HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:44:44 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:30:28 GMT
>FROM:   Wilson Heydt <whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM>
>>>Nice dodge.  The question isn't "How can we increase private vehicle
>>>occupancy?", but rather "Are *all* those trains full?" [....]
>>
>>But aren't we talking here about comparisons of *capacity*?[....] The 
>>railroad can sell a ticket for every seat. The analogy to seats per car 
>>is false, since the turnpike authority (or whoever) can't force drivers 
>>to fill up empty seats [....]

>The railroad can't *force* people to take the train (and fill up
>seats), either.[....]

Obviously the point isn't getting across, but I'm not sure how to make 
it any clearer. If I don't have a car, I can go to the train station and 
buy a ticket -- there is *capacity* for me -- but I would find it much 
more difficult to obtain one of those empty car seats. These latter form 
a kind of purely notional "capacity", since it isn't available. 

Let's say I have a conveyor composed of pallets; each pallet will hold 
100 kg, and the conveyor moves pallets past a given point at the rate of 
1/sec. So the conveyor has a notional capacity of 6000 kg/min. *But* it 
turns out that the parts I want to put on the conveyor are oddly shaped, 
so that only one will fit in each pallet; each part weighs 25 kg, so I'm 
not going to get more than 1500 kg/min through it. That's the real 
capacity; I'll never get more throughput than that out of it. On the 
other hand, if what I want to transport is some kind of bulk material, 
such that (if I chose) I could put a full 100 kg of it in each pallet, 
then my capacity is back up to 6000 kg/min. Even if I don't use it all, 
it's there and available. 

--Michael Smith
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:00:07 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1ikkn9$688@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>In article <1537@dosbears> dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com writes:
>>
>>It is Jon's contention (or, at least, that's how I read him)
>>that travel time for commuters in the North of Market Financial
>>District would be shorter if you include the travel time from
>>4th & Townsend.
>>
>
>Uh, that's John, Jon was against the idea. 

Ooops.  My apolgies.  I must have miscounted ">"s.

>                                           I would say comparable
>as opposed to shorter, its a strong function of how you draw the
>population map of who works where in downtown SF.

My guess is that most CalTrain riders work North of Market.  When
I wa commuting to the city I would catch a bus up Third (the 30,45
or 15) which were full but not overly so.  I would get off at
Folsom.  The bus would still be pretty full.  The next stop is
Market.

Meanwhile, the express buses had people lined up to get on.

>The biggest effect of my proposal would be to get San Francisco out of
>the JPB, 

Not a totally bad idea.  :-)/2

>         and let Caltrain evolve to serve its primary population,
>people who live *and* work on the Peninsula and South Bay, better.  

I disagree.  CalTrain's population has always been people who work
in SF and live on the Peninsula (and South Bay).  That has been one
of its failings.

--
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: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:26:06 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <ucoafj4@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) wrote: 
>> ->Not everyone goes to the financial district, you know, even among
>> ->commuters.
>
>I don't know.  The financial district is at one edge of the city.
>It makes for a pretty indirect route for most travellers.  If I'm
>going from the Marina to the Sunset, I don't want to have to go
>through the financial district.

Not to disagree [directly] with what you said, but ...

When discussing transit (private or public) we seem to use rather
ambiguously defined terms -- shortest, most direct, ...

In this case I think we should consider "shortest" in terms of travel
time.  The subway line makes the "distance" map of SF look very
different from a topological map.

--
Mike Lipsie                            584 Castro #614, San Francisco, CA 94114
dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
mikel%dosbears.uucp@ingres.com    Running rn (for DOS) with UUPC/Extended 1.11k
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Sources (was Re: Cars as "something better")
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:54:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.221909.16484@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
|> Based on my last SMOG test, it seems that my car puts out very
|> little in the way of toxic emissions.

There's more to a car's impact on the world that what comes out of the
tailpipe!  A lot more.  From raw material production to fabrication to
eventual disposal of the auto and everything involved with "supporting"
its creation and operation, there are lots of "byproducts" of the auto
and its complete lifecycle you are ignoring.

I'm sure most of us know this, but it's often all too easy to focus only
on what comes out of the tailpipe and then conclude "gee, my car is pretty
environmentally benign".

Of course, there are also lots of other non-pollution related impacts
of the auto: land use, cultural, social/societal, structural, attitudinal,  
psychological, etc.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: CalTrain Article
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:50:31 GMT

In article <jyc.726445709@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>
: Another interesting fact regarding the downtown SF extension issue is
: that at one time CalTrain was so close to running downtown that notices
: were put out on trains announcing service to the Ferry Building.  In
: fact, the official CalTrain schedule at that time (early eighties, I
: believe) was printed up showing the Ferry Building station stop!  This
: service was to run on surface streets along moderately upgraded
: existing track that extended beyond the 4th and Townsend St. station
: along King St. to the Embarcadero.

>   That's interesting -- I don't remember those plans, probably because
>I didn't use the train that often at that period.

>   I do recall though that some months ago I suggested on this newsgroup
>exactly that proposal:  that existing tracks extending from the current
>depot to the Embarcadero should be upgraded to create a downtown
>station.  The result of my posting was numerous followups saying
>basically, "Eeeeeeeee!!!  You can't do that!!!!  What are the *CARS*
>using those streets going to do?!?!?!?!?"

	That was exactly my point. And there would be the most trains
at the worst possible time -- when there are the most cars. The nature
of CalTrain's service doesn't allow the option that the SP and UP
dispatchers of Oakland have, of running their trains when the cars are
the least frequent.

	A six-car CalTrain crawling on on a track in the street would
block an awful lot of traffic as it goes...

	And it doesn't look like there is very much room in fromt of
the Ferry Building to park trains.

	So I think it was a NIMBY reaction rather than some BART
official saying "Don't have a Cow-er-CalTrain, man."

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: SCCo Measure A challenged
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:26:48 GMT

This is the first half of an article that appeared in the San Jose
Mercury News on Thursday, January 7, 1993, page B-1:


Transit tax is targeted

Coalition files suit to nullify Measure A

A Coalition of groups led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
has sued Santa Clara County to block implementation of Measure A, the
half-cent sales tax approved by the voters in November to fund mass
transit and highway improvement projects.

The suit contends the measure is invalid because it failed to receive
a two-thirds favorable vote as required under two tax-limiting
initiatives: propositions 13 and 62.  Local officials maintain that
Measure A--which would raise $3.5 billion over 20 years--is the type
of tax increase not covered by the two propositions and had to receive
only a majority vote to pass.

Even if the suit is ultimately unsuccessful, it may result in delays
on several key projects to be funded by Measure A.  Although the new
tax would not begin until April 1, 1995, the new Local Transportation
Authority has the power to raise bond money to begin construction
immediately.

The project most seriously threatened by the suit--which could take
months to make its way through the courts--is the Tasman light-rail
line, for which $232 million in federal funds already has been
approved.  Measure A called for raising $110 million in local money,
matching funds needed for the project to proceed.

There could also be delays in Highway 87 construction through downtown
San Jose and on several interchanges in San Jose and Mountain View.

[... article continues ...]  


-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: I hate "Rapid" Transit District (RTD)
Keywords: rapid RTD transport
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:24:59 GMT

In article <ugtdpf0@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> Putting in service to the airport was probably very expensive, as
> it is here in San Francisco.  Transferring to an airport shuttle
> bus doesn't seem all that onerous if it runs frequently enough.
> Another problem with airport service is that it would probably
> have to be the end of a line, or force a substantial deviation.
> They probably wanted to get riders to/from Manhattan Beach too.

  Bzzt. Logan in Boston is heaven on earth compared to SF and it's
brain dead lack of Bart. With as much money as they are spending
anyway, they can at least make the routes go to destination which
have some basis in reality...

-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:55:14 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1993Jan4.191311.19802@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>
>                          The planning and right of way considerations
>for 85 have been in the works for a long long time (20 years or more?).  

At least.  When I moved to the valley 18 years ago, all the maps had
"85 (proposed)" on them already.  And much of the land had already 
been purchased (and was being used for things like golf courses.)

--
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: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: SCCo Measure A challenged
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:11:27 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1993Jan12.164514.15617@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
> In article <1993Jan12.002648.17974@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> >This is the first half of an article that appeared in the San Jose
> >Mercury News on Thursday, January 7, 1993, page B-1:
> >
> >
> >Transit tax is targeted
> >
> >Coalition files suit to nullify Measure A
> 
> I think this could be viewed as the reverse of the endless
> environmental suits filed against various freeway projects.
> 
> 	--Hal

You have to admit that the various loopholes that local agencies have
used to get around the 2/3 vote requirement for new taxes is amusing.

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Sources (was Re: Cars as "something bet
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:10:30 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <lkpkqeINNeg7@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>>>Of course, there are also lots of other non-pollution related impacts
>>>of the auto: land use, cultural, social/societal, structural, attitudinal,  
>>>psychological, etc.
>
>>Many of the same factors apply to all of the mass transit systems
>>under discussion as well--and without any potential revenue stream to
>>do anything about it.
>
>Are you suggesting that mass transit has as negative an impact on the environment
>as cars?

Yes and no.  I'm pointing that busses (as presently built) are made of
the same materials as cars--so all the complaints about cars apply to
them as well.  In addition, they don't fall under the same emissions
regulations as cars.  Further, given that busses need roads jsut as
much as cars do--you still need pavement.  Given that most busses in
use are diesel--which has spectacularly *visible* particulate
emissions (never mind that it promptly falls out of the air), you'll
never convince the average person that busses are more benign than
cars--and you're asking that same average person to foot the bill to
opeate 'em.

>Say we got it together in the Bay Area and reduced the amount of driving done.

See my remarks on the psychological factors.  Thentell me how you're
planning to get folks out of their cars.  Carrots or sticks?

>Say people cut down on their driving to work, shopping, whatever, and took the
>bus, BART, Caltrain.  Mass transit use would go up, driving down.  

True.  *Trivally* true.  If folks drive less (and go the same places)
mass transit use *will* go up.   How do you propose to get fols to cut
down on the driving?

Start with me.  I use mass transit for about 80% of my commute
distance from Albany to San Ramon.  I use it about 80% to 90% of the
time.  I use a car almost *exclusively* for shopping.  Convince me
that I want to carry 100 lbs. of groceries on a bus...

>When you
>consider all of those factors you're talking about, we'd be in a much better
>shape.  Or doesn't that sound logical to you?

I really hate to break this to you... I love logic as much as the next
guy.  I'll settle for reasonable when logic won't wrok.  But that
attitude is the *exception*, not the rule.  Using mass transit *may*
be logical--you've got to account for the cost of the users time as
well as the out-of-pocket expenses and this is almost *never*
done--but many of the reasons folks drive have nothing to do with
economics, logic or reason.  You've got two chioces--persuade folks to
use transit more (the 'carrot') or make it harder to drive (the
'stick').  What mix are you advocating?

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Sources (was Re: Cars as "something better")
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:49:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.195443.20395@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.221909.16484@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>|> Based on my last SMOG test, it seems that my car puts out very
>|> little in the way of toxic emissions.
>
>There's more to a car's impact on the world that what comes out of the
>tailpipe!  A lot more.  From raw material production to fabrication to
>eventual disposal of the auto and everything involved with "supporting"
>its creation and operation, there are lots of "byproducts" of the auto
>and its complete lifecycle you are ignoring.
>
>I'm sure most of us know this, but it's often all too easy to focus only
>on what comes out of the tailpipe and then conclude "gee, my car is pretty
>environmentally benign".
>
>Of course, there are also lots of other non-pollution related impacts
>of the auto: land use, cultural, social/societal, structural, attitudinal,  
>psychological, etc.

Many of the same factors apply to all of the mass transit systems
under discussion as well--and without any potential revenue stream to
do anything about it.

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:08:06 GMT

In article <4940@wet.UUCP> editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson) writes:
>whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>>Actually BART *wasn't* designed for standees.  Those grab rails were
>>added *after* they discovered that they had lots of standees--and grab
>>rails across the entry areas were added later still....
>
>A bit of trivia -- I used to think the above as well; then I
>started paying attention to numbers of cars equipped with
>different types of grab rails.  In fact it's the _earlier_
>cars that have grab rails across the entry areas, the 200
>series as I recall.  The 300s and later have the break at
>the entry area -- presumably somebody bumped his head and
>threatened to sue...

My observations go back to the first few weeks BART was running.
(About a week into the opening of the system, a group of us took our
lunh hour to find out what it was like....)  There were *no* overhead
grab-rails at that time.  When the first ones were put in--they
*didn't* cross the entry area.  I think the effect youo've noted was
one of adding the rails to new cars as they were delivered *after* the
system opened.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:32:59 GMT

In article <1527@dosbears>, mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie) writes:
> In article <ucoafj4@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) wrote: 
> >> ->Not everyone goes to the financial district, you know, even among
> >> ->commuters.
> >
> >I don't know.  The financial district is at one edge of the city.
> >It makes for a pretty indirect route for most travellers.  If I'm
> >going from the Marina to the Sunset, I don't want to have to go
> >through the financial district.
> 
> Not to disagree [directly] with what you said, but ...
> 
> When discussing transit (private or public) we seem to use rather
> ambiguously defined terms -- shortest, most direct, ...
> 
> In this case I think we should consider "shortest" in terms of travel
> time.  The subway line makes the "distance" map of SF look very
> different from a topological map.

I think you're correct in general, but I also think my statement
is correct.  Remember that the 28 is a pretty quick route for the
most part, since it travels along what is essentially an expressway.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: Grade Separations (was Re: CalTrain scheduling musings)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: ca
Date:  5 JAN 93 08:18:53    

	While grade seperation with third rail may be a "good thing" (tm), it is
not necessary.  Both LIRR and NYCRR have operated with highway crossings at
grade thru thrid rail territory.  One simply leaves a longish gap.  (Works best
with EMU equipment...)  (This was true in the past,  Unknown if such crossings
remain...)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
From: shibumi@joes.garage.com (Kenton A. Hoover)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Propane conversion info request
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:37:52 GMT
Reply-To: shibumi@joes.garage.com
Organization: Joe's Garage, San Francisco, KA
X-Elvis: Elvis, Grant me the power to crush my enemies

robertw@informix.com (Robert Weinberg) writes:
>Is there information available on converting an automobile to propane? An ftp site,  
>book, magazine?

Contact "Real Goods" in Chico, California and ask about Tom Jennings book
on this subject.

>Anyone out there actually done it?

Tom has.  Yesterday, I saw his converted Rambler station wagon.  Tom can be
reached via email at tomj@fidosw.fidonet.org.  Since he is making some
money from his book, I don't think that he will give you alot of free advice.  His conversion was a home-brew job.

| Kenton A. Hoover                                                            |
| P.O. Box 882643                                             +1 415 957 3614 |
| San Francisco, Kalifornia 94188-2643                shibumi@joes.garage.com |
|==============442.075+100=146.850+=444.625+131.8=440.900+114.8===============|
| Ride a motorcycle.  Save Gas, Oil, Rubber, Steel, Aluminum, Parking Spaces, |
| The Environment, and Money.  Plus, you get to wear all the leather you want!|
From: editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Summary: a minor point
Date: 6 Jan 93 07:20:08 GMT
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Distribution: ba
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco

whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>Actually BART *wasn't* designed for standees.  Those grab rails were
>added *after* they discovered that they had lots of standees--and grab
>rails across the entry areas were added later still....

A bit of trivia -- I used to think the above as well; then I
started paying attention to numbers of cars equipped with
different types of grab rails.  In fact it's the _earlier_
cars that have grab rails across the entry areas, the 200
series as I recall.  The 300s and later have the break at
the entry area -- presumably somebody bumped his head and
threatened to sue...

E.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
editor@Wet.COM                {netcomsv,well,ucsfcca,hoptoad}!wet!editor
	This .sig under construction.  Pardon the inconvenience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:3085 ba.sports:699