HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:30:25 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <26679@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
>jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli) refers to '"On Demand" shuttles,
>like shared taxis, ...'.  I'm told that in parts of Europe (Germany
>specifically, I think), there are demand-driven bus routes
>that serve this purpose.  Does anyone know more about these?

They were tried in Santa Clara County 15 or 20 years ago.
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).

They ended up costing far more than the county thought they would,
because very little doubling up happened in real usage.  At the same
time the wait to get one was very long.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Dirty CalTrain Windows
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:39:07 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <LAU.92Oct15132602@sunset.ai.sri.com> lau@sunset.ai.sri.com (Stephen Lau) writes:
>
>Just a simple question, Why are CalTrain's windows SO dirty? I ride
>the train between Menlo Park and San Francisco and every train I've
>been on has dirty windows. Some of them are so bad they looked frosted.

They are.  It's not just dirt.


-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:34:51 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1bhis9INNiqb@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> (ba.transportation), 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.

So we have a responsibilty to help pay for poor areas' needs like in
Central America or Bangladesh?  Seems like the same argument to me.

Charity is one thing, I'm all for it, but when you take my money from
me with the force of law, I get just a little upset about it.

If Santa Clara county wants to tax itself to build more roads (as
we did with the original measure A, I say "that's the way to do it."
I do have a problem with someone somewhere else saying, yeah
I'd like some roads too, lets get those folks in Santa Clara county
to buy us one - I do have a problem with it.

> 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."

The further away the level of government is, the less it really understands
the needs of the local people.   

As to Fresno vs. Yreka example, many people feel that California is
too big too.  And that by splitting it up we'd have a much more responsive
state government.  This very well may happen in the next few 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
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2565 ba.politics:6159
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.politics
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:49:24 GMT
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1992Oct7.191940.5896@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:

>|> That may well be the case, but BART outperforms CalTrain very handily.
>
>In some areas, yes, but not really--especially when you consider an
>upgraded CalTrain.

"Upgraded CalTrain" in as oxymoron. Big Ding-Ding can't be upgraded by
definition.

As my grandpa used to say, "Can't polish a turd." Bay Area bureaucrats,
politicians, and other various criminals and nefarious types have been
trying to polish this baby for decades. It still shines like a pile carpet.

Big Ding-Ding shoulda been sent off to the Smithsonian 20 years ago. Sorry
folks, the Bay Area is a declining culture, and Big Ding-Ding is just one
of the examples. Until the Bay Area elite start checking the calendar and
realize that the 21st Century is right around corner, the decline will
continue.

It's time to dream, then make those dreams a reality. Anything else is
just Institutionalized Mediocrity.

								   MPA
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2474 ba.politics:6014
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Keywords: bart caltrain cost bull
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:12:03 GMT

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?

jeremy
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:39:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <D2150035.fratdg@outpost.SF-Bay.org> peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:
>
>In article <1b7qupINNhkf@agate.berkeley.edu> (ba.transportation), lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>> 
>
>
>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.

"Rabbit warrens" is about as appropriate a description of urban
neighborhoods as "barns" is of suburban developments.  

Moreover, the point is that the financial cost of suburban development
is not enough to cover the ecological cost, and that perhaps those people 
who aren't willing to cover the ecological cost should consider moving
to somewhere more ecologically sound.  That doesn't necessaily imply
an apartment, but a multi-story house on a smaller lot rather than a
single-story house on a big lot.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
  Bring in the workers, and bring up the rails;
  We're gonna lay down the tracks, and tear up the trails. 
  Open her heart, let the life-blood flow,
  Gotta get on our way 'cause we're movin' too slow.
    -- Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy"
From: geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM (George Atkins)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Bikes on CalTrain
Date: 14 Oct 1992 22:40:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: shilah

I've taken my bike onto Caltrain a number of times now.  The conductors in general
have been pleasant about it.  One guy seemed a bit argumentatvie, but once he 
realized I knew the rules he was okay.  Most of the conductors I've talked to 
the first week found bikes on the train to be an interesting novelty.  They all
asked to see my bike pass.

The train itself is not set up very well for a bicycle, but with a little 
practice it gets easier.  I don't know if a conductor would forbid you to get
on if there were already four bikes on the train.  Didn't seem like many of
them knew the rules, other than that you had to have a pass.

-George
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:09:57 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1ba6uoINNrnd@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> (ba.transportation), fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
> 
> In article <D2150035.fratdg@outpost.SF-Bay.org> peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:
> 
> Moreover, the point is that the financial cost of suburban development
> is not enough to cover the ecological cost, and that perhaps those people 
> who aren't willing to cover the ecological cost should consider moving
> to somewhere more ecologically sound.  That doesn't necessaily imply
> an apartment, but a multi-story house on a smaller lot rather than a
> single-story house on a big lot.

And how do you propose measuring "ecological cost"?  Sounds a lot like
social cost, or psycological cost, or spiritual cost.  Yeah, I like
that one.  Living in a city instead of on a farm takes a terrible
toll on the spiritial development of people who live there.  Of course,
market forces don't properly measure the spiritual cost, so lets have
big brother impose a spiritual cost adjustment to make up for it.

Sound like houey?  Sure does...

--  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: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:30:37 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1bg8p5INNfaa@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>The United States made a series of political decisions in the early
>part of this century that encouraged spread-out automobile
>developments.  We did this by adopting zoning regulations and by
>building gigantic infrastructures for the automobile (freeways,
>streets, garages, parking lots).

Of course, if everyone got around on buses, we wouldn't need all
those streets, would we? Firemen can walk to work carrying buckets.
Police could ride horses. What a nice life it would be.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Dirty CalTrain Windows
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:49:39 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: LLNL

In article <LAU.92Oct15132602@sunset.ai.sri.com> lau@sunset.ai.sri.com (Stephen Lau) writes:
>
>Just a simple question, Why are CalTrain's windows SO dirty? I ride
>the train between Menlo Park and San Francisco and every train I've
>been on has dirty windows. Some of them are so bad they looked frosted.

	I agree. That's why I've ridden on the lower levels on the
only times I've ridden CalTrain -- the windows are somewhat better
there, even though I would have gotten a great view from the upper
levels.

	Adrian Brandt says it's because of a window cleaner that the
CalTrain folx had used -- one which led to this Ikky result, because
the windows are all plastic.

	I don't see why CalTrain's management has willingly let this
embarrassment happen -- perhaps they don't ride their own trains.

	I once read somewhere that AC Transit used to be much better
when its head actually rode the buses.

	I think that this would be an interesting test of transit
executives -- do they actually ride their own systems?
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Date: 9 Oct 1992 06:30:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Oct08.225223.17362@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>Most transporatation types consider cars to be an evil which must be
>removed as much as possible, without ever thinking about the real
>problems: cost, pollution, time, and hassle.  

I see the "real problems" as including the environmental costs (and
opportunity costs) of the kind of land development that is encouraged
by the automobile.  Many uses of the land are public goods (the value
of open views, wildlife areas, and so on) and are not subject to the
land-market forces.  The automobile is not "evil" in and of itself but
it is undesirable because of the side effects of automobiles being the
dominant mode of transportation.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
  Bring in the workers, and bring up the rails;
  We're gonna lay down the tracks, and tear up the trails. 
  Open her heart, let the life-blood flow,
  Gotta get on our way 'cause we're movin' too slow.
    -- Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy"
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: [transport] CalTrain month pass for bus?
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:12:49 GMT

dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung) wrote: 
->     I think CalTrain month passes should extend to busses, notably
->Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco county transits.  Since CalTrain
->pass holders use train for regular commuting, their bus rides are short,
->mostly weekend rides or commuting between home or work and the closest
->train station.  So, this will add little to the cost of transporting them
->on the bus.  Moreover, this will make it convenient for many people
->to take car--train--bus or bus--train--bus routes to work; they would
->not have to pay for an extra bus ride from the train station to work.

you obviously don't do this; if you did, you wouldn't say any of this.

the joint powers board already provides a discounted endorsement for
your monthly caltrain pass which effectively creates a 33% discount on
a monthly pass (which, in turn, is discounted from the regular fare)
... consider that this endorsement on your caltrain pass is good
everywhere on the peninsula, and it turns out to be excellent value.

your presumptions about the rides that caltrain commuters have to make
to get to caltrain stations are ridiculous and without foundation in
fact.  

finally, the endorsement that you pay extra for (described above) also
works on weekends ... and many caltrain commuters use the local mass
transit all weekend long (to get the best value from that pass).

->     The most important, is that we can all save automobile maintainance
->cost and lower fuel consumption.  (If you ask me, I use a walk--train--walk
->trip to work almost every day, but not all people live or work this close
->to train stations.)

indeed.

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Dirty CalTrain Windows
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:38:59 GMT

In article <1blr5lINN65o@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
|> Personally, it irks me that SamTrans' headquarters is on California
|> Drive in Burlingame.

It isn't.  SamTrans HQ is at 1250 San Carlos Avenue in San Carlos.  This
is one block west of El Camino and the San Carlos CalTrain station and
is very transit-accessible.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: BART *into* SF Airport after all?
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:14:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.222712.18871@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> 	I think it is totally unnecessary to send a BART line into the
|> airport if a people-mover (ultralight rail) to a nearby BART station
|> will do just as well.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I believe that the BART <---> people-mover link will be *better* than
BART into the airport in some ways.  The people-mover will distribute
passengers around the various airport destinations (terminals, parking
areas), whereas BART *into* the airport will dump all passengers out
in the middle of, and under, the short term parking garage.  Passengers
will actually have *less* walking to do if they come into the airport
by people-mover since it will bring them directly (or at least very
close) to/from their airport destination/origin.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2539 rec.railroad:7990
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: BART *into* SF Airport after all?
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:27:12 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: LLNL


	This is one area where I agree with Adrian Brandt.

	I think it is totally unnecessary to send a BART line into the
airport if a people-mover (ultralight rail) to a nearby BART station
will do just as well. Furthermore, it will be good for CalTrain, which
will probably not be built into SFO.

	I don't see how Quentin Kopp's proposal represents anything
other than an edifice complex.

	I may add that one is planned for the Oakland airport, and
proposals are being requested for it. According to the planning
documents I have, it is supposed to open before the SFO extension
opens, or at least not after the opening of the SFO extension.
From: gary@igor.tamri.com (Gary Schwartz)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:36:06 GMT
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Distribution: ba
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

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?

Please email or post replies.  I'll summarize if there's enough interest.

thanks,

gary
-- 
--
Gary Schwartz					gary@igor.tamri.com
Toshiba America MRI, Inc.		
280 Utah Ave					phone:	(415) 875-3483	
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:56:37 GMT

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.

Have your company participate in the "Commuter Check" program.  This
allows employers to give employees a $20 transit voucher.  This really
amounts to a $20 coupon good toward purchase of any high-value ($20 or
more) transit pass or ticket.  This is a tax free benefit for employees,
and so is worth about $30 of salary.  For employers, it's a tax
deductible business expense and winds up costing them about $13 or $14
per "Commuter Check" voucher.  It's a nice gesture for a company to
make, and for most companies, doesn't really cost them all that much
when compared to all their other expenditures per employee.  To get more
info about the "Commuter Check" program, call RIDES at (800) 755-7665.
They will send you a packet with detailed information and an order form.


|> [Toshiba America] 280 Utah Ave [South SF]

SamTrans bus 7B comes closest to you.  South San Francisco's CalTrain
station looks to be about a 20 or 25-minute walk.  With a CalTrain
montly ticket, you can ride the SamTrans buses free since your ticket
is good for a local fare credit of 85 cents.  

Also, you can put a transit info display case in your company cafeteria
(or any other appropriate place).  Order a system route map (laminated,
if possible) and schedules of some appropriate buses and CalTrain.  Put
the map on the wall and make the schedules available in one of those
schedule-holder boxes.  (I think all this stuff is available from
SamTrans/CalTrain by calling (800) 660-4287.)  Also, if and when your
company participates in the Commuter Check program, put up some flyers
advertising it around the building.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Employer encouragement of alternative means of commuting
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:04:32 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton

gary@igor.tamri.com (Gary Schwartz) wrote: 
->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?

do you provide free parking for your staff?  you could stop doing that
... free parking is a subsidy for those carbound folks ...

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: SC County to make big transit cuts
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:36:40 GMT

Did anyone else see the story in Thursday's SJ Mercury about the
big cuts Santa Clara County Transit are going to make?  The story
mentioned that cuts will affect all but 4 or 5 bus routes.  Bus
ridership is down while light rail ridership is up.  Overall,
transit use is down (due to the economy?).  Light rail midday
frequencies will probably be reduced from 6 per hour to 4 per
hour (15 min. headways).  Also, the special peak period Almaden 
branch runs will likely be eliminated.

The final decision on all this will be made on:

	Tuesday, November 3, 9:00am (election day)
	Santa Clara County Transit District Board Meeting
	Board Chambers
	County Administration Building
	70 West Hedding Street, San Jose

These cuts are said to be pretty significant.  The last round of
cuts cut "fat".  These are said to start hitting "muscle and bone".

If Measure A fails, you can bet there will be some very draconian
cuts.

Vote YES on Measure A to support and improve SC County transit.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov