HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant nose BART
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:06:21 GMT


>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>	The Warm Springs extension will have to go through Fremont
>Central Park.


The current cost estimates are for aerial over the park, at
$100 million a mile. Same as any BART along Hwy 101.




>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.


Hwy 101 has 20-30 overpasses all of which have there central 
supports in the what is left of the median. Any BART along that route
would have to be aerial at least twice as high as the existing
overpasses so as to allow usage by trucks. The Hwy 92 in San Mateo
and the Hwy 87 structures are considerably higher. BART would have
to go over both of those, at 60 ft high. 

Much of the median without bridge supports in it is less than 10 ft
wide. Not enough for rail.

Taking a lane out of Hwy 101 is not going to happen even in the wildest
dreams of any foamer.

Any construction would have to happen at night which would increase
labor costs. San Mateo has prevailing wage laws to insure union
work rules.

There are very few activity centers or retail businesses along 
hwy 101.

Any stations would have take land which is probably the most 
expensive in the state. The access roads leading to the highway
are already congested without much opportunity to expand without
expensive relocations.

Any extension of BART will require increased sales taxes and cooperation
from the cities along the route. None of which would lend any support
at all to a route that would avoid their retail and population centers.


Your "In fact" is completely wrong. The Dublin-Pleasanton route follows 
a path that was anticipated when the highways and cities were developed.
Where as the Peninsula was established and developed before and without
any consideration of BART's existence.

There is no source for the $3.5-5 billion dolloar extension to S.J. let
alone a similar expense along the Peninsula. 

The presently planned grade separtions for CalTrain will accommodate
BART also.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Disabled access
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:15:40 GMT


>From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
>It probably is true, but
>from the handicapped point of view, this is greatly inferior service.
>For one, you generally have to make reservations.  Second, you are also
>quite limited in service area.  Third, if you want to go somewhere
>with friends on transit, you can't.



The APTA, Metra and Septa studies that I heard referenced(not read)
indicated that full on demand chauffeured service would be cheaper
than retrofitting existing systems. The other consideration was 
that even on systems with complete access ridership is negligable.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com



Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Downtown CalTrain Station (was Re: Cost of ...)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:04:02 GMT

In article <25917@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
|> <<re: Adrian's comments about the possibility of bringing CalTrain
|>       into the top level of the Transbay terminal rather than underground>>
|> 
|> Has any serious study been done of the cost comparison between
|> an elevated CalTrain and an underground one?

No.  All non-underground alternatives were eliminated from the alternatives
analysis process from the start.  Most likely for political reasons.


|> My intuition would suggest that elevated ought to be cheaper, but
|> thats just a guess.

My intuition agrees with yours on this point.


|> Also, is there any possibility of having an elevated line that would
|> initially be single-tracked into the Transbay Terminal, to reduce
|> costs, with the idea to double-track it later?

The low-cost proposal that TRAC (Train Riders Assn of Calif.) is pushing
would involve a loop through the transbay terminal.  By next week I'll
be able to tell you the specifics since I should have my copy of the
proposal by then.  Remember, this proposal is only being pushed/studied
by transit/train advocate groups at this time.  It is not official, so
if you ask any official agencies, chances are they won't know much.

-- 

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: 28 Aug 92 14:14:14 GMT


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



If you had read them better they only partially agree. Open
mind means they can see something other than BART or CalTrain.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: forags@yogi.berkeley.edu (Al Stangenberger)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Rail on Geary (Was: Re: rail technologies)
Keywords: SkyTrain Geary light rail San Francisco Muni Metro elevated
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:23:18 GMT
Organization: U.C. Forestry & Res. Mgt.
NNTP-Posting-Host: yogi.berkeley.edu

In article <180e0jINNjoo@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>
>
>(I suppose it is vaguely possible that an elevated train might be
>built in industrial districts where there are few residents to
>complain that their neighborhood life will be disrupted.  That's why
>nobody's asking that I-280 be torn down.  In other words, I suppose
>it's possible that an aerial CalTrain extension be approved to the
>Transbay Terminal -- but it could never happen north of Market, or in
>the heavily-populated Richmond district.)
>
If the people south of Market are so powerless, why has I-280 never been
connected to the I-80 approach to the Bay Bridge?  It's only a few blocks
and would keep a lot of through traffic off city streets.

As I remember, the proposed link was actually deleted from the state freeway
plans at the insistence of San Francisco, and the money was to be used for
something else.
 
-- 
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                      
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:27:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.193556.23180@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <p47ipfk@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> 
> |> shared ROW.  The low farebox recovery of the LRT can be attributed to its
> |> greater per unit operating cost compared to bus and its high frequency.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.  Isn't the idea that more people are expected to (and do)
> ride light rail and make up for these factors?  Isn't that why SC LRT has a
> slightly better farebox recovery than SC buses?

As I also said in the posting, what you want to compare is similar
routes.  So you should disqualify feeder routes and low traffic
suburban only routes.  Good comparisons would be with the 66, 68,
and 22 routes, since they serve downtown and have similar operating
hours.  Unfortunately, SCCTD doesn't break down farebox recovery
by line, but they do break down riders per revenue hour.  From that
you can make educated guesses.  Those bus routes seem to have a
superior farebox recovery.  It would probably be even better if
they had their own right of way.

> 
> |> Even the overweight ADB's that we have today are about 27000 lbs. for 40'.
> |> The LRT is 90000+ lbs for 88'.  Canadian buses are only about 23000 lbs.
> |> for a 40' bus, and the 60' articulated coaches are about 35000 or 36000 lbs.
> 
> Comparing the weight per foot of road vs. rail equipment is rather
> pointless: who cares why trains/boats/planes/cars/motorbikes/rockets
> weigh so much/little per foot when compared with a bus?  Yeah, so there
> are reasons, but what's the point?  Apples and oranges.

Not really pointless.  Since it takes energy to start and stop the
things, you want to get the most carrying capacity per unit of energy,
which means the most carrying capacity per pound.  So buses carry more
people per pound than new LRT's.  It's not a big issue, but there does
seem to be opportunity for increased efficiency.  After all, didn't
the PCC cars weigh far less?  I know that Skytrain's new 55 foot cars
are supposed to weigh only 41000 pounds.

jeremy
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Downtown CalTrain Station (was Re: Cost of ...)
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:38:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug31.174220.12801@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>
>This is true for the currently-being-studied official alternatives.
>There is an alternative not being studied which is much cheaper and
>is primarily surface-running.  

Wouldn't the land ROW costs be expensive for that?  

Also, would the surface version be separated from the streets it
would cross (Howard, Folsom, etc.) ?

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or 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: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: SF Tunnels (was Re: Downtown CalTrain Station...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:31:33 GMT
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Organization: lbl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <183034INN5sl@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John
Lazzaro) writes:
|> Are there large stretches of abandoned tunnels in SF that could be
|> rehabilitated for transit use? Or are most of the existing tunnelling
|> in use?  A short list of tunnels in active use would include all the
|> Muni Metro tunnels, the Caltrain Tunnels, the BART tunnels, the
|> Stockton tunnel and the Broadway tunnel.

Hmmmm.  There is the tunnel between the Aquatic Park and Fort Mason,
which perhaps was part of the Belt Railway (though it may well
have preceded it).  It is closed now, and only one track wide,
and of course not near any proposed or likely future rail line
that I know of.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: forags@yogi.berkeley.edu (Al Stangenberger)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Tunnels (was Re: Downtown CalTrain Station)
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:11:57 GMT
Organization: U.C. Forestry & Res. Mgt.
NNTP-Posting-Host: yogi.berkeley.edu

In article <185qaaINNn9a@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>
>I've seen some evidence that the paved running walk along Marina Green
>used to be a rail corridor; you can see some of the rail pop up on the
>street crossings.

The State Belt Railroad used to run all the way into the Presidio.  Until a
couple of years ago, one could still see the tracks running along the south
side of the old Crissy Field airstrip.

During WW II, troop trains could be run into the Presidio, the troops housed
there until they were shipped out on transports from Fort Mason.

-- 
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                      
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: We need an FAQ list
Keywords: FAQ frequently answered question proposed
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:20:00 GMT

In article <17kmb3INN401@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
|> Wouldn't the use of "fixed guideways" imply that other guideways 
|> like roads would not be "fixed"?

Hmmm.  I think "fixed guideways" is redundant.  Anyone know of portable
guideways (other than my old "Hot Wheels" (TM) or slot-car set)?  Is a
road a guideway if it doesn't "guide" the vehicle?  Granted, roads give
drivers cues as to how to steer, but I have never considered (or heard
someone call) roads guideways.  Whatever.


|> cars" and "Light rail -- rail with small cars".  Sounds like I 
|> was pretty much right.

Yeah.  I'm not sure there is an absolutely rigorous right/wrong
test for light vs. heavy rail anyway.


|> I wish one of you nice knowledgeable folks would take a minute 
|> and do this.  So far, I have

[definition deleted...]

Looks pretty good to me.  As I've already suggested, I've never
seen a good definition of these light/heavy terms.


|> Right.  I really dislike the term 'kiss-and-ride' for some 
|> reason I can't explain.  It just seems condescending somehow.  
|> Oh well, I suppose it's just me.

Nope.  It bugs me too--a little.  I guess it conjures up certain
images of "family values" that are all the rage among certain
political factions nowadays.


|> Park and ride -- an auto parking facility for the transit user at 
|>    transit stops or terminals, where the automobile is stored
|>    until the rider returns.
|>  
|> Kiss and ride -- a very short-term parking facility where 
|>    passengers are dropped off or picked up by motorists.

Often inside of, adjacent to, or an official designated part of,
"Park and Ride" facilities.


|> Thanks everyone for the comments.  I'll post an updated version of
|> the whole list soon.

Thank you.  I think your doing a good job.

-- 

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: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:30:04 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug28.193556.23180@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>(Witness San Franciso's plan to put a regularly
>scheduled surface-running LRT service back on Market Street.)

I think the plan to put streetcars back on Market Street (and they are
planned to be old PCC streetcars, not new fancy LRTs) has more to do
with the PCCs having higher capacity than the electric buses now on
the 8-Market line, and the desire to use equipment that will be
maintained anyway to support the historic trolleys, than a preference
for street-level LRT over subway-level.  

In the long term, once the rail moves up the Embarcadero to
Fisherman's Wharf, there will be all of *12* PCCs in active service at
a time.  I find it hard to consider this terribly significant.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or 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: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: BART vs. CalTrain speeds
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:05:50 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug25.163009.5305@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.204242.839@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ 	It just so happens that I rode BART from Lake Merritt to
@ Hayward just last night.

@ 	Here is the time figure: 16-17 minutes.

@ 	I found the distance from actually measuring it on a map:

@ 	13 miles between the two stations.

>BART says it's 10.4 miles.

	That's about right for between Lake Merritt and _Bay Fair_,
but the trip I had clocked was to _Hayward_.

@ 	The ratio is 46-49 mph.

>Using BART's mileage figure makes your so-called "ratio" 36.7-39 mph.

	Well, Bay Fair != Hayward

@ 	And what is CalTrain's average speed?

@ 	It travels 50 miles in 1 hour 40 minutes, giving an average
@ speed of 30 mph.

@ 	And this is for the same kind of territory.

>Today's "slow" CalTrain for same kind of territory:

>FROM         TO             MILES  STOPS  MI/STOP  MIN  MPH AVG
>~~~~~~~~~    ~~             ~~~~~  ~~~~~  ~~~~~~~  ~~~  ~~~~~~~
>San Jose     Menlo Park     18.0    7     2.6      29   37.2
>Menlo Park   San Carlos      5.7    3     1.9      10   34.2

	BART is still faster.

>Note: SJ-MP segment skips College Park & Castro (common practice)

>The CalTrain table assumes a regular non-express train. ...

	The CalTrain trip I clocked was an off-peak train.


...  In
>practice, those commuting to SF often ride one of the many
>express trains that skip many stations, giving much higher
>average speeds.

	Not complaining in principle, but it sure doesn't do much for
station safety...

@ 	Second, CalTrain is not very fast at accelerating or braking.
@ According to Amtrak engineers, CalTrain was the slowest-braking system
@ they ever had experience with.

>This is true.

	[On how the CalTrain locos lack dynamic braking...]

	Not surprising.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Taxes, Development, and Transit
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:34:07 GMT

I sat on this for a while.  So it's a little stale.  But the
talk on taxes for transit made this relevant.

In article <17s63kINNctq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> I think we are *mostly* agreed.  I completely agree with your
> paragraph.  The difference, I think, is that I feel strongly that we
> *must* start planning high-density development around transit, and
> thus I am willing to see a little inefficiency in the transit if
> eventually we're going to get decent usage around it.  It's something
> of a chicken-and-egg problem, and usually in mixed economies like
> ours, it's the public agency that goes first.
> 
> That said, given that we will be stuck with the development we
> have now for a long time to come, I think busways make sense.
> Nonetheless, I think we must plan in the long-term for higher
> capacity.
> 
> I don't know how much a mixed busway/LRV right of way would cost, but
> it strikes me as being a good buy.

We need this sort of stuff (high density development) in planning
before a lot of money spent on transit makes sense.  The worst thing
we could do would be to raise the sales tax and build a big transit
system that then only gets 13% of operating costs from fares, because
little or no development was built around it.  We have to try to ensure
that we don't build white elephants.  The current plan doesn't.

I would support a small sales tax (even though I don't like sales
taxes) to upgrade Caltrain.  Of course, we'd have to make sure that
San Mateo and San Francisco anteed up, too.  It's been said that
Measure A is critical for Caltrain.  Does San Mateo county already
have money set aside for increasing Caltrain service?

I would add that the real need is to build housing, shops, and industry
with regard to serving it via transit.  Vancouver, BC (bc.transportation
again, Aaron) has a lot of relatively low density neighborhoods, yet
the transit service through them is frequent and good.  What they don't
have is the walled in subdivisions, and 100' wide streets that make
walking to transit so lengthy and unpleasant.  I used to live 1/2 mile
from Monterey and Senter, a major South SJ transit connecting point
(near where the Capitol Caltrain station will be I believe).  But the
only way to get there was to hop a 6 foot fence in an apartment
complex or walk 1.5 miles, partly along Monterey highway.  And this is
typical.  There needs to be an agency to break down those barriers.

jeremy
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:21:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


[Adrian and I talking about the F-Market streetcar line on Market
Street in San Francisco.  Track is now being laid for it from Duboce
to Castro Streets.]

In article <1992Aug31.101940@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:

>For those who have not heard this yet, it's a TOURIST LINE!

Well, I'm sure there's a good dose of that in the motivations of those
who are planning it.  However, there is already a bus line there, the
8-Market, which will be directly replaced by the PCC line.  It is
expected that 8 riders will take the F.

>The PCCs cannot be considered real transit any more than the
>historic trolleys were.
>
>Sheesh.

Does that mean that prior to 1980, there was no "real transit" on any
of the Muni streetcar lines because PCCs were being run?

Or, has some magic event happened in the intervening years that has
converted PCCs from "real transit" to "tourist ride?"

It seems to me that transit is whatever takes people where they want
to go.  PCCs, cable cars, horsecars, whatever.  Admittedly, cable cars
and horsecars may not be very useful as transit because of their slow
speed compared to rider expectations, but I don't think that would be
a problem on PCCs.

Besides, speaking for myself, I think PCCs are ugly and hardly worth
riding just for "fun".  They certainly have nothing over buses in this
regard.  Of course, that's just my opinion.  Some of the historic
trolleys don't make my blood run, either.

By the way, I saw a sign today on a bus that said the historic trolleys
will be out from 10:30 to 5:30 on Monday, September 7th.  They're
interesting in a museumish sort of way.  I liked them a lot when I was
13 and riding back to the Sunset from summer school in Berkeley.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or 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"