HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Hirsch)
Subject: BART's "manifest destiny"
Reply-To: rail2000@aol.com
Organization: Peninsula Rail 2000
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:35:41 GMT


Posted for Alan Hirsch of Peninsula Rail 2000:

Supervisor Rod Diridon, Santa Clara County, observed that San Mateo
County's ballot measure on BART (B)--which gives no cost or time frame
is "kind of like asking people if they would like a free Cadillac." 
(At the Wed Sept 6 CalTrain JPB Meeting)

----------------------------


BART general Manager Frank Wilson was heard on KQED FM's "Forum"
show comparing CalTrain to a "Toonerville trolley" and stating
that "if you want to get BART service, it will cost BART type money".  

This, of course, is a lie: anyone can review the schedules and see
BART is at best marginally faster than CalTrain--and slower than
CalTrain's express trains.

Wilson said the way to get BART around the Bay--was for the entire
region to "work together" to get federal funding.  He stated that
if we can get the federal government to commit the entire Federal
Transit Project Budget to Santa Clara and San Mateo Co., we can
get BART around the Bay quite soon.  You wonder how he hopes to
persuade the other 200 metro Areas in the US to put back their
transit plans?

Wilson said they continue to be dedicated to BART's "Manifest
destiny" to ring the Bay.  He failed to mention there is no support
among any of the business or political structures in Santa Clara
County to raise taxes to build BART when lower cost technologies
are available.

The Santa Clara Manufacturing Group members voted unanimously not
to put any funding of BART on the Nov. sales tax extension due to
its high cost and long time to construct.  Instead of 14 miles of
BART they will build 55 miles of light rail and upgrade the
CalTrain line to BART-level service. 

Does anyone have any theories as to why the fixation with BART
and its "manifest destiny" continue when no one has any ideas
how to fund further extensions into San Mateo and Santa Clara
County?

Why does BART management feel the necessity of lying--they have
a good system, and run it rather well--it's just expensive to
extend, and more appropriate in urban areas than the suburbs that
we are now extending service to.

Is it because "for the man with a hammer, everything looks like
a nail", and the BART bureaucracy only has one technological
hammer.

Thoughts?

--

Alan Hirsh
rail2000@aol.com

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: rail technologies (was: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:50:59 GMT

In article <17e2duINNltv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
|> never really had a good definition of light vs heavy rail.  I agree,
|> semantincs are pointless.

Yup.  The light vs. heavy thing is pretty pointless. 


|> Why (he asks ignorantly) can't one run heavy rail and light rail on
|> the same track?

You can.  San Diego's "Tijuana Trolley" (LRT) tracks (to San Ysidro) are
really a freight railroad.  There are still sidings that are serviced
by late-night/early-morning freight trains.  When the trolley was started
they just electrified & upgraded the track (but kept it heavy-rail
compatible).  The SC LRT extension to Mountain View will be built along
the SP spur off the CalTrain line to Moffett field.  One of the light
rail tracks will be available for freights to continue servicing Moffett.
In Germany (I forgot where) they have light rail sharing right of way
with the heavy-rail DB (Deutsche Bundesbahn).  In order to do this they
use dual-voltage LRVs that are also compatible with the German Federal
Railways' (DB) signaling equipment.  The LRVs use the heavy rail (DB)
right of way for a significant segment of their route and have a
private, more LRT-typical right of way for the rest (which is NON heavy
rail compatible).

-- 

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: Pro-rail bias in Adrian's transit
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 02:19:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

I just thought I would give my $0.02 worth on this whole bus vs. rail
discussion.  As I see it there are several advantages to rail, and I
made a decision about where I bought my house based on the fact that
SCCTD was going to build (and now has built) the LRT within walking
distance.  Additionally I am currently looking at where to locate my
business and many of the same criterion apply.  I will likely place my
business along a rail line, and near a freeway exit.

Not only is service by rail typically better (e.g. faster, smoother
ride, etc), but rail systems allow for the following advantages.

    1)  The route is perminant, and some traffic engineer or worse yet,
	some buracrat can not easily decide to re-route the rail
	system, as they do with busses, thus making a location that was
	once easy to reach, more difficult to reach.  This is not
	theoretical, but in fact has happened to me twice before, once
	to an appartment I lived in and once to a place that I worked.

    2)  Governments and transit agencies have more of a commitment to
	rail systems and are less inclined to suffer from funding cut
	backs and almost never to the extent of cancelation of a
	route.  SCCTD just recently made this sort of decisions with
	their latest budget cuts.

    3)  Rail systems are easier to use for the casual or out of area
	rider.  The rider has more confidence that s/he won't get lost
	or get on the wrong train or this train has a slightly modified
	route that doesn't go to the same place.  Again, personally I
	have taken trains in many cities where I am not familiar with
	the transit, but I have been reluctant to take busses in cities
	that I am unfamiliar with.  Additionally if you walk up to
	someone on the street and ask "Where is the nearest <name of
	rail service> station?"  they will usually know where it is
	even if they don't ride that system, but if you ask "where is
	the nearest line 87 bus stop" you will most likely not get a
	useful answer.

I am not a "rail fan" as it were, I am just a person that needs to get
from one place to another.

-- Loren
-- 
=============================================================================
Mr Loren L. Hart                                       The Ada Ace Group, Inc
loren@netcom.com                                       P.O. Box 36195
				                       San Jose, CA  95158
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart)
Subject: Re: November election critical for CalTrain
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 02:21:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ba

bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel) writes:
: 
: 3.   The impact of the road projects in the measure  are  greatly  underes-
:      timated.  The completion of Highways 85 and 87 will trigger new growth
:      in South San Jose, and will encourage people to drive, because "it  is
:      free",  versus  transit,  for  which fares, and in some cases, parking
:      charges, must be paid. Decreases in  air  quality,  and  increases  in
:      congestion,  both  on  the freeways and on the surface streets will be
:      the ultimate result of these construction projects.

This paragraph really has no place in this discussion since all 85 and
the portion of 87 that runs south of 280 will be completed with funds
collected from the old measure A.

-- 
=============================================================================
Mr Loren L. Hart                                       The Ada Ace Group, Inc
loren@netcom.com                                       P.O. Box 36195
				                       San Jose, CA  95158
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Cost of transit systems vs highways
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:17:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.172323.12501@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <p5i4tek@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> If Caltrain gets BART level service (every 15 minutes), how would that
> |> affect the expresses?  Do you think they would still run them, thereby
> |> foregoing 15 minute all-stop service, or would they do something else?
> |> Is this in a plan or EIR or study somewhere?
> 
> The electrification study (I haven't actually held a copy in my hand,
> but have talked with CalTrans guy in charge of it) talks about various
> scenarios.  Some involve high frequency with A/B skip stop service.
> 
> In today's CalTrain, the expresses are run during the time and in the
> direction of the highest train densities--not lowest.

I'm aware of that.  But the frequency is not great at all stops.
For example, there are no stops in SF (except for Townsend) from
about 4:50 to about 6:10 (at least according to my old schedule).
But it's good to know that they aren't going to give up the express
service for a straight 15 minute schedule.  They should keep as
much express service as possible.

jeremy
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Downtown CalTrain Station (was Re: Cost of ...)
Date: 29 Aug 1992 00:43:06 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <chris.715031888@loki>, chris@loki.amd.com (Chris Martin) writes:
|> Are they seriously considering a CalTrain tunnel from 4th/Townsend to
|> the Transbay Terminal?  I had always just assumed that they would more
|> or less position it near or under the freeway.o
|> 
|> Chris Martin                                      chris.martin@amd.com
|> Advanced Micro Devices; Sunnyvale, Ca.; U.S.A.    408/987-9047

I'm sure someone knows more specifically, but I believe the downtown
CalTrain station would be underground, in the immediate vicinity of
the Transbay Terminal, with underground pedestrian connections to
Montgomery BART.

In this flurry of talk of a 7th/Townsend baseball stadium, there
seems to be scant discussion of what would happen to the rail
tracks there.  I recall someone posted the probably scenario if
a stadium were actually built there, but I forgot what it was.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Proof of payment
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:12:47 GMT

In article <pas0htc@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> There are no proof of payment systems for local transit service that
|> I know about.

Santa Clara County, Los Angeles, San Diego (aka "Tijuana Trolley") and
Sacramento LRT are all proof of payment (POP) systems.  POP is where you
are responsible for being able to produce proof of payment of correct
fare via some sort of self-ticketing system (usually ticket machines)
to an inspector (preferably plainclothes) conducting a random inspection
(usually, but not always, aboard the transit vehicle).  Those passengers
caught "cheating" are fined some large amount that is typically in the
range of 40 to 100 times the correct fare.  Using statistical methods,
compliance ratios are easy to calculate and can be "tweaked" by adjusting
inspection frequencies and/or size of fines.

|> Do they use such in Europe?

Extensively.  Although it's pretty much the "wave of the future", there
are still plenty of systems that don't though.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: The San Diegans
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:14:44 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

Adrian Brandt <adrian@ntmtv.UUCP> writes:

	You might not realize this, but average speed doesn't tell you
	much about top speed and how long it was held.

I sure do know this (duh?).  However, if you look at the table, you'll
see that there are very few places that this makes any sense at all
for.  The largest gap between stations is 25 miles, and that one takes
so long I doubt the train gets to 90mph for any appreciable amount of
time (if at all).

Besides, if it doesn't affect the bottom line (average speed), who
cares if it goes 90mph?  It still covers the 129 miles in 3 hours ...

	I can imagine Jordan fighting a speeding ticket in court: "I
	couldn't have been speeding your honor, my average speed was
	only 36.82 mph!"

You must have a vivid imagination.  :-)

Seriously, Vaughn makes it sound like the San Diegans are *zipping*
down the coast, when actually, it looks like there's 2 or 3 places
where it could open up to that kind of speed, only to slow down again
when it gets to the next station.

The term he used was "regularly" ... I question that.

/jordan
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: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:42:20 GMT

In article <25852@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
|> I'm sure someone knows more specifically, but I believe the downtown
|> CalTrain station would be underground, in the immediate vicinity of
|> the Transbay Terminal, with underground pedestrian connections to
|> Montgomery BART.

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.  It would involve electrifying CalTrain
and bringing it into the TransBay Terminal (an train station being
under-utilized by buses).  This would involve a loop with trains
entering the terminal on one side, stopping on one of 2 or 3 tracks
(the rest of the six tracks station would be left for the buses) to
allow for passenger loading/unloading and then exiting the terminal
on the other side and heading back down the peninsula.  This would
make an excellent transfer point between any future BayLink service
across the Bay Bridge because it would use the same station.  At
that point the buses would probably be forced out--but there would
be a lot less of them.  The BART connection is not the greatest,
but like with the existing proposals, there would probably be some
kind of pedestrian tunnel with moving sidewalks connecting to BART
and Muni Metro under Market.



|> In this flurry of talk of a 7th/Townsend baseball stadium, there
|> seems to be scant discussion of what would happen to the rail
|> tracks there.

My hunch is that the stadium and CalTrain will help each other immensely.
The train will be able to deliver long train loads of fans from points
south safely and with minimum parking/traffic hassles.  When games/events
are over, the fans will likewise will be able to climb aboard one of the
several waiting special trains for the ride home with a minimum of hassle.
Has anyone seen what they did in Baltimore with their new "Camden Yards"
baseball stadium?  They have CalTrain-style trains pull right up to the
stadium (closer than you could park!) along with an adjacent light rail 
station.  SF can/could/should do the same.  Muni Metro and CalTrain
service right at the stadium's door.  I've already heard Angela and her
gang refer to it as "Townsend Yards" as an obvious reference to the
Baltimore stadium. 

I'm not especially a baseball fan, but I'm all for the "Townsend Yards"
stadium idea and so I'm hoping that Mr. Shinn character can keep the
Giants in SF!

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: November election critical for CalTrain
Keywords: CalTrain
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:45:41 GMT

In article <71884@apple.Apple.COM>, ehouse@Apple.COM (Eric House) writes:
|> fund, and that once Measure A passes our local politicos (none of whom would
|> be caught outside a SOV) will funnel as much money as possible into the
|> freeways.

I believe some of Measure A will be used to pay for some freeway/road work
that the original Measure A didn't quite finish.  (The original fell short
due to declining sales tax revenues associated with the ongoing recession.)

As I understand it, there are some freeway/road projects in the new Measure
A, but the rest (like around 90% is for transit). 

My sources tell me that it's *highly* unlikely that the freeway/road
projects can take much more than the ~%10 they're getting out of it.
Powerful members of the business community in the form of the Santa
Clara Valley Manufacturers Group and various transit and environmental
groups have been part of the Measure A planning process.  They all want
transit very badly.  The "politicos" would have a very hard time double-
crossing these groups after A passes.  If they were planning something
like that they wouldn't have made the various groups so much a part
of the planning and campaign for it.  Besides, *even* if the
freeway/road lobby were able to double their share of Measure A, that
would still mean 80% of the money goes to transit.

Santa Clara County Measure A deserves a YES vote.
San Mateo County Measure C deserves a YES vote.

State Propostion 156 (Rail Bonds; successor to 108) also deserves a YES.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: forags@yogi.berkeley.edu (Al Stangenberger)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Downtown CalTrain Station (was Re: Cost of ...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:12:34 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: U.C. Forestry & Res. Mgt.
NNTP-Posting-Host: yogi.berkeley.edu

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.
>
The only abandoned tunnel I'm aware of is an old Western Pacific RR tunnel
under Potrero Hill which was abandoned after it caved in due to a fire
consuming its timbers.  All the other tunnels mentioned are in active use.

My dad told me that PG&E once found an abandoned inter-building tunnel under
a street in Chinatown, but that's not the question...


-- 
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: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:45:41 GMT

In article <9208271520.AA04764@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> 
> >From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
> >There are no publicly owned transit systems in this country or in
> >Canada that make a profit.  There are no transit systems of any
> >significant size (certainly no rail-based) that are not publicly
> >owned.  When I use the word transit, I use it in the traditional
> >sense, meaning urban transit, like BART, Caltrain, SCCTD, etc.,
> >not long distance like Amtrak, San Diegans, etc.
> 
> 
> The San Diego trolley system was built without public money but
> is publically owned. Up until last year it ran with a 107% far
> box recovery.

It is currently at 71%, according to the Passenger Train Journal
Light Rail Annual.  I remember figures in the 80% range previously,
not 107%

> 
> If CalTrain is a system then any single leg of Amtrak is also.
> I am not sure what you mean by profit but I am sure you would
> define it in such a way as to justify your claim. 

Cute.  How about a simple definition.  Profit = revenue - expenses.
Is that somehow twisting things?  Is there some new definition?
I know that's the way my company still does accounting.

> Last year the automobile industry did not run at a profit since
> the manufacturers had losses in their automobile divisions and
> the roads are subsidized. Ditto for most of the airlines.

So?

> 
> 
> Along the lines of definition, and according to the Amtrak
> sourcebook:
>                         1990     1989
> 
> Revenues(millions)    $1,308.4   $1,269.1
> Expenses(millions)    $2,011.8   $1,934.5
> 
> Revenue to Expense      .72       .72
> Ratio
> 
> 
> Revenue to Short Term   1.2       1.2
> Avoidable Cost Ratio
> 
> 
> Revenue to Long Term    .93        .91
> Avoidable Cost Ratio 
> 
> 
> 
> Short term avoidable costs-  Costs of activities that would stop 
> with the discontinuance of a route or train, or begin with the
> introduction of a new route or train. Such costs include train 
> and engine crews, fuel and power, and maintenance fo way.
> 
> 
> Long term avoidable costs-  All short-term avoidable costs, plus
> claims expenses, heavy maintenance and a portion of corporate
> and field overhead.
> 
> 
> Clear as  mud, right?

Yes.

> 
>    Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com

jeremy
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:26:48 GMT



In article <9208232223.AA03551@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
|> 
|> Where did you see this estimate? Samtrans has stated $650-850 
|> million. Both are based on a "dual-mode" operation. Neither has been
|> offered for public review. Both include the electrification and the
|> cost of new locomotives. The larger one includes tunneling from 
|> 16th due to the request of a private builder for the Mission Bay 
|> project.
|> 
|> 

>From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
>Sorry Vaughn, as of the last JPB meeting on the 9 year plan that 650-850
>Million figure does not include any new locos or electrification.  Electrification
>is estimated at another $150 Million.




This is where experience counts. Welcome to the world of political pork.
Just because it is a separate item that does not mean it was broken
out of the SF relocation cost. The federal application submitted last
year to UMTA(now FTA) did contain and still contains costs supporting
the dual mode approach. The rolling stock, underground refueling 
arrangement and underground power station are still included in their
costs. The $150 million is based on the current study being conducted
by Caltrans and is not related to the SF relocation. It also is for 
electrification all the way to Gilroy. Many of the projects they list
in the SRTP have costs that are also included in some of the other
projects. The politicians ask for as much as they think they can get
not necessarily what they need.






   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com

Newsgroups: ba.transportation