merci, monsieur.

>I have one little point to make with a piece of it.
>
>> That kind of transit-based growth will require
>> high capacities, higher I suspect than the threshold between when
>> busways are economical and when rail is economical.
>
>Note that not only homes but also many businesses have to be served by
>feeder routes.  Thus a busway can provide no transfer service along
>one feeder route, along the main route, and then along the feeder route
>at the other end, where rail will generally require two transfers.
>The lack of a downtown is an increased disadvantage for rail.
>That said, I agree with the rest of the paragraph.  If the concept of
>transit villages did catch on, and development were densely concentrated
>around stations, then economies of scale will most likely favor rail.

I think we are *mostly* agreed.  I completely agree with your
paragraph.  The difference, I think, is that I feel strongly that we
*must* start planning high-density development around transit, and
thus I am willing to see a little inefficiency in the transit if
eventually we're going to get decent usage around it.  It's something
of a chicken-and-egg problem, and usually in mixed economies like
ours, it's the public agency that goes first.

That said, given that we will be stuck with the development we
have now for a long time to come, I think busways make sense.
Nonetheless, I think we must plan in the long-term for higher
capacity.

I don't know how much a mixed busway/LRV right of way would cost, but
it strikes me as being a good buy.

>I read at one point that they (I don't remember who, maybe the county
>supervisors) are trying to get some development started around the 
>Almaden LRT station.  The plan would be to build above it, I think.
>Similarly with Communications Hill in South Central (an unfortunate
>name :-)) San Jose, they want to have high density development.

Good, good, good.  This kind of development is exactly what Santa
Clara County needs.  I'm just afraid it will take 50 years for enough
of it to be done.

 =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: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: "The only sensible way to proceed"
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:31:37 GMT


>From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
>Hey Vaughn, what does "F.O.R.C.E." stand for?  You claimed to 
>represent it at the public hearing.


Friends Organized for Regional CalTrain Expansion.


>Since I happen to have a copy of the SFO extension DEIR in front of 
>me, I'll copy down parts of "Table 2.1", Transit Operator System 


>I have no idea if these are just guesses out of the blue, or what.  
>I'm cynical enough to think it's a possibility, but of course Vaughn 
>will tell me that I shouldn't say things like that without calling MTC 
>to find out.  ("Do your homework!") 



Reading the DEIR is more than the Samtrans or MTC boards have ever
done.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: "The only sensible way to proceed"
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:22:08 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <p1ddvfk@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>In article <17e1g5INNlsp@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>> 
>> [Table with projected total boardings of various transit systems in
>>  2010.  Totals added by Jeremy Higdon.] 

>So building the downtown Caltrain extension will reduce total
>transit ridership, whether or not BART is extended to SFO.
>Presumably that's because many current Caltrain riders get
>counted twice, once on Caltrain and again on Muni.  This
>example shows the problem with these studies and the first
>level conclusions that can be drawn from them. 

I wouldn't know if these studies are valid or not, but *you* are the
one who added the numbers together, not the MTC/BART people.  You
can't blame MTC if *you* take their numbers and add them up
meaninglessly.  You, not they, called this "total transit ridership."
This table doesn't have any totals on it.  (It also has other
information, like the number of vehicles required for each system and
annual vehicle miles, but I didn't feel it was worth typing in.)

 =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
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: SkyTrain?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:50:29 GMT

In article <17e2fkINNlu0@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug22.010948.8814@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> >Hmmm.  I remember reading postings (over in rec.railroad?) or articles (in
> >some rail rags?) about SkyTrain being kind of a disaster...  I'll try
> >to get/remember specifics later.
> >
> >If it's really as great as Jeremy says, then I'm all for it:  SkyTrain
> >for everyone!
> 
> Other than the doors inexplicably freezing shut when it snows (not that
> common in Vancouver, but it happens), forcing BC Transit workers to
> walk around with spray bottles to warm them up, as far as I know
> SkyTrain hasn't had any serious problems from the consumer end.  

People living near curving sections of the line complained about
noise, but that was all I heard.  Of course, that isn't from the
consumer's point of view.  To me, it was certainly quieter than
some subways I've been on (Boston red line comes to mind).

> 
> (I don't really remember the details of the freezing incident, but I
> remember hearing of people who couldn't get out of the cars for 45
> minutes, and the normally 26-minute ride taking 3 1/2 hours...)
> 
> They were planning to expand SkyTrain when I left last year, but I
> don't know what became of it.

Down to Richmond, I think.  Probably moving at the standard pace
of public works projects.

> 
>  =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

jeremy
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant nose BART
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:04:36 GMT


>From: wbrown@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (Bill Brown)
>I think you are mistaken in the case of grade-climbing ability. unless by
>the statement "Amtrak trains (regular trains) can climb higher grades than
>BART" you are refering to the Donner Pass line which is obviously "higher"
>than BART.



By grade-climbing ability I meant the percent grade a full length train
can undertake. The F40's will handle 4% grades although I believe modern
railroad engineering practice in this country does not offer such grades
to passenger service. The TGV and ALP44(modern version of AEM-7) will
handle 5% at good speed.




>>   Bullshit. Do some homework.

>Perhaps sir, in this particular case, you might take your own advice.


Cute.  I was the one who announced and has read the feasibilty report 
that described the crossing. Fortunately the planners conducting the 
study were not limited by the almost complete ignorance of alternative 
rail technologies or the target terrain, that interjected this aspect 
unnecessarily into the discussion. It should have gone without saying
that since the planners were able to derive a cost for the project
then it was doable. Particularly in light of the fact that it was
cheaper than most of the other alternatives.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Cost of transit systems vs highways
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:05:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.225147.15700@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.192019.7379@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ 	Can a CalTrain car really hold 145 people? I estimated the
@ seating capacity once, and it was about 78 people. By comparison, the
@ BART cars can seat 64 or 68 people.

>Yes.  CalTrain trailer coaches *seat* 148 (52 upstairs, 96 downstairs).
>Cab cars seat slightly less to because the control cab and the bathroom
>take up some seat space.

	I'll concede that point. That figure of yours is about twice
mine; I was counting the most visible part of each car (whichever half
that one is in) -- about 13 rows, with 2 sides/row, with 2 seats/side
below and 1 seat/side above -- 78 total.

	[Argument that CalTrain is easier to extend that BART]

	I agree that rather low-level service is easy to start up, but
when it starts getting high-density, it will start being more and more
BART-like.
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:20:46 GMT


>From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
>There are no publicly owned transit systems in this country or in
>Canada that make a profit.  There are no transit systems of any
>significant size (certainly no rail-based) that are not publicly
>owned.  When I use the word transit, I use it in the traditional
>sense, meaning urban transit, like BART, Caltrain, SCCTD, etc.,
>not long distance like Amtrak, San Diegans, etc.


The San Diego trolley system was built without public money but
is publically owned. Up until last year it ran with a 107% far
box recovery.

If CalTrain is a system then any single leg of Amtrak is also.
I am not sure what you mean by profit but I am sure you would
define it in such a way as to justify your claim. 

Last year the automobile industry did not run at a profit since
the manufacturers had losses in their automobile divisions and
the roads are subsidized. Ditto for most of the airlines.



Along the lines of definition, and according to the Amtrak
sourcebook:
                        1990     1989

Revenues(millions)    $1,308.4   $1,269.1
Expenses(millions)    $2,011.8   $1,934.5

Revenue to Expense      .72       .72
Ratio


Revenue to Short Term   1.2       1.2
Avoidable Cost Ratio


Revenue to Long Term    .93        .91
Avoidable Cost Ratio 



Short term avoidable costs-  Costs of activities that would stop 
with the discontinuance of a route or train, or begin with the
introduction of a new route or train. Such costs include train 
and engine crews, fuel and power, and maintenance fo way.


Long term avoidable costs-  All short-term avoidable costs, plus
claims expenses, heavy maintenance and a portion of corporate
and field overhead.


Clear as  mud, right?



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Statement from APTA on U.S. Senate action on transit
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:28:00 GMT



>From: ronp@dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
>So do I ... that's why I think public transit fares should be increased
>beyond the average 10% recovery rate that exists today.  An increase
>to 62% recovery (to match the "38% subsidy of highways") seems fair.
>Or, the gas tax funds can stop being used for public transit and returned 
>for use on the highways so the "38% subsidy of highways" can be reduced.


Actually the subsidy to roads is greater than 38% if you count the loss
of land(property taxes), increase drainage and waste treatment, police
and emergency, free parking(with tax write offs) and repayment of general 
fund monies over the last 50 years that were used to build city streets.
You might make it easier on the auto driver if you could get the truckers
to pay their share(65%) of the road damage instead of the paltry 35%.
That may be a bigger fight since they are the biggest lobbying group
in congress.

You might also become informed to the fact that only about 1/3 of the
mass transit funds come from the highway fund with the rest coming from
the general fund. Thats about $1 billion out of $15-17 billion. 
Ofcourse the highways get general fund money from the "demonstration"
projects that the local porkbarrelers in congress have been buying
votes with almost since roads began.


You might also consider that 75-85% of "public transit" is for buses.
I do not know about other states but here in California bus agencies
pay gas and other excise taxes, the same as automobiles. That being
the case the portion of highway trust fund dedicated to "public
transit" would seem fair. Legally  the highway trust fund
was set up with the specific provision that a certain portion go to
"public transit", otherwise it would not have be passed.


source: conversation with FHWA in San Francisco, backed up by a 
booklet from DOT describing the new ISTEA bill.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: The San Diegans
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:47:20 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

Loren I. Petrich <lip@s1.gov> writes:

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

About as long to get to LAX as it takes to get to Union Station.

Remember, this *is* LA we're talking about ... even though you're
misdirecting my point, I'll let it slide that we're comparing a 35
minute trip to a *3 hour* trip ... no matter what you think about
getting to LAX, it doesn't take 2.5 hours ... even if you're coming
from, say, Anaheim.

	How comfortable is the ride?

Are you comparing the "comfort" of a 35 minute flight to a 3 hour train
ride?  I'll take 35 minutes of relative "discomfort" to 3 hours of "not
being there" (almost) any day.

	And how much are fares for each?

Ya got me there.  Certainly the plane is more expensive (about 3x),
but for what you get (the ability to go r/t in a day for one), market
forces seem to have priced the service accordingly.

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

And if pigs had wings?  What would Amtrak cost without subsidies?  I
think that's anyone's guess ... it's simply (as has been shown in this
newsgroup time and again) not a valid thing to compare.  We have
subsidies.  People are willing to pay for service.  Good service costs
money.  Bad service can cost money as well, but that's another thread
...

-----

Hey, I started out talking about how the San Diegans don't appear to go
anywhere near the "90 mph all the time" that Vaughn said, and happened
to throw in a (admitedly cheap) shot about current air service (there's
plenty more, though I only talked about one carrier that has more
planes on that route than CalTrain has trains between SF->SJ) ... it
was a PS: -- let's leave it that way.

/jordan
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: rail technologies (was: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:01:47 GMT

In article <17um80INNhi2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> >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.
> 
> Well, there's room underground for *lots* of things, just depends on
> how deep you go. :)  I don't know what you mean by "small cabin" --
> SkyTrain cars are about as big as your average bus, if I remember
> correctly; it's been a while.  I think a regular light rail line makes
> more sense on Geary; there is room there and it wouldn't be as
> expensive as a fully-separated line would be.

Re: small cabin -- the current skytrain cars are about 42 feet long, a
bit bigger than a transit bus, but you can hook four together.  The
new ones on order are 55 feet long.

Light rail might be cheaper to build, but it would also be slower and
more expensive to run.  There is also no place for it without stealing
a couple of lanes (or running it in the traffic lanes which would be
really awful).  Even with its own lane, it would still stop for traffic
lights, and they would be unable to run limited stop service.  Unless
it became the limited stop service, in which case they would still
need local buses, in which case it seems like a lot of capital for
service that is little if any better than today's (worse in some ways).

It seems to me a completely aerial system (even downtown, if possible,
like the Detroit People Mover or Chicago El) would be pretty neat,
though very expensive to build.  But it would be fast, cheap to operate,
and be a neat tourist attraction, like the Seattle monorail (tourists
like to be high up).  I know, talk is cheap . . . .

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:43:14 GMT

In article <p5d5k98@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> In article <17km7bINN3vs@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> >    I think busways have the great advantage of providing one- stop
> > service between feeder routes and downtown.  I think increasingly
> > "downtown" is ceasing to have any meaning in the Bay Area, and that we
> > need to stop developing transit reactively, and start developing it
> > actively: put new urban growth around transit instead of building so
> > that no other transportation but the automobile is feasible.  (The kind
> > of "transit villages" that was on the front page of the Oakland Tribune
> > on Sunday is a start.)  That kind of transit-based growth will require
> > high capacities, higher I suspect than the threshold between when
> > busways are economical and when rail is economical.
> 
> Note that not only homes but also many businesses have to be served by
> feeder routes.  Thus a busway can provide no transfer service along
> one feeder route, along the main route, and then along the feeder route
> at the other end, where rail will generally require two transfers.
> The lack of a downtown is an increased disadvantage for rail.
> That said, I agree with the rest of the paragraph.  If the concept of
> transit villages did catch on, and development were densely concentrated
> around stations, then economies of scale will most likely favor rail.

Replying to my own message . . .

I thought about this a little more.  Even in a "transit utopia", there
will still be a continuum of routes/corridors from lightly patronized
to heavily patronized.  Also, since we won't just rip out the housing,
industry, shopping, that we already have, there will still be lots of
low density development which will favor the lower per vehicle cost and
greater operational flexibility of buses, even if lots of transit
villages appeared.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation