HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: BART Extension Routes
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:39:19 GMT

In article <1bf9e3INNboa@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> james@cats.ucsc.edu (James C. Bohem) writes:
>
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
$ In article <1992Oct12.202128.19808@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
$ $ In the meantime, if one wants to get headways down very cheaply, a
$ $ simple way to do that would be to run LRV's along the line during
$ $ off-peak hours.

: [ lots of (non-)feasibility talk on this subject]

: LRVs typically have a lower max. speed - around 60mph -
: than standard electric heavy rail. If you want frequent
: off-peak service, why not run EMUs like a lot of the 
: transit agencies in the NE do? Some of these systems
: have a 2-car pair minimum, others single car. They will
: easily do 100mph on straight continuous-welded rail. 
: They are proven technology. They've been in service
: for years on a variety of lines, some of which no
: doubt resemble the demographics/distances/etc. of
: the CalTrain line. 

: I'd push for some EMUs for an electrified CalTrain
: anyway - they have better acceleration and braking
: for service where the stations are relatively close
: ( < 3-5 mi.; Locos are still viable for express runs).

	That's actually pretty much what I had in mind.

	The LRV's designed for city-street running are probably
inadequate, as you comment; I've had plenty of experience with the
EMU's of the NE, principally those of Philadelphia, which have the
size of LRV's, and which can go fairly fast.

	Anyone wanting a relatively cheap upgrade of CalTrain might
want to push for acquiring some of these, since they could make small
headways on off-peak times cost-effective. You don't need a big train
to hold a single carful of people.

Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.politics
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Keywords: bart caltrain cost bull
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:03:23 GMT

In article <qv6jpuk@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>In article <4354@wet.UUCP>, editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson) writes:
@ In article <1992Oct9.094904.14023@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ >	But it would be just like the existing CalTrain, but with
@ >electric locos. I'm not sure if that's much of an improvement. I
@ >suspect that 15-minute headways would only be practical with rolling
@ >stock that allows for shorter trains, like the Philly commuter-train
@ >MU cars.
@ 
@ Please, no more knee-jerk "suspicions" -- no matter what you
@ suspect, a 15-minute train interval places trains at least 6
@ or 7 miles apart, even with today's diesel engines.  Yeah,
@ that extra couple hundred feet is just gonna eat up the
@ track-miles -- run 'em every 5 minutes and they'll be ten
@ feet apart the whole way....
>
>Wasn't this suspicion that shorter trains would be necessary
>due to cost effectiveness questions, not whether they would
>fit?

	Exactly my point. If the passengers that ride trains with
2-hour headways were to ride trains with 15-min headways, then there
would be 1/8 as many passengers per train. More frequent service would
attract more riders, but how many?

	And if cheap upgrades of CalTrain is what one wants, then one
might do it by purchasing a lot of LRV's to run on the lines. These
would run off-peak, and the big heavy trains would be saved for peak
times.

	This might be practical only if the line is electrified,
however, though it _might_ be possible to purchase diesel-powered
LRV's from somewhere.
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:43:36 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

[ As part of John C's GUT (Grand Unifing Transit) system, he want to
  schedual everything so that pick ups are guaranteed (sp?).  I posted
  that I thought this was impossible in the case of multiple transit
  lines, because if some pick ups were guaranteed, others would not
  be, and if you tried the guarantee the second set, the first set
  would not work.  I was saying that the system could not be schedualed. ]


In article <qrlmrks@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>It's not as hard as you might think.  With a hub-and-spoke transit
>system, you can get pretty reliable transfers.  And late at night,
>when this is especially useful, traffic is least likely to cause
>lateness.

I don't think hub-and-spoke will solve the problem for several reasons:
    1. One hub-and-spoke system is unlikely to cover the entire area.
    2. Multiple hub-and spoke systems, connected only at the hubs,
       will be too slow.  Real desitinations will require three trips 
       and two transfers.  One of these trips will likely be pretty
       long, since hubs close together would be a waste.
    3. Multiple hub-and-spoke systems, connected by multiple routines,
       can not be scheduled in the way John wants.

The end result is that hub-and-spoke make it easy(er) to get from
one part of one spoke to another part of a spoke on the same hub,
but they do not help get from one arbtrary place to another.  Cars
can do this, and since your goal is to make transit more attractive
than cars, I don't think hub-and-spoke will do it.

Note that even in the case of a single hub, you are requiring people
to take two rides and one transfer.  John's system tries to minimize
the damage by postulating really good schedualling to minimize the
cost of the transfer.  Will this work in real life?  Will it be
better than the single trip, no transfer car?

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:09:14 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Oct7.183606.17923@igor.tamri.com> gary@igor.tamri.com (Gary Schwartz) writes:
>Our company is looking for ways to encourage employees to use means of 
>commuting other than the automobile.  Does anyone out there have any 
>suggestions or know of any ways that other companies have provided 
>such encouragement or incentives?

The best means of commuting is not to commute at all, so I would have
a corporate policy that most employees should work at home one or more
days a week.  This can be implemented by letting employees take 
terminals, modems, fax machines, computers, etc. home.  

Here are some ideas for encouraging bike transportation:

Provide showers and lockers so employees can changing after or before
biking.

Encourage flexi-hours, since they make biking (and all other forms
of transporation) easier to use.  

If you have dress codes (either formally or informally) drop them.

Allow people to park bikes in their offices or in other storage areas.
If this is not possible, set up bike lockers or racks.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:57:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.203025.24187@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>They failed miserably because people thought of them as taxis,
>very cheap taxis.  After a very short time, the wait to get
>one was far too long (40 minutes? an hour?  I don't remember).

So you're saying they failed because people liked them too much.
I can see that the public transit agencies have done their best
to insure that such an unfortunate situation never happens again.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:51:42 GMT

-It wasn't intended so much as an "argument", per se.  My main reason
-for making the point is that if you are suggesting (as I think you are)
-that voting measure A down this November will result in a half-cent sales
-tax decrease in 1995, I wouldn't bet on it, and neither should you.  The
-only thing certain about measure A's defeat is a bleak future for public
-transportation in Santa Clara County.

Nonsense. Every time we kill one of these highway construction measures,
they come back with one that is better for transit. It is unacceptable for
the poor (via sales taxes, which are regressive) to be forced to build
freeways for the rich, which is what Measure A is about. Let me know when
they come back with a 100% transit measure, preferably funded via a hefty
gas tax or parking tax. And no parking lots or HOV lanes masquerading as
"transit" measures.
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:00:13 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1b7qupINNhkf@agate.berkeley.edu> (ba.transportation), lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
> In article <D2150035.fpcet5@outpost.SF-Bay.org> peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:
> 
> The point of my posting
> is to refute the notion that living in cities is an undesirable thing
> that people do only as a second choice to suburbs.  San Francisco is a
> classic high-density city that is a place where lots and lots of
> people live, people who could afford to live elsewhere but don't.
> Cities are good places to call home.


  The point of my posting
  is to refute the notion that living in low density cities is an undesirable thing
  that people do only as a second choice to high density cities.  San Jose is a
  classic low density city that is a place where lots and lots of
  people live, people who could afford to live elsewhere but don't.
  Cities are good places to call home.

So where does that take us?  Basically there are people who do like
living in rabbit warrens and others who don't.  Vie la difference.
Just don't pretend that everyone would move to San Francisco or Manhattan
if they had the chance.

--  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: tom@microunity.com (Tom Laidig)
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Organization: MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:21:36 GMT

In article <92288.30339.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In <1992Oct14.001321.12288@ads.com>, Henry Mensch writes:
>
>>i did not say "convert the land to other usage."  i said "stop
>>providing free parking."  charge for parking.  that's an incentive.
>
>That is *not* an incentive.  It is a *disincentive* to use an auto.  And tell
>me this--would such a socialist plan (telling people how they have to use their
>land) take carpools into account?  Would carpoolers have to pay this, too?  If
>not, how would this be administered?
>
>I have no problems with genuine incentives for using transit.  I am strongly
>against penalties for driving, though.  We should implement a reward-based
>system and not a penalty-based system.  Government should not be able to tell
>businesses how they have to use their parking lots or their land in general.
>
>Socialism is dying all over Eastern Europe...why would we want to try it here?
>
>Tim Irvin  j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
>******************************************************************************

I love it when people liken any form of government action to socialism.
It lends such credence to their observations, especially childish whines
about only wanting rewards.

Actually, in this case, I *do* agree that it would be helpful for some
governments to back off a bit -- I think they should get rid of the
zoning laws that force employers to provide parking.  For example, the
city of Sunnyvale required us to build large parking lots with about 3
spaces for each employee (no, there are no customers to take parking
spaces either).  That's just what their zoning formula said we need.
--
	Tom Laidig				tom@microunity.com
--
	Tom Laidig				tom@microunity.com
	MicroUnity Systems Engineering		(408) 734-8100
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:43:20 GMT

In article <1bhis9INNiqb@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> In article <92288.30694.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> >In <1bg96bINNfaq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Aaron Priven writes:
> >
> >>We help pay for transit in Massachusetts and Texas and Florida, they
> >>help pay for transit here.  We did, after all, contribute to the
> >>federal taxes.
> >
> >That's why we're bankrupt today.  We have people in Congress who say that they
> >will vote for our pork if our Congresscritter votes for their pork.  So in
> >fact, everyone gets their pork and we all pay dearly for it.  Why not just
> >eliminate all federal pork like this, cut the federal taxes associated with the
> >pork and let the states, counties and cities do it themselves?  With the
> >federal tax cut, they could implement their own plan without raising taxes over
> >current levels.
> 
> Because some states are richer than others, and as long as we live in
> the same country, we have some responsibility to help pay for poorer
> areas' needs.  "The federal tax cut" would be lesser or greater in
> various states.  Mississippi would be really badly off afterwards.

Now we're really straying.  But if you want to equalize spending among
states, it would be better to give unrestricted payments to states
than the current system.

> I agree that there is a lot of federal wasted projects, but I'm not
> sure it's going to help much if it's shifted to the state level.
> "I'll help your project in Cheyenne if you'll help mine in
> Tallahassee" is no worse than "I'll help your project in Fresno if
> you'll help mine in Yreka."

Actually, it is worse, or at least different.  Fresno and Yreka are
closer to each other than Tallahassee and Cheyenne.  And being part
of a smaller organization, it is easier to control such things as
pork.  Your assertion of Cheyenne/Tallahassee >= Fresno/Yreka would
imply that, say, Nairobi/Omaha >= Cheyenne/Tallahasse.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:07:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.210647.4853@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.163712.530@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
$ In article <1992Oct08.220914.15298@Veritas.COM>, joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
$ |> Encourage flexi-hours, since they make biking (and all other forms
$ |> of transporation) easier to use.  

$ Transit is generally easiest to use during "peak" periods.

>You're right.  Flexi-hours only helps personal transporation like bikes
>and cars.  Government transporation wants everyone to travel at the same
>time.

	Not so. If public transit has good enough off-peak service,
then flexi-hours is OK there. Also, the "peak" period can be stretched
if desired. And it's unfair to scapegoat "government" here. Even if it
was all privatized, the same problem would appear.
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:02:33 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <D2150035.fpcet5@outpost.SF-Bay.org> peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:
>
>Housing prices aren't the highest in SF by a long shot.  Try buying
>a house in Atherton, Los Altos Hills, even Saratoga.
>

Every week in the Chronicle, they run the "homes in the xxx,xxx dollar
range" article, where they show photos and stats for houses that sold
in the past month throughout the bay area. They choose from all over
the bay area, including all the areas you mention. Consistently, week
after week, the SF houses have the highest price per square foot.

This metric makes sense over the whole range of housing prices, and is
in tune with the way you actually buy a house: I can afford so much
for a down payment and so much per month, what are my options in
various neighborhoods? And what this means is people are willing to
settle for much less space in their house, if the house is in this
city.

If you insist on choosing "highest possible price", the mansions in
Seacliff and Pacific Heights can match the prices in any of those
areas.

>Regardless of that, most people in the Bay Area don't live in San Francisco
>anyway.  San Jose is a larger city (more people live in San Jose than
>San Francisco) and it *is* most definitely build on the super large
>suburb model.  

Most people don't live in any one particular city in the Bay Area; the
population difference between San Jose and San Francisco is only a few
hundred thousand, and is mostly a function of the extremely small area
of SF (49 square miles) relative to San Jose. The point of my posting
is to refute the notion that living in cities is an undesirable thing
that people do only as a second choice to suburbs.  San Francisco is a
classic high-density city that is a place where lots and lots of
people live, people who could afford to live elsewhere but don't.
Cities are good places to call home.
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:14:21 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1b795kINNfln@agate.berkeley.edu> (ba.transportation), lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
> In article <1992Oct09.222557.7288@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
> >
> >Most people, if asked, would say that they want to live in a nice house
> >on a large lot, surounded by other families on a quit street far away
> >from factories or other industries. 
> 
> If this were true, would housing prices in the city of San Francisco
> be the highest in the Bay Area?  There isn't a neighborhood in the
> city that "has a large lot" and a lot of the neighborhoods are
> attractive precisely because they are a reasonably close distance from
> the workplace.

Housing prices aren't the highest in SF by a long shot.  Try buying
a house in Atherton, Los Altos Hills, even Saratoga.

Regardless of that, most people in the Bay Area don't live in San Francisco
anyway.  San Jose is a larger city (more people live in San Jose than
San Francisco) and it *is* most definitely build on the super large
suburb model.  

Most people I know down here haven't been to San Francisco in years!

--  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,ba.politics
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:07:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.203704.26841@netcom.com> loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart) writes:
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
$ 
$ 	Compared to SC's LRV's, BART's trains will go 2 or 3 times
$ faster into downtown San Jose, however. The choice is between cheap
$ and slow, or fast and expensive.
>
>Try more like 50% faster.  You are constantly representing BART's
>average speed as faster than it really is, and the LRT speed as slower
>than it really is.  Bart's average speed is about 33 MPH and the LRT
>averages about 26 MPH for the sections that are exclusively freeway
>median.  It is MUCH cheaper to build LRT that doesn't have grade level
>crossings than to build BART.

	Apples and oranges. BART's speed is 45 mph in its suburban
sections (Lake Merritt -- Fremont and MacArthur -- Concord); the 33
(probably now 36) mph average is due to the multiple stops in San
Francisco and Oakland.

	The speed I calculated for the Santa Clara LRT was for its
suburban section, which is (from measured mileage and scheduled times)
about 20 mph (8 miles in 24 minutes along Convention Center -- Santa
Teresa route).
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Bikes on CalTrain
Date: 14 Oct 1992 21:36:36 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: ba
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <1992Oct14.020846.14788@netcom.com>, tssmith@netcom.com (Tim Smith)
writes:
|> Has anyone here taken their bike on CalTrain yet?  I got my permit
|> (#320), but haven't had the occasion yet.  Plan to this weekend.
|> 

I haven't either, but as mine is number 179, it seems as though
plenty of people have applied for the permits.  I probably won't
use it until the restrictions are less onerous, but will after that.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:44:39 GMT

In article <1bg96bINNfaq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> In article <r20998s@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >This succulent little pork chop (hmm, I get hungry thinking about it)
> >is great, because, like the Colma BART station, the rest of the country
> >is paying for it (though we get the indigestion of funding it once
> >it's built -- at least parking garages are cheap to operate).
> 
> We help pay for transit in Massachusetts and Texas and Florida, they
> help pay for transit here.  We did, after all, contribute to the
> federal taxes.  

This strays a little from ba.transportation.  But isn't this a great
system?  All these communities all over the country paying into a
pot.  The feds skim some from the pot, and then hand it back to the
communities for porky transit projects.  Wouldn't it be better if
the federal government didn't get involved in the first place?

I mean, would we really want to build Tasman if we had to pay its
full cost?  Remember, we also paid for the Miami and Baltimore
Metros.

Anyway, I think it hypocritical to be against pork, except where it
benefits oneself.  I want our share of federal dollars, but not this
way.

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Hillsdale -> 101/92 intersection
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:36:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.192319.19138@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>The problem is that
>unless you work on the west side of 101, I don't know if there is a
>pedestrian crossing over 101 at 92.

There is a surface street crossing 101 in the center of 92. I am pretty
sure that PEDS are allowed.

(I watched them build that interchange. Couldn't resist, the first
one was wood.)

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.