HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: RR bridges, was Cost of transit systems vs highways
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:09:07 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: na
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Aug17.234750.16894@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
|> I won't argue that the LRVs will go over 55, but that's the way the
|> article was written.  In practice, they don't do that any more than
|> BART trains do 120.  In theory, no one actually know what a BART train
|> will do--only that i's something greater than 120.  What's the highest
|> you've ever heard of someone getting out of an LRV?
|> 


I've been on board an LRV in Boston that was doing greater than 60mph
in standard service (i.e. I was just looking over the operators shoulder).
This was on the D green line to Riverside.

I'm not sure of the top speed of any particular LRV, but there were
electric interurbans in the US that regularly did 90mph.  I believe
this was the North Shore line running out of Chicago, but someone 
else could tell you that.  As far as I know there isn't any limit to the
speed of a rail car due to it being an LRV, just that systems currently
designed don't call for more than that.  Heck, even the Boeing LRVs, that
bane of the transit industry, do 50mph on a regular basis.

Later,
George



-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:47:36 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <9208131453.AA01243@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> 
> >From: editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson)
> >To a pretty fair extent, I've come to agree with you,
> >Vaughn, that significant cost savings could be achieved by
> >using conventional rail technology for interurban rail
> >transit in the Bay Area, particularly where conventional
> >tracks and other infrastructure already exist.  
> 
> At least somebody has an open mind.

I like your definition of open mind: "they agree with *me*".

Just because someone takes issue with some (many) of your statements
doesn't necessarily mean that they disagree with all of your
statements.  I also happen to believe that we don't want to spend
what it would take to extend BART into Santa Clara county, to
Tracy, etc.

I happen to think that Caltrain should be electrified and given 20
minute service all day with whatever technology that can be done with
most easily and cheaply.  I don't think that burrowing from Townsend
to the Transbay terminal is practical, given the cost.  Why not
dedicate two lanes for buses, and provide a free bus connection.
That would allow the bus to make maximum speed (wouldn't have to wait
for people to pay fares, you could board from any door, etc.).
The bus could also drop people right on top of a BART
station.  This could be done for far less than the interest on
the underground extension, and the extra time taken could be minimized
by the fact that the bus would pick up at more convenient locations
than the transbay terminal.  A minimal alternative would be for
Muni to accept the Caltrain tickets.

It would be a nice idea to provide a ticket machine on the bus, so
you could get that out of the way if you wanted.  The bus should also
wait for incoming trains, and the trains should wait for the bus as
long as it wasn't more than 5 minutes late.

If the proper publicity were given to this connection (put it on
tourist maps like BART is, specially painted buses, Caltrain stops
on Market, etc.), I believe that people would find it easy to use.

jeremy
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: RR bridges, was Cost of transit systems vs highways
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:27:35 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Distribution: na
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <oofmlm4@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.224134.6500@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug18.202013.11210@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug18.155217.28486@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>> >|> In article <1992Aug18.035549.4394@redsox.bsw.com>, campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>> >|> > (Boston's Green Line 
>> >|> > (very nice, except that the air conditioning is  . . .
>> >|> > too effective). 
>> >|> 
>> >|> I find it extraordinary that one can have air conditioning that is
>> >|> 'too effective'.  
>> >
>> >Many would even find 65F too cold when dressed for a 90+F day, for example.
>> 
>> Would that busses and whatnot *would* get down to 65F.  
>> 
>I sympathize with the original poster.  I prefer buses and LRT with
>no A/C, unless it's hotter than 90 degrees.  

In a nutshell--this is one of the arguments that rages over mass
transit.

One the one hand, I really don't care for temperatures over 70F--and
actively dislike temps over 80F.

On the other hand, Mr. Campbell would rather be 90F than have a bit
more noise around him.

The net result is that we can't *both* be happy--and (likely) neither
of us will agree that a system is 'comfortable' under varying
conditions.

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:32:59 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <9208201405.AA02544@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
|> CalTrain per passenger mile  19 cents   BART  23 cents.
|> 
|> 

Hmm.  Well Vancouver's Sky Train costs about 9.8 cents
per passenger mile and is much more like BART then CalTrain.

Maybe we should replace CalTrain with SkyTrain technology?

Later,
George

-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
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: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:46:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.142835@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <omr3slk@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> There isn't anything in their charters that prohibits making a profit.
> |> Plenty of government run businesses do (like liquor stores).
> |> 
> Umm, I don't think that covering more than your operating costs counts
> as "making a profit."  I don't care to get into the legalease at the
> moment.

Me either.

> 
> |> But anyway, the transit systems don't even cover their operating expenses,
> |> not to mention capital expenses.  Recall that when a system covers some
> |> percentage of its operating costs through fares, the percentage of total
> |> costs recovered is actually less (especially for new rail systems).
> |> 
> 
> For the most part they never have and never will.  As early as the 1910s and
> 1920s transit systems could not support themselves.  The only time that
> The Key System made a "profit" was before the 20s and during WWII.  With subsidies
> going into things like roads and not railroads they could not compete.  this
> seems to be acknowledged now by those who plan transit systems.  Without
> a subisdy from the gov't transit systems don't exist.  This goes for
> rails as well as roads.

Basically, I agree with this as a statement of how things are now.

> 
> Later,
> George
> 
> 
> -- 
> If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
> you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
> fault lies with the manufacturer.
> 					Lenny Bruce

I don't know about this :-)

jeremy
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:28:35 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <omr3slk@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> There isn't anything in their charters that prohibits making a profit.
|> Plenty of government run businesses do (like liquor stores).
|> 
Umm, I don't think that covering more than your operating costs counts
as "making a profit."  I don't care to get into the legalease at the
moment.

|> But anyway, the transit systems don't even cover their operating expenses,
|> not to mention capital expenses.  Recall that when a system covers some
|> percentage of its operating costs through fares, the percentage of total
|> costs recovered is actually less (especially for new rail systems).
|> 

For the most part they never have and never will.  As early as the 1910s and
1920s transit systems could not support themselves.  The only time that
The Key System made a "profit" was before the 20s and during WWII.  With subsidies
going into things like roads and not railroads they could not compete.  this
seems to be acknowledged now by those who plan transit systems.  Without
a subisdy from the gov't transit systems don't exist.  This goes for
rails as well as roads.

Later,
George


-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:30:49 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug13.153241@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>In article <ohk5fb8@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>The NEC is the North East Corridor of Amtrak.  It runs from Boston to Washington
>DC with stops everywhere (and I do mean everywhere).  It is, I believe, the
>most "profitable" segment of Amtrak and is one of the things that keeps
>them from operating at a loss each year.

	Well, Amtrak is still dependent on subsidies, but you are
partially right in that this line is Amtrak's biggest moneymaker.

>|> There are no publicly owned transit systems in this country or in
>|> Canada that make a profit. 

>I believe, that since they are publicly owned they are not allowed to,
>but I could be wrong.

	A "profit" could be defined as taking more money in fares than
they have to pay in expenses.

>BTW Just for reference the "San Diegans" are a segment of Amtrak
>that runs from LA to San Diego.  I believe there are five trains
>each way daily, but I don't have my schedule at work with me.

	I do have a schedule with me, and it is 8
trains/direction/day, with more on the way.
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re:  East Bay -> Silicon Valley commut
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:17:51 GMT




Vaughn Wolffe <vaughnw@asia.fai.com> writes:

	What happens when 1400 CalTrain passengers try to get on a 720
	seat BART for a trip to the Coliseum.

>From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
>Duh?  BART runs extra trains for Coluseum events.  Have you taken BART


Nice, evasive answer. Since it already runs extra trains how is it
going to handle the additional 1400 from CalTrain every half hour.
The trip from SJ to Oakland is 48 miles, same as to SF on a BART 
that travels slower. How is standing up for 1.5 hours going to 
encourage people to leave their car at home( other than not go
at all)?



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com




Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: As bad as it seems?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:48:42 GMT

In article <9208131448.AA01237@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> 
> 
> 
>      >> closer to Market would be the removal of the Samtrans buses.
> 
> >From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
> >Is that actually part of the plan or just your guess?  Samtrans
> 
> If I was guessing I would have stated such. This is what Samtrans
> has stated. 
> 
> 
>    Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com

Well if I didn't have to guess whether you were guessing, I wouldn't
have had to ask.
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant nose BART
Date: 13 Aug 1992 18:43:46 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <9208121517.AA01036@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>Do some homework.
>You obviously do not have any idea of want it takes.
>

>   Bullshit. Do some homework. 

Once again Vaughn reverts to ad hominum, offensive posts. As previous
posts have indicated there is a broad-based desire for civilized,
professional conduct on this newsgroup. Clean up your act, Vaughn.


Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Standing Room Only on BART
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:35:56 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <9208201520.AA02555@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
|> 
|> BS. My friends ride everyday from Fremont(some from SJ). There is almost
|> always some standing. One of the original promises was that trains would
|> run so frequently that no one would stand for that distance. Another
|> promise was that it would reduce congestion and be a boon to the 
|> communities it served. Yet highway congestion and expansion have 
|> continued along all the BART lines. It took them until 1991 to carry the
|> amount of people they promised to carry in 1975. That's hardly a measure
|> of success. I have seen standing on CalTrain and some parking lots are
|> full. I still do not call that a success.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 

I don't know why you keep trying to compare a system that carries
180,000 people per day to a system that carries 20,000.  Of course
no one stands on CalTrain, very few people actually ride it.  Have
you noticed that ridership hasn't increased since the 60s?

Later,
George


-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: rick@rgb.com (Rick Davis)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: So why not a water taxi?
Summary: Alameda water taxi
Keywords: Alameda,boat
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:17:59 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: RGB Spectrum

So why doesn't some enterprising person start a water taxi from Alameda
to Oakland.  I know several people who live in Oakland and drive to 
Alameda because they don't want to ride their bikes through the Alameda tube.
Of course some brave souls traverse the railroad tracks and East 14th to
get to the Park street bridge, but a water taxi during commute hours would
do pretty well if people found out about it.

Just my suggestion to improve our tiny segment of the bay commute crisis..


-- 
                                              <uunet,usenix>!rgbsys!rick
                    R  G  B  Spectrum         rick@rgb.com
               950 Marina Village Parkway
                   Alameda, California 
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: RR bridges, was Cost of transit systems vs highways
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:26:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.060152.22998@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> 	And so that's why Marinites will have to be stuck with riding
> the bus as the only alternative to the car -- they can't even have
> passenger rail service on their old Northwest Pacific rail line,
> although it would be a nice thing to restart.
> 
> 	Light rail would be the cheapest option, since typical
> light-rail lines will go right in the middle of streets. But its
> capacity is not terribly high, and LRV's are typically relatively
> slow. I remember riding a Santa Clara County LRV along its entire
> route, and I remember a southward section that was parallel to a
> freeway. The cars on it were clearly faster. When I rode a BART train
> on its Concord line, there was also a freeway along the route, and I
> noticed the BART train being as fast as the cars along it.
> 
> 	BART would be good if one wanted good competition with the
> car, since it is relatively fast. But it would be difficult to justify
> unless there was a high commute volume, since it is designed for
> relatively high user populations. Another down side is that its track
> must be separated virtually _everywhere_, though if Hwy. 101's median
> is big enough, a BART line can fit inside without too much trouble.
> However, it is designed to move relatively quickly through an urban
> area, something hard to do with an LRV.
> 
> 	I guess it's one of those dilemmas: small, slow, and cheap, or
> big, fast, and expensive.
> 
> /Loren

Or, small, fast, and cheap.  With bus lanes, the buses can go faster
than the cars.  And given that you only need 40 people to fill a bus,
express service is a lot more practical.  GGT currently has some
express routes that run non-stop from SF to Sonoma county, for example,
essentially running as fast as the cars.  The seats all recline and
face forward (except around the wheelchair tiedowns), and the vehicles
are quite comfortable.  LRT would have a slower travel time (due to
relatively frequent stops), while commuter rail probably would be too
heavy for the bridge (as well as being uneconomical or infrequent).

jeremy
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant nose BART
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:17:21 GMT


>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)

>>For the second time:
>>Additional BART tube  $3.5 billion
>>Amtrak/CalTrain tunnel $1.9 billion   MTC SCR20 cross bay study.


>	I did look on a map and I discovered that the most likely
>location for a BART tunnel that did not precisely parallel the


Contact the MTC, that is why I gave you the reference. It takes
a lot more than reading a map to plan a system. Do some homework.
You obviously do not have any idea of want it takes.


>One difficulty
>might be in maintaining low grades; having experienced Amtrak trains'
>slow accelerations, I'm not sure that a typical Amtrak train could
>climb out of a duplicate of the BART tunnel (and a broader one at
>that!) without a helper


Amtrak trains (regular trains) can climb higher grades than BART.
What does acceleration have to do with climbing ability? What do
you know about the contours at the bottom of the bay or the 
traction ability of real railroads? You haven't even read the study.

>Furthermore, I don't think that tunnels are
>good places for diesel locomotives.


Did the study say anything about diesel trains? Haven't you ever
heard of electric locomotives? 




>BART costs are due to a LOT more than building extra track.
>They include getting a lot of things that CalTrain is lacking 
>in, like:

>	Complete grade separation

   Only needed at street crossings.

  
>	Station structures with passengers away from the track level
>and with passenger over/underpasses

    Many ways exist to do this without BART's required costs.

>	Parking space

    Would not do much good to run service without parking lots.



>	Right-of-way to be bought...

    Not if we use what already exists.



>	Furthermore, that $100m/mi is for the SFO extension, which is
>in urban and suburban areas.

   Bullshit. Do some homework.  Warm Springs 5.4 miles $630 million.
   S.J.  12 miles  $1.8-3.5 billion. Extending along the Peninsula
   would be similar costs.


   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: RR bridges, was Cost of transit systems vs highways
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:41:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.202013.11210@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.155217.28486@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug18.035549.4394@redsox.bsw.com>, campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>|> > (Boston's Green Line uses both Boeing LRVs (yuck) and newer Kinki LRVs
>|> > (very nice, except that the air conditioning is too loud and sometimes
>|> > too effective). Both go 50 MPH.)
>|> 
>|> I find it extraordinary that one can have air conditioning that is
>|> 'too effective'.  Are you sure about that?  Did it get the interior
>|> below 50F?
>
>What's so extraordinary?
>
>Many would even find 65F too cold when dressed for a 90+F day, for example.

Would that busses and whatnot *would* get down to 65F.  You *can't*
'dress for 90+F'.  You can UNdress for it--if you like hot weather,
but *not* 'dress' for it . . .

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: RR bridges, was Cost of transit systems vs highways
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:20:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.155217.28486@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug18.035549.4394@redsox.bsw.com>, campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
|> > (Boston's Green Line uses both Boeing LRVs (yuck) and newer Kinki LRVs
|> > (very nice, except that the air conditioning is too loud and sometimes
|> > too effective). Both go 50 MPH.)
|> 
|> I find it extraordinary that one can have air conditioning that is
|> 'too effective'.  Are you sure about that?  Did it get the interior
|> below 50F?

What's so extraordinary?

Many would even find 65F too cold when dressed for a 90+F day, for example.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: RR bridges, was Cost of transit systems vs highways
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:58:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

One more data point about LRV speeds.  I was on a SCCTD Light Rail
train late one night, talking to the driver (while he was driving).
He showed me that if he went over 55 mph a buzzer sounds, and he told
me, that if he went over 65, or continued exceeding 55 for too long,
the train would automatically shut down.  He made it clear that 55 was
the normal operating speed south of technology station.

I hope this info is of some use.

-- 
=============================================================================
Mr Loren L. Hart                                       The Ada Ace Group, Inc
loren@netcom.com                                       P.O. Box 36195
				                       San Jose, CA  95158
Newsgroups: ba.transportation