HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mmoore@epx.cis.umn.edu ("None of ya Bizness")
Subject: Re: The new California Cars for CalTrain
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:41:45 GMT

In article <9207281515.AA04075@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
$
$>From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
$>Hah !! Right.  Currently there are 23 on order for the JPB.  They 
$>are all commuter cars.  Looks like food on the currently hour long
$>commute down or up the peninsula will simply not happen.  Looks like
$
$Huh?  Food and drink are already allowed on CalTrain. What kind of 
$food service is provided on the hour long BART commute? 
$
$Oh darn! I keep forgetting that the average trip on BART is 12 miles
$because nobody can stand up or stand it for much more.

Hey, I've eaten food on BART all the time when I would ride from Ashby
to Fremont on the weekends.

You just have to be slick...


-- 
Malcolm Diallo Moore, Honeywell/CIS-Univ. of Minn.     mmoore@epx.cis.umn.edu
				            Moore_Malcolm+@ssdc.honeywell.com	
"Jeeeeah this is the rap about the bat batman he is the one in black like a bat
out of hell he will reveal SCREAMIN DOWN THE ROAD IN A BATMOBILE!!!!!!!"
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:31:43 GMT


In article <9207101517.AA01010@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>Wrong !!!  CalTrain would be extended not to just Warm Springs but to 
>Oakland, Livermore, Stockton and Fairfield. Nobody would loop through
>downtown San Jose in order to get to Sunnyvale or Santa Clara. In 
>either case nobody has $3.5 billion for the PORKBART to San Jose link. 




>From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
>You know, I see where you're coming from about this, but I don't
>understand how you're going to get SP to agree to it.  SP runs *lots*
>of freights through Oakland, offloading container ships.  I can't
>imagine that SP would hurt its very profitable freight business to run
>any kind of frequent passenger service, not even with the limited
>definition of "frequent" used by CalTrain.


SP actually has two lines through the east bay. For reference you 
consult the "Peninsula Points" map from AAA. The Mulford line is the
one closest to the bay. The other is the Hayward. It is SP who is 
pushing to get all passenger service onto the Hayward line. This 
way they can use the Mulford to exclusion and the Hayward for special
and late night trains while sharing maintenance costs with the 
state or whoever. There is plenty of ROW for double tracking. The 
high speed(125 mph) Capitols envisioned in the later stages would
probably run on their own track along the Hayward. 



>Moreover, as they are the frequent trains running on the Embarcadero
>(SP tracks) and 3d Street (UP tracks) in Oakland block traffic badly,
>and somehow I don't imagine anybody who works in that area really wants
>to put up with lots more, *right at commute time*.


I don't really understand what they are planning for that section 
either. Around 1995 additional Capitols, San Joaquins, California
Zephyr and the Coast Starlight will be extended to San Jose. All
of which will be going through there also.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:1759 alt.activism:13360 ca.environment:745
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:57:23 GMT
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 23 Jul 92 03:38:10 GMT

In article <l6sad2INNime@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel) writes:

[...quoting Tsongas...]
> Well I think there are two separate rationales: one obviously is
> that we don't have an energy policy if you look at the cost of
> energy in the United States, compared to our European trading
> partners who have viable energy policies, it's no accident that
> ours is much lower, considerably lower, and that we have, in
> fact, no energy policy.

I can understand why politicians think we need a policy for
everything (does the Democratic Platform have a plank covering
the policy for nose picking?), but why do so many otherwise
reasonable people accept such a politically motivated, 
self-serving approach to problems?  We don't need a national
energy policy.  Last time we had one, the lines at the gas
stations stretched for blocks.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:41:45 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <9207281942.AA04093@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:

::From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
::Livermore Valley. I'm sure that UP's line is only a single-track one,
::and from the maps I have, it's rather curvy. So it would be VERY slow
::going for two-way service, though OK for one-way commute service. It

:The Swedish have tilt trains that allow faster speeds around curves.
:Amtrak is just about to begin trials in the North East Corridor(NEC).
:With proper scheduling and a few sidings half hourly service could
:be done quite easily.

	But the scheduling would have to be VERY precise.

	Double-tracking is much more idiot-proof.
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Third rail without fences (Was: San Mateo County BART)
Keywords: third rail bart safety right of way
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:27:49 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


Hello yet again.

People have been talking here about exposed third rail operation as
being unsafe.

It seems to me that the last time I read Interurban Press's book on
the Market Street Railway (or maybe their Muni book, it was a while
ago) there was some story about a political fight to make all the
streetcar operators use underground (and therefore safe) third rail
rather than catenary wire, so as to beautify the city.  It was
expensive, so the operators fought it, and won.  (There was more to it
than that, but I've forgotten most of it.)

So, to make a long story short, what happened to underground third
rail?  Is it still possible?

BTW, I recommend the coffee-table sized books to anybody who is more
interested in old streetcar systems than I am.  I thought the complete
listing of the routes (route numbers, route histories) was somewhat 
interesting, but when it started listing all the *cars* that the
Market Street Railway had ever owned, I got bored and returned them to
the library.  (They used to be in the California Collection of the
Santa Cruz Public Library, but that was before the earthquake, and
I think I was at the Garfield Park branch the last time I saw them.)

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
        "Men make history, but they do not do so under 
         conditions of their own choosing." -- Karl Marx
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: The new California Cars for CalTrain
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:15:22 GMT


>From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
>Hah !! Right.  Currently there are 23 on order for the JPB.  They 
>are all commuter cars.  Looks like food on the currently hour long
>commute down or up the peninsula will simply not happen.  Looks like


Huh?  Food and drink are already allowed on CalTrain. What kind of 
food service is provided on the hour long BART commute? 

Oh darn! I keep forgetting that the average trip on BART is 12 miles
because nobody can stand up or stand it for much more.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com



Z.
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Third rail without fences (Was: San Mateo County BART)
Keywords: third rail bart safety right of way
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:09:06 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: ba
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <14ge9lINN8a2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
|> It seems to me that the last time I read Interurban Press's book on
|> the Market Street Railway (or maybe their Muni book, it was a while
|> ago) there was some story about a political fight to make all the
|> streetcar operators use underground (and therefore safe) third rail
|> rather than catenary wire, so as to beautify the city.  It was
|> expensive, so the operators fought it, and won.  (There was more to it
|> than that, but I've forgotten most of it.)
|> 
|> So, to make a long story short, what happened to underground third
|> rail?  Is it still possible?
|> 

Several cities used the underground power pickup, Washington DC and
NY City (Manhattan) are the two I remember.  There are lots of problems
with these systems.  Most of the problems have to do with actually picking
up power from such a system.  Plus there is the problem of dirt getting
into the "track".  From what I understand that type of system may
not be completely unworkable, but it's a much tougher job than
overhead wire.

Later,
George


-- 
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Santa Cruz-San Jose rail line revival?
Keywords: santa cruz suntan special rail line revival study diridon
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:45:17 GMT


I just spoke with Santa Clara County Supervisor Rod Diridon's transit
assitant/staffer Bruce Kosanovic.

I learned that there is now funding for a feasability study on restoring
the Santa Cruz-Los Gatos "Suntan Special" rail right of way in the Highway
17 corridor.

It will be a $100K study.  The funding came from:

	$40K - Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
	$40K - Monterey Bay Area Council of Governments (MBAG)
	$10K - Santa Clara County Transportation Commission
	$10K - Santa Cruz Transportation Commission


A RELATED DEVELOPMENT

He also informs me that there is a private conern called Eccles & Eastern
Railroad that is interested in rebuilding the line to haul aggregates
(from the quarries) & tourists.  They are investigating whether or not it
would make sense and whether they can get investors.  Apparently Eccles &
Eastern RR thinks they might be able make money doing this.

This makes restoration of the line more likely since capital and
operating costs can be spread over passenger (tourist & commuter) and
freight operations.  I'm flabbergasted that a private concern might
restore the line independent of the government agencies because they
think it might be profitable.  I just assumed the capital cost of
re-building the right of way would be prohibitive without substantial
government money ...

Very interesting & exciting stuff.  Stay tuned...


-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re:  East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:07:51 GMT


>From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
>BART will never wrap the Bay. But then neither will Caltrain. But BART can
>and should be extended to San Jose to connect with Caltrain.



Why should it be extended? Bringing CalTrain around to Fairfield would
be cheaper and faster while providing several connections to BART
and Altamont Pass trains. Why is changing trains in San Jose preferable
to changing in Oakland or Warm Springs. Neither of the 3 are in 
reach of the Silicon Valley industries.






>But for E.Bay
>users who want to go N after changing at SJ, Caltrain will have to be
>upgraded to give BART-type frequency.


Are you sure? What happens when 1400 CalTrain passengers try to get
on a 720 seat BART for a trip to the Coliseum.





>The problem is that BART is a true mass-transit system, whose users have
>got used to a mass-transit level of service, and don't need to consult
>schedules. How unreasonable of the users :-)


People wait for infrequent airplanes, that doesn't seem to stop them
from flying. Besides if BART riders "don't need" schedules then why
did BART start printing them?




>Dumbarton Bridge is single tracked. What kind of service are you suggesting?

It is double and the few connections that are single could be made so in
a few months. I suggest 100 mph every half hour with seating for everybody
at a cost that farebox covers operating expense.


>A Bart-frequency service over Dumbarton Bridge and down the peninsular
>would be ideal for me to get to work. But a commute hour only service
>would be unusable. 


BART's frequency is its only advantage over the present CalTrain although
it is not something particular to BART's design or cost. Your continued
harping on it with only "I do not believe anything else" type of faith
it just as detrimental to this discussion as any of the personal flames
that everybody else has criticized.



> Again, where would this service interchange with BART?

The Capitols or a modernized version of CalTrain would interchange with
BART at Coliseum and maybe Union City while interchanging with Dumbarton
at Fremont/Centerville.




>Are you a mass-transit user? If so, on what systems? Are you a commuter?


Yes, CalTrain. Yes.



>If so, do you commute at fixed or irregular hours? 

Anytime between 6:00 A.M to 9:30 A.M  and 4:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. 
with numerous transit, rail fan and social functions every month
in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Local quality of life
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:09:22 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

[this is straying over into politics, though I suspect many of our
transportation problems are more political than technical.]

In article <14oeg1INNlj5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>In article <l6uf8sINNonl@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>>If it got a lot nicer or a lot cheaper, I'd change my mind.  If I
>>changed my mind, then I'd care a lot more about the quality of life
>>here, long-term.  ...

>I guess I just can't relate to this.  I care about wherever I am 
>even if I know I'm not going to live there.

There's caring and then there's caring.  In the short term, I care.

In the long term, my attitude becomes much more casual.  I think they
ought to (some examples) extend Caltrain into downtown SF, and I think
they ought to get serious about the water policy in this state.  I
think that they could, for not much money or inconvenience for people
in cars, make the world nicer for people on bicycles (a little
thermite applied to every "dismount gate" in Palo Alto would be a good
start).  I think that someone ought to think hard about what the price
of housing does to the price of teaching and the price of medical
care.  I think someone ought to notice that if people commute into
Silicon Valley from Tracy, that they drive at least as much as they do
living in SV, and that the water they use in Tracy comes from roughly
the same place that the water that they would have used in SV (but
they're much happier and more productive because they spent several
hours per day in traffic :-).  All these things need fixing (and
that's just locally.  How about all that fun in the Balkans?  Are we
helping the form USSR enough?  Why does Saddam still have a job?)

In a world of finite time (and boy, is my time finite) I just cannot
apply too much effort to improving all these busted things.  I look at
it, say "yup, that's busted, but if other people (who own homes here
and presumably have a bigger stake in it, especially given the price
of the homes) cannot get off their asses to fix it, I sure won't".  I
vote for the "right" stuff; that's easy.  Pounding politicians over
the head with a 2x4 to get their attention, I don't have the time or
energy for.  Get a spouse in gradual school, get a 2-yr-old (join the
bug-of-the-month club).  It's a fun life, but it doesn't leave a lot
of spare time.  In some ways, voting with my feet kills two birds with
one stone -- I get what I want, and (if enough other people act
similarly) people who own property might notice that it is not worth
quite so much as it once was.

And, if I must deal with people who act like misbehaving
two-year-olds, I'd much rather it be my own misbehaving two-year-old.
You'd think we could elect better.

David Chase
Sun
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Summary: Your STILL forgetting...
Keywords: wheelchairs accessability BART CalTrain
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:30:38 GMT
Followup-To: Everyone...
Distribution: ba
Organization: You see Burke Lee.

In article <9207271455.AA03882@asia.fai.com> (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>
>>From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
>>Well, in my opinion frequency is by far the most important consideration
>>of the ones you mentioned.  
>
>If your daily trip is 45 miles each way and you had a joice of a train 
>without seats every 15 minutes at 35 mph or one with cushioned seats that
>allowed food and drink with no barrier entry and cost half as much every
>20 minutes at 50 mph. Which do you choose?
>
>I am not comparing any two specific or named systems in particular. I am
>using two real world examples I have experienced to show the relative
>importance of frequency of any to a dozen other factors.

Provided that you can get on the damn train in the first place.  There are
a great number of people in the Bay Area who are in wheelchairs;  getting
onto Caltrain is inconvenient, if they can do so at all!

>>(And, anyway, BART is far better integrated
>>into San Francisco's public transit system than Caltrain.)
>
>For BART you walk upstairs to the MUNI and up or down the stairs
>to buses. For CalTrain you walk to the end of the platform to 
>get to the MUNI. The only real difference with respect to "integrating"
>are the stairs. I would not suggest that negotiating stairs make
>it "far better".

Aaah!  All those fabulous lift-equipped MUNI buses.

>I would think BART's major advantage is that it is close enough to
>lots of things so that you can avoid MUNI.

If you can take MUNI, either.


>   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com

-Richard
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: More negative BART stories
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:07:10 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <24875@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:

>However, at the same time as BART made evening SF->Berkeley transfers
>instantaneous (impressive to experience), they made the evening
>Berkeley->SF transfer a 15-minute wait (I was looking at the weekend
>schedule -- I'm just assuming weekdays are the same).  Two thumbs
>down for that.
>
>Bruce Nordman
>B_Nordman@lbl.gov 

Not true in my experience. I do the Berkeley-SF evening commute on
weekends and weekdays and the timing works well, usually the SF train
is waiting at MacArthur station, or is just pulling in. The only
timing that has gotten a little worse is SF->Berkeley during weekday,
if you miss the direct train and take a Concord train and tranfer in
Oakland.
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:1808 alt.activism:13536 ca.environment:760
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
Subject: Re: How much pollution from motor vehicles?
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:06:24 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul24231413@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>  20) Noise pollution from everybody whining about
>      how terrible cars are without taking into
>      account how much of a benefit they are.
>--
>----
>Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
>slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
>408-756-0895                                   USA

Sometimes even the things we like best- damage us or kill us or destory
other things that are much more valuable.  No doubt that the car has
(or trucks) have increased productivity and increased quality of life.

But like a lot of things- when overused or abused can caused damage,
slow down the motor brain... start thinking about alternatives.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:01:26 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bike2work

In article <1992Jul25.063723.21267@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <24885@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
>
>Their subways don't look so great either.

At least they've *got* subways.

Bill

--
Bill Michel			
bm@eng.sun.com		These views are my own, not Sun's.
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:45:07 GMT
	<SLAGLE.92Jul28173235@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<4941@gold.gvg.tek.com>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Distribution: ba
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com's message of 29 Jul 92 17:06:24 GMT

In article <4941@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:

> In article <SLAGLE.92Jul28173235@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>>That's because they have population densities
>>to support the ridership that you and I wouldn't
>>put up with.

> Oh but Mark, those densities are coming to a Sunnyvale near you. Your
> mission, should you decide to accept it, is to plan for the future. Should
> you choose to ignore the obvious fact that automobile transportation in
> the SillyClone Valley is obsolete...well, I know you will so have a nice
> lifestyle.

Highly unlikely, since Sunnyvale is explicitly planning NOT to
have that kind of urban density.  Your job is to get used to 
the idea that automobile transportation is far from obsolete
in this or any other valley.  Your job is to try and figure
out how to make it work.  Planning for the future doesn't mean
ignoring the obvious fact of what people want just because you
don't like it.  Planning for the future doesn't mean condescending
to the people you are trying to persuade.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: "The only sensible way to proceed"
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:55:32 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

John Lazzaro <lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU> writes:

	will it be faster for most people to interchange at San Bruno
	between Caltrain and BART, or to continue to 4th and Townsend
	and take MUNI?

Is San Bruno slated for a connection between CalTrain && BART?  To tell
you the truth, I don't care where the connection is, but if it's a good
one (like the BART/MUNI Metro link under Market or BART/Amtrak in
Richmond) people will use it.

/jordan