HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:40:51 GMT
Reply-To: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Organization: Adobe Systems, Mountain View, CA

Joshua Levy writes:

>...trains are such a horrible way to build a transportation grid, but 
>the mass transit folks need them at the core of their systems.  Trains 
>had their chance in the early 1900s and late 1800s, before the car was 
>widely used, they have since been replaced with something better.  
>Mass transit: the technology of the late 1800s.

This sounds suspiciously like social Darwinism in free-market clothing,
applied to transportation.

1) By "better", do you mean auto *dependence* as we know it?  The 
"universal" mobility of the car has come at a great cost to the 
environment, neighborhoods, and on-road carnage.  It has progressed 
as far as it has only because the substantial external costs have 
been ignored or institutionalized until now.  As we begin to account 
for these "hidden" costs -- an essential "market" step in moving the 
world economy toward sustainability -- the real costs of driving will 
be more apparent, and "better" will take on a new meaning.  

2) Yes, trains *are* used as the core or backbone of transit systems, 
just as are express bus routes -- so what?  To offer time-efficient 
alternatives to auto use, we need a frequent and fairly speedy backbone 
or grid.  Trains are here -- let's develop them into this backbone.  
What's been lacking until now is integration with local/feeder systems, 
both motorized and nonmotorized, in such a way as to create viable 
alternatives.

3) By the word "something", are you implying one single mode (guess which
one?) must provide every trip, and every *part* of every trip, in order 
to be considered.  This is the essence of suburban car-think.  Defining 
"solution" this narrowly led us to where we are today, and does nothing 
to point the way to improvement.

We've hardly begun to tap the possibilities of multi-mode transporation
and combinining communications with dispatching to create a more 
"personal" transit system.  We've hardly begun to create the human-
scale infrastructure that gives people alternatives to auto dependence.

Don't assume that elements of "1800's" technology, combined with 20th 
and 21st century innovation, won't change the transporation landscape.
And telling us how it can't be done -- start suggesting ways to do it.

-- 
John Ciccarelli           Adobe Systems,  1585 Charleston |    _~C      __C
jciccare@mv.us.adobe.com  Mountain View CA USA 94039-7900 |  ='\<,    ='\<,
uunet!adobe!jciccare      415/962-6677,  fax:415/903-0584 | (&)/(\)  (&)/(\)
=== "If you live within 7 miles of your job, why drive?" === BIKE TO WORK ==
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment
From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:19:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.201928.3499@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec15.021225.242@netcom.com> ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
|> >	Second, if I remember correctly, natural gas is composed mostly of
|> >low-molecular weight hydrocarbons (e.g., propane).  The natural-gas repre-
|> >sentative touted the environmental benefits of natural gas, but I'm suspi-
|> >cious.  Anyone care to comment?
|> 
|> My comment is that by focusing on "low-molecular weight", you sound like
|> you're talking about cholesterol, not motor vehicles...

It strikes me as plausible that the relative chemical simplicity of natural
gas compared to other fossil fuels would result in a cleaner burn with 
fewer complex byproducts, but I'm no chemist. I do know that the released
carbon per unit of energy is least for gas among the fossil fuels, and
worst for coal, with petroleum in an intermediate position.

mt

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Socialized parking
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 15:30:46 GMT

In <tl7uf8k@sgi.sgi.com>, Jeremy Higdon writes:

>In article <19754@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com>, tilley@fsh.UUCP (Tom Tilley) w
>> In article <tk3npn0@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) w
>> >The problem today is that supermarkets are forced to provide free parking.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Supermarkets are "forced" to provide free parking by their customers who
>> will not shop at stores which do not provide free parking.  They have the
>> legal right to charge for parking: they choose not to.
>>
>> (I was puzzled by this point since elsewhere you argue that supermarkets
>> should be allowed to provide free parking, or not, as they wish, which is
>> the current situation).

>I don't think you are correct.  Current zoning regulations require a certain
>number of parking places depending on store size, don't they?  I know that
>my company was required to have a certain number of spaces in its parking
>lot.  If a supermarket decided on its own to charge for parking, its
>neighbors would complain mightily, since they would get the cars from
>shoppers.  Even if it isn't in the law (but I think it is), it is a current
>business requirement that supermarkets provide free parking, except in a few
>downtowns.

"Not a law, but a business requirement?"  I would agree with that.  I'd hate
to be a merchant in a shopping center which decided to start charging $5 for
parking.  I'd say that like it or not, free parking is a big draw for your
potential customers and will result in more business and higher profits.

I know that zoning regulations often require X parking spaces for a store of
size Y.  I've never heard that they have to be *free* parking spaces.  If--
and that's a big and all-important IF--that is true, then I believe that it
should be removed.  That's NOT the same as saying that business SHOULD have to
charge for parking--just that they can if they so desire.  Mandated free
parking is a socialist idea, too.  Free parking chosen by the merchants in
order to attract customers is free market economics.  I hope that's a bit more
clear (I haven't read Adam Smith in years, though).

My point is (and has been) that government meddling almost NEVER (with the
possible exception of anti-trust regulations) improves on the free market.
That includes forced free parking or forced pay-for-parking schemes.  The free
market is already at work in most downtown areas.  Why?  Because (a) there are
so few parking spaces available and (b) people are willing to pay it.  The same
people who will pay $5 per hour to park downtown wouldn't even consider paying
$2 for all-day parking at a suburban shopping mall.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
Microsoft Windows.  From the folks who brought you EDLIN.
From: vaughnw@hadar.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Subject: CalTrain shuttle to SFO
Originator: vaughnw@cotati
Organization: Fujitsu NTS
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:20:02 GMT



  At  the Samtrans meeting last Wednesday one of the planners
announced that the airport was was going to pay 80% of the 
funding for a shuttle service between the CalTrain Millbrae
station and SFO. The other 20% is supposedly available from
another pot. The service will meet EVERY train at no cost to
the riders. It should start in late summer.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:59:14 GMT

John McCarthy (jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: Still no numbers from Ethan Miller.
: --
: John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
: *
: He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
: 

	Numbers:

	Net increase in CH4 in the atmosphere, 1978-88:  .2 ppmv
(Blake and Rowland, 1988).

	NCAR methane emissions model budget numbers:

Burden			4500 Teragrams (Tg)
Surface emission	575  Tg/yr
Chemical prod.		5	"
Surface deposition	15	"
Chemical destruction	520	"
Net increase		45	"
Global lifetime		8.4 years

Now somebody calculate how many Tg of methane we need to burn
to satisfy current energy needs.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: forags@smokey (Al Stangenberger)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Methanol-powered buses
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:51:49 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: U.C. Forestry & Res. Mgt.
NNTP-Posting-Host: smokey.berkeley.edu

>In article <Bz4pKG.BEH@taligent.com>, Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com (Rick Donnelly) writes:
>>  To the best of my knowledge, none of the Bay Area transit
>> agencies even have _pilot_ programs in place to replace these diesel-
>> belching bus engines with engines that burn cleaner fuels, like methanol
>> or compressed natural gas (or even gasoline!).
>> Does anyone know why the transit agencies in the Bay Area aren't doing
>> anything like this??  

Golden Gate Transit has (or had) a pilot methanol-bus program.  I don't 
remember the specific numbers, but they found that methanol gave about half
the miles per gallon as diesel fuel but the price was about double that of
diesel.  Also, they would have had to modify their fueling practices since
a methanol-powered bus didn't have enough fuel capacity to run for a full
day without returning to the yard to refuel.

Maybe more demand for methanol would cause increased production and lower
costs.  Also, buses could be fitted with larger fuel tanks or more fueling
stations could be installed.  Given the current status of budgets, though,
I can see why GGT isn't pursuing this project very actively.

-- 
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: Socialized parking
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:43:10 GMT

In article <jyc.724183527@Leland>, jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
> 
> >Haven't you figured out that socialism doesn't work in real life?
> 
>    I read an article in the newspaper recently in which the author
> pointed out that parking in our society is supplied along the principles
> of Soviet-style centralized planning:  a central organization, be it
> government or a private employer, takes it upon themselves to try to
> supply the desired amount of the resource by fiat rather than by
> marketing it.  And the result is that distribution of parking in the
> U.S. encounters the same problems as distribution of sausages in Russia:
> continual shortages, and structural inequities in which the elite (party
> officials in Russia, corporate big shots here) are unfairly supplied
> with the scarce commodity at the expense of everyone else.
> 
>    There's a lot to be said for this idea.  I personally think that all
> public and private parking should be charged directly to those who use
> it at what-the-market-will-bear rates -- and I mean all parking,
> including public curbside parking, employer-provided parking, and the
> lot at your local Safeway.  The resulting fees would no doubt be
> apalling, and a damn good thing too:  people ought to be aware of what
> parking really costs.
> 
>    Since many of the people who denigrate public transit on this
> newsgroup seem to be generally conservative, one might think that they
> would heartily endorse a proposal to end socialized parking and allocate
> this resource according to market principles.  But somehow I doubt we'll
> see this happening.  Like hope, hypocrisy springs eternal in the human
> breast.       

As you may have noticed, conservatives aren't really in power now.
In any case, I think you'd find many conservatives in favor of
such a proposal, though those who want to get elected will probably
be against it, since it would be unpopular, just as liberals who
want to get elected will probably be against it.

One caveat, though.  If your local Safeway wants to provide free
parking, it should be allowed, just as it should be allowed to
subsidize transit users.  But city-maintained parking (i.e. all
curbside parking) should be paid for by parkers somehow.

jeremy
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:39:15 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <27941@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
>re: train frequency and grade separations
>
>It seem as though any traffic problems that the lack of grade
>separations causes would be worst during commute hours,
>when there are the most trains running and cars driving.
>
>Thus, I can't see how running extra trains during non-commute
>times would make much difference in this, so should not
>be an impediment.

First, I think you misread what I wrote.  I said (at least I meant to)
that the added trains would INCREASE the pressure for complete grade
separation.  The pressure is already there, this would merely add to
it.  Significantly, in my opinion.

It would not necessitate separation.  That doesn't occur until the 
frequency of trains does not allow ANY auto traffic through.

Second, my proposal called for trains every 15 minutes in each 
direction ALL DAY.  Current commute hour trains exceed that frequency
only about 30 minutes worth during the day and that is in only one
direction at a time (to SF: 0650-0710 (4 trains), to SJ: 1720-1732 
(4 trains)).

According to the car pool lane hours, commute times are a hell of a
lot longer than 30 minutes a day.

My proposal (ok, pipe dream) would increase traffic problems during
commute hours and other busy times (like lunch hour).  Most of the
Peninusla towns grew up along the track and their downtown districts
are near, if not split, by the tracks.

--
Mike Lipsie                            584 Castro #614, San Francisco, CA 94114
dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
mikel%dosbears.uucp@ingres.com    Running rn (for DOS) with UUPC/Extended 1.11k
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Subject: Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 01:02:46 GMT

In the referenced article, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>There are a handfull of crossings that would really need grade-
>separations from an auto-traffic point of view.  What's lousy
>is that grade-separations are more often than not funded out of
>"rail" funding pots, but really don't provide much real benefit
>for rail service.  So you have officials saying "See, look how
>much we're spending on rail projects!", but the rail-riding
>passenger doesn't really notice or appreciate a grade-separation
>very much.  Grade separations primarily benefit motor vehicle
>traffic so let them be funded out of road and/or highway money
>pots.


I guess it depends on what you mean by "don't provide much benefit for
rail service". They provide at least 3 *extremely important* benefits
to rail service:
  
  1) They keep the trains from having to stop at intersections like
light rail sometimes has to (why assume that the trains have the
automatically superior claim to the crossing?...chauvanism?).

  2) They keep the majority of the population from rising up and
strangling the designers of the rail system and voting against all
transit funding.

  3) They improve safety (which has an effect on 2) both to the train
passengers/operators and those who might be in danger of being hit by
a train. 

Again, who was there first: 5 minute headways on the trains, or auto
and pedestrian traffic? Separated crossings aren't necessary to
operating the train, true. They are only necessary (for at least the
above 3 reasons) for providing short headway service. They aren't
really necessary to automobiles, either, unless short headway service
becomes a reality.

Third: do you really care whether they fund the separations from the
rail money instead of transferring the money over to the highway
budget and funding it from there? Ok, maybe this is would have
political ramifications, but is it a real issue?
-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Socialized parking
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:08:39 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <tl7uf8k@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>
>I don't think you are correct.  Current zoning regulations require a certain
>number of parking places depending on store size, don't they?  I know that
>my company was required to have a certain number of spaces in its parking
>lot.  

I think Tom was refering to the fact that the parking was free, not that
it existed.  There is no requirement that the parking be free; your
company (or a supermarket) could charge for parking if they wanted.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
From: ullman@btr.btr.com (Joseph Albert ullman@btr.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SFO rail transit setback?
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:36:10 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM


Joshua Levy writes:

>...in spite of the fact that the car drivers not only
>pay for all the highways, but also subsidize the mass transit systems.

Not true.  the tax on car licenses does *not* cover the total cost of
highway maintenance.  It is rather a usage fee to offset the total cost
just like bus fares are to buses.  I don't own a car, but taxes collected
from me help subsidize highways just like car drivers help subsidize
public transport.  This is appropriate.  Buses use the roads too, and trains
are only as useful as there are buses to get to them (in the bay area anyway)
and car drivers derive substantial benefit from subsidizing public transport
because it reduces the total usage on the roads, reducing the maintenance
cost of the roads and reducing traffic.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Date: 19 Dec 92 18:32:51
Organization: Berkeley--Shaken, not Stirred
	<1992Dec17.175914.5248@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: elm@cs.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sparc.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:59:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.175914.5248@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
=>Burden			4500 Teragrams (Tg)
=>Surface emission	575  Tg/yr
=>Chemical prod.		5	"
=>Surface deposition	15	"
=>Chemical destruction	520	"
=>Net increase		45	"
=>Global lifetime		8.4 years
=>
=>Now somebody calculate how many Tg of methane we need to burn
=>to satisfy current energy needs.

It takes about 1161 g of methane to equal the energy content of one
gallon of gasoline.  All of the motor vehicles in the United States
consumed about 131 Ggal of gas.  This is about 152 Tg/yr of methane.
This is about 25% of current surface emissions of natural gas over the
entire globe.  Of course, we wouldn't be able to capture all of these
emissions and use them to fuel cars.  However, there's nothing
stopping us from generating even more and burning it.  As long as the
methane is sustainably generated (ie, no fair mining it or using mined
fertilizer) the net carbon load in the atmosphere won't increase.

Could we do this tomorrow?  Probably not; we don't have the
infrastructure.  However, it's a lot easier to convert from mined
natural gas to produced natural gas than it is to switch from gasoline
to natural gas.  We should start sooner rather than later.

ethan
--
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
ethan miller--cs grad student   | "Anybody not wearing 2000000 sunblock's
elm@cs.berkeley.edu             |  gonna have a REALLY bad day.  GET IT?"
#include <std/disclaimer.h>     |  -- Sarah Connor, _Terminator 2_
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2846 sci.environment:13634 ca.environment:1094
From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:43:49
Organization: Berkeley--Shaken, not Stirred
	<1992Dec17.001902.13770@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
	<JMC.92Dec16171509@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<ELM.92Dec16182200@terrorism.berkeley.edu>
	<JMC.92Dec16190639@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: elm@cs.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: joyride.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 16 Dec 92 19:06:39

In article <JMC.92Dec16190639@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
=>Surely, Ethan Miller is kidding us when he signs himself a CS graduate
=>student.  A real CS graduate student would at least mention the
=>possibility that there might not be *enough* methane from the sources he
=>mentions.  If a purely qualitative answer is thought to suffice, he
=>could convince us just be volunteering his own farts.

Yes, we might need more than we can generate from organic waste.
*Any* organic material will do the trick; we can grow plant matter
just for this purpose.  In fact, decaying plants even give off heat
that we can harness to get more energy.  If you *still* can't get
enough energy, the human race is using too much.  Can you say
"sustainable energy use?"  Humanity is currently drawing from natural
reserves.  We don't need to do this, since we still get far more
energy in sunlight than we use.

If we're using more energy than we can produce without drawing on
reserves, we're heading for as big a problem as farmers in the
American West (who have overdrawn the underground aquifers) are
currently up against.  They've got too little water.  We'll have too
little energy.  I guess we'll have to close a few cities for lack of
power to run them.

=>He must actually be a graduate student in English.

Nah, but I play one on TV. :-)

ethan
--
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
ethan miller--cs grad student   | "Anybody not wearing 2000000 sunblock's
elm@cs.berkeley.edu             |  gonna have a REALLY bad day.  GET IT?"
#include <std/disclaimer.h>     |  -- Sarah Connor, _Terminator 2_
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Dec17.001902.13770@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:15:09

Natural gas is essentially methane CH4, the other gaseous fractions being
extracted.  CH4 has the highest ratio of hydrogen to carbon of any
hydrocarbon and hence puts the least amount of CO2 into the atmosphere
for the energy generated.

In contrast to oil, natural gas is in good supply in the U.S.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.