HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:55:32 GMT

-year head start, is now rarly used?  Or the one which pays for itself,
-and is heavily used?
 
If you still think cars "pay for themselves", you haven't been listening.

-Do you want to build your 21 century system out of the 20 century's
-failure, or its success?
 
As sustainable transportation, cars are a failure.

--1) ...  It has progressed 
--as far as it has only because the substantial external costs have 
--been ignored or institutionalized until now.  
-
-I know this is part of the mass transit dogma, but you igore the
-massive external costs of mass transit: my time!  You also ignore
 
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.

--As we begin to account 
--for these "hidden" costs -- an essential "market" step in moving the 
--world economy toward sustainability -- the real costs of driving will 
--be more apparent, and "better" will take on a new meaning.  
-
-I'm all in favor of this process, and if it leads to mass transit,
-so be it.  In fact, I suspect it will lead to better pollution control
-for cars, which is a good thing IMHO.  As well as better control
 
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.

-Trains pollute a lot.  The CalTrain pollute as much as 600 cars, so
-if you are on a train with less than 600 people, you would pollute
-less by driving.
 
So electrify it.

-Trains are typically slower than cars.  For example, driving in SF at
-rush hour takes as long as taking the train.  Driving at any other
-time of day is 30%-50% faster.
 
As I said before, this is a fallacy. Train use maximizes my available
and useful time.

--To offer time-efficient 
--alternatives to auto use, we need a frequent and fairly speedy backbone 
--or grid.  Trains are here -- let's develop them into this backbone.  
-
-We could build this backbone out of cars -- they are here also.  They
-are faster, far more flexible, pollute less, but are politically 
 
You are living in a fantasy world.
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Hal Heydt, was  Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:21:42 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1992Dec23.181309.4093@telebit.com> bjork@telebit.com (Steven Bjork) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.173159.6546@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>
>[turgid rantings deleted]
>
>>Hal Heydt                    |    
>>Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
>>510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>So Hal now espouses the Final Solution as used in Nazi Germany.
>How many "undesirables" have you "relocated," Hal?

Zero--and I suspect you know it.  Allowing for humor impairment, that
statement does not require the death, relocation or much else of
anyone.  You might have a stronger case if I were using a .sig quote I
recently saw--"/earth is 98% full.  Please delete anyone you can."
Unlike your response, I assumed it to be in a humorous vein.

>Shall we now Kill the Poor, since they clearly have failed
>to meet your idea of society's values?

I'm not an advocate of that.  However, since you seem to have a clear
concept of "society's values", why don't you expound upon them and see
if anyone agrees with you?

>Or do you believe that every american should be given a car
>simply because you can't imagine life without one?

I can imagine life without one all to well.  I may occasionally
advocate single transportation systems, but I don't think that's the
way to go.  You may want to read Jonathan Swift's work on "solving"
the Irish famine problem, though I suggest that you read some of the
commentary *about* the work before condemning him for what he *said*
there.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 22 Dec 92 06:41:41 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Dec22.024038.27783@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <1992Dec22.010427.3994@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
> 
> >Trains pollute a lot.  The CalTrain pollute as much as 600 cars, so
> >if you are on a train with less than 600 people, you would pollute
> >less by driving.
> 
> 	Where did you get _that_ figure? From scaling up from a 50 hp
> car to a 3000 hp F40 locomotive? Even so, the scaling is only by a
> factor of 60. So as long as more than 60 people ride a CalTrain, the
> locomotive will produce less exhaust than each single one of them
> driving their own car. If two or three people share cars, it does get
> worse for the train.

This analysis isn't really valid.  First of all, a typical auto needs
about 15hp to maintain 55 mph.  Secondly, auto emission control has
progressed a lot farther than locomotive emission control.  I don't
personally know what the figures are for Caltrain, but I know that
you can't just divide peak horsepower ratings and come up with a
number that is correct.

The current (1992) heavy duty diesel NOx emission standard is 5.0 grams
per brake horsepower hour.  Assuming the standards for locomotives are
identical, and that the current Caltrain locomotives meet them (both poor
assumptions, but follow me anyway), and that the Diesels operate at a
fixed 3000hp, that would give 15000 grams per hour of NOx.  Now current
automobiles have a standard of .4 grams per mile, based on the EPA mix
of city and highway driving.  Assume they go 40 miles in an hour, and
that gives you 16 grams of NOx from the car.  15000/16 is 937.5.  So
600 is possible.

Still, all that says is that we should convert to electric, and do all
the polluting in rural areas.

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: kudzu@netcom.com (Michael Sierchio)
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Organization: True Love, and Home-Grown Tomatoes
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:23:51 GMT

In article <D2150035.m4fueu@outpost.SF-Bay.org> 
	 peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:

>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.

Have you driven in Europe lately?  Speed limits are coming down, and
unlimited highways are disappearing.  Could it be because France, Germany
and Italy each have more traffic fatalities than the U.S. with a fraction
of the population?

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Michael Sierchio                          1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123 |
|  kudzu@netcom.com                                Berkeley, CA 94707-2116 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:35:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.005006.2291@pbhye.PacBell.COM>, mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:

[ excerpts lots of little anti-road factoids, including the following ]

> >>> 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?

jeremy
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 24 Dec 92 17:00:39 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1hb1boINNl2v@agate.berkeley.edu> lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.235009.29783@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>>About 3% of the people commute by mass transit, yet you want to 
>>force it on everyone, or almost everyone.
>
>260,000 rides a day on BART + 770,000 rides a day on SF MUNI; if your
>number was correct in describing the Bay Area, then we have 17 Million
>people living here. (yes I divided by two to turn "rides" to
>"commutes", and yes I neglected Samtrans, SCCTA, GGT, and AC Transit).

[I restored what appeared to be a missing '0'.  --whh]

Not in the case of BART, you didn't.  That number is the raw figure
BART puts out.  Plus you have to compensate for multi-mode trips.  If
someone gets to BART on ACTransit, takes BART into SF and then gets on
Muni--all three systems will count that person.  And they'll count her
twice if they get the chance...

	--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: Re: Caltrain Bayshore Parking
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:21:20 GMT
	<1992Dec23.002404.12394@ntmtv>
Distribution: ba
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
In-reply-to: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP's message of 23 Dec 92 00:24:04 GMT


Well, I called up CalTrain/AmTrak police and they were most helpful and
seemed geniunely concerned, as opposed to SFPD which I originally reported
it to.

The car which the battery was stolen was an '82 beat up car with 160K miles
on it. I guess it was old enough that they didn't want to take the whole
car, just the battery. 

If you haven't been down to the Bayshore Station lately, they put in 
a new parking lot and a bunch of lights. It looks nice and is supposed
to deter crime, but alas my battery was stolen in broad daylight.

I took the 8:15am train out of Bayshore and got back at 5:15pm, it was still
barely light.

It's too far to bike in to the station, and I can't afford to get a motorcycle
or a moped right now, even though I would love a motorcycle. =:) 

Any other suggestions anyone? Anybody else ride from the Bayshore station?

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: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Date: 27 Dec 92 01:33:58 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1992Dec23.230121.12630@pbhye.PacBell.COM> (ba.transportation), mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>  
> Your comments are worthless, unless you propose better figures. Plan a light
> rail line (not BART -- we are talking about light rail) & an EQUIVALENT
> freeway (in person-carrying capacity: one rail line = several freeway lanes)
> and THEN do the comparison.

To me the comparision would be 

	freeways <-> heavy rail

	main roads <-> light rail


--  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
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: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:33:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.234547.26104@ads.com>, henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) wrote: 
> ->> But in MUNI`s case it really doesn't matter so much, because one
> ->> (usually electric) vehicle gets you from the Financial District to any
> ->> neighborhood, and the neighboorhoods are small enough that the walk to
> ->> your apartment or house is a few blocks.  When 800,000 people live in
> ->> 49 square miles, the need for transfers goes way down.
> ->
> ->Not everyone goes to the financial district, you know, even among
> ->commuters.
> 
> well, they should: it's the best transfer point in the city.  i ride
> the caltrain up from mtn view regularly ... upon "detraining" (puke),
> i walk outside the caltrain station, and a #32 embarcadero bus is less
> than 60 seconds away.  this drops me at market and embarcadero; i cross
> the embarcadero and walk one block, and there are several options
> which will take me home. 

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.

jeremy
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:11:06 GMT
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

-It has been stated by an anti-car advocate here that the auto is 38% subsi-
-dized.  Using mass transit terminology, that means the equivalent of a 62%
-"farebox recovery."  So yes, they *don't* pay for themselves.  But how many
-mass transit systems--especially in a low-density area--come even *close* to
-a 62% farebox recovery?  The "cars don't pay for themselves" argument is a
-horribly hypocritical statement for mass transit advocates to make.
 
Not really. Transit SHOULD be subsidized. Private transport should not,
obviously.

-Cars *will* be a failure as "sustainable transportation" if we insist that
-cars always use fossil fuels or other limited, non-renewable energy source.
-I don't think that's debatable, though nobody really has a clue how much is
-left.  I will agree that we should start developing renewable energy sources
-for the auto, but that *in principle*, the auto has a very important role in
-our transportation.  If we could make it burn cleaner and use renewable energy
-sources, would you still demand the abolition of the auto?
 
Most experts agree that US oil will run out in 2020-2030 & world oil by 2050.
Yes, cars & roads are still damaging, even when using electricity: e.g. they
destroy wildlife.

-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.

---I know this is part of the mass transit dogma, but you igore the
---massive external costs of mass transit: my time!  You also ignore
---Trains are typically slower than cars.  For example, driving in SF at
---rush hour takes as long as taking the train.  Driving at any other
---time of day is 30%-50% faster.
-
--As I said before, this is a fallacy. Train use maximizes my available
--and useful time.
-
-And as I said before, it maximizes YOUR useful time.  It might not maximize
-someone else's useful time.  If it works for you, go for it.  But don't cram
-your desires down the throats of the rest of us.  Do you have to transfer
-at all?
 
Yes.

-It usually takes me 25-40 minutes (depending on traffic conditions) to make
-the trip from the 101/Blossom Hill area in South San Jose to Lockheed by car.
-I can and do sometimes use mass transit.  Here are my options and the time
-associated with them for the morning commute.  (disclaimer:  it can, on
-occasion, take upwards of an hour to drive, but it's rare.)
-
-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.
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Date: 27 Dec 92 00:58:54 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


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.

--  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
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:09:19 GMT

-- --- 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??
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Date: 24 Dec 92 06:52:55 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Dec23.235210.566@netcom.com>, ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM(Tim Irvin) writes:
> [stuff deleted]
> >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
> >******************************************************************************
> 
> 
> 	Sorry, Tim, I have to disagree with you here.  Not everyone who wants
> to go downtown lives south of the city center.  Furthermore, not everyone will
> want to go downtown - some people will want to go to work.  This means rail
> will be needed north of downtown, as well as south.

No, it means transit is needed north of downtown, as well as south.

>                                                      When the Tasman/Hostetter
> line goes in, my roommate will have door-to-door service from home to his
> Golden Triangle workiplace - a trip that currently requires a bus transfer.
> This will be true for a lot of people in the Berryessa area.

The reason why there is no direct line now is that Tasman is broken in
two places -- near Lafayette street and over 880.  Once those breaks
are filled in, a bus route could be started to parallel the Tasman
corridor, at a far smaller cost.  With some bus priority measures (like
the bus/carpool lanes on San Tomas), it would be as fast.

The same could have been done on N. 1st street.

jeremy
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: marc@octel.com (Marc Lewert)
Subject: Re: Bicycles to commute within a work campus: Any successes ?
Keywords: bicycles work
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:57:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.231248.12830@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>-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 ?
> 
>Apple?

I know that the Chevron Refinery in Richmond has bicyles that can be used
on-plant by the employees going from one building to another.  Chevron
provides the bicyles.

You pick one up outside the building you are in, ride it to the building
you are going to, then leave it in the rack outside.

I also came across another firm that did the same thing recently, but 
I cannot remember which one or where.

Our facilities department has tricycles for going between buildings with
small parts and tools.  Larger and heavier parts are moved by van or truck.

	marc


-- 
[ Marc Lewert                      Phone: (408) 321-6626                 ]
[ Octel Communications Corp.       AspenNet(tm): (408) 321-6700 MB 6626  ]
[ 890 Tasman Dr.                   USENET: ...!uunet!octela!marc         ]
[ Milpitas, CA 95035               Smart Mailer: marc@octel.com          ]
[ Disclaimer:  The company knows what I think, I tell them often enough. ]
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: IVHS Defined
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:30:12 GMT

>	Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS)
>		Here, information about traffic flow is coordinated
>		between travelers, signal controls, and central controls
 
Won't help, when congestion is everywhere, such as now.

>	Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS)
>		Stuff like ETAK and NavTek products, GPS/map matching and
>		dead reckoning systems, commercial fleet management, etc.
 
Not much help, beyond the current maps.

>**	Advanced Public Transit Systems
>		Computer controlled scheduling and intermodal coordination;
>		Everyone's favorite: how to get from my block to the bus stop
>		if I am a frail senior going out for chores
 
This is where the value is, but it has nothing to do with highways.

>	Advanced Vehicle Control Systems
>		This is what everyone jumps to when they here IVHS, but in
>		fact it is perhaps the furthest away
 
And impossible, to boot.

>There is a lot of IVHS technology well beyond the "vaporware" stage,
>particularily in Europe and Japan, where the capacity constraints on their
>infrastructure are perhaps more accute than ours. Several programs are
>under way in LA and Florida. Also, UC Berkeley and CalTrans are perhaps the most
>progressive institutes in this country with respect to IVHS development.

Read: most unprincipled & money-driven.

>To some extent I am afraid that IVHS is in fact an attempt by the automotive,
>highway, and aerospace industrial complex to keep us addicted to cars.
 
That's the point, & why we should boycott this, as we did Star Wars.

>In short, we are stuck with the car for a few more decades. Since computer
>and communications technology have come so far, perhaps it can help us
>live with cars and highways in a more effective manner.

Better to apply that effort to transit, bikes, etc., which will be around
a lot longer & do more good, than the car.