HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 09:17:45 PST

In <1992Dec23.150919.7450@pbhye.PacBell.COM>, Mike Vandeman writes:

>-- --- Light rail is more cost-effective than freeway construction.
>-- Estimates for urban freeway construction range as high as $1
>-- billion per mile, while new light rail costs only $10 to $16
>-- million per mile.
>-
>-Where do they get this stuff?  The light rail built in Santa Clara
>-county was far more expensive than this, while the freeways were far
>-less expensive.  Don't they think they can make their point without
>-gross exaggeration?

>It's not much of an exaggeration. The Cypress Freeway will cost over
>a $billion for 1.5 miles. You must be talking about construction of
>additional lanes in existing ROW. What about highway 85??

Yes, it's *possible* that a highway can cost almost $1 billion per mile and
that light rail can cost "only" $10-$15M per mile.  But those amounts are
*far* from the norm, and you know it damn well.  And in most areas of the
country, where starter homes don't cost $250,000, the cheaper land acquisition
costs make freeways cheaper (usually).  Half of the cost in building Route 85
is in land acquisition.  Very little of the cost of rail is for that purpose.

Highway 85:  About $500 million for an 18-mile stretch, or $27.8 million per
mile.  How much did light rail cost through downtown San Jose?  I'll bet it
was a hell of a lot more than $27.8 million per mile.  My point isn't that
rail is always more expensive--it's that you can use numbers to say pretty
much whatever the hell you want them to, and you're being disingenuous by
peddling off those loaded numbers as a typical, normal comparison.  That's
bullschmidt.

I was at a meeting in Milpitas last year about extending Bart from Warm Springs
to downtown San Jose, and the cost was over $200 million per mile.  See that?
Route 85 (freeway):  $27.8 million.  BART:  $200 million.  Therefore I conclude
that freeways are always cheaper than rail systems.  Ridiculous, isn't it?

Light rail north of downtown San Jose was a classic pork project.  It is very
useful for me when going into downtown.  I always use it when I have an
occasion to go downtown.  But north of St. James, a bus is just as fast and
just as functional without the added cost of rail.


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:15:41 GMT

In article <D2150035.m4fueu@outpost.SF-Bay.org> peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec23.184829.12223@adobe.com> (ba.transportation,ca.environment,talk.environment), jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli) writes:
>> I too see IVHS as an attempt to keep the single-occupant auto at the 
>> center of urban transportation.  It's yet another example of 
>> extrapolating the status quo, like the "Future 120 MPH Highways" I used 
>> to read about in Popular Science when I was a kid in the 60's.
>
>Other countries have 120MPH Highways, there is no technical reason
>that the US can't have them either.  The politics of the federal safety
>nazis are the reason we don't have higher speed highways.

Which is ironic given the recently published statistics that the
fatality rate went *down* in the states that adopted the 65 mph max.

Other that the *old* California Basic Speed Law--"Reasonable and
proper"--and Nevada's old habits, the highest US speed limit I know
of ever existing was 80 MPH on the Kansas Turnpike.  Anyone know of
anything higher in US history?

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: lau@sunset.ai.sri.com (Stephen Lau)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Caltrain Bayshore Parking
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:57:19 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA


Does anyone know of a safe place to park one's car at any of the
Caltrain San Francisco stations? I've been parking at the Bayshore
station, but last night someone decided to rip off my battery.

Within the past month at least three other cars at the Bayshore 
station have been either broken into or stolen from the station
parking lot and the immediate area.

I don't want to drive down to South San Francisco station, that's 
a little too far for me and the bus is out of the question since it
takes me about an hour by bus to get to any of the stations.

Any comments or suggestions would be most appreciated.

Steve

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Lau                 lau@ai.sri.com| "I'm not sure if you're a 
SRI International                         |  mysterious person or just still
333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA. 94025|  water that doesn't run very deep."
(415) 859-2925              (415) 326-6200|               - Gene Kelly
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:58:39 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <28106@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
>John Ciccarelli notes:
>>| Joshua Levy writes:
>>| >Mass transit: the technology of the late 1800s.
>
>Yikes!  I'll bet that makes my feet 14th century technology.
>I'd better cut them off and get a (more modern) wheelchair.  :)

Well no, but you should be using a gas powered computer with a 
teletype connection to the internet.  An if you get sick, no
antibiotics for you!  :-)

In all seriousness, transportation is technology based, walking
is not.  Changes in technology affect transportation quite a bit,
while affecting walking little, if at all.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,talk.environment
From: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Reply-To: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Organization: Adobe Systems, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:48:29 GMT

Dean Angelico writes:
>|> No discussion of the future of cars or mass transit, or even
>|> how to improve on or solve transportation problems should overlook
>|> the trend towards IVHS.  Clearly Smart cars and highways will not be
>|> a panacea, but it will inevitably factor into our society over the 
>|> next several decades.

Adrian Brandt responds:
>I think IVHS will 1) cost a lot of money, and 2) essentially be a waste
>of time because it is just pushing out (extending) the saturation point
>of our existing infrastructure.  
>....
>Wouldn't *real* vision be a somewhat more revolutionary shift in our
>thinking and priorities away from the last 50 years or so of auto-
>centered planning and solutions to all our transportation needs?

I think those manufacturers who would profit from IVHS would like us
to believe there's a "trend", but I think that's stretching the truth.

I too see IVHS as an attempt to keep the single-occupant auto at the 
center of urban transportation.  It's yet another example of 
extrapolating the status quo, like the "Future 120 MPH Highways" I used 
to read about in Popular Science when I was a kid in the 60's.

Instead, I'd like to see the ingenuity that is going into IVHS redirected 
toward creating an intelligently-dispatched demand-driven door-to-door
shuttle system that, in conjunction with bus and rail transit, could 
allow me to replace a car for many local and moderate-distance trips.  
Kind of "Dial-A-Ride" with smarts.  

I'd like to be able to call for a ride no matter where I am within the
served area, using a handheld device, and have this device tell me where 
to meet the ride, how long until it appears, how long it will take me to 
get to my desired destination, and how much it will cost.  If a scheduled
transit route is nearby and would make a good connection, the system 
should direct me to it or have the shuttle take me to it, with no 
"waiting on the corner for a ride".  And when I board, it should 
automatically debit my account and issue any connecting tickets or 
transfers I'll need.

"Intelligent highways" are a dead end.  Let's make "intelligent
transportation" available instead.

/John

-- 
John Ciccarelli           Adobe Systems,  1585 Charleston |    _~C      __C
jciccare@mv.us.adobe.com  Mountain View CA USA 94039-7900 |  ='\<,    ='\<,
uunet!adobe!jciccare      415/962-6677,  fax:415/903-0584 | (&)/(\)  (&)/(\)
=== "If you live within 7 miles of your job, why drive?" === BIKE TO WORK ==
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy)
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Organization: Expert Support Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:35:41 GMT

I read in the Murky news that gas tax is about 30 cents per gallon,
but that 5 of those cents go straight to the general fund.  So, in
California, car drivers not only pay their own way.  They also 
subsidize the general fund.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us)
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Midnight 1.5-mile trip to Safeway
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:07:29 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1992Dec18.195138.23794@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.005550.10409@adobe.com> jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli) writes:
>>Geez, only 1.5 miles?  Leave the car at home and hop on your bike.
>>
>>  "but... *Midnight*???"
>>
>>Big deal.  Throw on a jacket and reflective vest or triangle.  And turn 
>>on your lights -- just like a car.
>
>My wife doesn't like walking in the dark. Riding a bike leaves her feeling
>about as exposed to crime as walking does. Sure, there are car-jackings in
>the ant-farms but in the suburbs, driving a car gives her a much better sense
>of security and that is worth a very high price.

I don't know where you live but if it's that dangerous you should
buy her a tank.

--
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,sci.environment,ca.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 02:45:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.233732.24874@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>Not true.  I did a paper on this back in highschool.  In order to
>provide a significant percentage of US energy needs you would need
>whole farms devoted to nothing but producing biomass for methane
>productions.  Straight solar is simpler, cheaper, and less polluting.

For what use?

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aliamus@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Steve Aliamus)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:30:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Bicycles to commute within a work campus: Any successes ?
Organization: HP Corporate, Palo Alto, California
Newsgroups: ba.transportation

>Does anyone work for or know of a company that encourages its workers to 
>get between the buildings of a spread out (1/2 mile) campus ?

The Hewlett-Packard Roseville site provides bicycles (or at least used to)
for employees to "commute" between buildings on its multi-acre site.  I think
the bicycles have baskets on them to allow paperwork to be carried easily.

Steve Aliamus            |      Phone: 415-857-7927
Hewlett-Packard          |        FAX: 415-857-4586
3000 Hanover Street      |     HPDesk: HP0000/49
Mailstop 20CAA           | Compuserve: 71075,1701
Palo Alto, CA  94304     |   Internet: aliamus@corp.hp.com
_____________________________            _        ___
\                            \          [ \______/   \__
 \    I'D RATHER BE FLYING    \_________/---____________)-|
 / Cessna 150 N19282  PP-ASEL /                   b    b
/____________________________/
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:58:02 GMT
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Organization: lbl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

Its never been very clear to me what IVHS is; maybe someone has
a 3 sentence definition to post.

My _speculation_ is that IVHS is conceived of, and pursued as a system
that takes no account of transit possibilities.  That is, it wants
to get individuals in their individual cars from start to destination.
Scenarios such as taking a motor vehicle to a train station which
gets you to your definition wouldn't fit into this concept.
(And I don't count "We can treat busses like big IVHS cars" as
meaning that IVHS understands non-car possibilities).

I'd like to have a small, golf-cart-like vehicle to take me short
distances around town, and to train stations.  Will IVHS help
this happen?  I suspect not.

How a _productive_ discussion on how IVHS could be modified to be
more interesting to those of us not wedded solely to cars.
What precepts of IVHS would change?  What would the funding
implications be?

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: larson@loren.net.com (Alan Larson)
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Organization: none
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:17:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.145532.7225@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>I don't. Cars waste more time, because they cause drivers to waste
>their time. On transit, 100% of the time is useful time for me.

  It may be useful for you.  It is *not* useful for many of us.

  It also takes lots more time, and sometimes isn't even possible.
Most of the time, I am NOT just going from home to work and back.
Monday, for example, was:

	home (in north Fremont) -> work (Redwood City, out by salt piles)
	work -> dinner with friends (near El Camino and San Antonio)
	dinner -> dancing (on Alma, a little north of Charleston)
	dancing -> home

  The second and third segments are limited in availiable time, as
the time is squeezed pretty tightly.

  Several other days are similar.

  What am I to do?  Give up my job, my slightly affordable house, or
my life?  Not everyone is a drone who only goes from home to work and
back.


>Transit still comes out far ahead of the auto. And more important, by
>2020 we won't have affordable fuel for more than a few cars.

  As Joshua pointed out, you only get to cry wolf once.  This was the
claim in the late '60s that there was only 20 to 30 years of fossil
fuel left in the world.  It appears that it was not true then, why
should we believe you now?

	Alan
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Midnight 1.5-mile trip to Safeway
Date: 28 Dec 92 07:35:37 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1518@dosbears> dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com writes:
>>My wife doesn't like walking in the dark. Riding a bike leaves her feeling
>>about as exposed to crime as walking does. Sure, there are car-jackings in
>>the ant-farms but in the suburbs, driving a car gives her a much better sense
>>of security and that is worth a very high price.
>
>I don't know where you live but if it's that dangerous you should
>buy her a tank.

It's easy for a guy to belittle a woman's security needs, but it
shows you as being rather insensitive.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Sources (was Re: Cars as "something better")
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:44:44 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <770026@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> (ba.transportation), dsherman@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Daniel P. Sherman) writes:
> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> 
> I am aquainted with quite a few people who would not want to lose
> that time in that particular way.  It doesn't matter to them that
> there are things you can do with that time.  They can't do those other
> things as easily as you on a moving vehicle.  Many of them have other
> things they consider higher priority do be done than the things they
> could do as they ride to work.  They would rather spend some
> money to buy back that time.

Aren't there any people with families in this news group?  

I'm always amazed at people who keep saying how cool it is to spend
all that time on a train or bus so you can get your reading done.

I'd say saving 20 minutes on a daily commute so someone can spend that
time with their kids is a darn good trade off.

--  Michael Peirce      --   peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org
--  Peirce Software     --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--                      --   San Jose, California USA 95117
--  Drop by booth #4463 --   voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
--  at MacWorld Expo/SF --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:54:29 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1992Dec23.231106.12750@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>Not really. Transit SHOULD be subsidized. Private transport should not,
>obviously.

No, Mike.  It is *not* obvious.  Rather, it is your own bias showing.

>-We *do* need to find ways to make cars pollute less and use renewable energy
>-sources.  I won't debate that.  But it must be a transition.  We need to start
>-the transition ASAP, but that doesn't mean junking all cars.  Sorry.
> 
>All PRIVATE cars. Rentals are OK.

Mike, I suggest that you start a petition campaign to put this on the
ballot.  That way, yoou'll find out how many people agree with you.
You may be surprised at the answer...

>-Note that the rail options take longer than the bus option which takes longer
>-than the auto option.  Is rail transit faster?  Only when no transfers are
>-involved.  And how useful is transfer time?  It's hard to make useful time of
>-transfers by reading or sleeping.
> 
>I read while walking to BART, waiting, & riding. No wasted time. Exercise is
>also valuable.

What constitutes 'wasted' time is a subjective decision.  You can no
more tell what is wasted by someone else than they can tell the same
of you.  You are letting your own biases get in the way of your
judgement.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:07:15 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <ljeosiINNac@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> daa@northbrook.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>
>I am fairly new to this group, so I was wondering if the recent
>discussion of "Cars as "something better"" had considered the
>potential impact of IVHS technology? Did it all start there?

Personally, I consider IVHS type technology to be untested.  This
puts it behind cars, which we know work, but ahead of transit, which
has not worked in the past.  IVHS research is pretty cheap on a national
level -- canceling BART would pay for all of it -- but no one knows
how much it will cost to field a working system.

I do think that all money to fund IVHS research should come out of gas 
taxes, and all money to fund IVHS fielding should come from gas taxes or
user fees.

In terms of "potential impact," no one knows.  How expensive will IVHS
be?  How well will it work?  What will it do?  With basic facts like
these unknown, it seems pointless to guess what the impact will be.

Joshua Levy (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Sources (was Re: Cars as "something better")
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:45:05 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <D2150035.mbn4sz@outpost.SF-Bay.org> peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:
>I'm always amazed at people who keep saying how cool it is to spend
>all that time on a train or bus so you can get your reading done.
>I'd say saving 20 minutes on a daily commute so someone can spend that
>time with their kids is a darn good trade off.

Aaah, the "have kids, give up a life" view of the world.

Twenty more grumpy, headachey minutes (which is what *I'd* get from
driving it every day) would hardly be a gift to one's kids.  I hate the
"quality time" buzzword, but this is exactly that sort of issue.  For
you, perhaps it's a "darn good tradeoff"; for others, it may be that the
driving stress, the lack of private time, or other factors may actually
diminish that driver's enjoyment of time with their kids... or, more
importantly, their kids' enjoyment of time with them.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:59:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec24.003505.21930@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes>
>	On BART, I've never seen anyone use a laptop computer, but I
>_have_ seen a lot of people reading.

I see laptops and cellulars in use during rush hour, Berkeley-SF. Cellular
phones cut out in the tunnel but seem to work fine on elevated sections,
from my observations of others ...

>
>	As for Wilson Heydt's colorful reactions, I am willing to
>concede that a lot of city buses come rather close, at least for me.

For every gross thing I see on MUNI [last night, someone whose diaper
apparently leaked left a mess on a seat near the front of a 1], there
are lots of fun interactions with strangers I would never meet if I
didn't take buses. I think Heydt's reaction is much more of a
city-suburb thing than a transit thing; the most difficult
interactions in the city seem to happen walking on the street, not on
transit. [actually, public laundromats are the scene of most of the
difficult things that have happened to me, unlike a bus, its
stationary, less people are around, and there is usually no employee
on site].  Some people can deal with stuff like this and not have it
bother them, other people don't want to and go live in Milpitas ...
Newsgroups: ba.transportation