HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SFO rail transit setback?
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:08:25 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec11.212603.1329@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>In article <1g8v7gINN8ob@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.011211.27915@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>
>The current car system is about 10% government controled (the roads) but 
>about 90% privately controled (cars, car repair, gas, oil, insurance, etc.)  
>Why can't other transporation systems do that?
>

Why should it? There is more to transport than economics. Mass transit
make other, valid contributions to society that the car culture does
not; your tax money is going to make those extra investments. As I
detailed in previous posts, these investments are:

1)environmental -- electric buses and trains are viable, electric cars
                   are not presently.
2)social -- the transportation safety net for people unable to afford
            or drive a car, for whom mass transit is an essential for
	    survival.

The political process has shown people support these two goals enough
for the present transit structure to exist. This is how America works,
there is more than dollars and cents involved in decisions. There are
other factors, and people vote and pressure their elected and
appointed officials to do more than maximize economic return.
Countries are different than companies.
From: geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM (George Atkins)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Date: 14 Dec 1992 21:04:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: shilah


In article 25865@ads.com, henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com wrote: 
->It requires 10 trains running constantly to provide 15 minute frequency.

... and only one train is required to screw up and make everyone
miserable for the next two hours.

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
#     for information on the league for programming freedom, 
#                     write to lpf@uunet.uu.net

Amen!  Without some type of sophisticated tracking and switching system, having
Caltrain running at 15 minute headways would be a commute train jam fiasco just
waiting to happen.  And it wouldn't have to wait long.  Would only need somebody
to dump some debris on one of the tracks.  (This has been the official explanation
of the last two train jam fiascos (I like that phrase) I've experienced the last 
few months.)  Then we could all just sit back and watch the fun begin.  Dazed 
commuters standing around wondering what's going on, not knowing whether they should 
hoof it over to El Camino and grab the bus, go eat dinner, pitch a tent.  Then,
suddenly (two hours later) *eight* (count' em) trains come along one after another,
or hooked up together.

I'm all for Caltrain being upgraded.  I'm for anything that improves the quality
of mass transit in the Bay area.  I just think that many of the upgrade cost
discussions (especially the Bart vs. Caltrain things) don't take a lot of 
necessary Caltrain costs into account.

-G
From: editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SFO rail transit setback?
Summary: environmental cost really must be counted...
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:41:43 GMT
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Distribution: ca
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco

lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
|The only cost you are counting is economic cost. What about
|environmental cost?
....
|A politically viable method of
|calculation will reflect the values of the entire country,
|environmental and social as well as economic

joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) attempts a reply:
>In that case you loose: in the bay area (a pretty liberal, environmental
>kind of place) about 94% of the people drive cars.  Only 3% use mass 
>transit.  That is in spite of the fact that the car drivers not only
>pay for all the highways, but also subsidize the mass transit systems.

I rebut:

People are sheep.  They drive automobiles because the
automobile is an economically viable option in the current
political environment, and because public transit is not yet
sufficiently developed to provide a real alternative.  When
real alternatives exist (as is the case in San Francisco,
where _far_ more than 3% of the population uses transit),
people will use them.

But more to the point:

Regardless what people do, "environmental cost" is a very
real cost that you blithely ignore.  Our auto-dependent
society creates a lot of waste -- carbon monoxide and
particulate emissions from fossil fuel combustion, and
various wastes from the steel, rubber, and paint industries
-- and _somebody_ has to clean that up.  In the case of
industrial wastes from vehicle manufacturing, waste disposal
is usually trackable enough that government can ensure that
the industry responsible for creating the waste clean it up.
These costs are to a certain degree already included in auto
prices.

Combustion emissions, however, happen everywhere.  Who can
clean these up?  Two choices:
  a) nobody
  b) government
Under choice a), our world goes to hell -- not an option in
my book.

But if the government is going to try to deal with air
pollution, I'll be damned if I (a 6-mile-a-day transit
commuter) am going to pay the same amount as some
100-mile-a-day Livermore-to-Marin auto commuter.

The actual money it takes to attempt to clean up the air (by
whatever means necessary -- I don't think anyone's going to
invent automatica air-scrubbers in the next couple years, so
creative solutions are called for) should come from the
people who pollute it.  Period.

E.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
editor@Wet.COM                {netcomsv,well,ucsfcca,hoptoad}!wet!editor
	This .sig under construction.  Pardon the inconvenience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad,ba.politics
From: editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SFO rail transit setback?
Summary: go ahead, forget the facts
Keywords: tax allocation wisdom for the ages
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:49:02 GMT
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Distribution: ba
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco

joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>My claim, which I've never seen refuted with data, is that building
>and maintaining the road system is a profitable activity for governments.

I don't need data to refute this claim.  :-)  See below.

>When you sum up the gas tax,

... which pays only for a portion of state and federal
highways (how large a portion is debatable, but less than
all by most measures), and not at all for local surface
streets ...

>                             DMV fees,

... which pay for the operation of the DMV, including staff,
buildings, supplies, license plates, and probably some other
stuff in addition to whatever help they provide for the
roads ...

>                                       sales tax on automobiles

... which is a tax on commerce, not on cars, and shouldn't
be earmarked for automobile-related expenses (When I buy a
book, does the sales tax buy me a comfy place to sit and
read it?  When I buy a computer does the sales tax pay for
its connection to Internet?) ...

>                                                                 etc.

Like what?

>that sum will be greater than the money to build and maintain the
>road system.

Sure, the sum you calculate is very likely to be greater
than Federal and state road construction costs.  But I'll
bet you anything that even that (meaningless) number doesn't
cover the cost of maintaining the millions of miles of
surface streets in this great nation of ours (anybody know
how many?).

And all this says nothing of vehicle-related law enforcement
(unless you want to raise bails until they cover actual
enforcement costs) and the ever-present "environmental cost".

The government does not make money from this venture.  No way.

E.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
editor@Wet.COM                {netcomsv,well,ucsfcca,hoptoad}!wet!editor
	This .sig under construction.  Pardon the inconvenience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Socialized parking
Date: 15 Dec 92 03:56:34 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <75600@apple.apple.COM>, ehouse@Apple.COM (Eric House) writes:
> In article <tjs2o7o@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >In article <75585@apple.apple.COM>, ehouse@Apple.COM (Eric House) writes:
> >> In article <tj1ufa8@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >> >
> >> >One caveat, though.  If your local Safeway wants to provide free
> >> >parking, it should be allowed, just as it should be allowed to
> >> >subsidize transit users.  But city-maintained parking (i.e. all
> >> >curbside parking) should be paid for by parkers somehow.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> And if it wants to provide some service to white customers at the expense
> >> of those not so lucky, should that also be permitted?  If not, what's the
> >> difference?
> >
> >What?  I don't see the connection.  Is free parking violating civil
> >rights now?  I'm not sure of the point here.  Safeway shouldn't be
> >allowed to provide free parking because some people can't afford cars?
> >Are you just being silly?
> 
> No, I'm not being silly.  But I'm not sure the point is worth launching
> a lengthy debate over either.
> 
> We are all comfortable with the notion that all discrimination on the basis of
> race is BAD, but that mild discrimination on the basis of car ownership is OK.
> (I hope the jump from asking everyone to pay for a service only available
> to some members of the group to discrimination is clear; that is, the
> parking at Safeway isn't "free.")  It probably *is* ok, as things go, since
> relatively little harm is done (as compared to other kinds of discrimination,
> such as that against gays, that is still legal in places).  But the difference
> is quantitative rather than qualitiative.
> 
> Or maybe there is a qualitiative difference that I'm missing?

I understand now what you were trying to say.  There is a significant difference
between racial discrimination and a supermarket giving free parking (effectively
a subsidy to drivers), which is akin to than free airports for flyers or free
airwaves to TV-and-aerial owners or movie-goers who don't use the restroom/drinking
fountain subsidizing those who do, etc.  I don't think you would want to pass
a law making business charge everyone the full value of every free service
provided.

The problem today is that supermarkets are forced to provide free parking.

jeremy
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Socialized parking
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:14:44 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <92349.47126.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>is true of the gas tax.  I'd like a system where ALL roads and highways are
>built and maintained with gas taxes--and if it takes exactly 65.33462 cents
>per gallon to do this, then the tax should be *exactly* 65.33462 cents and
>gas tax money should NOT be siphoned off to anything else.  Now I challenge
>the mass-transit-is-the-ONLY-way-destroy-all-autos people to pay the full
>cost of a mass transit ride through the farebox.  What do you mean you don't
>want to pay $10 for a 5-mile light rail ride?

Funny how mass transit advocates always complain about supposed auto
subsidies and in the same breath ask for an increase in mass transit
subsidies....


-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Socialized parking
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:35:11 GMT

In article <75585@apple.apple.COM>, ehouse@Apple.COM (Eric House) writes:
> In article <tj1ufa8@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >
> >One caveat, though.  If your local Safeway wants to provide free
> >parking, it should be allowed, just as it should be allowed to
> >subsidize transit users.  But city-maintained parking (i.e. all
> >curbside parking) should be paid for by parkers somehow.
> >
> 
> And if it wants to provide some service to white customers at the expense
> of those not so lucky, should that also be permitted?  If not, what's the
> difference?

What?  I don't see the connection.  Is free parking violating civil
rights now?  I'm not sure of the point here.  Safeway shouldn't be
allowed to provide free parking because some people can't afford cars?
Are you just being silly?

jeremy
From: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Midnight 1.5-mile trip to Safeway
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:55:50 GMT
Reply-To: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Adobe Systems, Mountain View, CA

In article <13651@optilink.COM> brad@optilink.COM (Brad Yearwood) writes:
>
> [Midnight.  That's the problem.  ....Last SoCoTrans bus ran at maybe 6PM. 
> Could walk 1.5 miles on muddy road shoulders in 10C weather then wait an
> hour or so for a GGT bus. Drat - another 12 minute car trip.]

Geez, only 1.5 miles?  Leave the car at home and hop on your bike.
You cover a mile every 4 minutes at 15 mph (typical, and no sweat in 
street clothes), 5 minutes at 12 mph (leisurely), or 3 minutes at 20 mph 
(if you're really hungry :-).  So Safeway's only 6 minutes away at 15 mph.

  "but... *Midnight*???"

Big deal.  Throw on a jacket and reflective vest or triangle.  And turn 
on your lights -- just like a car.

By the way, if all you're going for is that package of frozen veggies,
your 3-mile bike trip will save a good fraction of the cost of your 
purchase, compared to driving a car.

/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
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:54:01 GMT

In article <1510@dosbears>, mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie) writes:
> Some recent discussions in this group made me wonder about the
> requirements for more frequent scheduling on the CalTrain line.
> 
> Assumptions:
> 	- 15 minute frequency between SF and Cahill
> 	- locals only (no express trains)
> 	- no change in hardware (tracks, locomotives, ...)
> 	- it takes exactly 1:30 from SF to SJ
> 	- turnaround is instanteous (or, 1:30 includes turnaround)
> 
> Justifications:
> 	- I ignored Tamien because (a) not all trains currently
> 	  serve Tamien and (b) it screws up assumption 4
> 	- my musings can be extended/juggled to accomadate expresses
> 
> It requires 10 trains running constantly to provide 15 minute frequency.
> Throw in two more and you can take care of the zero turnaround time,
> the exactly 1:30 trip, and maybe include Tamien.  Service to Gilroy
> would require, maybe, two additional trains to meet the current service
> level.  It would require about 20 trains to serve SF to Gilroy every
> 15 minutes.

Actually, with no turnaround time, that would be 12 trains.  A more
realistic number would service Tamien and allow about 20 minutes at
each end.  That would require 16.  Using the standard 20% spares makes
19, and then you need to service Gilroy.  So figure on 22 trains
(locomotives, really, right?) to provide 15 minute service from
Tamien to SF and 45 minute service to Gilroy.

> 
> Currently there are four "stations" with proper separation of
> passengers and track - SJ, Lawrence, Palo Alto, and SF.  (I'm
> ignoring south of SJ because I don't know that area and it is 
> new to the system.)

What do you mean by "proper"?  What's wrong with Sunnyvale or
Redwood City, for instance?  They seem perfectly serviceable.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Natural Gas?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:12:25 GMT

	I was listening to Clinton's "economic summit" on the radio this
morning.  There seemed to be as much pleading by business representatives
for their specific industries as there were expressions of concern about
problems as a whole.  A representative of the natural-gas industry recited
a laundry list of the supposed benefits of natural gas, and claimed that
structrual impediments (my words) had prevented natural gas from growing 
as it should have during the 1980's (something I hardly doubt).

	I have three questions.  First, this natural-gas representative was
really selling his wares.  Clinton responded that he planned to have all
government vehicle fleets running on natural gas.  Isn't natural gas a
non-renewable resource?  Is it a good idea to tie our economy to something
else that will evenutally run out, even if it is found in great quantities
in the United States?

	Second, if I remember correctly, natural gas is composed mostly of
low-molecular weight hydrocarbons (e.g., propane).  The natural-gas repre-
sentative touted the environmental benefits of natural gas, but I'm suspi-
cious.  Anyone care to comment?

	My third question is specific to California.  If I remember correct-
ly, we have enacted air quality control standards in this state which will 
require ten percent of the vehicles sold in this state by the year 2000 to
produce _zero_ emissions.  Does it make sense to pursue natural gas tech-
nologies if the goal is zero emissions?  I'm concerned that any new tech-
nology will require an investment in infrastructure (e.g., filling stations,
vehicle maintenance skills) and that, if natural gas fails to meet the
zero-emission standard, we will be developing two new technologies in 
parallel.

-- 
== 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
============================================================================
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:02:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.172008.9527@trentu.ca> pstonge@TrentU.CA writes:
>>
>G'day.  Another thing that might be added is the source of the gas.  While 
>America probably does have signifigant quantities of natural gas, it might 
>be worthwhile noting that a sizable portion of the natural gas in America -  
>come from *Canada* via the TransCanada PipeLine.  If memory serves, many of 
>the eastern states reply on this source, and the amounts of gas flowing 
>that way per year are *increasing*...
>	Since this source isn't domestic to the US, once supplies start getting
>scarse, and the supply contracts come up for renewal, there would be a 
>possibility that these contracts might not be renewed, placing an additional 
>pressure on the development of alternative technologies.  I know I'm 
>speculating here, but I offer it only as one possibility.

While NG from Canada is piped into the States, it goes primarily to the
gas poor northern belt of states. There are vast supplies in the southern
tier that remain largely untapped. Buying from Canada simply takes advantage
of the shorter supply lines, the US has ample supplies of NG on it's own.

>	On one hand, being lighter than air there is no fear of soil or 
>groundwater contamination from a vehicle take.  On the other hand, NG can 
>form explosive mixtures in closed areas, although this is not necessary a 
>problem if the auto's tank is outside the vehicle (design consideration).
>Of course, while the role that hydrocarbon gasses play in global warming 
>may not be fully understood yet, prudence would dictate that a lot of 
>effort should go into preventing gas leaks.

First methane isn't lighter than air, nor are the heavier propane or
butane. Second, propane has been proposed as a method of ameliorating
the ozone loss in the stratosphere by combining with and removing
chlorine compounds. Methane is a strong greenhouse gas, however, and
large scale leakage could be a concern. Large scale burning of course
also generates carbon dioxide. Thus, except for delibrately venting 
propane into the atmosphere to repair the ozone problem, NG should be 
seen as a less environmentally benign form of energy than the various
forms of nuclear power where wastes are compact and isolated from the
general environment.

Gary
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2844 sci.environment:13618 ca.environment:1091
From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:22:00 GMT
	<1992Dec17.001902.13770@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
	<JMC.92Dec16171509@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: elm@cs.berkeley.edu
Organization: Berkeley--Shaken, not Stirred
NNTP-Posting-Host: terrorism.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 16 Dec 92 17:15:09

In article <JMC.92Dec16171509@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
=>In contrast to oil, natural gas is in good supply in the U.S.

As anyone who's eaten burritos or visited their local landfill or
swamp can tell you, methane is very easy to generate.  All you need is
bacteria or chemical processes that break down more complex carbon
compounds into methane.  You can generate methane from organic waste
-- CH4 is a large component of swamp gas and the smelly stuff from
landfills (though methane is odorless).

In other words, we needn't *ever* run out of it, as long as we can use
generated methane rather than mined methane.

ethan
--
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
ethan miller--cs grad student   | "Anybody not wearing 2000000 sunblock's
elm@cs.berkeley.edu             |  gonna have a REALLY bad day.  GET IT?"
#include <std/disclaimer.h>     |  -- Sarah Connor, _Terminator 2_