HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:03:55 GMT

In article <r396uek@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct14.011000.6530@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> > In article <r20998s@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> > |> Voting yes on [measure A] will result in a .5 cent higher sales tax
|> > |> from March 1, 1995 through Feb 28, 2015, than we will otherwise have.
|> > 
|> > This is debatable.  The sales tax in Santa Clara County is "maxed out"
|> > to the maximum allowed right now.  When the existing Measure A expires
|> > there will be a half cent "up for grabs".  Don't bet on that half cent
|> > of taxing authority going unclaimed if the new Measure A fails.
|> 
|> Fortunately, we will get our chance to vote on all of them!  Many other
|> counties in the state do not use this extra one cent sales tax allowed.  
|> There is no a priori reason that we should either.  I think this is a
|> pretty weak argument.

It wasn't intended so much as an "argument", per se.  My main reason
for making the point is that if you are suggesting (as I think you are)
that voting measure A down this November will result in a half-cent sales
tax decrease in 1995, I wouldn't bet on it, and neither should you.  The
only thing certain about measure A's defeat is a bleak future for public
transportation in Santa Clara County.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 10 Oct 1992 18:59:00 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct09.222557.7288@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>
>Most people, if asked, would say that they want to live in a nice house
>on a large lot, surounded by other families on a quit street far away
>from factories or other industries. 

If this were true, would housing prices in the city of San Francisco
be the highest in the Bay Area?  There isn't a neighborhood in the
city that "has a large lot" and a lot of the neighborhoods are
attractive precisely because they are a reasonably close distance from
the workplace.
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:57:11 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Oct14.173037.6118@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>Police could ride horses. What a nice life it would be.

Obviously, you've never had to clean up after a horse; talk about 
pollution!  :-)

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Distribution: ba
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:17:12 GMT

   Calculate how much it costs the company to build and maintain one
employee parking space.  Give each employee a quarterly bonus equal to
that amount, marked clearly on the pay check as a benefit separate from
salary.  Require any employee who wants a company parking place to buy a
quarterly  parking permit at a price equal to the amount of the bonus.   
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: amigan@cup.portal.com (R Michael Medwid)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Hillsdale -> 101/92 intersection
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 23:07:16 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ba

I work about ten minutes from a CalTrains stop in San Mateo.  Are there
shuttles that leave these stops to get you all the way to your work?
I'd just as soon not drive in the morning but it's too far to walk
and I don't want to ride a bike in a suit.  

Anyhow..I'd appreciate hearing from any experienced commuters 

Please e-mail  amigan@cup.portal.com    thanks
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:04:46 GMT

In article <1b39fgINNduk@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron 
Priven) writes:
>
>I imagine demand for square footage of building space in a city is more
>or less independent of the dominant mode of transit.  Thus, the space
>you can't see any other possible use for could be built upon, and the
>space that would have been taken up by that building in some other
>place could be open space, wildland, farmland, or whatever.  

Starting out fresh, perhaps, but the bay area is not starting out fresh.  I
think there's too much pressure for land and housing to convert a
substantial amount of parking to other uses. 

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Date: 11 Oct 92 03:02:59 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Oct10.040446.839@netcom.com> jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>In article <1b39fgINNduk@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron 
>Priven) writes:
>>
>>I imagine demand for square footage of building space in a city is more
>>or less independent of the dominant mode of transit.  Thus, the space
>>you can't see any other possible use for could be built upon, and the
>>space that would have been taken up by that building in some other
>>place could be open space, wildland, farmland, or whatever.  
>
>Starting out fresh, perhaps, but the bay area is not starting out fresh.  I
>think there's too much pressure for land and housing to convert a
>substantial amount of parking to other uses. 

Wait a minute.  You're saying that the demand for housing is so great
that parking can *not* be converted to make way for housing?  Huh?

If you're simply saying that we're already committed to the automobile
and nobody's going to change it, I think you're wrong.  It will take
time and concerted effort by city planning agencies and transportation
agencies, something that unfortunately hasn't been happening much, but
it could happen.

 =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: tssmith@netcom.com (Tim Smith)
Subject: Bikes on CalTrain
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:08:46 GMT

Has anyone here taken their bike on CalTrain yet?  I got my permit
(#320), but haven't had the occasion yet.  Plan to this weekend.

How are the conductors/brakemen treating the plan?  Do they really not
let you on if they already have 4 bikes aboard?  (Have there ever been
4 bikes aboard?)

--Tim (tssmith@netcom.com)

Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:23:34 GMT

In <1bhis9INNiqb@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Aaron Priven writes:

>In article <92288.30694.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LM
>>In <1bg96bINNfaq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Aaron Priven writes:
>>
>>>We help pay for transit in Massachusetts and Texas and Florida, they
>>>help pay for transit here.  We did, after all, contribute to the
>>>federal taxes.
>>
>That's why we're bankrupt today.  We have people in Congress who say that they
>>will vote for our pork if our Congresscritter votes for their pork.  So in
>>fact, everyone gets their pork and we all pay dearly for it.  Why not just
>>eliminate all federal pork like this, cut the federal taxes associated with th
>>pork and let the states, counties and cities do it themselves?  With the
>>federal tax cut, they could implement their own plan without raising taxes ove
>>current levels.

>Because some states are richer than others, and as long as we live in
>the same country, we have some responsibility to help pay for poorer
>areas' needs.  "The federal tax cut" would be lesser or greater in
>various states.  Mississippi would be really badly off afterwards.

Tell me where redistribution of wealth is in the Constitution.  If you believe
in it, work for an amendment.  I'm not accusing you specifically of socialism,
but such a philosophy is a defining tenet of Marxism.  It's not in the federal
Constitution, and therefore is subject to the 10th Amendment and is a state and
local issue.

>I agree that there is a lot of federal wasted projects, but I'm not
>sure it's going to help much if it's shifted to the state level.
>"I'll help your project in Cheyenne if you'll help mine in
>Tallahassee" is no worse than "I'll help your project in Fresno if
>you'll help mine in Yreka."

Constitutionally it is.  The states have this thing called the 10th Amendment
which should make these things a state matter.  If the state constitution
specifically allows the development and maintenance of a highway and/or
transit system, then I see nothing wrong with it.  I guess I'm just making
the mistake of upholding the federal and state constitutions...


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Date: 9 Oct 92 06:39:43 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Oct8.235656.11846@netcom.com> jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.200432.15689@ads.com> henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
>>
>>do you provide free parking for your staff?  you could stop doing that
>>... free parking is a subsidy for those carbound folks ...
>
>How?  What else could the land be used for?  Building more buildings would
>would increase traffic (even with better public transit, I bet) and water
>usage.  

I imagine demand for square footage of building space in a city is more
or less independent of the dominant mode of transit.  Thus, the space
you can't see any other possible use for could be built upon, and the
space that would have been taken up by that building in some other
place could be open space, wildland, farmland, or whatever.  

If nothing else, you could use the space for tennis courts or something
like that.

 =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: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:13:21 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton

jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) wrote: 
->In article <1992Oct8.200432.15689@ads.com> henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
->>
->>do you provide free parking for your staff?  you could stop doing that
->>... free parking is a subsidy for those carbound folks ...
->
->How?  What else could the land be used for?  Building more buildings would
->would increase traffic (even with better public transit, I bet) and water
->usage.  

i did not say "convert the land to other usage."  i said "stop
providing free parking."  charge for parking.  that's an incentive.  

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:29:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.011000.6530@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <r20998s@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> Voting yes on [measure A] will result in a .5 cent higher sales tax
> |> from March 1, 1995 through Feb 28, 2015, than we will otherwise have.
> 
> This is debatable.  The sales tax in Santa Clara County is "maxed out"
> to the maximum allowed right now.  When the existing Measure A expires
> there will be a half cent "up for grabs".  Don't bet on that half cent
> of taxing authority going unclaimed if the new Measure A fails.  There
> are others who would just love to put other things like anti-drug/gang
> and child-care issues to the voters.  In this case I'm speaking of Zoe
> Lofgren, a Santa Clara County Supervisor who would rather put her own
> package of goodies on the ballot for that 1/2 cent.  If the new measure
> A fails, I'm confident there will be many more attempts to snag that
> extra 1/2 cent of taxing authority.

Fortunately, we will get our chance to vote on all of them!  Many other
counties in the state do not use this extra one cent sales tax allowed.  
There is no a priori reason that we should either.  I think this is a
pretty weak argument.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:12:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.180506.2029@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.234822.25072@leland.Stanford.EDU>, garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes:
> |>    I know precious little about the details (only what was in my
> |> little election booklet), so I was hoping that someone around here
> |> might have an opinion [on measure A].  Anyone?
> 
> Speaking as a transit advocate, I'm for Measure A.  It will redirect
> an existing 1/2 cent sales tax away from an exclusively freeway/road 
> orientation to predominantly (~90%) transit-oriented funding.  So this
> means the "new" Measure A will not raise sales tax, it will merely
> continue an existing one.

This depends on how you look at it.  The original 1984 Measure A had
a 10 year sunset clause.  That is, it will automatically expire on
March 1, 1995.  Voting yes on this measure will result in a .5 cent
higher sales tax from March 1, 1995 through Feb 28, 2015, than we will
otherwise have.  And as I've pointed out, at that point, the choice
will have to be made to continue it, or face massive service cuts.
So, essentially, it takes the .5 cent temporary tax and makes it
permanent.

> 
> Measure A will provide funds to electrify CalTrain and dramatically
> increase train service both north (to SF) and south (Gilroy service) of
> San Jose.

This is something not quite clear to me.  I presume that it will
provide Santa Clara county's share of funds to do this.  Or are
we actually voting to pay to upgrade Caltrain in San Mateo and
San Francisco counties for them (what a deal! no wonder you like
it Adrian, you live in Menlo Park!  :-))?  If San Mateo C passes,
then they will presumably provide their share, but I don't see
strapped SF anteing up any time soon.  So voting yes on measure
A doesn't seem to guarantee Caltrain upgrades.

> If Measure A fails, the Tasman Corridor light rail extension will be
> dealt a severe blow.  Measure A's passage is needed to secure the federal
> matching funds to build the line.   The Tasman project will extend LRT
> service to the downtown Mountain View CalTrain station via Lockheed in
> the west and extend to the vicinity of Capitol and Hostetter in the east.
> This line will link up with another Measure A project that will create
> a rail link between downtown San Jose and Fremont/Warm-Springs BART in
> Alameda County.

This succulent little pork chop (hmm, I get hungry thinking about it)
is great, because, like the Colma BART station, the rest of the country
is paying for it (though we get the indigestion of funding it once
it's built -- at least parking garages are cheap to operate).



I wish we had multiple measures like SM county:
Measure C (Caltrain -- seems worthwhile)
Measure T, V, S, and F (Tasman, Vasona, Stevens Creek, and Fremont)
Measure R (Roads)

Adrian, how would you vote if SM measures B and C were lumped together?

jeremy
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SC County to make big transit cuts
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:59:57 GMT
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

>If Measure A fails, you can bet there will be some very draconian
>cuts.
>
>Vote YES on Measure A to support and improve SC County transit.
 
Vote NO, due to the highway construction & sales tax. Then ask for a
measure that gives us what we want, & nothing else. They have no
choice, because there is no other solution to the traffic problem
than transit!
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:54:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.170355.24319@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <r396uek@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> In article <1992Oct14.011000.6530@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> |> > In article <r20998s@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> > |> Voting yes on [measure A] will result in a .5 cent higher sales tax
> |> > |> from March 1, 1995 through Feb 28, 2015, than we will otherwise have.
> |> > 
> |> > This is debatable.  The sales tax in Santa Clara County is "maxed out"
> |> > to the maximum allowed right now.  When the existing Measure A expires
> |> > there will be a half cent "up for grabs".  Don't bet on that half cent
> |> > of taxing authority going unclaimed if the new Measure A fails.
> |> 
> |> Fortunately, we will get our chance to vote on all of them!  Many other
> |> counties in the state do not use this extra one cent sales tax allowed.  
> |> There is no a priori reason that we should either.  I think this is a
> |> pretty weak argument.
> 
> It wasn't intended so much as an "argument", per se.  My main reason
> for making the point is that if you are suggesting (as I think you are)
> that voting measure A down this November will result in a half-cent sales
> tax decrease in 1995, I wouldn't bet on it, and neither should you.  The
> only thing certain about measure A's defeat is a bleak future for public
> transportation in Santa Clara County.

So you think we should grab it for Measure A before some other cause
does.  I think we have a decent chance of holding off other causes, and
also that it's not a given that some other cause might not be better,
like even a better transit measure.

But it should be simpler than that.  I don't think Measure A justifies
an essentially permanent 1/2 cent tax, given that transit already gets
1/2 cent, and given that roads will have gotten a 1/2 cent for ten
years.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Subject: Bikes on CalTrain update
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Reply-To: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Organization: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:46:01 GMT

Tim Smith asks:
>|> Has anyone here taken their bike on CalTrain yet?  I got my permit
>|> (#320), but haven't had the occasion yet.  Plan to this weekend.

Bruce Nordman replies:
>I haven't either, but as mine is number 179, it seems as though
>plenty of people have applied for the permits.  I probably won't
>use it until the restrictions are less onerous, but will after that.

I have taken a bike on CalTrain on two (evening) occasions so far (I
have permit #38 :-).  Ellen Fletcher says over 500 permits have been 
issued so far.  She's the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition rep to the 
CalTrain/JPB Bicycle Advisory Committee which is now in place (I don't 
know if they have met yet.)

Permits expire December 31st; it's anybody's guess what happens next.  
Some possibilities, from least to most optimistic (my speculation, 
*not* announced JPB plans):

a) Resume bike prohibitions until the California Car arrives (1994?).
   (And even then, the risk that the CalCar won't accomodate more
   than 4 bikes, which is the current design!  Considering that there
   will probably be only one CalCar per train for some time after that,
   we're talking 4 bikes per *train* again...)
b) Continue current "demo" program until then.
c) Allow 4 more bikes at the rear of the last car (the one adjacent
   to the locomotive, furthest from the cab car).  Here bikes would
   be as out-of-the-way as in the cab car; the only difference is that
   there's carpet.  And since road bike tires are no dirtier than
   shoes, and rule #17 states "Bicycles must be kept clean and free of 
   dirt and grease at all times", bikes on carpet really aren't an issue.
   Letting bikes on a second car would double capacity without seat removal,
   though the "off peak and weekend" restrictions would probably remain.
d) Add a "bike car" to weekend trains; still no on-peak access.  Weekend 
   trains are popular and crowded, so simply allowing bikes anywhere on 
   board wouldn't work without some seat removal.
e) [My favorite] Remove up to 1/4 of the seats in all cab cars, allowing 
   30 or more bikes on every train, including peak-period trains.

There is apparently going to be a comprehensive passenger count done 
between now and the end of the year; this could determine which trains
get bike access and how a seat-removal phase might work.

If you don't want bike access limited to the current "demo" level for 
two more years, let the JPB know!  And look for coverage in the 
November/December SVBC newsletter, The Spinning Crank (at bike shops 
or by first-class mail with SVBC membership...).

/John

-- 
John Ciccarelli           Adobe Systems,  1585 Charleston |    _~C      __C
jciccare@mv.us.adobe.com  Mountain View CA USA 94039-7900 |  ='\<,    ='\<,
uunet!adobe!jciccare      415/962-6677,  fax:415/903-0584 | (&)/(\)  (&)/(\)
=== "If you live within 7 miles of your job, why drive?" === BIKE TO WORK ==
Newsgroups: ba.transportation