HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lau@sunset.ai.sri.com (Stephen Lau)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Dirty CalTrain Windows
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:26:02 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA


Just a simple question, Why are CalTrain's windows SO dirty? I ride
the train between Menlo Park and San Francisco and every train I've
been on has dirty windows. Some of them are so bad they looked frosted.

Steve
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:33:01 GMT

In article <r4lsh0s@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> So you think we should grab it for Measure A before some other cause
|> does.  I think we have a decent chance of holding off other causes, and
|> also that it's not a given that some other cause might not be better,
|> like even a better transit measure.

Maybe, maybe not.  You are correct, I think we should grab it by voting
YES on Measure A.


|> given that roads will have gotten a 1/2 cent for ten years.

Roads have gotten *way* more than 1/2 cent for ten years.  Roads have
gotten--and will continue to get for the foreseeable future--lots and
lots of non-road-specific general fund monies that came from taxes.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:56:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.200432.15689@ads.com> henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
>
>do you provide free parking for your staff?  you could stop doing that
>... free parking is a subsidy for those carbound folks ...

How?  What else could the land be used for?  Building more buildings would
would increase traffic (even with better public transit, I bet) and water
usage.  

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: SP Coast Line (San Jose-LA) may be sold
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:34:41 GMT

In article <5217@bacon.IMSI.COM>, jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
|> Adrian Brandt <adrian@ntmtv.UUCP> writes:
|> 
|> 	Projected cost to upgrade track and signals for fast train
|> 	operations (110 mph max speed running): $360 million.
|> 
|> Would this be approximately MetroLiner -type service?
|> 
|> If so, what's the projected running time SJ->LA?  4 hours?

The running times being quoted were more like 6 hours.  Although
I said the $360 million one-time upgrade cost would get 110 mph
max running speeds, there would still be plenty of sub-110 mph
running.  Running time could be reduced further for more money.
The envisioned equipment would be tilt-train technology like that
used in Europe.  Tilt-trains allow higher speeds through curves.
An SP official was asked whether they would have to electrify the
Coast Line in order to do this, and he responded that it wouldn't
be necessary and that diesel powered equipment could do the job.


For truly high-speed, I like the "CalSpeed" study recommendations.  It 
talks about using TGV-type equipment with a 200mph max cruising speed.
The running time from SF to LA would be about 2 hours 40 min.  SJ to
LA would be less since the SF peninsula would only be 100 mph running
and would have a stop at SF airport.  The right of way would jump over
into the Central Valley from Gilroy by running roughly parallel and
near Pacheco Pass.  The price of the SF - LA trunk line of this very
high speed network is put at $9 billion.


-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:06:47 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Oct9.163712.530@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>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.
>

You're right.  Flexi-hours only helps personal transporation like bikes
and cars.  Government transporation wants everyone to travel at the same
time.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.politics
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:03:14 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

I wrote:
>>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. 

John Larraro replied:
>If this were true, would housing prices in the city of San Francisco
>be the highest in the Bay Area?  There isn't a neighborhood in the
>city that "has a large lot" and a lot of the neighborhoods are
>attractive precisely because they are a reasonably close distance from
>the workplace.

Demand is only half the price equation.  Supply is the other half.

Lets say that 10 people want to by houses in S.F. and 100 want to buy
them in the suburbs.  At the same time there are 8 houses in S.F. but
120 in the suburbs.  What happens?  Higher prices in S.F. while the 
majority of people want to live in the suburbs.

Also: I suspect that houses in Atherton and Woodside cost more than
houses in S.F.  

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:04:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.175707.5914@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct07.203025.24187@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
|> >They failed miserably because people thought of them as taxis,
|> >very cheap taxis.  After a very short time, the wait to get
|> >one was far too long (40 minutes? an hour?  I don't remember).
|> 
|> So you're saying they failed because people liked them too much.
|> I can see that the public transit agencies have done their best
|> to insure that such an unfortunate situation never happens again.

And rightly so.  If you wind up having to wait longer than 30 min
for demand-based transit that costs an arm and a leg to provide for
a relatively small number of people, you might as well forget it,
since scheduled transit usually comes at least that frequently
and can carry more people in a more predictable way for less money.

Now if they'd only tailor it to get people where they want to go
quickly instead of tailoring it to cover the most territory possible
with the least number of lines (meandering bus syndrome), it might
be something even more people would use.  Relatively direct and
relatively faster (when compared to most buses) light rail is a
step in the right direction.  But here again, there seems to be
a lack of emphasis on speed--something many of us care about.
Lack of signal pre-emption and low speed limits (like 35mph) are
the problem here.  This can only improve to the extent that transit
officials realize the importance of being competitive with auto
travel.  Of course, being auto-competitive is rather difficult when
you're not adequately funded to put the necessary infra-structure
in place and to run transit vehicles at attractively high frequencies.

Of course government-imposed regulations such as the ADA (Americans
w/Disabilities Act) that are very costly to comply with are just
another transit-hobble when they aren't accompanied by any funding.
Until US and state transit attitudes, policies and funding sync-up
to make serious attempts at making transit really work, don't expect
too much.  It amazes me what good transit we've got considering the
lame institutionalized attitudes government agencies have toward
transit.

Vote YES on Santa Clara County Measure A.
Vote NO  on San Mateo County Measure B.
Vote YES on San Mateo County Measure C.
Vote YES on state proposition 156.

They're all steps in the right direction.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart)
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:26:03 GMT

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
: In article <1992Oct07.203025.24187@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
: >They failed miserably because people thought of them as taxis,
: >very cheap taxis.  After a very short time, the wait to get
: >one was far too long (40 minutes? an hour?  I don't remember).
: 
: So you're saying they failed because people liked them too much.
: I can see that the public transit agencies have done their best
: to insure that such an unfortunate situation never happens again.

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.

	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.

I am not saying that an on-demand system will definitely work, but only
that the Dial-a-ride experience is NOT proof that it couldn't work.

--Loren


-- 
=============================================================================
Mr Loren L. Hart                                       The Ada Ace Group, Inc
loren@netcom.com                                       P.O. Box 36195
				                       San Jose, CA  95158
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Date: 14 Oct 1992 04:54:35 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <r20998s@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>This succulent little pork chop (hmm, I get hungry thinking about it)
>is great, because, like the Colma BART station, the rest of the country
>is paying for it (though we get the indigestion of funding it once
>it's built -- at least parking garages are cheap to operate).

We help pay for transit in Massachusetts and Texas and Florida, they
help pay for transit here.  We did, after all, contribute to the
federal taxes.  

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
  Bring in the workers, and bring up the rails;
  We're gonna lay down the tracks, and tear up the trails. 
  Open her heart, let the life-blood flow,
  Gotta get on our way 'cause we're movin' too slow.
    -- Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy"
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 16:00:18 GMT

In <qrlmrks@sgi.sgi.com>, Jeremy Higdon writes:

>In article <1992Oct08.225223.17362@Veritas.COM>, joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Lev
>> >* "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.

>It's not as hard as you might think.  With a hub-and-spoke transit
>system, you can get pretty reliable transfers.  And late at night,
>when this is especially useful, traffic is least likely to cause
>lateness.

I would heartily agree.  With the funny looking network known as the Santa
Clara County Transit system, there are very many connections between lines.
"Assured connection" would require precise timing with close to 10 other bus
lines in some cases.  By using one or two "main lines" operating with few stops
at high speeds (like BART or CalTrain), and local connections to those other
stations, we could not only have all of the buses leave right after the train
arrives, but it would be far easier to plan to have all feeder lines enter
a "hub" at or near the same line.

For example, I can walk/bike/drive to the Blossom Hill CalTrain station (but
with only two trains daily, it's hard to rely on this), board the train, and
get off at the Sunnyvale station.  I could then get on the 54, which should
(ideally) be waiting and ready to leave.  The 54 would then drop me off right
in front of the building I work in.  With CalTrain going from South San Jose to
Sunnyvale in around 30 minutes, and a bus waiting to depart from the Sunnyvale
station, I could commute to work in 45 minutes.  And that's with existing
schedules!  They could certainly cut 10 minutes from that by creating more
express runs and having the bus depart right after the train arrives.  Such a
system would be as fast as existing SCCT "express runs" (the express bus I
sometimes use, the 122, still takes about 50 minutes).

Such a system would require that local bus routes begin and end at major
"transit hubs" where there are train stations.  It would be a change, but it
sure beats getting on the 81 and transferring to the 28 and then to light rail
and then to the 53....

As soon as they add more CalTrain runs south of Tamien, I'll be ready to use
it...and I'm still trying to get my employer to issue Commuter Checks... :-(


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:25:57 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

I wrote:
>>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.  

Aaron Priven replied:
>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.  

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.  It is these wants which fuel land
use via zoning.  Once you have this zoning and land use, cars become
the only workable transporation method (unless John C's ideas are 
developed).

People don't want cars per se, they wanted to live on a large lot far
away from (noisy, smokey, ugly, dangerous, ...) industries.  The only
way to get these things is by using a car to rapidly move between
home and office.

Joshua Levy  (joshau@veritas.com)
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2470 ba.politics:6001
From: forags@smokey (Al Stangenberger)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.politics
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Date: 9 Oct 1992 23:05:42 GMT
Organization: U.C. Forestry & Res. Mgt.
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: smokey.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct9.222952.19310@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	Sounds like rather desperate penny-pinching. If there is to be
>TGV-speed intercity service along the Peninsula route, then _all_ the
>grade crossings will have to go.

probably.

>And that means no 15-minute-headway
>locals, whether CalTrain or BART, on the route.
>
Why does this follow?  What's wrong with passing tracks and centralized
traffic control?  Doesn't the TGV operate on local lines going into
cities?

-- 
Al Stangenberger                    Dept. of Forestry & Resource Mgt.
forags@violet.berkeley.edu          145 Mulford Hall - Univ. of Calif.
uucp:  ucbvax!ucbviolet!forags      Berkeley, CA  94720
BITNET: FORAGS AT UCBVIOLE          (510) 642-4424  FAX: (510) 643-5438
From: ForDavid@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Should CalTrain be Saved?
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:22:36 GMT
Reply-To: ForDavid@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1992Oct5.212019.25347@octel.com> (ba.transportation), marc@octel.com (Marc Lewert) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.181800.4037@ads.com> henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
> >dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com wrote: 
> >->I think the "... but I can't get a seat. " whine is just a flimsy
> >->excuse for not getting out of their single occupant vehicle.
> >
> >exactly ... 
> >
> >what i don't understand is why these buttheads don't see how flimsy
> >this argument is ... unless you are infirm, differently-abled, or
> >elderly, there is no good reason to spend so much time thinking about
> >"will i be able to sit for the fifteen minutes it takes to get from A
> >to B?"
> >
> ...
> 
> Calling people names does not help either point.  Also, the more restrictive
> the laws, the more people are likely to rebel and change the system to
> benifit themselves.  That has already happened, how many places are horses
> allowed?
> 
> By the way, what does 20 minutes of time cost these days?  What does it cost
> the person who saves that amount of time using their car rather than transit?
> What does it mean to them if they do not get to sit down?  What does it mean
> to them to stand out in the weather (good, bad or indifferent) for periods
> of time?  These are all items that consously (sp?) or not, a person takes
> into account when they choose their mode of travel.

Just remember that people pay 10 or 20 THOUSAND dollars more to
buy a car that is more quiet, has more room, and is more
comfortable than they might have if these things didn't matter to
them.

Many people do care about these little things - and are willing
to pay for them.  Otherwise everyone would be driving a Ford
Escort rather than a Lexus or even a Honda Accord.

--  Michael Peirce      --   peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org
--  Peirce Software     --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--                      --   San Jose, California USA 95117
--  Makers of...        --   voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
--            SMOOTHIE  --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.politics
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: SC County to make big transit cuts
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 20:32:07 GMT

In <1992Oct16.183640.7977@ntmtv>, Adrian Brandt writes:

>Did anyone else see the story in Thursday's SJ Mercury about the
>big cuts Santa Clara County Transit are going to make?  The story
>mentioned that cuts will affect all but 4 or 5 bus routes.  Bus
>ridership is down while light rail ridership is up.  Overall,
>transit use is down (due to the economy?).  Light rail midday
>frequencies will probably be reduced from 6 per hour to 4 per
>hour (15 min. headways).  Also, the special peak period Almaden
>branch runs will likely be eliminated.

That's not too bad.  There will still be 10 minute headways during peak
hours.  At least the 122 was left untouched in the version I saw...but then,
that *is* one of the more popular routes...I assume the 521 (another of the
heavily used routes) was spared, too.

>The final decision on all this will be made on:

>Tuesday, November 3, 9:00am (election day)
                      ^^^^^^

9:00 AM?  They always do this and it pisses me off.

They always schedule these things when commuters are at work.  As it is, only
the unemployed and the retired people can be heard.  Maybe that's why the
seniors always get a break at the expense of commuter service...and why the
express passes rose $16 and $21 per month while the seniors' passes went up
only $2--and included express service to make up for the "hardship" of the
$2 increase!   Grrrrrr....

>Santa Clara County Transit District Board Meeting
>Board Chambers
>County Administration Building
>70 West Hedding Street, San Jose

Is this the address I should write to if I want to protest the time of the
hearing?

>These cuts are said to be pretty significant.  The last round of
>cuts cut "fat".  These are said to start hitting "muscle and bone".

Hmmm...you mean there's a government agency which actually cuts fat before it
cuts muscle and bone?  Tell all of the other government agencies!

>If Measure A fails, you can bet there will be some very draconian
>cuts.

I think that the timing of the hearing and the threats of draconian cuts are
politically motivated to make the passage of Measure A more likely.

>Vote YES on Measure A to support and improve SC County transit.

Maybe (sigh)...I just wish they would add more express and super express
routes and increase their frequency.  That would be money better spent than
the hundreds of millions for more light rail pork.  Light rail is useful as
a feeder to downtown and that's about all.  You could add a lot of bus and
CalTrain service for $500 million...


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
***************************************************************************
"The word 'politics' comes from the Greek root 'poly,' meaning many, and
'tics,' meaning blood-sucking parasites." -- Andre Marrou
Newsgroups: ba.transportation