Eats batteries? Deep discharge does kill batteries and if tunnel operations are indeed eating batteries I don’t think that cost has been fairly factored into Metro’s analysis.

Even something as lame as GM’s “mild hybrid” technology which shuts of the fossil fuel engine while stopped would seem to be a winner for surface operations. Not if you bought it just for that but if you own it already because it was needed for the tunnel then why not?

No. A part-time driver has to work an AVERAGE of 20 hours per week or more over 6 months to qualify for fully paid medical for the driver only. Benefits for full-timers include paid (or partially paid) medical, dental, and vision coverage not only for the driver but for dependent family members.

I do not believe that it is cheaper to pay overtime than paying straight time, particularly when you add up the numbers. Remember, overtime for a driver at top scale (takes about 5 years or less depending) is 41.25 per hour. That means 10 hours of overtime costs the county $412.50 (more really if you factor in the corresponding increase in pension benefits as well). The same amount in straight time if paid to a junior part-timer would be $192.50 – a difference of 220.00 for every 10 hours of overtime.

I believe that the contractual restriction against part-timers working eventings and weekends is specifically included in the union’s contract language to protect overtime for full-timers, and has nothing to do with cost savings to the county. Again – risking having my house burned down by full-timers-of-which-I-hope-to-be-one, I believe that a genuine cost analysis would show a substantial savings if some of that overtime were paid as straight time to willing part-timers.

Two issues being confused here. My point is that as a part-timer scrounding for more than the 3.5 hours a day of regular work that I have, I – an EXISTING employee – am not permitted to work evenings or weekends. Someone calls in sick on a piece that runs after 8pm? I can’t work it. Someone has an RDO that doesn’t include weekends? I can’t work their Saturday or Sunday piece. Under the current contract, the County HAS to pay full-timers overtime – even though there are a hell of a lot of part-timers out there willing to do the same work for straight-time.

Again – hoping nobody burns down my house for pointing this out.

The Machinists at Boeing were still complaining about getting TOO MUCH overtime as part of their 2008 contract. Boeing shoves all that OT down the Machinists throats because they have determined it is less expensive than hiring new employees. In many cases, I’m sure Metro management and planners have come to the same conclusion.

Here’s what I would do:

Pull the OTP data and look what the 95th percentile running time is. Next, I would look to see how the real running time relates to the scheduled runnig time and determine what the “real” recovery time is.

Next, I would see if it were possible to reduce recovery time by 15 minutes (Route 70 has mostly 15-minute headways, and thus you’d need to reduce recovery by a minimum of 15 minutes to pull a bus out of the schedule and maintain existing service levels).

If you can’t reduce recovery by 15 minutes and have maintain some recovery time, then you wouldn’t do it.

Where you put the layover is not so important – it’s a short route. It could be 5 minutes on one end and 20 on the other, or 10 and 15 on either end. The key being is that you’d put a minimum of 5 at one end.

Let me be clear that recovery/layover is necessary for schedule reliability and operator health/comfort. The key question is how much layover/recovery is necessary. 30 pecent of time spent in recovery/layover is unquestionably high.

I strongly suspect that the real running time data would show that you can reduce recovery time by a total of 15 minutes and pull a bus out of Route 70 schedule during weekday morning/middays. This still leaves an operator with over 25 minutes of recovery time every round trip, which is not unreasonable.

You do realize that ETB’s rely on a network of thousands of miles of overhead wiring and a dozen or so power relay stations, right?

Let’s take a closer look at that run card data:

The total shift time (not counting the 10 minute sign-in/inspection time) is 5 hours and 26 minutes – or 326 minutes.

The 070/02 VT (CMBO210-1) has the following layovers/recovery times:

6:43-6:51 am – 8 minutes (at Brooklyn/NE 50th St.)

7:28-7:53 am – 25 minutes (3rd S. and S. Main)

8:30-8:51 am – 21 minutes (Brooklyn and NE 50th St.)

9:29-9:53 am – 24 minutes (3rd S. and S. Main)

10:28-10:51 am – 23 minutes (Brooklyn and NE 50th St.)

Total cumulative recovery time: 101 minutes

So yes – your math is pretty spot on.

Now – this is a WEEKDAY run.

Guess what happens during weekdays? Traffic. That means that this recovery time is dang near always used for – wait for it – RECOVERY.

I challenge you to actually RIDE that run, and you’ll see how much time is actually spent “in-service”. On some morings if not most, I guarantee you that driver gets maybe half that time, if at all.

So given that you’ve pulled this rush-hour weekday example – how would YOU make it more “efficient” (assuming that having the bus parked for more than 30 seconds is in your view somehow “inefficient”?

You’ve got the run – card – show us what YOUR schedule would look like. Would you cut the recovery time at either Harvard or Main in half? More?

Do tell.

This means that the only possible reason for trolleybuses “costing more” over the lifecycle is a shortage of trolleybus manufacturers, causing the prices to go up.

No, the reason that trolleys cost more to run is that you not only have to factor the cost of the equipment that’s driven in – but the cost of thousands of miles of overhead wiring to feed them power.

It’s the maintenance of the overhead wiring that drives up the cost of running ETB’s.

Route 70

37/38 minute one-way run time with over 20 minutes of layover. In each direction during a.m. and midday.

Specifically, on 070/02VT CMBO 210-1 (Atlantic Base), the operator between 6:07 a.m. and 11:28 a.m. has 101 minutes of recovery/layover and that operator is “in service” for 320 minutes. 31 percent of time is spent on recover/layover. I hope my math is right.

It would appear that Route 70 during certain times can be operated with less layover and one less bus. Even with bridge lifts.

http://www.atu587.com/about-divisions-kcmto.html

Thank you for going and looking this up.

Specific routes that have warrants for less layover?

I’m going to have to pull some schedules and give you some examples. (I do not have access to the run cards like you do).