HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grant@DELVALLE.LLNL.GOV (Chuck Grant)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: RE: Acronyms... System Names...
Date: 30 Jun 92 05:47:52 GMT

>11jodom@galluj writes:
>
[deleted]
>BART-  Bay Area Rapid Transit  [San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, California]
>       System's called the "Bart".
[deleted]


As a native of the Bay Area, I have never heard anyone refer to BART as 
"the Bart" unless they were from out of the area. All of the people I grew 
up with say "I'm riding BART" never "I'm riding the BART". Even the
newscasters on local TV never say "the BART".

btw. anybody mention the bus feeder line to BART in Berkeley called
Humphrey GoBART? (The winning entry in a name-this-bus-line contest).
This must be the best transit system name anywhere...

Chuck



Article 351 of ba.transportation
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 13 Jul 92 14:12:57 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

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

	>$0.22/mi vs. $0.19/mi is not a terribly big difference --
	>about 15%. At that rate, BART's higher quality service looks
	>like a bargain.

	Even with your anemic definition of quality, 15% of a PORKBART
	yearly operating budget of $219 million is $32 million which is
	more than CalTrain's yearly operating budget.

Great!  BART costs 10 times what CalTrain does!

BART carries 10 times the number of passengers CalTrain does!

Math is great!

	For the cost of extending PORKBART down the Peninsula we could
	extend the upgraded version of CalTrain around the bay to
	Sacramento and to Montery while at the same time extending at
	least the CalTrain level of service over the Altamont Pass and
	to Pittsburg/Antioch.

Does ths include the connection to BART in San Francisco?

Because without it, it's useless.

/jordan
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: SC County Transit Cutbacks in store
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:11:18 GMT

In article <jon.712517121@lindy.Stanford.EDU>, jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
> 
>    According to an article in the July 29 Peninsula Times Tribune,
> major across the board cuts in Santa Clara County public transit services are
> in store for 1993.
> 
>    Though cuts will affect all services, bus service is expected to be
> particularly hard hit.  Buses scheduled for elimination include lines 24
> (SJ-PA) and 84 (PA-San Antonio,) with weekend services to be eliminated
> on routes 86 (Stanford-San Antonios malls) and 88 (PA Vet Hosp-Louis
> Road.)  On other routes, frequencies will be increased up to 30 minutes
> longer than at present.  These include routes 32, 34, 35, 50, 51, 52,86,
> 88, 182, and 304.  Some of these routes will also begin up to 30 minutes
> later and/or end up to 30 minutes sooner than at present.
> 
>    Reasons cited for the cuts include a reduced county transportation
> budget, a decline in sales tax revenues, and increased costs associated
> with expenses arising from the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
> count's share of financing the new CalTrain service. 
> --
> 
> 
> Jon Corelis               jon@lindy.stanford.edu
> Stanford University       BITNET:  BR.JGC@RLG.STANFORD.EDU 

They are also proposing 15 minute midday service on the LRT, which
seems quite reasonable, given that they are mostly empty then.
I would also propose using the #13 bus instead of the 1 mile rail
shuttle (the most ridiculous waste of money I've seen) in Almaden,
and routing more straight-throughs with some of the money saved.
They might also consider a bus shuttle to replace the N. First
and Tasman part of the line after 9pm on weekdays.

Does anyone have the current per hour costs for the LRT (should be
in the SRTP)?  I know that the bus is about $80, which is pretty
high.  The Foothill Transit Zone buses run at around $50 per hour.
Some of that is lower paid drivers, but not all of it.

SCCTD needs to make more use of pulse systems.  With those, infrequent
buses aren't so bad.  The current grid system with buses leaving
at random times ensures long waits when lines have infrequent
schedules.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:37:23 GMT

In article <24885@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
>(in this case that absolute consumption levels in Europe and
>Japan are considerably lower than ours for comparable quality
>of life).

I doubt that anyone who has ever seen the size of a typical
Japanese house would claim their quality of life was
comparable to ours. Certainly the Japanese I know don't
think so.

Their subways don't look so great either.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cable grips are like clutches
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:54:51 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: ba
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Jul22.005022.7341@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> No more painful than the "jolt" you get on SF's cable cars.  The cable
|> "grip" works like a clutch in that it is used to gradually tighten its
|> grip on the cable as the cable car comes up to full cable speed.   A 
|> mischeiveous gripman on a stopped cable car certainly could jolt folks
|> by doing the equivalent of "poping" the clutch in a car by rapidly
|> yanking the cable grip lever all the way back as hard as he can...

I can't even believe I'm going to discuss this with you.  There is
a big difference between a cable moving at 9.33333 mph and a cable
moving at 40-50mph.  Let's face it, it's a silly technology to 
run a railroad on.

Later,
George


-- 
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: tssmith@netcom.com (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Whats that train running down the track?
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 19:24:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Jul25.183435.1893@morrow.stanford.edu> GC.SUL@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sullivan) writes:
>I was waiting at the 5th ave Redwood City RR crossing with the
>crossing gates down for the train to go by last Thursday morning.
>
>As I stooped down to grab some papers that had slipped off the
>passenger seat, I heard the train whistle- but it sounded MUCH
>different.  I peeked up in time to see a vintage jet black STEAM
>engine pulling a train of antique passenger and freight cars.
>
>Nothing in the papers that I could find.  What was that I saw?
>
>It was a thrill.

Isn't it!

>Mike

This is a new model of commuter engine that Amtrak is trying out, now that
they have taken over the Caltrain commuter service.

:-) :-) :-)

Seriously, this is an ex-Southern Pacific engine, I believe the number
is 2572.  It lives up in the South SF area, and is brought out several
times a year for exhibition runs.  It was undoubtedly on its way to
San Jose, for the Nation Railroad Historical Assoc. meetings being
held there this week.  I heard its whistle from my house in San
Mateo--lovely sound.

It is maintained and run by a dedicated group of volunteers in the
area. (Perhaps one of them can add to or correct this posting.) This
engine knows the way to San Jose, as it used to pull commuter trains
on the Peninsula line.

--Tim (tssmith@netcom.com)



Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SC County Short Range Transit Plan
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:07:55 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <9207191805.AA02517@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>>From: mmoore@epx.cis.umn.edu ("None of ya Bizness")
>>BTW: Someone said BART costs are up to $100M/mile.  Is this true?
>
>Yes, even though it is slower and has less capacity than an upgraded
>CalTrain at a third the cost.

BART is slower?  Not at "base speed".

BART has less capacity?  Maybe per car; definitely per car seating.

Upgraded?  What's this joker?  Apples to apples.

--
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
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Santa Cruz-San Jose CalTrain?
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:24:40 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


Given the attendant problems with the "existing" ROW -- tunnels down or
being used for other purposes, bridges nonexistent, the Felton track
being owned and used by a tourist railway, part of the ROW being under
water, and so on, *and* the fact that one of the most important cities
to serve with any new transit system, Scotts Valley, is simply bypassed
by the "current" ROW, doesn't it make more sense to buy a new ROW
rather than try to excavate the old one, at least from Santa Cruz
through Scotts Valley to Lexington?

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
        "Men make history, but they do not do so under 
         conditions of their own choosing." -- Karl Marx
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:23:19 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <9207301507.AA00347@asia.fai.com>, vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
> 
> >The problem is that BART is a true mass-transit system, whose users have
> >got used to a mass-transit level of service, and don't need to consult
> >schedules. How unreasonable of the users :-)
> 
> 
> People wait for infrequent airplanes, that doesn't seem to stop them
> from flying. Besides if BART riders "don't need" schedules then why
> did BART start printing them?

I'm sorry, but that is a silly response that does little to strengthen
your position.  Waiting for things that you do infrequently is more
acceptable than waiting for things that you do frequently.  That should
be obvious.

There are two reasons for using schedules on BART.  One is that you
might want to make connections, so you want to be able to take the
right train for meeting your connections.  The other is that you
may want to make sure that you don't have to wait 20 minutes for a
train.  I frequently use a schedule when taking BART for just those
reasons.  But I have to agree that you don't need one (given that you
don't need to make connections) the same way that you do with Caltrain.

But this is hardly a new revelation to this group.  Is it my imagination
or do we seem to cover the same territory over and over?  Should we
create a new group ba.bartvscaltrain?

jeremy
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:1769 alt.activism:13379 ca.environment:746
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
Subject: How much pollution from motor vehicles?
Date: 23 Jul 1992 22:44:33 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu
Summary: Can you add to the list of unseens?

1) Exhaust emissions.
2) Hydrocarbon emissions.
3) Tires wearing away on roads.
4) Old tires stacking up.
5) Old cars stacking up.
6) Pollution caused by building roads/bridges/tunnels.
7) Pollution caused by road tar/oil.
8) Noise pollution.
9) Oil leaks.
10) Gasoline leaks.
11) Oil pollution disposal, garbage, on the ground.
12) Air Conditioner Feron emissions.
13) Anti-freeze pollution.
14) Rusting metal pollution falling off of vehicles.
15) Cleaning compounds and waxes.
16) Water pollution from cleaning vehicles.
17) Old batteries (cores).
18) Glass, plastics, foam rubbers.
19) Visual pollution, eyesores.
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:56:26 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Jul23.003345.19187@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> The low-level passage cars will connect with Amtrak's low-level passage
|> equipment (like Amtrak's Horizon Fleet coaches and CalTrain cars).  The
|> high-level versions would be able to connect with Superliner cars.  The
|> transition car (if any ever get built) will marry the two types together
|> so they can be used in the same train...  I don't know how many of each
|> type are being ordered.  I think Vaughn said that none of the transition
|> coaches will be built/ordered in an earlier posting...  but I could've
|> misunderstood that...
|> 

According to the spec. Cal. cars only have to connect to other
Cal. cars or the old commuter cars.  Do you know the spec. for Amtrak
cars ?  Where are their floors ?  The spec. says that they have to be able
to pass things like train air, and couple but that's it.

Later,
George


-- 
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Summary: A different population group...
Keywords: bart caltrain handicapped wheelchair costs
Organization: Dis organization
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:07:38 GMT

Isn't it much more difficult for wheelchair users to get on CalTrain than
BART?


-Richard
Hmmm...  A BART figure 8 wrapping around the bay.
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: As bad as it seems?
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:33:58 GMT


>From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
>last few weeks (5:30-6:30 PM, the area bounded by california, market,
>and montgomery) and I was really impressed how the streets formed
>one giant parking lot. The number of MUNI and SAMTRANS buses that were
>stuck in the middle of it was particularly notable. Is it always this
>bad? Its hard to imagine being able to time a bus connection to
>Caltrain to meet an express train if this traffic is the norm. 



One significant advantage of relocating the SF CalTrain station
closer to Market would be the removal of the Samtrans buses.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Re: How much pollution from motor vehicles?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:39:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ba

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul24231413@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>
>  20) Noise pollution from everybody whining about
>      how terrible cars are without taking into
>      account how much of a benefit they are.

	Well, if we just get rid of cars, then this source of pollution will
also disappear! ;^9

>----
>Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
>slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
>408-756-0895                                   USA


-- 
=============================================================================
 John J. Ladasky II ("ii")				(ladasky@netcom.COM)

 "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
 American people."					      - H.L. Mencken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
	      Disclaimer : My employer?  Internet?  Yeah, right!
=============================================================================
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SC County Short Range Transit Plan
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:15:15 GMT


In article <9207191908.AA02527@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>Actually for half the projected cost of extending BART to SJ we could
>extend the LRT to Warm Springs(if that ever gets built) and extend
>an electrified Caltrain to Fairfield. This upgraded CalTrain would
>follow the present route of the Capitols. 

>From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
>Could you please give more of a cost breakdown on this?


   1/2 x $3.5 billion  =  $1.75 billion


   ROW + double tracking + stations     220  million
    CalTrain peninsula cost


   Electrification + locomotives        120  million

   100 rail cars at 1.75 million each   175  million

25  grade separations at 30 million     750  million
    each. One every 2 miles plus some
    already exist.

                                total  1.265 billion  <  1.75 billion

  Even with the 25% contingency usually applied to these type of 
projects it is still cheaper. Contingency fees are not usually applied
to rolling stock such as the rail cars and locos for electrification.
The roughly $400 million would easily cover six miles of tunneling under
San Jose if desired. I would include maybe another $25 million for CTC 
so that any speed or frequency could be allowed.



I realize you will want grade separtations at every street but from a
traffic stand point you would have to prove the need. Just because
BART does it, is not proof of need.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Local quality of life
Date: 24 Jul 1992 08:20:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <l6uf8sINNonl@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>If it got a lot nicer or a lot cheaper, I'd change my mind.  If I
>changed my mind, then I'd care a lot more about the quality of life
>here, long-term.  Note that BART won't be useful to me (in my present
>location, Menlo Park) for at least 15 years.  
 
I guess I just can't relate to this.  I care about wherever I am 
even if I know I'm not going to live there.  I lived in Vancouver 
B.C. for an academic year, and although I am 99.99% sure I will 
never be in Vancouver for longer than a week or two in my entire 
life, although it's not my city or even my country, I still care 
about Vancouver's quality of life.  I still care about B.C.'s low 
emissions standards wrecking the air out in Burnaby and Surrey 
and the Fraser Valley (suburbs and exurbs). I still am concerned 
that the people at BC Transit will choose the wrong route for the 
SkyTrain extension (like BART, but with LRV-size cars).  
(Actually they should have chosen it by now, but I haven't been 
reading the BC Transit semimonthly pamphlet -- the "Buzzer" -- 
lately.)  
 
Admittedly I haven't been losing sleep over it or anything, but 
then I don't read the Vancouver paper anymore and it's hard for 
me to keep track.  When I lived there I paid some attention and 
worried a bit about it.  I still care.  I care about parts of the 
Bay Area I never intend to live in again, too, like San Mateo.  I 
even care about places I can't stand, such as Foster City -- I 
like the idea of putting a rail bridge near or next to the San 
Mateo-Hayward bridge especially because it would provide a good 
opportunity for a Foster City rail station, not something I 
expected anytime soon.  For that matter, I even care about this 
unincorporated part of Richmond that I live in now, too, despite 
the fact that I would love to move out and I can't afford to. 
The idea that you simply don't care about the place you live, 
that whether you personally will be there or not makes a 
difference whether it *should* and *could* be a better place and 
that society should and could do something to make it so -- it's 
simply foreign to me.  I really don't understand that.
 
 =Aaron=
 
-- 
Aaron Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
        "Men make history, but they do not do so under 
         conditions of their own choosing." -- Karl Marx
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:1834 alt.activism:13675 ca.environment:768
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,alt.activism,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:32:38 GMT
	<1992Jul25.063723.21267@adobe.com> <l793imINNnlm@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 28 Jul 1992 00:01:26 GMT

In article <l793imINNnlm@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel) writes:

> In article <1992Jul25.063723.21267@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>>Their subways don't look so great either.

> At least they've *got* subways.

That's because they have population densities
to support the ridership that you and I wouldn't
put up with.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:15:07 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1992Jul21.021230.655@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>In article <92202.43773.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>:mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) opines:
>:Thank you for at least labelling this as an *opinion*.  There is no proof that
>:auto emissions are causing all (or even most) pollution.  Mount Pinatubo in the
>:Philippines provided as much *natural*, politically correct pollution that
>:all of the cars in the U.S.A. could produce in over 100 years.  Shall we also
>:ban volcanic eruptions?  Do you see the flaws in your reasoning yet?
>
>	One difference:
>
>	Mt. Pinatubo spread its emissions into the entire
>stratosphere, while car exhaust is often trapped in valleys -- a MUCH
>smaller volume (just consider what happens in LA).

Then there's the article on the front page of today's SF Chronicle.
The headline is: "Dramatic Improvement Found in Southern Califonia's
Air".  It goes on to detail the 1/3 drop in peak polluiton levels and
50% drop in hours over health limit levels in the past 10 years. . .

	--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,alt.activism,ca.environment
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 25 Jul 1992 00:40:32 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<SLAGLE.92Jul23115719@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<l718o0INN4dj@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:10:09 GMT

In article <l718o0INN4dj@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:

> In article <SLAGLE.92Jul23115719@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>We don't need a national
>>energy policy.  Last time we had one, the lines at the gas
>>stations stretched for blocks.

> Aren't you confusing cause and effect here?  

No.  There was no real crises until the government started
rationing.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA