SF Chron: BART Stretched to the Limit
ine...@my-deja.com
Too few seats, no place to park. Is this any way to run a railroad?
Michael Cabantuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, January 28, 2001
2001 San Francisco Chronicle
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/28/MN32188.DTL
After nearly three decades of begging people to take its trains, BART
finds itself bulging with passengers and speeding toward a junction
that will direct it to a future as either a savior from highway
gridlock or an overwhelmed relic.
Every day, people climb aboard BART in unprecedented numbers as the
transit agency fights to overcome the limitations of its flawed design
and prevent its aging system from falling into decay.
BART is also preparing to accommodate 70,000 new passengers a day when
the San Francisco International Airport extension opens in a little
more than a year. And it's preparing to extend the
system south from Fremont, eventually to Santa Clara County, and being
pressed by politicians and the public
to reach east to Livermore and Antioch as well.
All of this, of course, will cost money, and much of it is money BART
doesn't have. The agency's 10-year capital improvement program lists
$3.3 billion
in seismic repairs, capacity
and service improvements and extension studies that are unfunded. And
while taxpayers in Santa Clara and Alameda counties will help foot the
bill for a southern extension, BART will need to come up with hundreds
of millions of dollars in state, federal or local funds.
A preliminary study released recently suggests that over the next 30
years, BART will need to invest $3.1 billion to buy new rail cars, $2.8
billion to repair and upgrade cars, ticket machines, fare gates and
escalators, and $1.3 billion for routine upkeep of the system.
"BART is not only facing growing pains but aging pains as well," said
Steve Heminger, deputy executive director for the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission.
BART was envisioned by its creators in the 1950s and 1960s as a cutting-
edge, computer-controlled rail system to carry people to and from jobs
in downtown San Francisco. It aimed to woo commuters with a modernistic
system that offered the convenience of a subway but with the comforts
of upholstered seats, carpeted floors and brightly lit stations with
large parking lots in the suburbs. Everyone, the transit system's ads
promised, would have a seat.
For years, they did. Daily ridership aboard BART grew gradually from
opening day, Sept. 11, 1972 when curious Bay Area residents took
100,000 rides on the first leg of the sparkling new system. It exceeded
200,000 in 1984 and 300,000 this year.
Ridership typically rises about 1 percent a year, but in the past two
years it has grown faster than anyone expected. The boom began quietly
in the fall of 1998, resumed last summer and fall, and picked up speed
this year, increasing each month. Ridership has leaped 15.6 percent in
the past year - the largest increase among any major rail transit
system in the nation that hasn't opened a new line, according to the
American Public Transportation Association.
Each weekday, Bay Area residents take approximately 340,000 trips on
BART compared with about 289,000 a year ago. And while weekday
commuters still account for the bulk of BART's passenger count, trains
are becoming increasingly crowded during the middle of the day, at
night and on weekends.
"What we're seeing is the transformation of the system from its planned
role as a commuter service into a general-purpose system," said BART
General Manager Tom Margro.
But the high ridership, and its arrival three or four years earlier
than anticipated, is putting a strain on BART, as any regular rider can
attest.
For many commuters, taking BART has become anything but the quick,
comfortable and hassle-free ride to the office it was designed to be.
It means getting up early to search for a parking space, waiting in
line to buy a ticket at a machine that frequently malfunctions and to
pass through fare gates that often jam, squeezing onto a train with no
empty seats and hoping there's no delay - especially as the train
passes through BART's congested junction beneath downtown Oakland.
"It's like riding a New York City subway train," said Bill Oman, who
rides BART from Walnut Creek to his job at a San Francisco law
firm. "You're standing up all the way - even outside the regular peak
hours. And BART has done little or nothing to deal with the problem."
At the San Francisco end of the Transbay Tube, crowds of departing
passengers pour onto the platform and wait to shuffle like cattle onto
staircases and escalators. At the top, they stack up at the exit gates,
waiting to be released. Sometimes, at the Embarcadero station, the line
at the fare gates is so long it backs up down the escalators and
passengers have to walk in place for a couple of minutes.
Since the start of the year and the burst in ridership, BART's on-time
performance has dropped slightly, dipping below the agency's own
standards. According to BART reports, 9.4 percent of its trains arrived
at their destinations behind schedule in July through September - 12.6
percent during commute hours.
"The ridership has grown so much that we are starting to feel it,"
Margro said. "And so have our passengers. We have to look at what to do
if this continues."
BART planners have started looking ahead to the next three decades with
a trio of studies that investigate the need to reinvest in and maintain
the system, how best to eliminate its bottlenecks and whether, where
and how BART should expand and extend. The studies are expected to be
completed next year.
While the planners ponder the future, BART has taken some immediate
steps to handle the swelling ridership: hiring more station agents,
cleaning cars and stations more frequently and stationing repair
technicians for ticket machines, fare gates and escalators at some of
the system's busiest locations.
But as the system rolls into the 21st century, already carrying crowds
it didn't expect until the middle of the decade, its first challenge is
to rejuvenate an aging system, designed for a different era, and still
recovering from years of neglect.
At age 29, BART is, Margro admits, "at a threshold. We are either well
into middle age or entering old age."
BART is about halfway through a decade-long, $1.1 billion program to
cope with the effects of age by rebuilding its original fleet of 439
cars, sprucing up stations, repairing or replacing escalators and
elevators and modernizing its maintenance shops and train-washing
facilities.
But it's hardly preventive maintenance; it's more a matter of catching
up. In the 1970s, the system was shiny and new and needed little more
than routine maintenance. But when the gleam began to fade, BART
officials didn't seem to notice, focusing most of their attention - and
money - at building pricey extensions.
When Dan Richard joined the BART Board of Directors in 1992, he
recalled, the system wasn't running 10-car trains through Contra Costa
County in the morning because it couldn't keep enough cars in working
order. The problem, he said, was that BART had just one machine to keep
train wheels in running order,
and that machine was slow and outdated. Cars sat lined up in a BART
yard, waiting their turn at the wheel-trueing machine. Spurred, at
least in part by Richards' outrage, the board agreed to buy a new
machine.
"When I got to BART there was no money for rehabilitation, and years of
deferred maintenance," he said. "It has taken a long time to catch up.
We are now where we should have been eight years ago."
BART raised fares three times to pay for the rehabilitation program.
That investment, so far, has paid for the overhaul of about 120 cars
with the total expected to near 200 by the end of the year. BART has
also rejuvenated 14 stations, gutting and rebuilding rest rooms,
installing new lighting and sound systems, repairing or replacing
roofs, platform edges and stair treads and applying a fresh coat of
paint.
More visible - and problematic - are BART's efforts to repair or
replace all 144 escalators and 60 elevators in the original 34
stations. The repairs, governed in part by a settlement to a lawsuit by
disability rights advocates, have been plagued by delays. While the end
is in sight for the elevators - 10 of the last 11 are now under
construction - just 66 of 123 escalators have been completed, and
problems with escalator breakdowns persist.
Even as BART completes its rehabilitation, another costly repair looms -
seismic strengthening - along with a challenge: finding at least $610
million to pay the bulk of the bills.
BART engineers say the system is not in danger of collapsing but admit
it could suffer damage that would keep trains from running until
repairs could be made. Although BART survived the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake with little damage, chief engineer Jim Dunn said the system
needs to strengthen Transbay Tube connections, the concrete structures
supporting above-ground tracks as well as stations, shops and BART
headquarters.
Caltrans is expected to pay about $200 million to bolster BART where it
crosses freeways and city streets and BART has set aside $10 million
for seismic strengthening. To raise the rest of the money, BART may ask
voters in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties in November
2001 to levy a property tax on themselves as they did in 1962 to
finance the construction of
BART.
Those bonds were paid off in June 1999, prompting BART officials to eye
a "renewal." Until late last year, they were contemplating a general
obligation bond measure on this fall's ballot that would have imposed
the same property tax rate as the expired bonds, raising $815 million
to pay for the seismic repairs and costs of issuing the bonds.
Fearing insufficient public support, and competition from other ballot
measures, BART directors decided to slow down and first build a solid
case for their seismic retrofitting plan.
"I don't want to go to the ballot," Richard said last fall, "ask people
for $800 million - and lose."
Winning voter approval for a tax measure is never easy. It takes a
super- majority vote of more than two-thirds of all ballots cast. And
in California, the state that spawned the property tax revolt by
passing Proposition 13, the mere mention of a new tax prompts
opposition.
Pressure to build BART extensions could also doom a tax measure that
merely aims to retrofit the system and doesn't include money to take
the system to Livermore or Antioch.
"When the governor announced his (transportation program) and plunked
down a quarter of the money needed to build a BART extension to San
Jose, he created tremendous expectations, and not just in Santa Clara
County but in Livermore and Antioch as well," said Bob McCleary,
executive director of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
"He created a sense of expectation and injustice. . . .If they go to
the voters with just a seismic retrofit, I'm not sure it's going to
pass."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Series
-- Today: Cash-strapped BART faces demands to expand and modernize.
-- Tomorrow: Just try to find a BART station where everything works.
-- Tuesday: The critical steps BART must take to cope
E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at mcaba...@sfchronicle.com.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Don Hagstrom
spaces to the BART station would be an excellent way to encourage higher
ridership. Charging for spaces doesn't increase capacity; it will just
drive away some of the ridership--unless the money generated by parking fees
goes right back into the system.
Don
--
Discussion group for Transportation Features, Problems, Solutions for the
Western States and Provinces of Canada, the US, and Mexico.
Subscribe at PacMountain_Tra...@egroups.com .
--
<ine...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9523d9$c77$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Scott Mace
> For all but the extreme car-haters out there I would think that adding
> spaces to the BART station would be an excellent way to encourage higher
> ridership. Charging for spaces doesn't increase capacity; it will just
> drive away some of the ridership--unless the money generated by parking
fees
> goes right back into the system.
Why not define the system as anything that can get BART passengers to the
station, instead of the system being defined as BART and its parking lots?
Charging for capacity is also the fair thing to do, as is done with any
number of use-based fees for any number of public services.
Scott Mace
Robert Cote
<sm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
So doubling regular fares and tripling peak period fares will not
only fix BART but is the only fair thing to do. Amazing how absolutes
about charging auto users gets suddenly less clear when passenger is
substituted for driver in the equation.
Transit is unique among public services.
Merritt Mullen
Don Hagstrom at don...@earthlink.net wrote on 1/28/01 3:02 PM:
> For all but the extreme car-haters out there I would think that adding
> spaces to the BART station would be an excellent way to encourage higher
> ridership. Charging for spaces doesn't increase capacity; it will just
> drive away some of the ridership--unless the money generated by parking fees
> goes right back into the system.
One would have to know more specifics. Are people using the parking lot for
purposes other than using BART, simply because it is free place to park? If
so, charging would keep the freeloaders out and open up the capacity to
actual BART riders.
There is also another principle. Should BART give away for free a resource
that people are willing to pay for? I suspect charging a reasonable fee
would not cost BART customers, but would offset the subsidy needed to
operate BART and might encourage people to use public transit (or ride
share) to get to the station.
Letting people park free (where parking is a scarce resource) makes no more
sense than charging to park and letting people ride for free. If the
philosophy is that the social benefit outweighs the costs, perhaps both
parking and the ride should be free. Otherwise, charge for both.
But you are right. The real problem is capacity (assuming the lot is not
being used by non-BART riders). Perhaps the answer is to both build more
parking capacity AND charge a parking fee.
Merritt
Scott Mace
> Transit is unique among public services.
So why charge at all to ride BART? Why not make the transit service itself
free?
Scott Mace
Merritt Mullen
Scott Mace at sm...@ix.netcom.com wrote on 1/28/01 5:40 PM:
One of the most used modes of public mass transportation in the US has
always been free--the elevator. No high-rise building owner would think it
made economic sense to charge individual elevator passengers a fare. The
cost of the service is paid for by "taxing" the tenants (ie, including the
cost in the rent).
The analogy in horizontal transportation is to tax the businesses for the
cost of transporting the workers to their offices and provide the ride for
free.
Merritt
Robert Cote
<sm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
That's a very good question. Why impose taxes? Court fees? Bill for
emergency services? What's with all this property taxes being imposed
only on property owners for that matter?
You've hit upon a problem Jefferson anticipated. Even Hamilton would
blanche at the prospect of buying trolleys with Federal money.
spsffan
A reasonable fee like say $1 a day would keep out the freeloaders and at the same
time provide funds for additional parking.
As I recall the fee at Caltrain was 50 cents for years. I don't know what it is
now. At least $1. But there was always plenty of parking available! People will
simply drive to their destinations if they can't use public transportation easily.
Bart, unfortunately has some pretty unique standards, making every purchase of
rolling stock more expensive than it should be. And track work. It IS a good
system, and it is far, far too established to change to (for example) standard
gauge. So, BART has to go forward with what they have. Increasing capacity in
parking and station access in San Francisco should be priorities. After that,
concentration on the various extensions. All of them are definitely worthwhile!
Dave.
Don Hagstrom
"Merritt Mullen" <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
news:B699F586.3D777%mmu...@ispchannel.com...
seen the problem with the energy crisis. California will continue to
grow--there is nothing we can do about that--but improving our
infrastructure all around--energy, schools, water, freeways, and
transit--can make all of our lives better again. I am glad to see BART
doing so well--but if it isn't funded enough so that people don't have a
seat or a parking space or whatever it will lose ridership and that would be
a shame after its ridership has gotten so high.
> Merritt
>
>
Dave Herzstein
>Every day, people climb aboard BART in unprecedented numbers as the
BART stations (all?) are designed to accomodate 10-car trains. Has
BART management studied the idea of running 12-car trains? The two
end-cars could have their doors remain closed through software mods.
It would require some passenger shuffling, but could be an solution
to standing-room-only woes.
--
Dave Herzstein
dherz...@juno.com
http://www.kjsl.com/~dave
Jeff Okamoto
>
> As I recall the fee at Caltrain was 50 cents for years. I don't know what it is
> now. At least $1. But there was always plenty of parking available! People will
> simply drive to their destinations if they can't use public transportation easily.
Caltrain is now $1 per day, but you can get a monthly permit for $10
or $15. I get a monthly pass and therefore get a bill in the mail.
I do not know if you can purchase a montly parking permit at a station.
> Increasing capacity in
> parking and station access in San Francisco should be priorities. After that,
> concentration on the various extensions. All of them are definitely worthwhile!
Parking lots are analogous to power plants -- they have an extremely
high
initial cost, and take years to recoup their construction costs. What
company tends to look at the long term these days?
ine...@my-deja.com
> BART stations (all?) are designed to accomodate 10-car trains.
> Has BART management studied the idea of running 12-car trains?
> The two end-cars could have their doors remain closed through
> software mods. It would require some passenger shuffling, but
> could be an solution to standing-room-only woes.
Unfortunately, this would not work. BART trains have extremely
dwell times as is and impairing boarding and deboarding would
further cripple the system. BART trains are already spaced
about two minutes apart during rush hour, and there simply
isn't enough of a buffer between trains to allow for large
dwell times.
The problem is that BART was not designed to accommodate
standing-room-only patrons. BART was designed so that 'every
passenger would have a seat'. This explains why BART cars only
have two doors (a ridiculously inadequate number). Most modern
subway systems have either three or four sets of doors.
ine...@my-deja.com
> BART stations (all?) are designed to accomodate 10-car trains.
> Has BART management studied the idea of running 12-car trains?
> The two end-cars could have their doors remain closed through
> software mods. It would require some passenger shuffling, but
> could be an solution to standing-room-only woes.
Unfortunately, this would not work. BART trains have extremely
dwell times as is and impairing boarding and deboarding would
further cripple the system. BART trains are already spaced
about two minutes apart during rush hour, and there simply
isn't enough of a buffer between trains to allow for large
dwell times.
The problem is that BART was not designed to accommodate
standing-room-only patrons. BART was designed so that 'every
passenger would have a seat'. This explains why BART cars only
have two doors (a ridiculously inadequate number). Most modern
subway systems have either three or four sets of doors.
Garry Wiegand
>Too few seats, no place to park. Is this any way to run a railroad?
BART was experimenting with express trains a couple years ago. It was
probably awkward, because there's no way for an express to pass a local. But,
how did the experiment work out?
Garry
David Nebenzahl
Oh, you must be talking about that experiment where they used advanced
particle-physics transmutation so that one train could completely pass
through the molecules of another train ... because what else could you
possibly mean?
--
Will write sig for food
John David Galt
> For all but the extreme car-haters out there I would think that adding
> spaces to the BART station would be an excellent way to encourage higher
> ridership. Charging for spaces doesn't increase capacity; it will just
> drive away some of the ridership--unless the money generated by parking fees
> goes right back into the system.
Well said. I would be glad to pay for parking at the station, if the money
were going to be used to build more of it until you can always find a space.
David desJardins
> Well said. I would be glad to pay for parking at the station, if the
> money were going to be used to build more of it until you can always
> find a space.
But I take it that you're opposed to using the revenues to increase
capacity? What good does it do to add more parking spaces, if the
system doesn't have the capacity to carry more people?
David desJardins
Garry Wiegand
>Oh, you must be talking about that experiment where they used advanced
>particle-physics transmutation so that one train could completely pass
>through the molecules of another train ... because what else could you
>possibly mean?
BART was running some extra trains that did not stop at all the stations.
More precisely, what I noticed was trains that were not full but would not be
stopping at West Oakland, with announcements to that effect as you boarded
the train. The trains could not be found on the printed schedules. If you
have a long enough scheduled pause between slow trains, you maybe can slip a
faster train in between the slow ones.
(But having a number of particle-transmutation points - sidings - along the
system would make the idea work a whole lot better. Your timing of the
arrival of the express and local trains at the transmutation points would
have to be quite precise.)
I have a thought -
A variation on the idea is to have every other train stop at every other
station. Mass confusion, of course. But if dwell times are the problem on
BART, this trick could help a lot. For example, you could have two "express"
trains, right behind each other, and they would go in tandem to the next two
stations, and then to the next two stations, etc. Maybe you get double your
BART capacity. As well as mass confusion.
Garry
Robert I. Cruickshank
ine...@my-deja.com wrote:
> PASSENGER STRAIN
> Too few seats, no place to park. Is this any way to run a railroad?
I'm surprised we haven't heard more comments on the article itself. It
seems that the Chronicle really has it in for BART. I've used the system
every day to commute between Berkeley and/or North Berkeley and
Montgomery Street since May, and it's generally been very problem-free.
Sure, you get screwed up ticket machines and turnstiles, but that can be
corrected with an infusion of cash. The system doesn't break down a
whole lot, and they do a good job of keeping people informed when it
does break down.
This article seems to be more of the same Bay Area garbage that
everything has to run perfectly. So what if not everyone on BART has a
seat? What high-use transportation system does?
The Chronicle's articles, especially today's, seem to insinuate that
BART is somehow blind to the problems it has. They even rated all the
stations in the system, giving Berkeley one star (I've never had any
problems there worse than broken machines or turnstile problems and you
learn to live with those). BART knows its flaws and knows it needs more
money to fix them, money that'll be bled away by the San Jose extension.
When BART comes calling for more money, do you think the
business-friendly, centrist SF Chronicle will back them? Doubtful.
They'll just run more editorials slamming BART and we'll be left with an
again system.
--
Robert I. Cruickshank
roadgeek, historian, progressive
Garry Wiegand
David desJardins <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>But I take it that you're opposed to using the revenues to increase
>capacity? What good does it do to add more parking spaces, if the
>system doesn't have the capacity to carry more people?
The system perhaps doesn't have capacity to spare at the peak of the commute.
But there are thousands of us who would be happy to use BART much more often,
at times other than 8AM and 5:15PM, if only there were somewhere to park.
Right now I'm not sure what I'm going to do: a window on my car was smashed
last Saturday afternoon, broad daylight, as the car parked on the street
about four blocks from the BART station. Items were stolen. (Yes, on a
Saturday afternoon four blocks away was the nearest available parking.)
So, I shouldn't leave a car that far away... and I can't leave a bike
anywhere... and in the suburbs it can take an eternity to get to a station by
bus... I'm kind of stuck. It'd be awfully nice if there were once again
parking spaces available at BART stations. It looks like the only remaining
alternative to parking at the station, for me, is to drive on the freeway.
If they need to charge for the new parking, I hope they make that easy to do.
Maybe provide meters that know how to directly debit a regular BART ticket.
Garry
PS - Even at the peak of commute, BART isn't full yet like the NYC subway
gets full.
Scott Mace
> in the suburbs it can take an eternity to get to a station by bus... I'm
kind of stuck.
Move to the city, or lobby your suburban decisionmakers to allow
city-level-density development in your suburb. Then it will be possible to
justify increasing bus service to the point where it's convenient to get to
rail transit that way.
Scott Mace
ine...@my-deja.com
> David desJardins <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > But I take it that you're opposed to using the revenues to
> > increase capacity? What good does it do to add more parking
> > spaces, if the system doesn't have the capacity to carry
> > more people?
Garry Wiegand <gne...@ithaca.com> wrote:
> The system perhaps doesn't have capacity to spare at the peak
> of the commute. But there are thousands of us who would be
> happy to use BART much more often, at times other than 8AM and
> 5:15PM, if only there were somewhere to park.
However, during off-peak hours there is spare capacity on other
modes of transportation as well. The freeways wouldn't be so
clogged so it would be possible to drive to the next BART
station to get a space.
> Right now I'm not sure what I'm going to do: a window on my
> car was smashed last Saturday afternoon, broad daylight, as
> the car parked on the street about four blocks from the BART
> station. Items were stolen. (Yes, on a Saturday afternoon four
> blocks away was the nearest available parking.)
I don't think that you can blame BART for this unfortunate
incident. I believe that there are car crime risks anywhere in
the Bay Area.
> So, I shouldn't leave a car that far away...
I don't think distance is much of a factor. If someone really
wants to break into your car, they're going to do it.
> and I can't leave a bike anywhere... and in the suburbs it can
> take an eternity to get to a station by bus... I'm kind of
> stuck. It'd be awfully nice if there were once again parking
> spaces available at BART stations. It looks like the only
> remaining alternative to parking at the station, for me, is to
> drive on the freeway.
I agree. However, do realize that a single BART parking space
costs between $10,000 and $20,000 or more. Usually, the fare
revenue for a single passenger is about as great as the cost of
providing a parking space. So it would only be equitable to
charge for them.
> If they need to charge for the new parking, I hope they make
> that easy to do. Maybe provide meters that know how to
> directly debit a regular BART ticket.
I hope that they'd charge for all parking spaces during peak
periods.
> PS - Even at the peak of commute, BART isn't full yet like the
> NYC subway gets full.
BART cannot run at crush loads. Running at crush loads would
spell death for BART ... the system would become so unreliable
that it would grind to a halt. Why? Dwell times are already
too great on BART. And it is not possible to decrease dwell
times without a major retrofitting of all cars (i.e. adding
a third set of doors and realigning all seating so that they
are placed with backs against the window).
Garry Wiegand
>Move to the city,
It's my understanding that Bay Area cities do *not* want more people to move
there.
>or lobby your suburban decisionmakers to allow
>city-level-density development in your suburb.
I'm all in favor of dramatically increased density in the suburbs. But do you
think there's any political prayer of that ever happening? To the extent that
one could justify a massive increase in bus service?
>Then it will be possible to
>justify increasing bus service to the point where it's convenient to get to
>rail transit that way.
What's so oppressive about the idea of making it easier for drivers to use
BART?
Garry
Richard Schumacher
It ought to operate as an express service to complement and relieve
demand for BART's local service. The Transbay (downtown) expansion
plan and complete electrification could be done for about one billion
versus three billion for BART refurbishment.
Richard Schumacher
> > BART was experimenting with express trains a couple years ago. It was
> > probably awkward, because there's no way for an express to pass a local. But,
> > how did the experiment work out?
>
> Oh, you must be talking about that experiment where they used advanced
> particle-physics transmutation so that one train could completely pass
> through the molecules of another train ... because what else could you
> possibly mean?
One train passes the other (stopped at the station) by passing on the
"wrong way" track. It requires only slightly smarter traffic control
than is used at present.
What prevents BART from buying cars with more than two doors? Reducing
the dwell time would help the situation.
John David Galt
Why should only those who drive to BART, rather than all riders, pay for
adding capacity to BART?
Robert Thomas Klein II
travel only one station. You must run locals, as well as skip-stop. The
capacity would then be lessened. By the way, a fourth track through Downtown
Oakland is supposed to increase capacity, but wouldn't it only do such in
the reverse commute direction? Or would they have three tracks running to
the city and points south. If they did that, a third track would also become
necessary through West Oakland (which I think would be a good idea,
incidentally). The bottleneck would remain at the downtown SF stations, but
it seems to me the actual capacity would be increased.
--
Robert Thomas Klein II
Email: robertk (at) i.am
"Garry Wiegand" wrote in message ...
WooF
Chicago and later adopted on the Market-Frankford line in
Philadelphia. Basically, most stations are designated "A" or "B".
Then, during the rush hours, trains are designated as "A" or as
"B" trains in alternation. Trains stop at stations corresponding
to their designations. All trains stop at stations not designated
either as "A" or as "B". The all-trains stations are -- of course
-- the ones most heavily used. This cuts running time slightly.
I doubt if the skip-stop system increases capacity very much,
since capacity is limited by dwell time at the busiest stations.
CalTrans uses an entirely different system of two-track express
service: during rush hours, a train runs from the down-town
terminal non-stop (or nearly so) to a point about two thirds of
the way down the line, then makes all stops to the far end. The
immediately following train runs non-stop (or nearly so) to a
point about a third of the way down the line, then makes all
stops to the far end. A third train then proceeds as an all-stops
train. (I may have the fractions wrong, but the principle is
there.)
In principle, the second train in the sequence could turn back at
the two-thirds point, and the third turn back at the one-third
point, but I don't think that is how the system is run. Note,
however, that this depends on running significantly less than as
many trains as one can crowd onto the time-table, because the
system depends on the first train in each set of three -- the
train running express to the two-thirds point -- not being slowed
by the all-stops train ahead of it. This, obviously, requires
extra headway between the third train of one set and the
following first train of the next set.
Result: alas -- this doesn't increase capacity either, though it
does make for a fester run for passengers more than one-third of
the way down the line.
George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
Robert Cote
<schu...@rsn.hp.com> wrote:
Umm, money, infrastructure, democracy, practicality. Just guessing
Dickie which is a far sight more than you seem capable of given this
mindboggling non-answer of yours.
randee
used to get to the IC from home, by walking............
--
wf.
Wayne Flowers
Randee Greenwald
ran...@zianet.com
Scott Mace
> It's my understanding that Bay Area cities do *not* want more people to
move
> there.
Really? Have you read anything lately about downtown Oakland, or downtown
San Jose?
> >or lobby your suburban decisionmakers to allow
> >city-level-density development in your suburb.
>
> I'm all in favor of dramatically increased density in the suburbs. But do
you
> think there's any political prayer of that ever happening? To the extent
that
> one could justify a massive increase in bus service?
Absolutely, because contrary to popular belief, not many of the people
commuting from Stockton to San Jose every day are happy about it. Market
forces are hard at work densifying every densifiable spot within the Bay
Area. And they will make more densifiable areas by their very presence.
> What's so oppressive about the idea of making it easier for drivers to use
BART?
Well, for one thing, the preference of BART to charge all patrons (including
non-drivers) for driver conveniences, such as parking garages, including
construction, maintenance and security. While this is changing, the BART
board of directors is too cowardly to levy appropriate fees on *existing*
parking spaces.
For another, when these BART stations are surrounded by seas of auto
parking, they are much more dangerous places to maneuver in and out of at
peak commute times: for motorists (because the sheer number of cars creates
much congestion in and around these stations), those walking or bicycling to
the stations who have to deal with the surges of motor vehicles; and lastly,
in the case of those stations near residential areas, those areas are
afflicted by increased car traffic headed to and from BART parking. Expect
lots of opposition to any proposed increases in BART parking capacity in
those neighborhoods, especially when (as is often the case) the motorists
would come from far away to get to those existing or proposed parking
facilities.
Scott Mace
Scott Mace
> Why should only those who drive to BART, rather than all riders, pay for
> adding capacity to BART?
Some of us believe BART is in the business of moving people from point A to
point B, not in the business of parking cars. Let the parking of cars be
essentially spun off into its own self-sustaining business, or, if the
current revenues BART collects to move people from point A to point B is
insufficient, let the car-parking business subsidize the people-moving
business. It's a way of getting public transit out of businesses it has no
business being in. That's less government, a lower government subsidy, in my
book - which a libertarian such as yourself should applaud.
Scott Mace
John David Galt
> Well because I would assume sensible people would get to BART the way I
> used to get to the IC from home, by walking............
Sensible people never do work a machine can do.
Eric Holeman
--
--------------------
Eric Holeman eholatenteractcom Chicago Illinois USA
x
Richard Schumacher wrote:
While I agree with your plan to expand Caltrain in parallel, I have to
sound off on the numbers a bit. The transbay terminal is 900 mil,
the preliminary budget for the Caltrain extension is one billion
(assuming
they really can tunnel through soft landfill under buildings) and the
electrification is above and beyond that. And who knows what a train
over the Bay Bridge will finally run to.
Richard Mlynarik
>
> Richard Schumacher wrote:
>
> > One part of the solution is to expand Caltrain in parallel to BART.
> > It ought to operate as an express service to complement and relieve
> > demand for BART's local service. The Transbay (downtown) expansion
> > plan and complete electrification could be done for about one billion
> > versus three billion for BART refurbishment.
>
> While I agree with your plan to expand Caltrain in parallel, I have to
> sound off on the numbers a bit. The transbay terminal is 900 mil,
> the preliminary budget for the Caltrain extension is one billion
This number is pure unadulterated Bozo the Clown fabrication.
He's been directed to sources of information, but continues
to present fabulation as fact.
> (assuming they really can tunnel through soft landfill under buildings)
Bozo has been corrected on his faulty understanding of both
geology and tunnelling but continues to choose misrepresentation.
> and the electrification is above and beyond that.
> And who knows what a train over the Bay Bridge will finally run to.
We know, even if Clowns choose to be ignorant.
http://www.mtc.dst.ca.us/projects/bay_bridge/rail_study/chap5.htm
Tim Kynerd
This was long done on the Chicago L, and is still done on some lines in New
York (the West Side IRT locals, running as the 1 and the 9, and the old
Jamaica elevated in Queens, running as the J and the Z). The usual name for
this is "skip-stop service."
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg, Sweden t...@tram.nu
"But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much.
That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the
right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
-- West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Tim Kynerd
<sfviol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The problem with skip-stop is that it becomes incredibly difficult to
>travel only one station. You must run locals, as well as skip-stop.
Chicago didn't do this when they ran skip-stop service on the L. New York
doesn't do it now.
The solutions are (1) to have all trains stop at certain (heavily used)
stations, and (2) at specific places where there is heavy demand for travel
between two adjacent stations, have all trains stop at both of them.
-rest snipped-
Tim Kynerd
And at the same time, so many Americans can't seem to understand why they're
overweight.
Cathryn Mataga
Tim Kynerd wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:20:32 GMT, Robert Thomas Klein II
> <sfviol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem with skip-stop is that it becomes incredibly difficult to
> >travel only one station. You must run locals, as well as skip-stop.
>
> Chicago didn't do this when they ran skip-stop service on the L. New York
> doesn't do it now.
>
> The solutions are (1) to have all trains stop at certain (heavily used)
> stations, and (2) at specific places where there is heavy demand for travel
> between two adjacent stations, have all trains stop at both of them.
>
Or maybe the solution is to simply raise fares during peak hours. I'd price
based on the time you enter the system. Just double the price, to go in at
Embarcadero or downtown San Francisco around 5PM. And, double it again,
until there are enough seats. People without money will move to other
times of day.
Robert Cote
<cath...@junglevision.com> wrote:
Add a buck or two for anyone using the transbay tube.
Cathryn Mataga
There you go. They could jack up the fare based on destination and
on time, maybe. That'd make a few people get out of work a little
later. Maybe they could use the money to remodel some of the stinky
bathrooms on Bart.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:UWqd6.2270$Jx3.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <3A762108...@rsn.hp.com>, Richard Schumacher
> <schu...@rsn.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > > > BART was experimenting with express trains a couple years ago. It
> > > > was
> > > > probably awkward, because there's no way for an express to pass a
> > > > local. But,
> > > > how did the experiment work out?
> > >
> > > Oh, you must be talking about that experiment where they used
> > > advanced
> > > particle-physics transmutation so that one train could completely
> > > pass
> > > through the molecules of another train ... because what else could
> > > you
> > > possibly mean?
> >
> > One train passes the other (stopped at the station) by passing on the
> > "wrong way" track. It requires only slightly smarter traffic control
> > than is used at present.
> >
> > What prevents BART from buying cars with more than two doors? Reducing
> > the dwell time would help the situation.
>
> Umm, money, infrastructure,
Mmm.. Ok, but you didn't explain that BART uses custom-built trains.
>democracy, practicality. Just guessing
> Dickie which is a far sight more than you seem capable of given this
> mindboggling non-answer of yours.
Instead you veered off in to an ad hominem non-answer.
Richard Schumacher
Whups! Thanks for the correction. Oh, well, anything worth having
is worth paying for...
Tim Shoppa
> "Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:UWqd6.2270$Jx3.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> > In article <3A762108...@rsn.hp.com>, Richard Schumacher
> > <schu...@rsn.hp.com> wrote:
> > > What prevents BART from buying cars with more than two doors? Reducing
> > > the dwell time would help the situation.
> >
> > Umm, money, infrastructure,
>
> Mmm.. Ok, but you didn't explain that BART uses custom-built trains.
Does that need explanation? What modern mass-transit property can go
out and buy trains built to a different property's spec and run them on
their lines in revenue service without extensive customization?
Sure, BART has a different track gauge. Get over it.
Tim.
Richard Schumacher
> > What prevents BART from buying cars with more than two doors? Reducing
> > the dwell time would help the situation.
>
> Umm, money, infrastructure, democracy, practicality.
Could you explain? Why would more than two doors on BART cars be
impractical
or un-democratic? As for money, BART will soon have to buy more cars
anyway,
no? They might as well make them more functional than the current
model.
Tim Kynerd
You mean BART doesn't already charge higher fares during the peak? The
Washington Metro does, and since they have similar fare collection systems,
I had always assumed that their pricing was similar in concept. Hmmm.
x
Richard Schumacher wrote:
I'm not sure that the Caltrain extension is worth it. I'd like to see what
kind of elevated people mover you could build through downtown for
a billion. I bet it would go a lot farther than the one mile track
extension.
If we build a loop that goes through 4th/Townsend, past the ballpark to
the Embarcadero BART station, north of Embarcadero Center and past
Moscone Center, what would that run? Two tracks, one each direction.
Model it like the one in Detroit. Bet it would make a heck of a tourist
ride. Feedback anybody?
Merritt Mullen
John David Galt at j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us wrote on 1/29/01 11:48 PM:
Nonsense. If there were machine to take me from the living room to the
bathroom, would I choose it over walking? And by your unqualified statement
the machine could be large, dirty, expensive, noisy and a "sensible" person
would still choose it over walking. Fortunately, most people have more
sense than the "sensible" people you seem to be acquainted with.
Merritt
x
Cathryn Mataga wrote:
People without money will just have an even harder life, or is that the intent?
They will probably have to drive, and without newer, better maintained cars
we will all be breathing it. Or they will just be unable to hold the jobs,
meaning
more crime etc. But at least the elite will be able to ride in comfort! Raise
the
price enough and you could have tuxedoed waiters serving champagne, while
you discuss the fate of the empire, should the lower classes have the right to
own property or to vote, or . . .
Jon Bell
Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
>
>John David Galt at j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us wrote on 1/29/01 11:48 PM:
>
>> randee wrote:
>>
>>> Well because I would assume sensible people would get to BART the way I
>>> used to get to the IC from home, by walking............
>>
>> Sensible people never do work a machine can do.
>
>Nonsense. If there were machine to take me from the living room to the
>bathroom, would I choose it over walking?
*You* wouldn't, and *I* wouldn't, but I bet we'd be surprised by how many
people actually would. ;-)
At the college where I teach, you can walk from one end of campus to the
other in ten minutes (maybe a couple more minutes to get past the athletic
fields to fraternity row). Almost all students live on campus or within a
couple of blocks of it. Most of the surrounding streets are laid out so
that they don't cross the campus, so pedestrians don't have to compete
with cars.
Nevertheless, at mealtimes you can always see a parade of pickups and SUVs
streaming in and out of the dining hall parking lot (many of them coming
to and from the gymnasium), and zipping around the side streets at all
times. Students perennially complain about the "parking problem," despite
the fact that we have more parking spaces per capita than most of our
competitors.
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
[ Questions about newsgroups? Visit http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/ ]
[ or ask in news:news.newusers.questions ]
x
Merritt Mullen wrote:
There is also an implied commentary about bicyclists.
Silas Warner
>
> John wrote:
> >
> > Mmm.. Ok, but you didn't explain that BART uses custom-built trains.
>
> Does that need explanation? What modern mass-transit property can go
> out and buy trains built to a different property's spec and run them on
> their lines in revenue service without extensive customization?
Baltimore, Miami, Atlanta, Los Angeles' Red line -- the cars are all
interchangeable. With some modifications, add Washington.
San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, Los Angeles' Blue line -- another
set of interchangeable cars.
Silas Warner
Robert Thomas Klein II
double track people mover generally has the capacity of about 5,000 per
hour. I think SFO's is about 7,000 per hour. That is significantly less than
a fully utilized metro (a.k.a. BART) line. The trains (if they even have
them) are too short, and the speed is too low.
--
Robert Thomas Klein II
Email: robertk (at) i.am
>"x" wrote in message ...
ine...@my-deja.com
> One train passes the other (stopped at the station) by passing
> on the "wrong way" track. It requires only slightly smarter
> traffic control than is used at present.
One of the most foolhardy things I've ever heard!! Along
segments where congestion is a problem, peak headway is around
2.5 minutes in both directions. This means that there exists
about a 1.25 minute window to have a train pass on the opposing
track. It is physically impossible to squeeze in a passing
train in this span of time even if everything were running
'perfectly'. Also you would need crossovers about every 1000
feet to prevent collisions.
> What prevents BART from buying cars with more than two
> doors? Reducing the dwell time would help the situation.
It needs to do more than that. It needs to start removing
seating immediately so that patrons can negotiate the aisles
with less difficulty (and increasing standing capacity).
Eventually, it needs to run peak trains with retractable
seating that remains unusable during the peak (i.e. standing
room only cars).
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Bill Zaumen
<tech...@gte.net> wrote:
> You've hit upon a problem Jefferson anticipated. Even Hamilton would
> blanche at the prospect of buying trolleys with Federal money.
GIven the technology of the time, both of those guy's jaws would
drop if they saw a modern train cruising along at nearly 200 mph,
not to mention everything else.
BTW, in one of his letters, Jefferson said that people tended to
give far too much importance to the 'founding fathers.' He was
well aware that they were setting up a democratic government for
pretty much the first time, and didn't have anywhere near as
much prior experience as they would have liked. He more or less
indicated that he hoped people would learn from their mistakes
and improve the way we do things.
So let's take what he said seriously and not assume that what might
have been appropriate in an agricultural economy, where it would take
close to a month to send a letter from one end of the country to
the other, is 100% appropriate today.
Bill
--
As an anti-spam measure, my email address is only provided in a GIF
file. Please see <http://home.pacbell.net/zaumen/email.gif>.
Spammers can try mailto:s34...@aol.com mailto:sdkj34...@aol.com
Matthew Austern
> > While I agree with your plan to expand Caltrain in parallel, I have to
> > sound off on the numbers a bit. The transbay terminal is 900 mil,
> > the preliminary budget for the Caltrain extension is one billion
> > (assuming
> > they really can tunnel through soft landfill under buildings) and the
> > electrification is above and beyond that. And who knows what a train
> > over the Bay Bridge will finally run to.
>
> Whups! Thanks for the correction. Oh, well, anything worth having
> is worth paying for...
You should do some reading before you thank x-with-no-name for his
"correction". The numbers he is quoting are about twice the highest
estimate that I have seen reported in the press.
Of course, there's no real way to know how much a project will cost in
advance; maybe BART to San Jose will really be as cheap as VTA
promised in its election campaign, or maybe its numbers should be
multiplied by a factor of two or three. Same thing with Caltrain
projects: maybe they'll turn out to be wildly more expensive than
anyone is predicting. But if you're guessing huge cost overruns, you
should admit that you're guessing.
The numbers that "x" gave are simply not the numbers that are being
predicted for the Caltrain extension. He is opposed to this project,
so he wants to make it seem wildly expensive.
x
Robert Thomas Klein II wrote:
> The problem with people movers is capacity; they haven't enough. A
> double track people mover generally has the capacity of about 5,000 per
> hour. I think SFO's is about 7,000 per hour. That is significantly less than
> a fully utilized metro (a.k.a. BART) line. The trains (if they even have
> them) are too short, and the speed is too low.
OK, this isn't an attack: if the numbers are correct, I want to understand, if
they can be changed, let's work on this. I propose a system of about 2-2.5
miles. Stations at 4th/Townsend, ballpark, Bryant/Embarcadero, Ferry
Building, Washington/Battery, 1st between Market & Mission, Howard
between 3rd & 4th. Seven stations with a train every 1.5 minutes in rush
hour, times 40 people per train times 2 directions equals 22,400 people
per hour. These numbers come from the sites for Detroit, Jacksonville
and Miami. Detroit runs on a headway usually of 3 minutes on 80's
technology, and they say that they can do 1.5 if needed.
This should easily cost under the billion+ for the Caltrain big dig. Maybe
if it really clicks we could look at a second loop to go to the civic center
and
the Mission Bay region.
x
Jon Bell wrote:
It sounds like more of the side streets need to be pedestrian-only, and that
dining room parking lot should be a garden. The stuff goes away and in 3-4
years nobody misses it.
Andy Chow
news:dilbsso...@isolde.research.att.com...
> > Whups! Thanks for the correction. Oh, well, anything worth having
> > is worth paying for...
>
> You should do some reading before you thank x-with-no-name for his
> "correction". The numbers he is quoting are about twice the highest
> estimate that I have seen reported in the press.
The whole package, which include the new terminal plus the tunnel for
Caltrain is about a billion. The new terminal is for both bus and rail, and
the rail portion would have six tracks, like having three regular BART
stations side by side.
> Of course, there's no real way to know how much a project will cost in
> advance; maybe BART to San Jose will really be as cheap as VTA
> promised in its election campaign, or maybe its numbers should be
> multiplied by a factor of two or three. Same thing with Caltrain
> projects: maybe they'll turn out to be wildly more expensive than
> anyone is predicting. But if you're guessing huge cost overruns, you
> should admit that you're guessing.
Subway construction will be expensive. I don't oppose any and all subway
projects, but a lot has to do with the surrounding land use. Subway
construction make sense in SF because of the density and the lack of surface
off-street right of ways. Fremont-South Bay, on the other hand, has three
railroad corridors. I also find it to be wasteful to build subway for BART
between the airport wye and Millbrae, where it is in a private right of way
adjacent to Caltrain tracks.
I don't think it is fair to compare DTX with big dig, and I won't compare
BART with big dig either. Big dig is way out of the arena. Let's disregard
the cost-overruns issue for the discussion purpose. BART doesn't make sense
in Santa Clara county because the ridership is way too low, even with the
unrealistic, undoable TOD projections. The fake TOD ridership numbers of
BART in 2020 is about the same level as the first phase of Muni 3rd Street
light rail in 2010. Caltrain DTX on the other hand will be able to attract
more ridership. Anyone can look at trip projections done by MTC and ABAG.
Those projections shows that the trips between San Mateo County and San
Francisco is way higher than the trips between Alameda County and Santa
Clara County in the future. San Mateo County and San Francisco are more
centralized, which make linear rail transit more feasible. However, Southern
Alameda County and Santa Clara County is way too sprawl to have a subway
line.
In addition, the Measure A proponents were dishonest about the whole cost.
They disregarded the buy-in fee, which is required no matter how you
rationalize it. The only way to avoid buy-in is not to build BART. The
buy-in fees could add up additional cost anywhere from $500 million to 1
billion to the already expensive price tag without cost overruns.
I don't oppose to growth in downtown San Jose. I am fine if it does reach to
the level where it can support subway service. However I have strong doubts
that it can happen, at least when Gonzales is still in office. Gonzales
still support corporate sprawl; those office growth could've occur in
downtown. Gonzales still support retail growth outside downtown, where the
growth could've happen in downtown. Gonzales way to attempt to make downtown
SJ like downtown SF is by moving government offices and continually
subsidizing failing downtown businesses. His way is not the way which real
big cities with real big downtowns work. Also, downtown SJ suffers from FAA
building height restriction, which discourage developers from building
landmarks, similar to World Trade Center in New York. One way for a building
to become a landmark is to be taller than the others, so the building's
feature is more standout. The building height restriction forces the
buildings to look more uniform.
Tim Kynerd
That's true, actually. Where I went to college (Millsaps in Jackson, MS),
there were roads that went straight through the campus (although I don't
think it was ever very common for people to drive across the campus). After
I graduated, they changed the campus layout and got rid of the through roads.
Nobody misses them at all.
David Jensen
"Tim Shoppa" <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote in message
news:3A772829...@trailing-edge.com...
Interesting question. It is odd that the FTA hasn't mandated standards, at
least for new development, to provide flexibility and lower costs. Have the
transit agencied forgotten everything that was learned during the era of
traction?
> Sure, BART has a different track gauge. Get over it.
Gauge is a relatively small problem.
David Hatunen
><sm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert Cote wrote:
>>
>> > Transit is unique among public services.
>>
>> So why charge at all to ride BART? Why not make the transit
>> service itself free?
>
>That's a very good question. Why impose taxes? Court fees? Bill
>for emergency services? What's with all this property taxes being
>imposed only on property owners for that matter?
>
>You've hit upon a problem Jefferson anticipated. Even Hamilton
>would blanche at the prospect of buying trolleys with Federal
>money.
Hamilton was very much into subsidizing industry. This was part of
his dispute with the agrarian-oriented Jefferson.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California (Tucson AZ as of 20010303) *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Robert Cote
hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) wrote:
> In article <fl5d6.4180$iG3.9...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net> wrote:
> >In article <952hvp$fjk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, "Scott Mace"
> ><sm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Robert Cote wrote:
> >>
> >> > Transit is unique among public services.
> >>
> >> So why charge at all to ride BART? Why not make the transit
> >> service itself free?
> >
> >That's a very good question. Why impose taxes? Court fees? Bill
> >for emergency services? What's with all this property taxes being
> >imposed only on property owners for that matter?
> >
> >You've hit upon a problem Jefferson anticipated. Even Hamilton
> >would blanche at the prospect of buying trolleys with Federal
> >money.
>
> Hamilton was very much into subsidizing industry. This was part of
> his dispute with the agrarian-oriented Jefferson.
Thanks for leaving enough context to make the issue both intelligble
and still on topic for rail transit. Yes, that was exactly my point.
Even Hamilton (and his political heirs) with his Federal zeal would
not have felt comfortable with the idea of something like BART being
free to users. There is no public rationale for BART to be fareless.
Am I wrong here? Is there a reason?
I repeat; "Transit is unique among public services." Transit does not
means test or needs test when providing a public service.
Don Hagstrom
Yes the fares should be raised so that BART pays its own way in meeting
its operational and capacity needs. But if you are doing it to force
people to change their schedules--this will not happen. People have to
work when their bosses tell them too. Not too many people have all
kinds of options. So what will happen? The polar opposite of what many
of you want--People will go back to driving their cars or they will
just fork out more money. These "Transportation Demand" solutions just
never work in the long run--It is a capacity problem. So-called Demand
Management did not work with our energy supply as we are now seeing...
Merritt Mullen
Robert Cote at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/31/01 8:05 AM:
Sure there is. Transit exists to feed workers to industry. Making transit
free helps industry to attract workers to their work site and allows them to
pay a lower wage. I not suggesting that is a good idea in the case of BART.
Think of it as a horizontal elevator. Nobody charges a fare to ride an
elevator, and it is just another mass transportation mode that happens to
transport people in a vertical direction.
> I repeat; "Transit is unique among public services." Transit does not
> means test or needs test when providing a public service.
That is hardly unique. Neither does a highway. Nor does the public school
system, nor do the police or fire departments, the emergency medical
service, etc.
Merritt
David Jensen
"Merritt Mullen" <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
news:B69D80A1.3EBEA%mmu...@ispchannel.com...
> > Thanks for leaving enough context to make the issue both intelligble
> > and still on topic for rail transit. Yes, that was exactly my point.
> > Even Hamilton (and his political heirs) with his Federal zeal would
> > not have felt comfortable with the idea of something like BART being
> > free to users. There is no public rationale for BART to be fareless.
> > Am I wrong here? Is there a reason?
>
> Sure there is. Transit exists to feed workers to industry. Making
transit
> free helps industry to attract workers to their work site and allows them
to
> pay a lower wage. I not suggesting that is a good idea in the case of
BART.
>
> Think of it as a horizontal elevator. Nobody charges a fare to ride an
> elevator, and it is just another mass transportation mode that happens to
> transport people in a vertical direction.
Interesting, of course, then the payors should be the downtown commercial
tenants and landlords that the transit system is set up to serve.
> > I repeat; "Transit is unique among public services." Transit does not
> > means test or needs test when providing a public service.
>
> That is hardly unique. Neither does a highway. Nor does the public
school
> system, nor do the police or fire departments, the emergency medical
> service, etc.
We bill users for EMT calls in Madison. If they are uninsured and cannot
pay, the fee is waived.
Public schools are negatively means tested. If you are rich, you can live in
a public school district that teaches other rich kids. If you are poor, you
are likely to have to live in a public school district full of poor people.
Cathryn Mataga
>
> Yes the fares should be raised so that BART pays its own way in meeting
> its operational and capacity needs. But if you are doing it to force
> people to change their schedules--this will not happen. People have to
> work when their bosses tell them too. Not too many people have all
> kinds of options. So what will happen? The polar opposite of what many
> of you want--People will go back to driving their cars or they will
> just fork out more money. These "Transportation Demand" solutions just
> never work in the long run--It is a capacity problem. So-called Demand
> Management did not work with our energy supply as we are now seeing...
>
Well, the extent of power 'demand management' that I've seen -- was just a
bunch of air head TV-geeks saying "And, please, if you can, try to
save power." With a decision to pay for BART, there's a much
greater awareness of the costs involved since you're putting out
the money right there. With the lights, it's like, you turn
on the switch, but who knows how much money you're really spending?
And, if some people have to sit and wait 2 hours to save $5. I don't
think this is a gigantic hardship. There's a lot more capacity
on both the freeways and Bart, say, a little bit later. And, I'd
suspect that a lot of your retail, restaurant jobs and janitorial jobs
have more flexible hours. That is they'll all have shifts, that
can end one time or another. Come to think of it, I wonder if it's
only the attorneys who are all pouring out at 5PM. Maybe juicing
up the cost of prime time Bart could be considered an 'attorney tax'
-- which I think we're about due for. (Actually, I think a 30%
tax on attorney's fees would be about right, but that's another thread.)
Of course, in terms of adding capacity. I guess we could always build
the 'rail on the bridge' plan. But, it looks like that's dead.
So, we need the last remaining solution. Raise those Bart ticket
fees. Up, up, up.
Robert Cote
<mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
No, transit exists to feed workers to cities. Didn't you ever wonder
why the newsgroup is URBAN-transit?
> Making
> transit free helps industry to attract workers to their work site
> and allows them to pay a lower wage.
No, making transit free helps cities to attract [keep] workers to
their urban work site.
> > I repeat; "Transit is unique among public services." Transit
> > does not means test or needs test when providing a public
> > service.
>
> That is hardly unique. Neither does a highway.
POV travel is not subsidized.
> Nor does the public school system,
Needs tested. As an adult you just walk on over to your local
elementary and "enroll." See how all these things you mention are
different? There's a gatekeeping function for every other form of
subsidized public service.
> nor do the police or fire departments, the emergency medical service, etc.
You just call them up and ask for extra protection, tell them you
don't need it you just want it. You don't get police or fire or ems
protection until you need it.
Kevin Standlee
> You mean BART doesn't already charge higher fares during the peak?
No, they do not. BART fares are the same no matter when you ride,
weekdays, peak, off-peak, weekends, etc.
--
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Standlee | Fast / Accurate / Cheap
<standle...@menlolog.com | Pick Any Two
------------------------------------------------------
Wes Leatherock
In some places emergency ambulance service is free to users,
just as fire department and police services are. In others there is
a (hefty!) charge for emergency ambulance service.
In the metropolitan Oklahoma City area a new section of toll
road will be opened tomorrow afternoon.
It is not outlandish to suggest that public transit services
should be provided without individual charge to the users.
Wes Leatherock
wle...@sandbox.dynip.com
Wes Leatherock
> Interesting, of course, then the payors should be the downtown commercial
> tenants and landlords that the transit system is set up to serve.
It seems peculiar that employees of businesses or customers of
businesses (such as customers of shopping malls) are generally not
considered to be the beneficiaries of the services provided to those
businesses.
Wes Leatherock
wle...@sandbox.dynip.com
Silas Warner
>
> Thanks for leaving enough context to make the issue both intelligble
> and still on topic for rail transit. Yes, that was exactly my point.
> Even Hamilton (and his political heirs) with his Federal zeal would
> not have felt comfortable with the idea of something like BART being
> free to users. There is no public rationale for BART to be fareless.
> Am I wrong here? Is there a reason?
Well, as a counterexample, consider the Tandy Subway, operated by a
private business in Fort Worth, TX. The subway links a shopping center
to a parking garage, and is fare-free for passengers. The parking
garage charges to park there, but without the subway it, and to a
lesser extent the shopping center, would be unable to attract business.
This, on a larger scale, is exactly the problem BART was meant to
solve -- that is, exporting parking from San Francisco, where parking
and freeways cost astronomical sums even in the 1960s, to locations
where parking could be provided cheaply. In effect, BART fares
subsidized the huge parking lots, and later parking garages, built
at the outlying stations.
But there is a compelling reason not to have fare-free transit over
the entire system, and that is the problem of vagrancy. Santa Barbara
operates electric shopping and beach shuttles throughout the year, but
more on busy weekends. At first these shuttles were fare-free. But
the drivers found that poor students and beach-dwellers were boarding
the shuttle loops and riding all day, depriving legitimate shoppers of
seats. Although the shuttles were paid for entirely by downtown
business, a token fare of 25 cents was imposed to separate the actual
riders from the casual cruisers.
Silas Warner
David desJardins
> Even Hamilton (and his political heirs) with his Federal zeal would
> not have felt comfortable with the idea of something like BART being
> free to users. There is no public rationale for BART to be fareless.
> Am I wrong here? Is there a reason?
Given that the system has already been built at public expense, then the
more people that use the system, the higher the total utility, as long
as the utility for each of those riders is greater than the marginal
cost of carrying that rider. Typically, for transit systems, most of
the costs are fixed costs: the marginal cost of each extra rider is very
low, until the system is near capacity (at which point each additional
passenger generates crowding that represents a disutility to other
passengers, possibly even exceeding the utility that that rider gets
from the system).
The net utility of the system to the public is the sum of the utilities
of the individual riders. The net utility of fare collection is
negative: a certain amount of money is taken from riders, and is
redistributed to other citizens (by lowering their taxes), minus the
collection expense. Taking money from some citizens in order to give it
to others doesn't have any inherent positive or negative value. (An
exception: Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor can
increase total utility. But the best way to do that is through taxes,
not transit fares.) So the total utility created by fare collection
itself is generally negative (by the cost of collecting the fares).
So, in the absence of crowding or some other reason for high marginal
costs, the fares themselves create negative utility, and they also
reduce ridership which reduces total utility. So they are pretty
strongly undesirable, in that case. But fares at times of high load
(for example) could still make sense.
David desJardins
Robert Cote
<Pine.LNX.4.21.010131...@mail.sandbox.dynip.com>,
Wes Leatherock <wle...@sandbox.dynip.com> wrote:
You just call that emergency ambulance service without needing it.
Get back to me when you get the bill. Transit doesn't require that
you need it before you can use it. EMS is different. That is my
point.
David desJardins
> But there is a compelling reason not to have fare-free transit over
> the entire system, and that is the problem of vagrancy.
This is a good example of a different kind of problem than that I was
considering. I certainly concede that there are lots of different
factors to take into account, not just the economic question of how many
people ride the system.
David desJardins
Robert Cote
<si...@value.net> wrote:
> Robert Cote wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for leaving enough context to make the issue both intelligble
> > and still on topic for rail transit. Yes, that was exactly my point.
> > Even Hamilton (and his political heirs) with his Federal zeal would
> > not have felt comfortable with the idea of something like BART being
> > free to users. There is no public rationale for BART to be fareless.
> > Am I wrong here? Is there a reason?
>
> Well, as a counterexample, consider the Tandy Subway, operated by a
> private business in Fort Worth, TX. The subway links a shopping center
> to a parking garage, and is fare-free for passengers. The parking
> garage charges to park there, but without the subway it, and to a
> lesser extent the shopping center, would be unable to attract business.
Why is this a counterexample to a free ride? You point out that there
is a charge to park and an implied commercial subsidy at the other
end. If we hold a string over the shuttle entrance to Disneyland we
could count some 280,000 plus dailt boardings in that string sized
tunnel. See my point?
> This, on a larger scale, is exactly the problem BART was meant to
> solve -- that is, exporting parking from San Francisco, where parking
> and freeways cost astronomical sums even in the 1960s, to locations
> where parking could be provided cheaply.
Exactly, road subsidies.
> In effect, BART fares
> subsidized the huge parking lots,
Exactly. So BART isn't in the transit business, it is in the
subsidized parking lot business. Can I get in the publiclly
subsidized parking lot business? No? Because I will compete with the
money losing BART? Why?
> and later parking garages, built
> at the outlying stations.
Auto services are what the people want. Good call.
> But there is a compelling reason not to have fare-free transit over
> the entire system, and that is the problem of vagrancy.
Excuse me sir. Could I see your papers? Oh, you want to establish a
needs/class based system. Doesn't matter if you pay the same as
eveyone else, (nothing) you still need the permission of the State.
> Santa Barbara
> operates electric shopping and beach shuttles throughout the year, but
> more on busy weekends. At first these shuttles were fare-free. But
> the drivers found that poor students and beach-dwellers were boarding
> the shuttle loops and riding all day, depriving legitimate shoppers of
> seats.
Ah yes, my neighbors to the west. Before you characterise the typical
UCSB student as "poor" I suggest you compare the faculty parking lot
of Toyotas with the alternating Acuras and Beemers of the "kids."
I've never heard the shoppers refered to asd "legitimate" before.
Interesting perspective to say the least.
> Although the shuttles were paid for entirely by downtown
> business, a token fare of 25 cents was imposed to separate the actual
> riders from the casual cruisers.
Excellent idea. Free obviously induces trips that diminish the value
of public transportation. Half price as well. 90% is a logical
extension. Heck, I'm pleased that anything less than 100% full total
costs are wrong in your opinion because it attracts casual riders. I
would never have said this myself but you are entitled to the opinion.
Jon Bell
>
>Jon Bell wrote:
>> other in ten minutes (maybe a couple more minutes to get past the athletic
>> fields to fraternity row). Almost all students live on campus or within a
>> couple of blocks of it. Most of the surrounding streets are laid out so
>> that they don't cross the campus, so pedestrians don't have to compete
>> with cars.
>>
>> Nevertheless, at mealtimes you can always see a parade of pickups and SUVs
>> streaming in and out of the dining hall parking lot (many of them coming
>> to and from the gymnasium), and zipping around the side streets at all
>> times.
>
I think the townspeople who live on the side streets might have something
to say about that. :-)
>and that dining room parking lot should be a garden. The stuff goes away
>and in 3-4 years nobody misses it.
That might in fact actually happen. That section of campus is in for some
major changes after the adjacent football stadium is relocated, and I
wouldn't be surprised to see the parking reconfigured significantly. The
college used to rent out the dining hall for banquets and such, so it
needed the parking lot for that. But now we have another facility for
rental events, so the dining hall doesn't need the parking for that
purpose any more. And our new president has made statements supporting
our residential, pedestrian atmosphere.
Merritt Mullen
David Jensen at da...@dajensen-family.com wrote on 1/31/01 8:57 AM:
> "Merritt Mullen" <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
> news:B69D80A1.3EBEA%mmu...@ispchannel.com...
>
>> Robert Cote at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/31/01 8:05 AM:
>>
>>> I repeat; "Transit is unique among public services." Transit does not means
>>> test or needs test when providing a public service.
>>>
>> That is hardly unique. Neither does a highway. Nor does the public school
>> system, nor do the police or fire departments, the emergency medical service,
>> etc.
>>
> We bill users for EMT calls in Madison. If they are uninsured and cannot pay,
> the fee is waived.
Where I live when you call 911 both the fire department and the private
ambulance service responds. There is only a charge from the ambulance
company if they actually transport you. They respond to the call and
evaluate the patient for free. There is no charge from the fire department
> Public schools are negatively means tested. If you are rich, you can live in a
> public school district that teaches other rich kids. If you are poor, you are
> likely to have to live in a public school district full of poor people.
Something the "reformers" in Washington don't want to face.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
Robert Cote at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/31/01 10:36 AM:
> In article <B69D80A1.3EBEA%mmu...@ispchannel.com>, Merritt Mullen
> <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
>
>> Sure there is. Transit exists to feed workers to industry.
>
> No, transit exists to feed workers to cities. Didn't you ever wonder
> why the newsgroup is URBAN-transit?
Say what? Are you saying all those workers on transit are government
employees? Or that businesses in cities are not "industry"? Why do all
those people put up with the traffic on the Bay Bridge and crowded subway
cars, if they didn't have to go to work?
>> Making
>> transit free helps industry to attract workers to their work site
>> and allows them to pay a lower wage.
>
> No, making transit free helps cities to attract [keep] workers to
> their urban work site.
I think you meant to start that sentence with "yes" as it says exactly what
I said.
>>> I repeat; "Transit is unique among public services." Transit
>>> does not means test or needs test when providing a public
>>> service.
>>
>> That is hardly unique. Neither does a highway.
>
> POV travel is not subsidized.
Are you changeing the subject. You were talking about means and needs
testing.
>
>> Nor does the public school system,
>
> Needs tested. As an adult you just walk on over to your local
> elementary and "enroll." See how all these things you mention are
> different? There's a gatekeeping function for every other form of
> subsidized public service.
Sorry Robert, I just don't speak your language. Are you saying "age
testing" is the same as "needs tested"? I don't think the school system
cares what you need, they require you to attend school based on your age, no
matter how much you may need the education.
>
>> nor do the police or fire departments, the emergency medical service, etc.
>
> You just call them up and ask for extra protection, tell them you
> don't need it you just want it. You don't get police or fire or ems
> protection until you need it.
I don't ride on a transit vehicle until I need it either. Like I said, I
don't think we speak the same language.
By the way, the last time I called 911, nobody asked me if I needed it.
They just showed up (turned out I didn't need it, and they told me not to
let any doubts keep me from calling again; they don't mind finding out that
they are really not needed).
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
Wes Leatherock at wle...@sandbox.dynip.com wrote on 1/31/01 1:47 PM:
A good case could be made to eliminate all personal income taxes and rely on
business taxes instead. But that's beyond the scope of this newsgroup.
Merritt
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:Ii1e6.1636$DL2.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
If you use transit, you 'need' it - else you'd not use it. In Portland (and
likely other cities as well), water is provided at public fountains
throughout the city - there are no barriers or means testing to get a drink.
Same with bathrooms in public parks.
Richard Schumacher
> OK, this isn't an attack: if the numbers are correct, I want to understand, if
> they can be changed, let's work on this. I propose a system of about 2-2.5
> miles. Stations at 4th/Townsend, ballpark, Bryant/Embarcadero, Ferry
> Building, Washington/Battery, 1st between Market & Mission, Howard
> between 3rd & 4th. Seven stations with a train every 1.5 minutes in rush
> hour, times 40 people per train times 2 directions equals 22,400 people
> per hour. These numbers come from the sites for Detroit, Jacksonville
> and Miami. Detroit runs on a headway usually of 3 minutes on 80's
> technology, and they say that they can do 1.5 if needed.
>
> This should easily cost under the billion+ for the Caltrain big dig. Maybe
> if it really clicks we could look at a second loop to go to the civic center
> and
> the Mission Bay region.
It serves an entirely different purpose. It may be worthwhile, but
moving commuters better (faster, cleaner) is the more urgent need.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:pWYd6.1454$DL2.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <B69D80A1.3EBEA%mmu...@ispchannel.com>, Merritt Mullen
> <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Nor does the public school system,
>
> Needs tested. As an adult you just walk on over to your local
> elementary and "enroll." See how all these things you mention are
> different?
Age tested, not 'needs' tested. Plenty of adult education available.
> There's a gatekeeping function for every other form of
> subsidized public service.
How about Public bathrooms?
sadness or euphoria
>If you use transit, you 'need' it - else you'd not use it.
When you get gravely injured, I don't think EMS has alternatives; when you want
to go somewhere, transit has alternatives.
Chris Sampang
Somewhere on the SF Peninsula
===============================
"Everybody has a dream..." - Billy Joel
===============================
Webmaster, Freeways of San Francisco (http://sffwy.cjb.com)
John
___>^..^<___
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:959g63$ntq$1...@grandcanyon.binc.net...
>
>
> Public schools are negatively means tested. If you are rich, you can live
in
> a public school district that teaches other rich kids. If you are poor,
you
> are likely to have to live in a public school district full of poor
people.
>
New methods of providing public assistance through Affordable Housing
scatters the poor through the same neighborhoods as the richer.
Concentrating the poor into ghettos is on it's way out.
John
___>^..^<___
"Kevin Standlee" <standle...@menlolog.com> wrote in message
news:3A787498...@menlolog.com...
> Tim Kynerd wrote:
>
> > You mean BART doesn't already charge higher fares during the peak?
>
> No, they do not. BART fares are the same no matter when you ride,
> weekdays, peak, off-peak, weekends, etc.
>
According to studies, uniform simple fare structures yield better ridership.
John
___>^..^<___
"Merritt Mullen" <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
news:B69E0531.3EC3F%mmu...@ispchannel.com...
Portland uses a payroll excise tax to finance their transit system.
Cathryn Mataga
John wrote:
Studies? Learned experts, no doubt. Hehe.
Well, I think the point wasn't that higher peak time fares would cause better
ridership. The point is that BART is stretched to the limit, ahem, and
well, that higher fares would mean fewer people on the system when it's
most crowded. Exactly the opposite. But opposite is good, in a way.
More money, less crowding.
Steven Goodman
By raising fees at peak, you might get a small decline in ridership during those hours. By people who have flexible hours, and decide to save a few bucks, which would be good. But you would also cause some people who can't afford it to pay more (i.e. low income workers), and force some people to "waste time" so they could travel during non-peak, just to save the money (i.e. the low income workers who can't afford even a small increase.
But increasing fees at peak is a form of "direct taxation", which could increase funds toward increasing capacity. (Which is a different, and mostly useless discussion?)
Steven Goodman
st...@ancore.com
Merritt Mullen
Robert Cote at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/31/01 3:35 PM:
> You just call that emergency ambulance service without needing it.
> Get back to me when you get the bill. Transit doesn't require that
> you need it before you can use it. EMS is different. That is my
> point.
Didn't I respond to this already? I had occasion to call 911 last year when
my wife had a problem following a serious operation. The fire department
and the local private ambulance service responded. After they examined my
wife, my wife decided that she didn't need to be taken to the hospital.
Because she wasn't transported there was no charge. In fact, the private
ambulance attendants encouraged me to call whenever in doubt as they said
they never charge to respond, only to transport, and they don't mind
responding even if it turns out they are not needed. I suspect the county
pays them for this service, but nevertheless, there is no charge to the
patient.
I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. I don't think you will
find many transit riders using transit that don't have a need to use transit
(like if I don't show up at work, I will be fired), so for the vast majority
of riders, transit does require that you need it before you are motivated to
use it.
Merritt
Robert Cote
<mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
> Robert Cote at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/31/01 10:36 AM:
>
> > In article <B69D80A1.3EBEA%mmu...@ispchannel.com>, Merritt
> > Mullen <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sure there is. Transit exists to feed workers to industry.
> >
> > No, transit exists to feed workers to cities. Didn't you ever
> > wonder why the newsgroup is URBAN-transit?
>
> Say what? Are you saying all those workers on transit are
> government employees? Or that businesses in cities are not
> "industry"? Why do all those people put up with the traffic on the
> Bay Bridge and crowded subway cars, if they didn't have to go to
> work?
I'm not sure how to make the statement any clearer. Yransit exists to
feed workers to cities. I said nothing about a requirement that they
be govt employees or anything about the type of work or congestion.
It's a really simple concept that I've mentioned many times. The idea
is very topical for all three xpost groups. Rail transit and urban
transit both rely on nodal destinations somewhere along their route to
justify the expense and effort. Transit, particularly rail transit
worked best when cities were most concentrated and that was where the
jobs were. That has changed and transit has fallen because of it.
Now there seems to be a tail wagging the issue where transit is being
used to try and drive urban land use rather than responding to it.
You've often heard in these groups the legitimate claim that many
cities would see a mass exodous of jobs were it not for subsidized
transit. Well yes. Cities also build parking garages for the same
reasons, this isn't a unique characteristic BTW.
> >> Making transit free helps industry to attract workers to their
> >> work site and allows them to pay a lower wage.
> >
> > No, making transit free helps cities to attract [keep] workers to
> > their urban work site.
>
> I think you meant to start that sentence with "yes" as it says
> exactly what I said.
No, you said "helps industry" and I said "helps cities."
> >>> I repeat; "Transit is unique among public services." Transit
> >>> does not means test or needs test when providing a public
> >>> service.
> >>
> >> That is hardly unique. Neither does a highway.
> >
> > POV travel is not subsidized.
>
> Are you changeing the subject. You were talking about means and
> needs testing.
Yes and no. Transit is not like highway travel because there is no
massive subsidization. [There is probably a little but it isn't
policy as it is in transit.] Highways are indeed means tested. Try
to drive on the freeway without paying the appropriate fees and taxes.
If you cannot afford the registration and the gas tax, you cannot use
the highway system. You can ride a bike for free because of the kind
of piddling subsidy leakage I mentioned earlier as long as you have
the means to get a safe bicycle and agree to operate it safely. If
you lack the means to do this you are not allowed to use the roads
even on a bicycle.
> >> Nor does the public school system,
> >
> > Needs tested. As an adult you just walk on over to your local
> > elementary and "enroll." See how all these things you mention
> > are different? There's a gatekeeping function for every other
> > form of subsidized public service.
>
> Sorry Robert, I just don't speak your language. Are you saying
> "age testing" is the same as "needs tested"?
Not at all, there are adult classes if you need them.
> I don't think the
> school system cares what you need, they require you to attend
> school based on your age, no matter how much you may need the
> education.
Yeah we can push any parallel til it breaks if we get picky enough.
> >> nor do the police or fire departments, the emergency medical
> >> service, etc.
> >
> > You just call them up and ask for extra protection, tell them you
> > don't need it you just want it. You don't get police or fire or
> > ems protection until you need it.
>
> I don't ride on a transit vehicle until I need it either. Like I
> said, I don't think we speak the same language.
Sounds to me like you are casting around for any way to find even the
most minor detail or exception that brings into question the simple
statement that transit is unique among public services in that it does
not question your need to use a publiclly subsidized service. I'm
sure if you get me to repeat enough different ways you'll be able to
parse out an inconsistency or finally find a clever language twist
that will make you feel that I've contradicted myself but com'on.
> By the way, the last time I called 911, nobody asked me if I needed
> it. They just showed up (turned out I didn't need it, and they told
> me not to let any doubts keep me from calling again; they don't
> mind finding out that they are really not needed).
You needed them to show up and perform their function. It is their
job to respond and assess. If in their opinion you called without a
good reason the next visit would be from the police warning you to not
call 911 when you don't need it. There is indeed a gatekeeping
function being performed in your example. BTW I'm pleased to hear
that you didn't need anything more than the EMS evaluation and
determination that things were alright.
David Jensen
"John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote in message
news:tq4e6.39809$s6.12...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
It's a great ideal, but it isn't happening. The poor are going into (the
"richer") lower middle-class neighborhoods. That may be good or it may
backfire. We'll see. Senator Clinton and rest of the wealthy do not have
neighbors who have subsidized housing. They live in suburbs that have zoning
that make it impossible to be poor and live there. Subsidized housing is
concentrated in central cities and even there the wealthy pockets are not
sharing the housing burden. There are no section 8 vouchers on the Gold
Coast.
Matthew Austern
> OK, this isn't an attack: if the numbers are correct, I want to understand, if
> they can be changed, let's work on this. I propose a system of about 2-2.5
> miles. Stations at 4th/Townsend, ballpark, Bryant/Embarcadero, Ferry
> Building, Washington/Battery, 1st between Market & Mission, Howard
> between 3rd & 4th. Seven stations with a train every 1.5 minutes in rush
> hour, times 40 people per train times 2 directions equals 22,400 people
> per hour. These numbers come from the sites for Detroit, Jacksonville
> and Miami. Detroit runs on a headway usually of 3 minutes on 80's
> technology, and they say that they can do 1.5 if needed.
And your proposal has the same problem that every such proposal does:
either you give it a dedicated right-of-way (in which case you might
as well just use that dedicated right-of-way for Caltrain, to save
passengers the nuisance of a transfer), or it'll be stuck in traffic.
There's already train service from the Caltrain station to downtown.
It's Muni, much of it is on surface tracks that are shared with cars,
and it's extremely slow. I might take it tonight, but that's just
becuase it'll be cold and dark. If I were just concerned about
getting from the Caltrain station to BART as quickly as possible, I'd
do better by walking.
Eric Holeman
Steven Goodman <st...@ancore.com> wrote:
>By raising fees at peak, you might get a small decline in ridership
>during those hours. By people who have flexible hours, and decide to
>save a few bucks, which would be good. But you would also cause some
>people who can't afford it to pay more (i.e. low income workers), and
>force some people to "waste time" so they could travel during non-peak,
>just to save the money (i.e. the low income workers who can't afford
>even a small increase.
This problem can be addressed by raising the fare and then giving a
kickback to the poor folks.
--
--------------------
Eric Holeman eholatenteractcom Chicago Illinois USA
Kevin Standlee
> Well, as a counterexample, consider the Tandy Subway, operated by a
> private business in Fort Worth, TX. The subway links a shopping center
> to a parking garage, and is fare-free for passengers. The parking
> garage charges to park there,
Minor nitpick: Unless things have changed in the last five years --
that being when I parked there and rode the Tandy Subway into the
Tandy Center -- it wasn't a parking garage, but an open-to-the-sky
parking lot, and there was no charge to park there. The shopping
center pays for the operating cost of the subway. The subway was
built because the original developer needed a way to get people from
the parking lot to the building (the two lots are somewhat separated)
and decided that a rail-based solution was better than shuttle buses.
The Tandy vehicles are, as I understand it, PCC cars with a boxy,
1960s "Tomorrowland" look to them. As I recall, there are four stops
in the parking lot and one at the Tandy Center.
Again, it has been more than five years since I visited Fort Worth and
rode the Tandy Subway, so maybe all of this has changed.
--
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Standlee | Fast / Accurate / Cheap
<standle...@menlolog.com | Pick Any Two
------------------------------------------------------
Steven Goodman
> either you give it a dedicated right-of-way (in which case you might
> as well just use that dedicated right-of-way for Caltrain, to save
> passengers the nuisance of a transfer), or it'll be stuck in traffic.
>
> There's already train service from the Caltrain station to downtown.
> It's Muni, much of it is on surface tracks that are shared with cars,
> and it's extremely slow. I might take it tonight, but that's just
> becuase it'll be cold and dark. If I were just concerned about
> getting from the Caltrain station to BART as quickly as possible, I'd
> do better by walking.
Or you elevate it. A light weight, low occupancy per vehicle system can be elevated for a lot less cost than heavy rail can be elevated (or tunnelled).
Question: Is the proposed Caltrain extension tunnelling or cut-and-cover?
Steven Goodman
st...@ancore.com
Eric Holeman
Steven Goodman <st...@ancore.com> wrote:
>Or you elevate it. A light weight, low occupancy per vehicle system can
>be elevated for a lot less cost than heavy rail can be elevated (or
>tunnelled).
Or you run it in its own exclusive surface right-of-way, like in the
median or something. Speeds it up considerably, where feasible.
Tim Kynerd
<standle...@menlolog.com> wrote:
>Silas Warner wrote:
>
>> Well, as a counterexample, consider the Tandy Subway, operated by a
>> private business in Fort Worth, TX. The subway links a shopping center
>> to a parking garage, and is fare-free for passengers. The parking
>> garage charges to park there,
>
>Minor nitpick: Unless things have changed in the last five years --
>that being when I parked there and rode the Tandy Subway into the
>Tandy Center -- it wasn't a parking garage, but an open-to-the-sky
>parking lot, and there was no charge to park there. The shopping
>center pays for the operating cost of the subway. The subway was
>built because the original developer needed a way to get people from
>the parking lot to the building (the two lots are somewhat separated)
>and decided that a rail-based solution was better than shuttle buses.
>
>The Tandy vehicles are, as I understand it, PCC cars with a boxy,
>1960s "Tomorrowland" look to them. As I recall, there are four stops
>in the parking lot and one at the Tandy Center.
The Tandy vehicles are, IIRC, Washington PCCs acquired after the streetcar
system in DC stopped running in early 1962. (Are those still in service at
the Tandy Center?)
-snip-
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg, Sweden t...@tram.nu
"But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much.
That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the
right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
-- West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)