HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:42:34 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1992Dec29.035618.8820@homespace.mtview.ca.us> joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy) writes:

>                                                             I don't
>know about your MUNI numbers.  The open question with the MUNI number
>is how they handle transfers.  Since MUNI is mostly a bus system, it
>will likely have lots of transfers, if these are all counted in your
>770,000 number, then the number of riders might be less than that 
>by a factor of 4 or 6, not just 2.

"mostly a bus system"?  What do you mean?  MUNI uses electric and
diesel rubber wheeled vehicles, electric tracked vehicles, and
cable cars (although most cable cars riders now are tourists).

All trips are "short" trips -- a requirement in a city that is
seven miles square.

And your transfer factor logic is wrong.  The MUNI transfer system 
allows a maximum of two transfers.  If a trip requires more, you 
buy another fare and thus get counted again.
--
Mike Lipsie                            584 Castro #614, San Francisco, CA 94114
dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
mikel%dosbears.uucp@ingres.com    Running rn (for DOS) with UUPC/Extended 1.11k
From: bq834@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark  Panitz)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Date: 4 Jan 1993 04:47:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In LA, the blue line does stop at traffic signals in downtown LA &
along Long Beach Blvd in Long Beach, the rest of the way it has a lot 
grade crossing, the only problem is too many people try to beat the
train to the crossing (and go around the crossing gates)
guess who loses!
-- 
send all replies/email to my 'main' account 
markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com
thanks a lot! and have a nice day !
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Sources (was Re: Cars as "something better")
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:19:44 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

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:
>>In article <1992Dec18.194051.23452@adobe.com> jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli) 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? 

No.  I got that number from a email by Ellen Fletcher (fletchere@aol.com).
The exact message ID was <9206062307.tn11543@aol.com>.  She was quoting
the minutes of the May 27th Santa Clara Transportation Commision meeting.
To paraphrase: most disel locomotives polute as much as 600 or 800 cars.
Very modern ones polute as much as 400 cars.  I believe the original
source of the information was the California Transportation Commision.
That message implied that electric locos poluted less, but gave no
numbers.

BTW: Someone else asked where I got the ~3% of the population uses
mass transit to commute number.  I believe this is from the 1990
census (sp?).

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,talk.environment
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:56:36 GMT

In article <ljeosiINNac@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, daa@northbrook.Eng.Sun.COM (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.

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.  Whatever capacity improvements it will
eventually bring will only buy the ability to absorb perhaps a few years'
worth of growth in traffic (vehicle miles traveled).  I fear this will
come at great cost both in dollars and in scientific/research man-years
of effort.  All that money and creative energy will merely be invested
in order to briefly extend the useful life of the idea that we can all
merrily drive around alone to our hearts content.  Meanwhile, it will
do little or nothing to improve air quality or land use in that it will
encourage a continuation of an atmosphere where it is acceptable to live
40 or 50 or even 80 miles from work in auto-based commuter communties.  

Wouldn't the massive spending that it looks like IVHS will take be better
spent on building up excellent, complete mass transit networks to serve
our most congested cities.  What will cost more?  What will bring a
better quality of life?  Hard to say, perhaps, but I'm wary of these
grandiose visions of IVHS and all that it will bring us all with great,
great intelletual and financial effort supported by our government to
keep the auto "well-fed" at the expense of any serious investment in
realistic transit alternatives.  

The "driving" demand for IVHS are the congested urban areas, not the
sparsely populated country side.  This largely a program whose purpose
will be to keep the single occupancy vehicle viable in urban areas.

New, yet-unimplemented, yet-to-be-designed technology to the rescue!
Such vision is merely a way for the auto-based transportation model in
most of the US to simply evolve.  What are the measureable goals of
IVHS?  What are it's costs?  What problem is it trying to solve?  Is
IVHS the cheapest (cost-effective) solution to the problem?

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?

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Caltrain Bayshore Parking
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:24:04 GMT

In article <LAU.92Dec22115719@sunset.ai.sri.com>, lau@sunset.ai.sri.com (Stephen Lau) writes:
|> 
|> Does anyone know of a safe place to park one's car at any of the
|> Caltrain San Francisco stations?

I suppose that's life in the big city.  I don't know how safe it is,
but I've heard there's plenty of free parking around the 4th & Townsend
Street station if you get there before 9 or 10 AM.  I gather most of it
is along Townsend Street and in the area to the south of the CalTrain
station tracks off of 4th St.  This, from what I understand, is not
official CalTrain parking.


|> I've been parking at the Bayshore station, but last night someone
|> decided to rip off my battery.

All crimes on CalTrain/JPB property or facilities should be reported
to Amtrak police at their 24-hour national dispatch number 800 331-0008. 
Of course, if it's a crime demanding immediate reponse (someone is hurt
or about to be hurt or the crime is in progress), call 911 instead.
Amtrak has a five man police force dedicated to CalTrain headed up by
a Captain Maher.  Mr. Maher is in the process of requisitioning funds
for additional officers.


|> 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 hope these are getting reported.  This will help Amtrak police
know where the problem areas are.  According to Captain Maher, they
have been having a problem with vehicle break-ins on the extreme
south end of the line (Gilroy/Morgan Hill).


|> 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.

Some people drive old "beater" cars to the station.  Some even have a
car they keep in the parking lot the far end of their commute...
Other options might include cycling or using a moped and keeping it
in the bike storage lockers (I doubt the Bayshore station has them).
If you're an off-peak (as defined by the bikes-on-trains program rules)
then you could take your bike on the train with you.  Or you can get
a folding bike.  Or you can get into roller-blading to the station.
(I see several people doing this.)


-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 27 Dec 92 02:14:35 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1992Dec23.230407.12464@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.211932.22655@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.173025.6440@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>>|> Some people find riding on various forms of transit to be anywhere
>>|> from unpleasant to physically sickening to physically dangerous.
>>
>>or on their cellular phones) or just sleeping, I think about the
>>comments I sometimes read here that say things like "some people
>>find riding on various forms of transit to be anywhere from un-
>>pleasant to physically sickening to physically dangerous" and smile.
>
>Smile all you like.  I find that reading--or attempting to read on a
>bus frequently results in headaches and sometimes in nausea.  Currnet
>media reports are quoting BART riders who are afraid to walk in BART
>parking lots after dark.  Various forms of assaults are regularly
>reported on the SF Muni.

And the media regularly reports drive-by shootings on the freeway 
and carjackings in the towns.
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:20:28 GMT
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

>> 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

Actually, a light rail line can carry the equivalent of a freeway, I 
am told. They can reach 55 MPH or more.
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2929 rec.railroad:10192
From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Date: 24 Dec 92 06:51:37 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: DOS Bears

In article <1992Dec17.192845.18536@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.183159.1500@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>|> In article <liptmtINNgec@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> geo@shilah.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>|> > many of the upgrade cost discussions (especially the Bart vs. Caltrain
>|> > things) don't take a lot of necessary Caltrain costs into account.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
Adrian has flagged the key word.  Unfortunately, we all have different
opinions of what are necessary costs.  With regard to grade separations
of crossings, absolutely critical, must have, can not get around is when
the number of trains going by (plus the lead and lag time) cause
crossing gates to be always down.  Depending on where the crossing is,
this requires a headway/frequency of less than 5 minutes to less than 10
minutes.

The never need  separation has a headway measured in eons.

The realistic point is somewhere in between.  My guess is that 15
minute headway and "major sub-roads" (the larger roads near most
stations in San Mateo county (e.g., Ralston) is over the pain
threshold.

>

Adrian then goes on to flame BART for needing to separate the train
from pedestrians and auto traffic.  The major reason, in the way
he worded it, is that BART uses a third [electric] rail system.
He ignores the fact that BART also has (and was designed from the 
start) a very short headway.  (Before one of the anti-BART nuts
chimes in: 1.5 minutes -- currently 2.5 minutes.)

>By the way, has anyone notices how good CalTrain on-time performace has
>been lately.  I mean old-timers have even been saying things like "I
>missed my train the other day for the first time, and it felt good
>because they haven't been running this close to schedule as long as I
>can remember"...

Now that you mention it, no I haven't.

I am in the unfortunate and [probably] foolish position of living
and working in the South Bay and having my doctor in SF and my
dentist in Oakland.  The last few trips to visit them have been 
horror stories.

--
Mike Lipsie                            584 Castro #614, San Francisco, CA 94114
dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
mikel%dosbears.uucp@ingres.com    Running rn (for DOS) with UUPC/Extended 1.11k
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:41:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


It's funny that people should be talking about all the buses in San
Francisco going to the Financial District.  Starting about 1978 the
Muni implemented a five-year plan which changed the routing structure
from a spoke system to a grid system.  That's when bus routes like the
29 and 48 came into being; they were providing ways to get across the
City without going downtown.  It's one of the things that got me most
interested in transit, since I was living there and had read the
plan.

 =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: daa@northbrook.Eng.Sun.COM (Dean Angelico)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: IVHS Defined
Date: 24 Dec 92 19:43:06 GMT
Reply-To: daa@northbrook.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: northbrook


Intelligent Vehicles and Highway Systems (IVHS) is a multi-modal approach
to solving transportation problems. It consists of

	Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS)
		Here, information about traffic flow is coordinated
		between travelers, signal controls, and central controls

	Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS)
		Stuff like ETAK and NavTek products, GPS/map matching and
		dead reckoning systems, commercial fleet management, etc.

**	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

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

I probably forgot another one of the "modes." Probably something like
"Advanced Vehicular Propulsion Systems" or something like that.

[Editorial begins here...]

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.
Many universities around North America are getting on the band wagon.

Also keep in mind that everything was once vaporware {:-)

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.
However, even if this were not the case, I don't think there is enough
political will to form a truly revolutionary change in our society.

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.

Dean Angelico
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2971 sci.environment:14095 ca.environment:1132
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:37:32 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <ELM.92Dec16182200@terrorism.berkeley.edu> elm@cs.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <JMC.92Dec16171509@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>=>In contrast to oil, natural gas is in good supply in the U.S.

>As anyone who's eaten burritos or visited their local landfill or
>swamp can tell you, methane is very easy to generate.  All you need is
>bacteria or chemical processes that break down more complex carbon
>compounds into methane.  You can generate methane from organic waste
>-- CH4 is a large component of swamp gas and the smelly stuff from
>landfills (though methane is odorless).

>In other words, we needn't *ever* run out of it, as long as we can use
>generated methane rather than mined methane.

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.

Mike
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: daa@northbrook.Eng.Sun.COM (Dean Angelico)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 22 Dec 1992 18:42:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: daa@northbrook.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: northbrook

In article ttfsitc@sgi.sgi.com, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>
>Still, all that says is that we should convert to electric, and do all
>the polluting in rural areas.
>
>jeremy

See a recent IEEE Spectrum devoted to electric cars to understand
why net air pollution could in fact be reduced by a transition to
electric cars.
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:17:02 GMT
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

>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.

Conclusion doesn't follow from premises. They pay PART of their way.
And it's not called a "subsidy" when you are paying for damage that
you are doing. Taking with the left hand, & giving back (partially)
with the right hand.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:29:30 GMT

In article <1hq6cqINN9i8@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
> 
> >I don't
> >know about your MUNI numbers.  The open question with the MUNI number
> >is how they handle transfers.  Since MUNI is mostly a bus system, it
> >will likely have lots of transfers, if these are all counted in your
> >770,000 number, then the number of riders might be less than that 
> >by a factor of 4 or 6, not just 2.
> 
> The MUNI number I quoted was out of date, current MUNI figures are in
> the 830,000 range (source: SF Chronicle, Dec 29). Too many of the
> popular MUNI lines are direct connects between dense workplaces and
> dense residential neighborhoods for a factor of 4 to be teneble; start
> from the financial district and you can hit any neighborhood in the
> city in one ride.

Just to clarify, the 830k number is total Muni system daily boardings,
including bus, streetcar, cable car, etc., right?

jeremy
From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Date: 2 Jan 1993 21:52:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <ucoafj4@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>
>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.

The 28 starts connects the Marina and the Sunset directly.

To make a more general point, the layout of San Francisco naturally
fits with mass transportation, and this is the real reason MUNI and
BART have high ridership compared with other systems. Take a swatch
through Silicon Valley that represents the same number of residents
and employees as San Francisco, and you have an area that is very
difficult to service with mass transit, an area where the freeways are
hell at rush hour (with no earthquake excuses to fall back on), an
area with higher smog than the rest of the Bay Area, an area where
jobs are leaving.  As the head of Cypress Semiconductor said as he
announced the closing of a chip plant in San Jose (paraphrased)
"people here think R&D jobs will be safe, but those jobs are the
easiest to move of all".

San Francisco, on the other hand, has a downtown vacancy rate that is
the envy of other cities on the West Coast. Companies large and small
are moving their headquarters and R&D into San Francisco from the
suburbs (Oracle is moving an R&D division to the Financial District,
Supercuts is moving headquarters from Santa Rosa, The Gap is breaking
ground for their new headquarters, many small multimedia companies are
grouping around SOMA). And good mass transit is one piece of the
puzzle for these people; if BART and MUNI were as anemic as Caltrain
and SSCTA, SF would be uncommutable and shrinking.







Newsgroups: ba.transportation