HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:49:25 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

To all transit advocates:  
    Would you trust your government to supply you with housing?
    What about food, clothing or heating fuel?
    Why do you think they will do better supplying you with transportation?

"Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com> writes:
>
>Ah yes. Dat ole debbil the Gummint again.
>
>Actually, the owner of any large fixed capital asset (like a railroad or 
>a power station) has a strong incentive to  distribute use of it as 
>smoothly as possible, and avoid the "peak hour" phenomenon as much as 
>he can. 

Only in a free market system.  Since no one competes with government
trains or busses (wonder why?) there is not free market and no free
market pressures to do things well.

>I've worked for quite a few different corporations, some large, some 
>small, and most were quite hostile to anything approaching flex time or 
>staggered hours. 

My experiance is the opposite.  I'ved worked for large and small companies
which all encouraged flexi-hours.  Not just tolerated them, but encouraged
them.

>Indeed, the idea, implicit in Levy's observation quoted above, that it's 
>Gummint that wants everybody in lockstep and encourages conformity for 
>its own sake, seems quite bass-backwards in general to me. 

I suggest you visit what used to be the USSR, for a first hand look at
what used to be a major example of a government forcing everybody into
as close a lockstep as it could.  

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 23:48:22 GMT


   I've seen a lot of discussion about SMCo's B and C, but being a
resident of Santa Clara county, I'm understandably more interested in
it's A.

   Having lived in Palo Alto a couple of years, I know how bad the
traffic situation can be.  I also know, however, how little use the
mass transit system is to me as an alternative.  I think it would be a
good idea if we had a better transit system, but my quesiton is is
Measure A the way to achieve that goal?

   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.  Anyone?

			-Gary

-- 
|Gary Brainin                     |BITNET: garygm%leland.stanford.edu@stanford|
|garygm@leland.stanford.edu       |UUCP: ...decwrl!leland.stanford.edu!garygm |
|"...the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right |
|most valued by civilized men."    Olmstead v. U.S. (Brandeis, J., dissenting)|
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 11 Oct 92 03:00:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Oct09.222557.7288@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>>I see the "real problems" as including the environmental costs (and
>>opportunity costs) of the kind of land development that is encouraged
>>by the automobile.  ...  The automobile is not "evil" in and of itself but
>>it is undesirable because of the side effects of automobiles being the
>>dominant mode of transportation.
>
>I think you have it backwards.  People choose their lifestyle, and that
>implies a type of land development.  Cars are then the only type of
>transporation which will work.  

Frankly, I disagree with that.  I think most people want to "buy a
house," because of the supposed advantages of that, and that they
choose to buy a house where they can afford it.  They can afford it
where land is cheap, and land is cheap enough out there to build big
lots.

Expensive housing, in general, has small lots.  A house of x square
feet in San Francisco or Oakland will have a smaller lot size than a
house of x square feet in Livermore, if we're talking about
neighborhoods with roughly equal "lifestyle choices" (roughly the same
class, etc.)  Sociologist Michael Weiss has developed a classification
system for neighborhoods, identifying 40 different kinds of
neighborhoods that are found in many kinds of cities.

>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. 

So you say.  I doubt that.  But even if you were right, I believe the
current market price of housing does not include the environmental and
opportunity cost of using valuable land for tract housing, and I
believe this should be ended in some way or other.  The transportation
system both affects this relationship and is affected by it.
 
 =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: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:12:41 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Oct13.195843.21724@netcom.com>, loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart) writes:
>                A typical transit trip goes as follows:
> 
> 	Leave	Arrive
> 	8:30	8:36	Leave house to walk to light rail
> 	8:38	8:46	Light rail from Branham to Tamien
		^^^
> 	8:50	9:17	Caltrain from Tamien to Mountain View
         ^^^
How well does this connection work?  I would be leery of using it,
since if the light rail is as few as four minutes late, you are
looking at a minimum 1 hour delay.  Is there a 10:18 Sun shuttle?

> 	9:18	9:30	Sunway Shuttle from Caltrain to my building at Sun

jeremy
From: james@cats.ucsc.edu (James C. Bohem)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: BART Extension Routes
Date: 13 Oct 1992 19:52:35 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.202128.19808@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>$ In the meantime, if one wants to get headways down very cheaply, a
>$ simple way to do that would be to run LRV's along the line during
>$ off-peak hours.

[ lots of (non-)feasibility talk on this subject]

LRVs typically have a lower max. speed - around 60mph -
than standard electric heavy rail. If you want frequent
off-peak service, why not run EMUs like a lot of the 
transit agencies in the NE do? Some of these systems
have a 2-car pair minimum, others single car. They will
easily do 100mph on straight continuous-welded rail. 
They are proven technology. They've been in service
for years on a variety of lines, some of which no
doubt resemble the demographics/distances/etc. of
the CalTrain line. 

I'd push for some EMUs for an electrified CalTrain
anyway - they have better acceleration and braking
for service where the stations are relatively close
( < 3-5 mi.; Locos are still viable for express runs).

-- 

James C. Bohem          +1 408 458 5358          fax: +1 408 423 6519
james@cats.ucsc.edu   (or preferably)  james@holycow.santa-cruz.ca.us
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:52:23 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

marc@octel.com (Marc Lewert) writes:
>>1) You can either convince a person to leave their car by providing an
>>	alternative that appears to THEM, not you, to be useable.
>>
>>2) You can force them out of their cars by passing laws.

jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli) adds:
>I agree absolutely.  When most people hear of "Transportation Demand
>Management" I'll bet they shudder and think of (2).  I feel we 
>"transportation thinkers" should concentrate on (1).

How about saying that "transporation thinkers" should concentrate on
lowering the total cost of transporation by lowering its price, lowering the
time spent on it, and lowering the amount of pollution it generates, and
lowering the hassle of using it?

Most transporatation types consider cars to be an evil which must be
removed as much as possible, without ever thinking about the real
problems: cost, pollution, time, and hassle.  

>What might it look like?  I imagine a three-tier transit system, borrowing
>some elements from existing transit, and inventing others: 

[John then describes a layered transporation system which would use
 different technologies for different types of rides.  It would use
 trains for some rides, busses for others, LRT for others, all in a
 tightly integrated system.  He ends with this: ]

>* "Assured Connection" policy.  Vehicles in each tier would *always* wait 
>for connecting vehicles, eliminating another perception problem (and a
>real personal security issue for many people) of today's bus lines.  
>No abandonment on the sidewalk waiting for a connection that may not come.  

I don't think this is possible.  If you only had two lines you could
do it.  But with each line interacting with several other lines, I
just don't see how you could do the schedualling, without creating
really late pick ups.

>I imagine that with such a multi-tiered system you might transfer more 
>on a long trip, but you'd get there faster on average, and with assured 
>connections.  

Faster as compared to current transit, maybe.  But faster as compared 
to current cars?  Not likely.  Cars require no transfers, either.
For transit to be successful, by your definition, it must be in the 
same ball park as cars in terms of time, cost, pollution, and (likely)
hassle.  Being better than current transit systems is little help.
If everyone who currently does not use cars, switched to your system,
it would serve less than 10% of the population.  You must take ridership
away from cars to be successful by your defintion.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:37:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.220914.15298@Veritas.COM>, joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
|> Encourage flexi-hours, since they make biking (and all other forms
|> of transporation) easier to use.  

Transit is generally easiest to use during "peak" periods.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: araki@netcom.com (Gary Araki)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 14 Oct 92 07:34:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct13.192603.16737@netcom.com> loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart) writes:
>pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>: In article <1992Oct07.203025.24187@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>It is simple minded to say that The Santa Clara County Dial-a-ride
>failed because too many people wanted to use it.  The real reason
>Dial-a-ride failed was because the folks that set up the system planned
>for failure and not success.  I personally think that Dial-a-ride was
>run so poorly that it is not a reasonable experiment to indicate that
>an on-demand system is not viable.  I personally observed the following
>failures in the Dial-a-ride system:
>
>	1.  Full sized busses were used instead of vans so that when
>	    Dial-a-ride failed, they could be used on normal bus
>	    lines.  The full sized busses were, of course much more
>	    expensive to run than vans would have been.
>


k>	2.  The number of operators answering Dial-A-Ride calls was
>	    entirely insufficient for the call load.  It was quite
>	    common to wait on the phone for well over an hour before
>	    even getting a chance to talk to an operator.
>
>	3.  No actual attempt to double up on rides was ever made.
>	    Rides were given on a first-come, first-serve basis.  I
>	    talked to a number of Dial-A-Ride drivers that were quite
>	    annoyed that dispatch was incapable of combining trips that
>	    obviously should have been combined.
>
The original plans for DAR was to use vans. Politicaly the story was
changed just before implementatin of the system. As for the phone system,
not enough lines were put in, nor operators were hired to handle the load.
 
The other problem with doubling up the rides was the dispatch system (real
first generation computer aided dispatch system) was down most of the time.
There for, most vehicles on the road were on "standby" more than being scheduledfor service.
 
As a aside, SCCTD still runs Dial-A-Ride in the South County area (Morgan Hill
and Gilroy) with 4 35 foot coaches right now.

>
>
>-- 
>=============================================================================
>Mr Loren L. Hart                                       The Ada Ace Group, Inc
>loren@netcom.com                                       P.O. Box 36195
>				                       San Jose, CA  95158


-- 
Gary Araki          
Araki@netcom.com
Computer Tyme-(408) 732 2186-500 Lawrence Expwy Suite I-Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
We fix and build anything for PC's....anywhere in Northern California...
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Keywords: bart caltrain performance cost rehash
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:03:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.003505.23391@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> 
> On top of all this, there is a CalTrain downtown extension "lite"
> proposal that SamTrans/JPB have refused to study.  Briefly, it would
> use the TransBay Terminal as the new CalTrain terminus.  It would
> be a loop station with trains pulling in from one side and leaving
> by the other.  This would require re-laying two of the original six
> rails in the terminal and re-shuffling a few of the buses.  (Remember
> most--if not all--of the SamTrans buses serving the TransBay Terminal
> would be replaced by the train.)  I have a fairly detailed copy of
> this proposal and it seems very "doable".  A good reason for why
> this alternative was not included in the current official group
> has never been given (and not for lack of asking why either!).

Note that Samtrans buses do not use the Transbay terminal anyway.
The stop is outside the terminal at the street.  That said, there
seems to be plenty of capacity, since there are far fewer AC Transit
buses using it than there were previously.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:53:58 GMT

J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM wrote: 
->Gee...making the people who use the system pay for it...I don't think that
->we're ready for such a radical idea.

then why were your knickers in such a twist when i suggested that
employees pay for their parking spot?

what a maroon!

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Keywords: bart caltrain performance cost rehash
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:42:50 GMT

In article <qrlrn88@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct9.003505.23391@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> > rails in the terminal and re-shuffling a few of the buses.  (Remember
|> > most--if not all--of the SamTrans buses serving the TransBay Terminal
|> > would be replaced by the train.)  I have a fairly detailed copy of
|> 
|> Note that Samtrans buses do not use the Transbay terminal anyway.

I guess I wasn't too clear.  What I wanted to say was that if the SamTrans
buses go away, they'd make some room in front of the terminal for any bus
lines that might get "pushed out" of the interior of the terminal by the
return of trains.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:51:56 GMT

J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM wrote: 
->That is *not* an incentive.  It is a *disincentive* to use an auto. 

that's the point.  did you not read the initial posting (where the
author asked how to encourage people to use mass transit), or are you
ordinarily this silly?

-> ... And tell
->me this--would such a socialist plan (telling people how they have to use their
->land) take carpools into account?  Would carpoolers have to pay this, too?  If
->not, how would this be administered?

that's up to the original author.  

->I have no problems with genuine incentives for using transit.  I am strongly
->against penalties for driving, though.  We should implement a reward-based
->system and not a penalty-based system.  Government should not be able to tell
->businesses how they have to use their parking lots or their land in general.

nobody said anything about government ... pay attention next time!

->Socialism is dying all over Eastern Europe...why would we want to try it here?

because it's booming in scandinavia and western europe?

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Date: 15 Oct 1992 22:58:35 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Oct15.184925.13785@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>To all transit advocates:  
>    Would you trust your government to supply you with housing?
>    What about food, clothing or heating fuel?
>    Why do you think they will do better supplying you with transportation?

They already do supply us with transportation.  When was the last time
you saw a privately owned publicly-used road?  Darned few of them.

And the vehicles are purchased on the open market by transportation
agencies.

 =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: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Hillsdale -> 101/92 intersection
Date: 12 Oct 1992 23:36:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Oct12.192319.19138@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>You weren't specific about what "corner" of the 101/92 intersection you
>work on.  I'll bet the 101/92 interchange isn't more than a 10-minute
>*walk* from the Hayward Park CalTrain station.  The problem is that
>unless you work on the west side of 101, I don't know if there is a
>pedestrian crossing over 101 at 92.

Isn't the Nineteenth Av./Fashion Island Blvd. bridge one that has
sidewalks on it?

I've done that 101 -> Hillsdale walk and it isn't too bad, but it was
warm on the day I did it.  No trees, smog.

Also, that would have been '87.... been a while since I lived in 
San Mateo.

 =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: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:25:43 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu


>peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:  

>The point of my posting is to refute the notion that living in low
>density cities is an undesirable thing that people do only as a second
>choice to high density cities.  San Jose is a classic low density city
>that is a place where lots and lots of people live, people who could
>afford to live elsewhere but don't.

Someone who works in the "central" part of the bay (downtown SF,
Oakland, or Berkeley) has the choice of several "high-density" places
to live (SF, Berkeley, Oakland) and several "low-density" places
to live (Contra Costa, Marin, Solano suburbias); the relative numbers
seem to indicate an almost equal choice between the two (about 2
million people work in SF, about 1 million live in surrounding
high-density places, and about 1 million people live in low-density
places).

Conversely, if you work in the South Bay, the pickings of nice
high-density environments is small. People who work in the South Bay
are living in suburbias by default. As a result you get extreme
behavior like people working in the South Bay and living 
in Berkeley or SF, just so they can live somewhere they feel
comfortable. 

 
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: BART Extension Routes
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:46:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.202128.19808@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.143809.22147@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> |> Unfortunately, CalTrain's management does not seem to have the vision
> |> to try to acquire such LRV's.                                  ^^^^^^
> 
> Thank god.  Vision??  LRV's typically don't offer the same ride quality
> and experience that CalTrain does and will.  They're usually a lot more
> cramped, and as far as I know, don't have restrooms or other amenities
> like cell phones and fax machines like the new California Cars will.  I
> suspect that people would rather ride in a train car for longer trips.

Not to mention that they are quite a bit slower.  Most LRV's top out
at 50 to 55 mph.

> |> 	75% ($93 m): Federal Transit Administration
> |> 	12.5% ($16 m): Caltrans
> |> 	12.5% ($16 m): SamTrans
> |> 
> |> 	So only $16 m is local money. Isn't it wonderful to get to
> |> stiff others with the bill? :-):-)
> |> 	So if much of the extension money can come from outside
> |> sources, then local taxpayers will certainly have less to complain
> |> about ;-)
> 
> Yes, but before you smile too much, think of the "opportunity cost" of
> that money.  Whether it comes from the FTA (taxpayers) or not, it could
> be used to do so much more if spent on more cost-effective transit.
> This is the Washington "PORK" philosophy at its worst.  

You have to admit that Tasman is pretty porky too.

jeremy