HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Sources (was Re: Cars as "something better")
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:35:28 GMT
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

>Aren't there any people with families in this news group?  
>
>I'm always amazed at people who keep saying how cool it is to spend
>all that time on a train or bus so you can get your reading done.
>
>I'd say saving 20 minutes on a daily commute so someone can spend that
>time with their kids is a darn good trade off.

Just be honest about how selfish that attitude is: the auto use is vary
bad for your kids. 20 min. of being with you can't compensate for having
their lungs destroyed with toxic emissions. You are like the beggars
(we now call them "homeless") who bring their kids along to get sympathy:
they are harming their kids, but asking you to help them "for the sake
of the kids"! Such hypocracy!!!
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:35:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.211932.22655@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.173025.6440@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
: Some people find riding on various forms of transit to be anywhere
: from unpleasant to physically sickening to physically dangerous.

[One laptop-computer user on CalTrain...]

>Sometimes, when I'm riding CalTrain, and I gaze around at all the
>people working or grading papers or reading or sleeping or gazing
>out one of the windows while muching on some food and having a
>beer or just talking to friends or business associates (in person
>or on their cellular phones) or just sleeping, I think about the
>comments I sometimes read here that say things like "some people
>find riding on various forms of transit to be anywhere from un-
>pleasant to physically sickening to physically dangerous" and smile.

	On BART, I've never seen anyone use a laptop computer, but I
_have_ seen a lot of people reading. And I myself have done a lot of
reading on BART trains. Sometime I get worried that I might arrive at
my destination before I finish a newspaper I had found (seriously). So
the time is not wasted, as it would be if I was driving.

	Last but not least, the talkative have a chance to converse,
something which is sometimes distracting to me.

	As for Wilson Heydt's colorful reactions, I am willing to
concede that a lot of city buses come rather close, at least for me. I
am exquisitely annoyed that even the most recent-model buses are not
nearly as comfortable as many of the rail vehicles I've ridden. Their
"suspension" seems more like bump amplification, and I've experienced
rough acceleration and braking too many times. Most of the rail
vehicles I've ridden are much smoother-riding.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:04:11 GMT

-I am fairly new to this group, so I was wondering if the recent
-discussion of "Cars as "something better"" had considered the
-potential impact of IVHS technology? Did it all start there?
 
WHAT technology??? IVHS is a useless, last-ditch effort to save
a basically moribund technology. It's like Star Wars (& has the
same purpose -- to make money for the contractors, not to provide
anything useful). A good example is the signs on the Bay Bridge
warning you of a jam up ahead. So what are you supposed to do --
turn around???

-No discussion of the future of cars or mass transit, or even
-how to improve on or solve transportation problems should overlook
-the trend towards IVHS. Clearly Smart cars and highways will not be
-a panacea, but it will inevitably factor into our society over the 
-next several decades.
 
Yes, and be a collossal waste of money. Just like Star Wars.

-There is a lot of money being targeted at this new industry, and
-some companies/agencies/universities have gotten on the bandwagon
-for fear of being left behind.

Money (not common sense) rules.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy)
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Organization: Expert Support Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:56:18 GMT

In article <1hcvqdINNs7u@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>
>I didn't include AC Transit, GGT, SSCTA, ... if that's not
>overcompensation, what is?  Face it, your 3% number needs a detailed
>justification; a simple reality check says its bogus.

The 3% number is for Santa Clara County (that is where I live and work).
I should have made that more clear; the 3% number is _not_ for the
whole Bay Area.

Your analysis contains two problems, which have not yet been discussed.
First, you BART number are maximums, not averages.  I think
that the BART system had 230,000 boardings on one day in the last
decade.  The more normal number is 190-210K, as I remember.  I don't
know about your MUNI numbers.  The open question with the MUNI number
is how they handle transfers.  Since MUNI is mostly a bus system, it
will likely have lots of transfers, if these are all counted in your
770,000 number, then the number of riders might be less than that 
by a factor of 4 or 6, not just 2.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:58:30 GMT

In article <92358.33465.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
|> I was at a meeting in Milpitas last year about extending Bart from
|> Warm Springs to downtown San Jose, and the cost was over $200 million
|> per mile.  See that?

Yup.  I hope everyone sees it.  BART costs a lot to extend.  Just about
anything having to do with BART costs a ton.  The sooner folks wake up
to that fact and realize that it's really stupid to wait 10 or 20 years
for BART to ring the south bay at enormous cost (several billion $),
versus starting a heavy rail CalTrain-type rail service along one of
the three existing railroad rights of way to connect San Jose with the
east bay and even to easterly points like Livermore and the Central
Valley "bedroom" communities of Silicon Valley.  Such a service could,
over the course of a few years, be upgraded to run as frequently as BART
(where needed) by double-tracking and electrifying one or more of the
already-existing and operating railroad rights of way.


|> Light rail north of downtown San Jose was a classic pork project.

Maybe so, but I sure wish they routed it into, or at least near, the
airport...   Rod Diridon once told me that there is/was a "standing offer"
to the <city?, airport?> to extend a light rail loop into the airport
area.  I suppose the target of the offer (the airport and/or city I
presume) never took it.  Probably because a light rail link might
threaten the income generated by parking and rental car and taxi and
limo/shuttle concessions...

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:50:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1i52riINNemr@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>To make a more general point, the layout of San Francisco naturally
>fits with mass transportation, and this is the real reason MUNI and
>BART have high ridership compared with other systems. 

Absolutely true, but you seem to imply that the layout of SF caused
the prevalence of mass transit, and not the reverse.  From the 1870s
to 1940s, when most of San Francisco was built, the predominant
transportation method in San Francisco was the streetcar (or cable
car), and the buildings were built to be served by them.  It's not
like there's something inherent in the topography, or something, that
makes cars unusable.

>Take a swatch
>through Silicon Valley that represents the same number of residents
>and employees as San Francisco, and you have an area that is very
>difficult to service with mass transit, an area where the freeways are
>hell at rush hour (with no earthquake excuses to fall back on), 

The only excuse, of course, is that it's so difficult to get around in
Silicon Valley any *other* way that noone does it.  But of course one
could rebuild Silicon Valley to change that.  It would take decades,
of course, but there's an awful lot of land down there that could be
built on tomorrow if you could eliminate some parking places.

>an area with higher smog than the rest of the Bay Area

To be fair, I think this has more to do with the air currents and the
mountains than the lack of transit.

>And good mass transit is one piece of the
>puzzle for these people; if BART and MUNI were as anemic as Caltrain
>and SSCTA, SF would be uncommutable and shrinking.

Well, I think you attribute quite a lot to the transit system.  But I
agree, it's one piece.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
  Bring in the workers, and bring up the rails;
  We're gonna lay down the tracks, and tear up the trails. 
  Open her heart, let the life-blood flow,
  Gotta get on our way 'cause we're movin' too slow.
    -- Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy"
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 29 Dec 92 07:32:08 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1992Dec23.211932.22655@ntmtv> (ba.transportation), adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.173025.6440@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
> |> Some people find riding on various forms of transit to be anywhere
> |> from unpleasant to physically sickening to physically dangerous.
> 
> In addition to common sight of seeing people doing work on the train
> I'm really starting to see a lot of laptop computer users.  One guy
> I used to see a lot would get on and find a vacant "double" (a pair
> of double seats facing each other).  On the opposite seat he would
> set up his computer, put down a mouse pad and hook up his mouse, and
> spread out some notes and manuals.  Then he would put on his walkman
> and start working.
> 
> Sometimes, when I'm riding CalTrain, and I gaze around at all the
> people working or grading papers or reading or sleeping or gazing
> out one of the windows while muching on some food and having a
> beer or just talking to friends or business associates (in person
> or on their cellular phones) or just sleeping, I think about the
> comments I sometimes read here that say things like "some people
> find riding on various forms of transit to be anywhere from un-
> pleasant to physically sickening to physically dangerous" and smile.

I'd venture to say that by observing the people riding on a transit
system, you've already selected those who have rejected it for whatever
reason.  

--  Michael Peirce      --   peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org
--  Peirce Software     --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--                      --   San Jose, California USA 95117
--  Drop by booth #4463 --   voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
--  at MacWorld Expo/SF --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Bicycles to commute within a work campus: Any successes ?
Date: 24 Dec 1992 00:33:05 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: ba
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154
Keywords: bicycles work

In article <1992Dec23.201739.2476@netcom.com>, jaxtell@netcom.com (Joseph
Axtell) writes:
|> 
|> Does anyone work for or know of a company that encourages its workers to 
|> get between the buildings of a spread out (1/2 mile) campus ?
|> 
|> <<rest deleted>>

I've always been under the impression that IBM had/has bikes for this
purpose in its big campus south of San Jose.

I also think (not certain) that Lawrence Livermore Lab does this too.

If you want to get more ammunition, maybe you could lobby the MTC
to include this as a "brownie point" in any requirements made of
the large employer.

Having a guarded site no doubt makes this more feasible.
You also might try rec.bicycles .

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov 
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,talk.environment
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:17:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.005636.12897@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <ljeosiINNac@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, daa@northbrook.Eng.Sun.COM (Dean Angelico) writes:

:|: No discussion of the future of cars or mass transit, or even
:|: how to improve on or solve transportation problems should overlook
:|: the trend towards IVHS. Clearly Smart cars and highways will not be
:|: a panacea, but it will inevitably factor into our society over the 
:|: next several decades.

:I think IVHS will 1) cost a lot of money, and 2) essentially be a waste
:of time because it is just pushing out (extending) the saturation point
:of our existing infrastructure. ...

	[rest of AB's criticisms deleted...]

	There is also the question of availability. Is there any IVHS
system that is anything more than vaporware? And what are the
capabilities of whatever operating (non-vaporware) systems that have
been designed? And how are IVHS systems supposed to work, anyway?

	Improved automatic train control would be a better investment
of such efforts, IMO. This would enable running more trains on a line
with greater safety and greater capacity. At least rail-transit
systems are not vaporware.

	And by the time that "smart" cars that don't need to be driven
are developed, all the transit agencies and taxi companies will have
gotten "smart" driverless buses and vans and taxis, which pick people
up "on demand" at appropriately equipped stops, and which do not need
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:30:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.145532.7225@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>-I know this is part of the mass transit dogma, but you igore the
>-massive external costs of mass transit: my time!  You also ignore
> 
>I don't. Cars waste more time, because they cause drivers to waste
>their time. On transit, 100% of the time is useful time for me.
                                                         ^^^^^^
I think this is the crucial point.  We all understand, Mr. VAndeman,
that you hate cars.  We also understand that you find all the time you
spend on mass transit useful *to*you*.  That cannot be generalized.
Some people find riding on various forms of transit to be anywhere
from unpleasant to physically sickening to physically dangerous.

Were there a universal panacea, we'd probably all support it, but
mass transit isn't it any more that private cars are.  Your dogmatic
statements against cars merely show you own biases.  Others have other
biases.

What happens in the long run largely depends on what assumptions you
make and how "long" you look.  Under some assumptions, the private car
*is* sustainable into the indeterminate future.  Under others--it
isn't.  You have chosen assumptions that doom the car in the short
term.  Have you done so because you think those are realistic
assumptions--or have you done so out of hatred for cars?

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: jaxtell@netcom.com (Joseph Axtell)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Bicycles to commute within a work campus: Any successes ?
Summary: How to do your work witin a 1/2 mile distributed campus ?
Keywords: bicycles work
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:17:39 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Hi,

Does anyone work for or know of a company that encourages its workers to 
get between the buildings of a spread out (1/2 mile) campus ?

A company I have in mind has a large central campus, and a large sub-campus
consisting of 2 buildings, 1/2 mile away, seperated by 2 different streets 
that are both speed limited to 35 miles per hour.

My idea is that this company buy 3 or 4 bikes and leave them parked at
racks that are at a known spot in front of each campus.

I feel soooo silly getting in my car to go between campuses.  And the distance
is just a little too far to do your work and travel between the two 4 times a 
day.

Detailed solutions welcome :) !
From: daa@northbrook.Eng.Sun.COM (Dean Angelico)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Date: 22 Dec 1992 18:50:58 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: daa@northbrook.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: northbrook


I am fairly new to this group, so I was wondering if the recent
discussion of "Cars as "something better"" had considered the
potential impact of IVHS technology? Did it all start there?

No discussion of the future of cars or mass transit, or even
how to improve on or solve transportation problems should overlook
the trend towards IVHS. Clearly Smart cars and highways will not be
a panacea, but it will inevitably factor into our society over the 
next several decades.

There is a lot of money being targeted at this new industry, and
some companies/agencies/universities have gotten on the bandwagon
for fear of being left behind.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:44:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.002028.12690@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>>> Your comments are worthless, unless you propose better figures. Plan a light
>>> rail line (not BART -- we are talking about light rail) & an EQUIVALENT
>>> freeway (in person-carrying capacity: one rail line = several freeway lanes)
>>> and THEN do the comparison.
>>
>>To me the comparision would be 
>>
>>	freeways <-> heavy rail
>>
>>	main roads <-> light rail
>
>Actually, a light rail line can carry the equivalent of a freeway, I 
>am told. They can reach 55 MPH or more.

And a car can do 55 (or more) on city streets.  In neither case does
it mean it's a good idea or that it's a 'normal' operating condition.

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:46:19 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1523@dosbears>, mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie) writes:
> In article <1992Dec29.035618.8820@homespace.mtview.ca.us> joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy) writes:
> 
> >                                                             I don't
> >know about your MUNI numbers.  The open question with the MUNI number
> >is how they handle transfers.  Since MUNI is mostly a bus system, it
> >will likely have lots of transfers, if these are all counted in your
> >770,000 number, then the number of riders might be less than that 
> >by a factor of 4 or 6, not just 2.
> 
> "mostly a bus system"?  What do you mean?  MUNI uses electric and
> diesel rubber wheeled vehicles, electric tracked vehicles, and
> cable cars (although most cable cars riders now are tourists).
> 
> All trips are "short" trips -- a requirement in a city that is
> seven miles square.
> 
> And your transfer factor logic is wrong.  The MUNI transfer system 
> allows a maximum of two transfers.  If a trip requires more, you 
> buy another fare and thus get counted again.

It still hasn't been established whether that 770000 number is boardings,
or trips.  Most transit agencies just count boardings.  MTC has counted
both in their studies.  So if you pay a fare and transfer twice, you
are counted three times.  Same with a monthly pass.

This is the easiest way for the agencies to do this.  Some think this
is manipulating statistics, but that isn't the purpose.  It would be
very difficult to count any other way, short of asking riders whether
they had been counted yet today.

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 30 Dec 1992 00:29:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

Unspecified in the article exactly what it means, your interpetation
is the worst case interpetation and may or may not be correct.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:32:26 GMT

In article <1hvfruINNdlm@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
> In article <u915dm4@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >
> >It still hasn't been established whether that 770000 number is boardings,
> 
> That's 830,000, the 770000 number I quoted was outdated.

Whatever.  I just repeated what was in the messages I read.

> >or trips.  Most transit agencies just count boardings.  MTC has counted
> >both in their studies.  So if you pay a fare and transfer twice, you
> >are counted three times.  
> 
> But in MUNI`s case it really doesn't matter so much, because one
> (usually electric) vehicle gets you from the Financial District to any
> neighborhood, and the neighboorhoods are small enough that the walk to
> your apartment or house is a few blocks.  When 800,000 people live in
> 49 square miles, the need for transfers goes way down.

Not everyone goes to the financial district, you know, even among
commuters.

What does it matter, anyway?

jeremy
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 24 Dec 1992 18:33:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec24.170039.23890@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>Not in the case of BART, you didn't.  That number is the raw figure
>BART puts out. 

I divided by two when I did my calculation (17 Million) -- that's what I meant!

> Plus you have to compensate for multi-mode trips. 

I didn't include AC Transit, GGT, SSCTA, ... if that's not
overcompensation, what is?  Face it, your 3% number needs a detailed
justification; a simple reality check says its bogus.