HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Did I see...toll booths on 87?
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:39:52 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bike2work

In article <92253.27115.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>   There's been a lot of talk about the new Measure A and about transportation
>projects.  Since this topic is dominated by mass-transit afficionados, I'm sure
>you'll all be glad to hear what I saw going home on the Light Rail last night.
>Northbound, on what will be the new Highway 87, are what appear to be toll
>booths in each of several different lanes.
>   These booths are just south of I-280 just before downtown and are plainly
>visible from the light rail vehicles.
>   Does anyone know when this was decided?  If these *are* toll booths, then
>it's the first time I've heard of it.  I haven't heard the newspaper or the
>news talk about it.

I would be *very* surprised if what you saw *really are* tollbooths.
I've not heard *anything* about plans for the use of tollbooths,
and I've been following the subject fairly closely.

>   I'm not sure that this will work.  You see, one set of booths is just going
>to make people exit before the booths, clog the city streets and re-enter 87
>(or 280) to avoid the booths, and could cause *far* more problems than they

Whether or not people leave the freeway to avoid the toll would depend,
I would imagine, not only upon the dollar savings, but time savings as
well. The congestion you predict, along with the locals' desire to keep
freeway traffic *off* surface streets would mean that it wouldn't be
easy *or* fast.

>solve.  Tolls on bridges can work, since there are no side roads or alternate
>routes.  Tolls on turnpikes work, because they exist for hundreds of miles
>(not just one set of booths) and you pay no matter where you enter.  Unless I
>am misunderstanding something, this is just one "all-or-nothing" toll gate.
>   Many in this subject love to talk about how much the auto is subsidized,
>when many types of mass transit are subsidized even more (in terms of what
>percentage the user pays in direct fees).  

What evidence can you cite to support the contention that auto subsidies 
are lower?

>But even from a car-haters point
>of view (as some of you seem to be), this seems to cause more traffic,
>congestion and pollution than it eliminates. 

Toll booths would not *cause* traffic. They might contribute to 
increased congestion, but that's bound to happen anyhow until market
forces are brought to bear, leveling the transportation playing 
field economically.


--
Bill Michel			
bm@eng.sun.com		These views are my own, not Sun's.
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cost of transit systems vs highways
Date: 10 Sep 1992 16:06:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1407@dosbears> dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com writes:
>Taking it "to BART" is a shorthand for saying the Market Street
>choice.  99% of present or potential CalTrain riders do not want
>to go to the East Bay -- they want to go to and from work.

Assuming that nobody in San Mateo County works in Oakland or other East
Bay locations is simply incorrect.  The automobile-centered transit
that we've had for decades has encouraged commutes like this, commutes
that don't begin or end in downtowns or other big transit locations.

Downtown Oakland has a large number of jobs.  Many UC students come
from San Mateo County but they have to move to Berkeley because of the
impossible commute.  

I realize that the CalTrain tunnel to Market Street would be much more
expensive than a route to the Transbay Terminal, and that it probably
wouldn't be worth it for CalTrain to make the extra block and a half
of travel, but I believe a "people mover" or moving sidewalk between
the terminal and a BART station would be important for encouraging
transit between the two areas.

 =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: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Measure A Rebuttal Rebuttal
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:51:30 GMT

In article <pjp0jjc@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> By the way, I haven't seen much about the reasons for Measure A not
|> completing what they originally planned.

It's my understanding that the project list for the current Measure A
was made with certain assumptions about the revenues it would produce.
The recession and a few other unforseen factors, caused sales tax
revenues to fall well short of predictions, and so Measure A didn't
raise enough money to pay for its "project list".

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: ESR@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Ed Russell)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: "Made In Japan"
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:28:37 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

My apologies if this is the wrong news group for this.

I just received a flyer in the mail about an auto service facility named
Made In Japan.  The flyer claims the place in Campbell has been in business
for 11 years and they have just opened a second facility in Sunnyvale.
Specialists in servicing Japanese cars.

Has anyone had experience with this place?  Is there a more appropriate
news group for this post?
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: 20th Birthday Party for BART
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:32:28 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: LLNL

In article <192n35INN91b@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:

>	A great chance to plug a map sold at the Berkeley commute
>store, the San Francisco Biking/Walking guide, that is a color-coded
>map showing the grades of every street in the city...

	Where can I find this store? How can I get to it from the
Berkeley BART station?

	And which other stores might sell it?
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: 20th Birthday Party for BART
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:47:14 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Sep14.183522.28763@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.235206.11471@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ district, and the other was to bring out an old study claiming that it
@ was safe for BART to go across the Golden Gate Bridge and take it to
@ Marin County.

>That would be on a second deck, right?  A couple years back I remember
>a SF Chronicle article saying that a second deck on the GG Bridge for
>rail is feasible.

@ 	Be that as it may, I did get a copy of BART extension plans
@ from a handout, one that gave plans after the ones most familiar. Here
@ they are:

>[plans deleted]

>I wish they would at least provide some ballpark costs and completion dates.

	Ballpark costs? $5.5 billion (1987 $'s) for 140 mi. of track
and the appropriate new stations and yards, which reduces to $40 m/mi
(1987 $'s) or $50 m/mi (1992 $'s).

	I know that this seems excessively optimistic, given the
projected cost of the SFO extension at $100 m/mi. The Warm Springs
extension looks headed for a similar figure, also. However, the
Dublin/Pleasanton extension will cost only $40 m/mi total, while the
Pittsburg/Antioch extension to West Pittsburg will cost about $65
m/mi. Some BART officials are optimistic enough about this extension
coming under budget to consider building more of it for the originally
budgeted sum.

	A joker in this deck is how much inflation was factored into
these estimates. 5%/yr can add up over 6 to 8 years. For instance, the
existing system was built in the late 1960's and very early 1970's for
about $1.8 billion. With accumulated inflation, it would now cost
about $8 billion.

	I conclude that this estimate of $50 m/mi is a bit optimistic;
I wouldn't be surprised if it is more like $75 m/mi in present-day
dollars.

	Completion dates? Nothing new given. The only indication so
far is that the extensions under construction are still on schedule.
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Did I see...toll booths on 87?
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:22:59 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <7vsn70=.ladasky@netcom.com>, John J. Ladasky II writes:

>J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Tim Irvin) writes:
>>
>>  There's been a lot of talk about the new Measure A and about transportation
>>projects.  Since this topic is dominated by mass-transit afficionados, I'm sur
>>you'll all be glad to hear what I saw going home on the Light Rail last night
>>Northbound, on what will be the new Highway 87, are what appear to be toll
>>booths in each of several different lanes.

>I'm a "mass-transit aficionado" and the stupidity of toll booths in
>the location you mention is plain enough to me.  Please don't paint us mass-
>transit enthusiasts with such a broad brush.

Sorry if you took that as my intention.  Some people on this subject make me
feel like this subject is alt.auto.bashing, but I didn't mean to paint all
transit enthusiasts that way.  I'm one too.  Yet at times, I need to drive.
I often take the 122 to work (South S.J. to Lockheed) or LRT & 20, but at
times, I need to drive and I understand a need for a transportation system
which balances all needs.  So I am a mass transit user, also, and my original
note was written with a bit of sarcasm.  For those who really support mass
transit for the right reasons, the toll booths on 87 are a horror, even if it
supposedly punishes a behavior that many here feel irresponsible.  Only if
your push for transit is politically motivated (and you don't live in Willow
Glen!) will you applaud the placing of booths in such an asinine location.

There are roads where tolls could be feasible.  But in an area like this??

>   The classic toll booth is inadequate for today's highly-decentralized
>highway system.  I have seen much better toll road proposals involving compu-
>terized fare collection.

True, especially in an area where congestion is bad enough as it is.  I don't
know how I feel against punitive action against auto use, but I'd have no
problem making people pay for their use on public roads.  I despise the
attempts to *force* private land owners and business to charge for parking,
though.  But that's just the Libertarian streak in me  :-).

>   If there really are toll booths going up on 87, I would be happy to
>join a movement against them - and so would a lot of people who live in the
>Willow Glen area.

If I lived along the 87 corridor between Curtner and I-280, I'd be pretty
pissed off too.

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Re: Did I see...toll booths on 87?
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 17:36:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Tim Irvin) writes:
>
>   There's been a lot of talk about the new Measure A and about transportation
>projects.  Since this topic is dominated by mass-transit afficionados, I'm sure
>you'll all be glad to hear what I saw going home on the Light Rail last night.
>Northbound, on what will be the new Highway 87, are what appear to be toll
>booths in each of several different lanes.

	I'm a "mass-transit aficionado" and the stupidity of toll booths in
the location you mention is plain enough to me.  Please don't paint us mass-
transit enthusiasts with such a broad brush.

	The classic toll booth is inadequate for today's highly-decentralized
highway system.  I have seen much better toll road proposals involving compu-
terized fare collection.

	If there really are toll booths going up on 87, I would be happy to
join a movement against them - and so would a lot of people who live in the
Willow Glen area.

>Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
============================================================================
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cost of transit systems vs highways
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:41:50 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <chris.715031888@loki> chris@loki.amd.com (Chris Martin) writes:
>
>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

Which freeway?  Either 280 or 80 is still too far from downtown to
get any funding.  To be considered serious, a CalTrain proposal
must take the train to near (or at) one of the two major city
transit spots -- the Transbay Terminal or downtown Market Street.

Taking it "to BART" is a shorthand for saying the Market Street
choice.  99% of present or potential CalTrain riders do not want
to go to the East Bay -- they want to go to and from work.

There are various proposals to do that and there is at least one 
proposal to extend the subway to the train (now under construction).
All proposals must take into consideration that SF is a city and is 
not about to allow a commuter train clogging downtown streets at
rush hour so underground or elevated are the only choices.   

--
Mike Lipsie                            584 Castro #614, San Francisco, CA 94114
dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
mikel%dosbears.uucp@ingres.com    Running rn (for DOS) with UUPC/Extended 1.11k
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Did I see...toll booths on 87?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:46:33 GMT

In article <92253.43814.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> In <7vsn70=.ladasky@netcom.com>, John J. Ladasky II writes:
> 
> >J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Tim Irvin) writes:
> >>
> >>  There's been a lot of talk about the new Measure A and about transportation
> >>projects.  Since this topic is dominated by mass-transit afficionados, I'm sur
> >>you'll all be glad to hear what I saw going home on the Light Rail last night
> >>Northbound, on what will be the new Highway 87, are what appear to be toll
> >>booths in each of several different lanes.
> 
> >I'm a "mass-transit aficionado" and the stupidity of toll booths in
> >the location you mention is plain enough to me.  Please don't paint us mass-
> >transit enthusiasts with such a broad brush.
> 
> Sorry if you took that as my intention.  Some people on this subject make me
> feel like this subject is alt.auto.bashing, but I didn't mean to paint all
> transit enthusiasts that way.  I'm one too.  Yet at times, I need to drive.
> I often take the 122 to work (South S.J. to Lockheed) or LRT & 20, but at
> times, I need to drive and I understand a need for a transportation system
> which balances all needs.  So I am a mass transit user, also, and my original
> note was written with a bit of sarcasm.  For those who really support mass
> transit for the right reasons, the toll booths on 87 are a horror, even if it
> supposedly punishes a behavior that many here feel irresponsible.  Only if
> your push for transit is politically motivated (and you don't live in Willow
> Glen!) will you applaud the placing of booths in such an asinine location.
> 
> There are roads where tolls could be feasible.  But in an area like this??

I would be very surprised to hear that 87 is planned to be a toll road, as
there has been no mention of it in anything that I've read.  The only toll
roads that I've seen mentioned are a toll road from Sunol to Vacaville and
a couple in Orange county.  I don't know how far along they are.  You could
call the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority for info as to what the structures
were to be used for.  Actually, if you find out, post the info.  I'm curious.

jeremy
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: 20th Birthday Party for BART
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:30:16 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Sep14.204714.16650@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> 	A joker in this deck is how much inflation was factored into
> these estimates. 5%/yr can add up over 6 to 8 years. For instance, the
> existing system was built in the late 1960's and very early 1970's for
> about $1.8 billion. With accumulated inflation, it would now cost
> about $8 billion.
> 
> 	I conclude that this estimate of $50 m/mi is a bit optimistic;
> I wouldn't be surprised if it is more like $75 m/mi in present-day
> dollars.
> 
> 	Completion dates? Nothing new given. The only indication so
> far is that the extensions under construction are still on schedule.

These numbers are interesting.  Inflation of construction costs must be
greater than the CPI inflation.  It's been 3 to 4 percent since '87.
The CPI relative to 1967 is still under 400, is it not?  Is it indeed
the case that constructions costs have increased faster than the standard
rate of inflation, or is there something else in the figures?

jeremy
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: 20th Birthday Party for BART
Date: 12 Sep 1992 20:42:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <18tcg3INNerd@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>In article <18s2goINNq38@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>>
>>BART is required by the State act authorizing its existence to serve
>>Northwest San Francisco.  I really hope they get their acts together
>>and realize that BART support of a Geary Metro extension is the best way
>>they could support that part of San Francisco (without pointless
>>duplication of services).  
>
>If BART is ever going to extend across the Golden Gate bridge, it has
>to get to the Northwest corner of the City somehow; 

I don't think of the Golden Gate Bridge being in the northwest part of
the city; I guess I've always assumed it would take a route similar to
the one on Van Ness and Lombard that you've described.  It seems to me
that Marin commuters would be delayed enough by coming all the way
down Van Ness without detouring again over to the Richmond district.

On the other hand, looking at the map, if you decided not to go all
the way down Van Ness but to go through downtown instead, the only
place that really makes sense for a junction is between Powell and
Montgomery Stations... right at Geary Street.

>Of course we'll all be dead before this ever happens ...

That's not necessarily true.  I'm 22, and I expect to be around for
another 50 years...  I'll only be *almost* dead before it ever
happens.

 =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: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Taxes, Development, and Transit
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:29:06 GMT

In article <192vkgINNarm@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
> In article <prn1kus@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >Could Santa Clara county go it alone?  I.e. could the Santa Clara county
> >part of Caltrain be upgraded to 15 minute service without upgrading the
> >rest?
> 
> Before we tackle "could" lets look at "should". As an extreme example,
> imagine light rail running on the Palo Alto-Cahill segment of
> Caltrain, at 15 intervals, hooked into the other light-rail lines at
> Mountain View and Cahill.  What would the estimated ridership be? How
> many people could replace their car commute with this service? And how
> do these numbers compare with the number of people who commute from
> stations south of Palo Alto to stations north of Palo Alto via
> Caltrain? One can imagine a system where San Jose [BART extension
> and/or the tracks used by the Capitols] and Palo Alto stations are the
> two heavy-rail terminuses for out-of-county commuters, with the rest
> of the rail in the county exclusively serving the function of local
> light-rail transit.

I wasn't thinking of using light rail.  Electric locomotives would probably
be preferable due to their greater speed, unless they are much more
expensive.  I also think you would still want to keep the current through
service to San Francisco.

Essentially, I was postulating that SF and SM counties would not want
to pay for expanding Caltrain service to 15 minute service, etc.  However,
the Caltrain route in this county is not a bad one for intracounty needs,
so perhaps service could be expanded in this county alone.  If SM and SF
go along with expanding Caltrain, then it's a moot question.

jeremy
From: forags@smokey (Al Stangenberger)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: 20th Birthday Party for BART
Date: 14 Sep 1992 23:30:12 GMT
Organization: U.C. Forestry & Res. Mgt.
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: smokey.berkeley.edu

In article <1930e7INNgd2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>
>In article <192n35INN91b@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>
>>All of the main
>>streets in this discussion (Geary, Van Ness, Lombard) have a few short
>>stretches in the 5-10% grade range, but most of the blocks are in the
>>0-5% grade range. Considering any BART implementation will be
>>underground, it would seem that selective tunneling along these
>>streets would be sufficient to keep the constant grade under 3.5%.
>
>I would think so.  It might affect station placement, but I don't
>think it's much more expensive to build a tunnel 20' deep than one 50'
>deep, unless you're doing a cut-and-cover tunnel, which I don't think
>BART would do.  I could be wrong, of course.
>
BART used cut and cover tunneling on most of the line through Berkeley
since Shattuck and Adeline Streets are quite wide and utility relocation was
not a major problem.  They did drive the tunnel from Berkeley Station to 
Hearst Street since it runs under commercial buildings.  The remainder
of the tunnel to North Berkeley is cut and cover.

A lot of the San Francisco tunneling between downtown stations was underground.
The stations were open-pit excavations.  The utility relocations were a major
headache, as was shoring up the excavations so that the buildings on Market
Street didn't fall into the holes, which were deeper than some buildings'
foundations.

I don't recall how the subway on Mission Street was built.


-- 
Al Stangenberger                    Dept. of Forestry & Resource Mgt.
forags@violet.berkeley.edu          145 Mulford Hall - Univ. of Calif.
uucp:  ucbvax!ucbviolet!forags      Berkeley, CA  94720
BITNET: FORAGS AT UCBVIOLE          (510) 642-4424  FAX: (510) 643-5438                      
Newsgroups: ba.transportation