HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Local quality of life
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:55:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <l6sk7rINNjgo@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>
>We could leave.  Enough people doing that would ameliorate congestion,
>pollution, the price of housing, and (to some minor degree) water
>shortages.  (Yes, I am volunteering to go.  Anyone else?)
>
>It's not just transportation problems.

Good.  The last thing the Bay Area needs is people who don't want to
be here.

Good luck in your new town,

 =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: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re:  East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:09:17 GMT


>From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
>But then what?  Would I have to get off at Bette's to go to UCB?  

There is regular bus service up University from the Capitols. You
could transfer to BART at West Oakland if SP builds the station
that they suggested.



>Is
>Jack London Square the closest you could get me to Lake Merrit?  Would
>I have to go to Martinez to get to Concord?


West Oakland or Coliseum.



>The next person who compares CalTrain to BART as though you could
>substitute one for the other gets a uuencoded dump of /usr/spool/news
>delivered to their mailbox once per day ... ;^)


aka  If you say something I don't like and I can't refute intelligently
then I will do something bad to you personally.





>Anybody have ridership numbers for the Capitols?  

1800 a day average before April, 798 since.




>Is there any talk of
>running CalTrain for (at least) San Jose -> Richmond anytime soon?


There is but not within earshot of BART and the MTC. Any compettion
with BART for funds or projected service within the next 30 years is
promptly held up in committee by the head of the state Senate 
transportation committee. Quentin Kopp. He wants a $3.5 billion 
"southern crossing". Anything that would show how stupid his specific
proposal is, never makes it out of committee.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: As bad as it seems?
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:35:28 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu


	I've been in downtown SF a few times at evening rush hour the
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.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:18:08 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <9207220032.AA02879@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:

>Since CalTrain type rolling stock and the California Car carry more than
>twice as many seats as a PORKBART car the same frequency is not necessary
>for the same passenger demand. But, to answer you question directly it 
>could run at 3 minute headways if enough rolling stock is available.
>Since the California cars are cheaper and total trainsets(cars + loco)
>for the same capacity are cheaper then it would be able to match 
>frequencies. I would favor half the frequency at 100+ mph instead.
>They would connect at Union City, Coliseum, West Oakland and Richmond.

	But if BART had had double-decker cars, then its tunnels would
have been even more expensive than they turned out to be. BART's
rolling stock is about 10' tall, while a double-decker car would have
to be at least 15' tall.

	And could even an electric CalTrain start and stop as fast as
BART can?

>>And please justify your PORKBART remarks. With evidence.

>Additional BART tube  $3.5 billion   
>Amtrak/CalTrain tunnel $1.9 billion   MTC SCR20 cross bay study.

	Tunnel from where to where? Are both of them across the Bay?
What else did these studies include?

	I'm sure that the BART tunnels would be cheaper, since the
BART trains have a smaller cross section than the Amtrak/CalTrain
ones. Do the studies include connections to existing lines? Both the
San Francisco and Oakland segments of BART are largely underground,
while the Amtrak and CalTrain tracks are all above ground.

	But BART's expensive tunneling makes it more accessible in the
urban areas it serves. It's a very clear trade-off.

>BART  33 miles  $2.5 billion    BART on the Move  BART/MTC pubs
>Capitols 167 miles $800 million    ACR 132 Sacramento-San Jose Study
>I would double the Capitol cost for additional rolling stock to provide 
>more frequency.

>TGV $10 million per mile   vs    BART  $100 million per mile
>    numerous reports                    BART/SFO

	BUT,

	The TGV runs in countryside, while BART runs in urban and
suburban areas.

	That CalTrain to Market Street tunnel will cost $1 billion and
will only go about a mile.

>As an infrequent user of BART I must consult a schedule everytime. As a
>frequent user of CalTrain I do not need to consult a schedule.

	Why bother consulting a schedule with BART?

	With 20 minute intervals (at most), one doesn't have too long
to wait.

>>The BART train would all have to be replaced because they would not
>>pass FRA buffing standards. Which means they could not sustain a hit
>>with another train or car or shopping cart.

	Why is it necessary to have BART run on existing lines? If
worst comes to worst, one may simply build extra tracks near an
existing right-of-way for BART. Furthermore, running other trains on
BART's tracks would produce some rather awful scheduling problems.
From: karplus@cse.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Buying up old polluting cars
Date: 25 Jul 1992 07:33:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Committee for Open Access Computing
Reply-To: karplus@ce.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ararat.ucsc.edu

There has been a lot of discussion on this newsgroup about the
advantages of buying up old cars as a pollution reduction measure.
While getting highly polluting cars off the road would be a big help,
there is some difficulty in estimating how much pollution is reduced,
as many of the cars being junked were not being driven much anyway.

How do we keep the corporations honest about how much the junked cars
were driven each year?  They have considerable incentive to estimate
each car as being driven extensively.

Furthermore, what about the polluting trucks?  The air-quality program
in California has been very quiet about fine particulates (the main source
of which are diesel exhaust), despite the high correlation with deaths
from respiratory failure.  Are we going to start junking some of those
trucks too?

Kevin Karplus
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:41:00 GMT


>From: forags@yogi.berkeley.edu (Al Stangenberger)
>Didn't SP acquire trackage rights over UP when they abandoned the line over
>Altamont Pass?  If so, then a connection obviously exists.


Yes. In either case SP is trying to sell some of its excess ROW to 
the state. They have already expressed their intention to aid UP in
anyway they can. It is to their advantage to demonstrate the value
of excess ROW.



   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
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: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:56:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.234754.11767@Veritas.COM>, joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
> 
> I'm sure these didn't help, but the real reason is the huge subsidy
> that the bus system needs.  Every time you pay $1 to ride a bus, the
> county pays $9.  This 900 % subsidy is the largest of any local mass
> transit system.  

Good news.  With the fare increase, the subsidy is down to about 88%.

> 
> Of course, busses are a lot cheaper to run (per passanger mile) than 
> light rail.  Santa Clara's light rail system costs $1.53 per passanger 
> mile.  That makes it about six times more costly than driving a car 
> the same distance.  (That $1.53 just covers operational costs, not
> total costs, BTW.)

True.  In an actual business, you'd have to account for the $491 million
used to build the system.


In general, I'm pro-transit, but given what the county has done with
the current 1/2 cent tax for transit, I'm not ready to give it the
extra 1/2 cent from Measure T.

jeremy
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:35:13 GMT


>From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
>So you mean people should have to take a train that only shows on the 
>hour since the trains carry so many more people ??  Trains should
>be slaved to people and not vise versa.


Even as an ardent rail fan I would not suggest that people be slave
to trains. To answer you question I believe the frequency should be
what is supported by the ridership at a level such that they are 
willing to pay its complete operating costs. This obviously involves
a more practical consideration than some marketing moron picking 
15 minutes out of thin air.



|> CalTrain cars are already cheaper and carry twice as many seats.

>Bzzzt.  CalTrain commuter cars cost 1.75M and BART costs 1.6M.  CalTrain
>cars carry more people but the BART cars are more complex since
>they contain controls and motors in each car.  


Only the cab cars cost 1.75M the trailer cars cost 1.5M. The complexity
of a bad design just increases operating costs. In either case it is
still cheaper for a CalTrain trainset than a BART one with the same
carrying capacity.




>The California cars are not compatible with Amtrak rolling stock, who,
>outside of CA, is going to order these cars ?



They are compatible, you just can't pass from double to single level.
Several of the new commuter rail startups are considering the new
rolling stock. By combining orders they can reduce the cost for
each service. 




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re:  East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:50:29 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <4485@bacon.IMSI.COM>, jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
|>  I can't believe that more people don't get
|> off Amtrak at Richmond and take BART into San Francisco instead of
|> using the bus from Oakland.
|> 
Umm, are there serious numbers to support that this happens ?  You'd
have to be on some powerful drugs to miss the Bart->Amtrak
connection in Richmond over "beautiful downtown Oakland".

|> I disagree.  BART is much more like one of the old IND/BMT/IRT systems
|> in NYC.  That is, it's primarily an interurban subway.  Because of its
|> hours, BART is very useful outside of "commuter" times.  Because of
|> where it goes, there's lots of traffic in both directions.  Sure,
|> there's a crush to San Francisco in the morning, but there's plenty of
|> San Francisco -> East Bay traffic as well.
|> 

Well I think that BART is closer to the electrified lines of the LIRR
such as the NYC->Babylon branch.  Of course, BART is much cleaner,
quieter and nicer but as far as schedules go they're almost
comparable.

|> Final note: it's been quite a number of years since the various NYC
|> systems were put together under one organization, and people transfer
|> between them without even thinking about which one is which anymore.

Yup, as a former resident of N. Babylon LI I really appreciated it.  It
meant that a 15yr old could get safely to the electronics/book stores
in the city and back :-)

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_
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: San Mateo County BART/SFO Resolution
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:16:30 GMT



>From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
>In spite of what everybody says here, the grade separation of BART is NOT
>because it uses 3rd-rail DC. British Rail have used 3rd-rail DC over



Not true. Once the decision was made for 3rd rail, separation in 
dense urban areas were mandatory. Once the rolling stock was decided
on then grade separations were needed because they could not protect
passengers in a collision. It is entirely possible they had decided to
grade separate before they considered rolling stock and power. I have
a tour through BART on Friday I will ask which came first. 




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:55:34 GMT


>From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
>Well, in my opinion frequency is by far the most important consideration
>of the ones you mentioned.  



If your daily trip is 45 miles each way and you had a joice of a train 
without seats every 15 minutes at 35 mph or one with cushioned seats that
allowed food and drink with no barrier entry and cost half as much every
20 minutes at 50 mph. Which do you choose?

I am not comparing any two specific or named systems in particular. I am
using two real world examples I have experienced to show the relative
importance of frequency of any to a dozen other factors.




>(And, anyway, BART is far better integrated
>into San Francisco's public transit system than Caltrain.)


For BART you walk upstairs to the MUNI and up or down the stairs
to buses. For CalTrain you walk to the end of the platform to 
get to the MUNI. The only real difference with respect to "integrating"
are the stairs. I would not suggest that negotiating stairs make
it "far better".


I would think BART's major advantage is that it is close enough to
lots of things so that you can avoid MUNI.





   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:23:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>I was merely trying to refute Mr. Vandeman's obvious political agenda.  His
>recommendations are a recipe for socialism, plain and simple.  His brilliant
>use of hypocrisy was not lost on me.  If he's against subsidizing the auto,
>as he puts it, then he'd better be against *all* subsidies or he's either
>being hypocritical or *extremely* selfish.

	One might argue that the MAGNITUDE of automobile subsidies, both
visible and hidden, far outstrip the magnitude of subsidies for mass transit.
Mr. Vandeman's statements are not so hypocritical if one considers that he is 
not against subsidies per se, but rather against inequitable and/or less-than-
optimal subsidies.  True, his argument might be socialist, but not hypocriti-
cal.  However, in light of the fact that Tim admits that automobile subsidies
exist in the current system, then I'm sure that he sees that the existing
system must also be called socialist. 
 
>I don't use my car much, but if I want to use it, then dammit, get the hell
>out of my way.

	Every time people drive, they use public money and pollute an environ-
mant shared by all.  In light of these facts, it strikes me as self-centered
to demand that the people supplying the public good "get the hell out of my
way," no matter how infrequently I drive.

	And before anyone asks, yes, I own a car.  However, I'm doing my 
part.  The car gets 40 mpg.  I intentionally purchased a home within cycling
distance of work, and commute by bicycle whenever possible.

>Tim Irvin    j056600@lmsc5.is.lockheed.com   "flame proof"

-- 
=============================================================================
 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: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:28:05 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <nv69c5s@sgi.sgi.com> (ba.transportation), jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> 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.

In fact airplane shuttle service between high traffic areas, like
Washinton DC to NYC or Bay area to LA, provides a level of service
where you don't have to really know the schedule.  Just show up and
there is another plane every 1/2 hour or hour.

So even with airplanes there is an advantage to not having to consult
a schedule when people fly the same route frequently.

--  Michael Peirce      --   peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org
--  Peirce Software     --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--                      --   San Jose, California USA 95117
--  Makers of...        --   voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
--            SMOOTHIE  --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re:  East Bay -> Silicon Valley commute
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:45:11 GMT

In article <4485@bacon.IMSI.COM> jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
>Aaron Priven <fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu> writes:
>
>	I can really see great advantage in using existing rail lines
>	on the outer fringes of the metropolis that can connect
>	directly to the "real" transit system.  I think it is a real
>	shame that BART can't do this.
>
>Doesn't the Capitol -> Richmond BART connection count? ...

	It is also a stop for all the other Amtrak trains going north
from Oakland, like the San Joaquin (to Bakersfield), the Coast
Starlight (to Seattle), and the California Zephyr(?) (to Chicago).

	There is an Amtrak station planned for the Oakland Coliseum,
and that one will also be right next door to a BART station.
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain on-time
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:18:01 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Jul21.223857.5437@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> If, by chance, you meant to say that your express #30 caught #28 in front
|> of it, that would make a lot more sense. 

Yup, sorry, spaced on the numbering.


|> When an express "catches" the
|> train in front of it, it is either because the leading train is late or
|> because the express was going a little too fast.  This isn't a dangerous
|> situation because the express will start getting yellow signals (to
|> proceed at reduced speed and to prepare to stop) and then finally red
|> signals (indicating to come to a full stop and then only proceed at
|> super-slow speed until it is safe or until a less restrictive signal
|> indication is given) as it gets too close to the train in front of it.
|> 
#28 was late.

|> At what times and dates and what trains have missed Castro (or any
|> other stations)?  I've heard about Castro once and Tamien once, both
|> some time ago now ...

Train 67 missed it at least once, but I think twice, I can get the dates on the
train today, and train 30 missed it once.  This is all in the three weeks since
Amtrak took over.

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_
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: BART to SFO: What are the Benefits?
Date: 11 Jul 92 17:23:34 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <9207101428.AA01006@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>
>
>>From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
>>You people in San Mateo County will clearly have to make up your own
>>minds.  But as a resident of Alameda County I've been wanting a BART
>>line to SFO for many years.  It's SO hard to get to the airport now!
>
>
>
>
>
>If you want a connection to the SFO then you pay for it. Remember the
>amount you have paid so far does not even cover operations let alone
>your own extensions in Alameda. In the year 2010 after BART has spent
>$2.5 billion for 33 miles of service, it will only be carrying 3% of 
>the Bay Area travelers at an average speed 1 mph faster than a 
>congested highway.
>
>
>
>
>   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com

Maybe some people ARE prepared to pay for comfort and convenience.

I don't have the figures on hand, but as far as I can remember, the BART
portion of my property tax is about 60 dollars. And if comes out of my
sales tax, it will be a very small portion because most of that goes
to the state.

Chris Lee


Article 343 of ba.transportation
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: BART to SFO: What are the Benefits?
Date: 11 Jul 92 17:23:34 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <9207101428.AA01006@asia.fai.com> vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe) writes:
>
>
>>From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
>>You people in San Mateo County will clearly have to make up your own
>>minds.  But as a resident of Alameda County I've been wanting a BART
>>line to SFO for many years.  It's SO hard to get to the airport now!
>
>
>
>
>
>If you want a connection to the SFO then you pay for it. Remember the
>amount you have paid so far does not even cover operations let alone
>your own extensions in Alameda. In the year 2010 after BART has spent
>$2.5 billion for 33 miles of service, it will only be carrying 3% of 
>the Bay Area travelers at an average speed 1 mph faster than a 
>congested highway.
>
>
>
>
>   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com

Maybe some people ARE prepared to pay for comfort and convenience.

I don't have the figures on hand, but as far as I can remember, the BART
portion of my property tax is about 60 dollars. And if comes out of my
sales tax, it will be a very small portion because most of that goes
to the state.

Chris Lee


Article 298 of rec.railroad