HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:09:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.093259@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <9208201405.AA02544@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> |> CalTrain per passenger mile  19 cents   BART  23 cents.
> |> 
> |> 
> 
> Hmm.  Well Vancouver's Sky Train costs about 9.8 cents
> per passenger mile and is much more like BART then CalTrain.
> 
> Maybe we should replace CalTrain with SkyTrain technology?

I wish Santa Clara county would consider Skytrain (or buses) instead of LRT.
It is faster, (apparently) much cheaper to operate, and more frequent.
Keep in mind that 9.8 cents per passenger mile is *with* 5 minute or better
frequencies 7 days a week from open until close (about 1AM).  Plus, it's
faster than any LRT system that I know of.  Plus, it should be quite resistant
to strikes, since it is driverless.

I'm not sure of the construction costs (700 million for about 14 miles
comes to mind, but I don't know if that is Canadian or American or which
year's dollars they are), but the end result seems worth it even if it's
double the LRT costs.

> 
> Later,
> George
> 
> -- 
> To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
> 				Dr. Osmond

Jeremy
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 14 Aug 1992 16:38:44 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

>In article <9208131453.AA01243@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>> At least somebody has an open mind.
>

Yes, another unprofessional, ad hominum attack by Vaughn Wolfe on
people who have disagreed with him in previous postings.  Clean up
your act, Vaughn!

In article <ohqssp8@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>I like your definition of open mind: "they agree with *me*".
>

Amen.

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:57:49 GMT

In article <9208131450.AA01240@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> 
> >From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
> >But you are ignoring the problem.  There is no level of service above
> >the infrequent railfan excursion level where ridership will pay for
> >a train's operating costs.  With a transit system, if you want people
> >to use it and like it, 15 minute frequency is a good number to shoot
> 
> 
> 
> You have been reading this group long enough to have seen that the NEC
> the San Diegans and the TGV run at a profit. You keep saying this but
> you continue to ignore the facts.

You mistake me for someone else.  I'm getting a little tired of your
'everyone who disagrees or seems to disagree is ignoring facts, living
in a fantasyland, etc.' statements.  I don't even know what the NEC
is (isn't it a Japanese computer company?).  The San Diegans and TGV
are not urban transit trains, they are long distance intercity.

There are no publicly owned transit systems in this country or in
Canada that make a profit.  There are no transit systems of any
significant size (certainly no rail-based) that are not publicly
owned.  When I use the word transit, I use it in the traditional
sense, meaning urban transit, like BART, Caltrain, SCCTD, etc.,
not long distance like Amtrak, San Diegans, etc.

I don't want to get into name calling over this, but I think the
above paragraph is pretty straight fact that I haven't seen you
acknowledge.  You aren't ignoring it, are you?

> 
>    Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com

jeremy
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: "The only sensible way to proceed"
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:45:47 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

Vaughn Wolffe <vaughnw@asia.fai.com> writes:

	[ in reference to whether or not people would use a good
	  connection if it existed ]

	Not according to the BART/SFO DEIR.

[ what's a DEIR -- not up on my 4-letter bureaucratese ]

I'll assume that BART published some document that said that if there
was a good CalTrain link in downtown San Francisco that no one would
use it, but if BART went to SFO people would use it.  Are you
suprised?  Ignoring why they might say such a thing, think about what
this means: they are saying that people are *automatically* opposed to
using CalTrain to get to SFO.  Do you think people make decisions like
that?  I don't.  I don't care how I get to where I'm going, and neither
do most people.  What I care about most is how well the system works.

Where did you get a copy of this "DEIR" thing?

/jordan
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:23:54 GMT


>From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
>product compared to other systems.  There are technical considerations involved
>here but if people don't like the product, and don't buy it it fails.  This is
>what spelled the demise of the passenger rail systems in the late sixties, which


There was and is a lot more to the passenger rail vs other modes competition 
than this.



>quarter million Bay Area commuters.  There are still people who
>would rather sit in traffic than have to be subject to the 
>vagaries of CalTrain.  

The same is true for those people on I-80, 24, 880, 580 and the 
Bay Bridge with respect to BART.



>the opposite spectrum.  It's eye was towards rider comfort and
>convenience, but at great cost.  If BART actually costs 100Million
>per mile of track (not including stations etc.) then it costs as much
>per mile as a downtown highway, but moves many more people. 


The expansion of BART is not taking place in downtowns but it still
is costing $100 million a mile. It doesn't matter if it has the
potential of carrying more people if the overwhelming majority do
not choose to ride it.




> This is
>why over 180,000 people per day ride BART.  


First, you must get your facts straight before you make anymore
sweeping conclusions. According to BART's own ridership reports
is carries a little less than 250,000 riders or 125,000 people
a day. Three quarters of whom travel to or completely within 
SF.



>Most commuters don't care
>about cost, as long as they don't see it, they care about comfort,
>ease of use, safety, schedules, frequent trains.  



You are correct, unfortunately that is why they drive.


>Sure you can upgrade
>CalTrain for cheap, and I hope someone does, but how are you going to
>get people to ride it ?


By upgrading to higher frequency and speed.




>you, as a railfan, are the ultimate source of knowledge on 
>railroads.  You're not, the ultimate source are the commuters
>who deal with the system on a user level every day.


No kidding? If I was the ultimate source I would not have to do
so much reading and traveling, nor would I be urging people to 
learn more, by contacting the appropriate agencies and officials.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:08:28 GMT


>From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
>So even with airplanes there is an advantage to not having to consult
>a schedule when people fly the same route frequently.


Ditto for commuter rail systems. Regularity and reliability are part 
of the mix. All I am saying is that 15 minute frequency is not a
deciding factor. No one factor is.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:40:44 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug20.093908@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>In article <9208201523.AA02558@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:

>I believe someone pointed out that one of the extensions is only
>costing 50Million/mile.  So I guess your blanket 100 is now bunk.

	That's the official figure for the Dublin/Pleasanton extension.

@ First, you must get your facts straight before you make anymore
@ sweeping conclusions. According to BART's own ridership reports
@ is carries a little less than 250,000 riders or 125,000 people
@ a day. Three quarters of whom travel to or completely within 
@ SF.
 
>As compared to the paltry 20,000/day on CalTrain?

	Good point. As long as CalTrain stays CowTrain, it's not going
to get much sympathy.
From: jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: RR bridges, was Cost of transit systems vs highways
Summary: Let's soup up BART.
Keywords: motor
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:56:39 GMT
Reply-To: Joe Keane <jgk@osc.com>
Organization: Versant Object Technology, Menlo Park, CA
Weather: sunny, high 75, low 55
Moon-Phase: waning gibbous (63% of full)

In article <1992Aug17.234750.16894@pbhya.PacBell.COM>
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>I won't argue that the LRVs will go over 55, but that's the way the
>article was written.  In practice, they don't do that any more than
>BART trains do 120.  In theory, no one actually know what a BART train
>will do--only that i's something greater than 120.  What's the highest
>you've ever heard of someone getting out of an LRV?

In article <1992Aug18.062246.4196@panix.com> tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot
Simon) writes:
>Similarly, I'm curious as to the flat-out maximum for the various types of
>Amtrak power.  Anyone know?  I've always wondered if the TurboTrain wouldn't,
>given sufficiently straight track and no speed limit, run faster than the
>F40.  Isn't the TurboTrain design derived from an early TGV prototype?

I'd say having self-powered cars is a big win.  If you're using a locomotive,
the other cars are just load, so you might as well try the locomotive by
itself and see what it will do.  But then they're optimized for pulling power
and not top speed.  On the other hand, with BART, the first car has to push
the air out of the way, and the others don't, so it seems like the more cars
the better.

The neat thing about electric motors is that you can run them at many times
their design power, for a while.  The limiting factor is almost always heat
dissipation, in other words, if you do this too long, instead of a motor you
have a smoking heap of slag.

I think it would be fun to take a BART car and soup it up, say better motors
with tons of cooling, better power electronics (things have come a long way
since BART was built), maybe better pickups from the power rail, and probably
some other things i can't though of right now.  I don't see any reason why
BART can't run as fast as TGV.

Of course this is kind of pointless since BART stations are so close together
that they rarely have a chance to get to 80 MPH anyway.  I mean, what good is
it to be able to do 200 MPH between Fremont and Union City?  If you wanted to
do it right you'd have to have express and local tracks like real subways.
And use standard gauge, heh heh.

--
Joe Keane, amateur mathematician
jgk@osc.com (uunet!amdcad!osc!jgk)
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant nose BART
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:35:28 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <9208121517.AA01036@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>
>>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)

>>>For the second time:
>>>Additional BART tube  $3.5 billion
>>>Amtrak/CalTrain tunnel $1.9 billion   MTC SCR20 cross bay study.

>>	I did look on a map and I discovered that the most likely
>>location for a BART tunnel that did not precisely parallel the

>Contact the MTC, that is why I gave you the reference. It takes
>a lot more than reading a map to plan a system. Do some homework.
>You obviously do not have any idea of want it takes.

	Well, can you post the proposed routes here?

>>Furthermore, I don't think that tunnels are
>>good places for diesel locomotives.

>Did the study say anything about diesel trains? Haven't you ever
>heard of electric locomotives? 

	Yes, I have.

	But third rail or a catenary wire will have to be installed
inside the tunnel.

	Outside the tunnel, a _lot_ more catenary wire will have to be
installed, or an electric locomotive just won't go very far.

	And all the electric locomotives would have to be bought,
since I doubt if Amtrak has many to spare.

	So the new locos and the new wire are additional costs.

>>	Furthermore, that $100m/mi is for the SFO extension, which is
>>in urban and suburban areas.

>   Bullshit. Do some homework.  Warm Springs 5.4 miles $630 million.
>   S.J.  12 miles  $1.8-3.5 billion. Extending along the Peninsula
>   would be similar costs.

	The Warm Springs extension will have to go through Fremont
Central Park.

	The San Jose extension will have to go underground while
inside San Jose itself.

	None of these things will be true if BART is extended along
Hwy. 101. In fact, conditions will be much like the Dublin-Pleasanton
extension, which is slated at $50 m/mi.
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:50:49 GMT


>From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
>But you are ignoring the problem.  There is no level of service above
>the infrequent railfan excursion level where ridership will pay for
>a train's operating costs.  With a transit system, if you want people
>to use it and like it, 15 minute frequency is a good number to shoot



You have been reading this group long enough to have seen that the NEC
the San Diegans and the TGV run at a profit. You keep saying this but
you continue to ignore the facts.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Mass Transit Construction in History
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:00:28 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames


I've heard (and read :-) several people say that the main reason mass
transit is so expensive is the cost of the land.

Hasn't it always been the case, however, that there was at least one
major cost?  Land might have been cheap when NYC's subways were built,
but I'd be willing to bet that it was a lot more expensive (in time
and labor) to tear-down and rebuild buildings.  What about the massive
London and Paris systems?  Didn't they have exceptionally high costs
due to buildings, if not land as well?

How did the above urban areas get anything built?   I suspect they
took land/buildings and paid out what people had invested (as opposed
to market value), and if you didn't like it, they'd take it away and
not give you anything. :-)

Anybody have more facts and fewer guesses?
--
             J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
                              '91 CB750, DoD# 0378
   "It's not his fault that he can't behave, Society's made him go astray..
                                 - Oingo Boingo
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Re: So why not a water taxi?
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 19:29:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ca
Keywords: Alameda,boat

In article <25645@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
>Water Taxis sound like fun -- I wonder if there are examples from
>other US cities that could serve as a model?

	The Seattle region comes to mind.  If I remember correctly, there's
an island out in the bay that has no roads leading to it, but which has 
become increasingly popular with suburbanites.

-- 
=============================================================================
 John J. Ladasky II ("ii")				(ladasky@netcom.COM)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Great composers do not borrow - they steal."  - John Ladasky		~ -	
(At the urging of fellow netter Lon Amerman, I stole the above		o o
 quote from Igor Stravinsky, who stole it from a statement made		 >
 by Pablo Picasso about painting, who stole it from...)			\_/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." - Elvis Costello(?)
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: SkyTrain?
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:09:48 GMT

In article <oqvauq0@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> I wish Santa Clara county would consider Skytrain (or buses) instead of LRT.
|> It is faster, (apparently) much cheaper to operate, and more frequent.

Hmmm.  I remember reading postings (over in rec.railroad?) or articles (in
some rail rags?) about SkyTrain being kind of a disaster...  I'll try
to get/remember specifics later.

If it's really as great as Jeremy says, then I'm all for it:  SkyTrain
for everyone!

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: AirBART shuttle question ...
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: ba
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:11:04 GMT

In article <16orhmINNncs@agate.berkeley.edu>, mdr@ocf.berkeley.edu (Mike Rogof writes...
>  I have to fly out of Oakland airport soon, and I was wondering if
>anyone knew any details or had any experience with the Shuttle that
>goes from BART to the Airport.  I think it's called AirBART, and I
>think it operates out of the Coliseum station.  Besides that, I know
>nothing.  Can someone help?  Specifically, is it effective, how much
>does it cost, does it require reservations, how often does it run, 
>is there a limit on your luggage, that kind of thing?  Thanks a bunch...
> 
>Mike      mdr@ocf.berkeley.edu
> 
I, unfortunantly, haven't rode it myself, but I have seen it, and talked
to people who have rode it. The last I heard is that it costs $4, one way.
It stops on the Coliseum side of the Bart station (it's a big van). And 
it doesn't require reservations (first come, first serve). That's all
I know. Hope it helps.
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:26:50 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <9208131450.AA01240@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>You have been reading this group long enough to have seen that the NEC
>the San Diegans and the TGV run at a profit. You keep saying this but
>you continue to ignore the facts.

As I remember TGV is a French Government operation (or owned by companies
which in turn are owned by the French Government).  In either case, I
don't think TGV turns a profit when standard commercial book keeping 
is used.  (That is, I think they take advanantage of being government
run to use some accounting practices which would not be alowed here.)
Also, I think the track was built with government money, which will 
not be paid back, and did not come from user fees on rail users.

NEC and the San Diegans are just parts of Amtrack.  Saying that they
turned a profit is meaningless, unless you want to say that Amtrack
turned a profit.  I'm pretty sure that Amtrack looses money, but I
may be wrong. 

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:22:11 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

Vaughn Wolffe <vaughnw@asia.fai.com> writes:

	The reality is that even on systems like BART disabled people
	do not ride transit enough to justify the cost.

What's the "cost" to society if you make disabled people immobile by
not providing access?  What formula did you use to come up with this
statement?

	It is no coincidence that this federal requirement came from
	the Reagan administration along with no additional funding
	while the airlines are not under the same requirement.

Every airport I've been to in this country (and I've been to most of
the major ones, and lots of the minor ones) are wheelchair accessable.
Jetways at the major airports make wheelchair access a breeze (so much
that the airlines *encourage* non-wheelchair folks to use them if they
have any trouble at all walking).  This is not to make airlines look
good; to be sure, a large part of it is because baggage needs to roll
around on wheels at times, but this just sounds like sour grapes.

/jordan
From: jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:47:27 GMT
	<133270@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames

"ed" == Ed Suranyi <ed@wente.llnl.gov> writes:
ed> They believe, and it certainly may be true, that
ed> this is cheaper than equipping all the buses and subway stations
ed> for handicapped people.

I believe it was in the WSJ a couple of years ago, there was a story
on the city of Chicago realizing that for the cost of rebuilding curbs
and open-accessing all public buildings, they could hire drivers and
vans and get the handicapped people around w/o them ever having to get
onto public transit.

Of course, they realized this well into all the construction, so there
was nothing they could do about it...

--
             J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
                              '91 CB750, DoD# 0378
   "It's not his fault that he can't behave, Society's made him go astray..
                                 - Oingo Boingo
Newsgroups: ba.transportation