Comments on: Getting the Numbers Right http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/ Transit in the Greater Seattle Area Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:28:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mike Orr http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72473 Mike Orr Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:06:34 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72473 The think to keep in mind with that anti-trolleybus point is, it's just one auditor's suggestion. His job was to report on all potential alternatives. He may have made mistakes in his assumptions, not being an engineer himself. It's the county council (and Seattle?) who will decide, and they haven't commented either way AFAIK. I believe there are people in Metro and in Seattle and the county who see the environmental and cost advantages of trolleybuses. If not, and a motion comes up to dismantle the trolleybuses, we'll have to be ready to educate the politicians and show there's public (taxpayer) support for keeping them. San Francisco was going to dismantle its cable cars in the 70s or 80s but the voters spoke loudly to keep them and refurbish the system. Today I'm sure they'd say it was an excellent decision that brought significant tourist dollars to the city in subsequent years. We may have to do something similar for our trolleybuses if an anti-trolleybus campaign gets serious.
The think to keep in mind with that anti-trolleybus point is, it’s just one auditor’s suggestion. His job was to report on all potential alternatives. He may have made mistakes in his assumptions, not being an engineer himself. It’s the county council (and Seattle?) who will decide, and they haven’t commented either way AFAIK. I believe there are people in Metro and in Seattle and the county who see the environmental and cost advantages of trolleybuses. If not, and a motion comes up to dismantle the trolleybuses, we’ll have to be ready to educate the politicians and show there’s public (taxpayer) support for keeping them.

San Francisco was going to dismantle its cable cars in the 70s or 80s but the voters spoke loudly to keep them and refurbish the system. Today I’m sure they’d say it was an excellent decision that brought significant tourist dollars to the city in subsequent years. We may have to do something similar for our trolleybuses if an anti-trolleybus campaign gets serious.

]]> By: Mike http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72471 Mike Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:00:01 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72471 I agree with your general statement and point 2, but not points 1 or 3. Maybe I'm misinterpreting "a car in sight at all times", but are you expecting a 30 second headway for the SLUS? What transit system in any major city has that? Besides, I don't think the current track infrastructure could even handle that many street cars, esp due to the single track design at each end of the line. As for point 3, who do you suggest pays for this line?
I agree with your general statement and point 2, but not points 1 or 3. Maybe I’m misinterpreting “a car in sight at all times”, but are you expecting a 30 second headway for the SLUS? What transit system in any major city has that? Besides, I don’t think the current track infrastructure could even handle that many street cars, esp due to the single track design at each end of the line. As for point 3, who do you suggest pays for this line?

]]> By: Mike Skehan http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72292 Mike Skehan Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:53:52 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72292 Thanks Mike, Joshuadf and Chris, for the thoughtful responses to my frustrated rant. It's hard to watch a wreck unfolding and be powerless to stop it. As for electrification, I couldn't agree more. It's foolish to contemplate dismantling the trolley bus network, as the audit report suggests, with 'peak-oil behind us. See my OP-ED in the PI today on the same subject. http://www.seattlepi.com/letters/index.asp?entryID=499 Anyway, I'll try to contain myself and maybe find the silver bullet(s) needed, or as Sid Morrison used to say, 'silver buckshot'.
Thanks Mike, Joshuadf and Chris, for the thoughtful responses to my frustrated rant. It’s hard to watch a wreck unfolding and be powerless to stop it.
As for electrification, I couldn’t agree more. It’s foolish to contemplate dismantling the trolley bus network, as the audit report suggests, with ‘peak-oil behind us. See my OP-ED in the PI today on the same subject.
http://www.seattlepi.com/letters/index.asp?entryID=499
Anyway, I’ll try to contain myself and maybe find the silver bullet(s) needed, or as Sid Morrison used to say, ‘silver buckshot’.

]]> By: Mike Orr http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72254 Mike Orr Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:12:01 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72254 "We" are very concerned about the potential loss of Metro service, and that it might take five or ten years to get back to the current level. But what can we do about it that we're not already doing? It may sound contradictory to raise service and lower it simultaneously, but it's two different processes happening at different levels. It's the county council who will decide how much to cut in which subareas, and which policy to apply to cuts (across the board or ridership-based). The ordinary route planners can't predict what the council will do or when. So the only thing they can do is continue with their existing plans. Not applying additional hours may sound like an easy way to help the budget and minimize double-disruption (adding now and a cutting later to the same route), but the cuts really need to be decided strategically, not piecemeal. RapidRide A is scheduled for next year. RapidRide B-E are coming in a few years, and who knows what the economic climate will be then. RapidRide F doesn't even have a date yet, at least not that I've seen. It may not be until A-E are finished, which would put it in the 2020s. I don't think Metro has done more than an initial sketch for F yet. Transit junkies naturally like to debate the pros and cons of specific routing, and a bus vs light rail, even if it will not be a reality until far in the future. RapidRide comes with a federal matching grant, at least for lines A-E. So it would be foolish to turn down the opportunity if we can possibly cover the local share. Transit Now does not come with a grant, so that's where the revenue will likely be cannibalized to prop up existing service. Some at this site believe that light rail, streetcars and trolleybuses will become increasingly more cost-effective compared to buses as the price of oil rises, because there are many ways to generate electricity for wired vehicles but only a few ways to produce energy for self-powered vehicles. At some point, buses may disappear entirely if Metro can't afford to run them. We need to be ready with an alternative when/if this happens. Europe, for instance, is weathering the current downturn better because they already have the infrastructure in place, while the US is finally starting to catch up. The biggest expense for rail is the up-front capital costs; after that it's cheap to run. So we're trying to front-load as much infrastructure now so we'll have it for later. RapidRide is seen as a temporary expediency until rail is feasible on those corridors. Actually, given that RapidRide has more stops than light rail, the actual competitor to a Renton-Burien train may be ST 560 rather than the 140.
“We” are very concerned about the potential loss of Metro service, and that it might take five or ten years to get back to the current level. But what can we do about it that we’re not already doing?

It may sound contradictory to raise service and lower it simultaneously, but it’s two different processes happening at different levels. It’s the county council who will decide how much to cut in which subareas, and which policy to apply to cuts (across the board or ridership-based). The ordinary route planners can’t predict what the council will do or when. So the only thing they can do is continue with their existing plans. Not applying additional hours may sound like an easy way to help the budget and minimize double-disruption (adding now and a cutting later to the same route), but the cuts really need to be decided strategically, not piecemeal.

RapidRide A is scheduled for next year. RapidRide B-E are coming in a few years, and who knows what the economic climate will be then. RapidRide F doesn’t even have a date yet, at least not that I’ve seen. It may not be until A-E are finished, which would put it in the 2020s. I don’t think Metro has done more than an initial sketch for F yet. Transit junkies naturally like to debate the pros and cons of specific routing, and a bus vs light rail, even if it will not be a reality until far in the future.

RapidRide comes with a federal matching grant, at least for lines A-E. So it would be foolish to turn down the opportunity if we can possibly cover the local share. Transit Now does not come with a grant, so that’s where the revenue will likely be cannibalized to prop up existing service.

Some at this site believe that light rail, streetcars and trolleybuses will become increasingly more cost-effective compared to buses as the price of oil rises, because there are many ways to generate electricity for wired vehicles but only a few ways to produce energy for self-powered vehicles. At some point, buses may disappear entirely if Metro can’t afford to run them. We need to be ready with an alternative when/if this happens. Europe, for instance, is weathering the current downturn better because they already have the infrastructure in place, while the US is finally starting to catch up. The biggest expense for rail is the up-front capital costs; after that it’s cheap to run. So we’re trying to front-load as much infrastructure now so we’ll have it for later. RapidRide is seen as a temporary expediency until rail is feasible on those corridors.

Actually, given that RapidRide has more stops than light rail, the actual competitor to a Renton-Burien train may be ST 560 rather than the 140.

]]> By: joshuadf http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72252 joshuadf Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:03:43 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72252 The "new" hours being added have either been in planning for a long time or like RapidRide should be get grant funding which pays for itself. I don't think it would be right to simply cut SE Seattle's planned service adjustments due to light rail just because they happen to be unlucky enough for the system to come online during a financial crisis. Similarly I don't think it would make sense to de-fund the SLU Streetcar simply because we can't afford to build a Central Streetcar that would make more efficient use of the expensive streetcar base. There's no easy answer to the probable 9% cuts. It's going to be a mix of cuts, routes revisions, service partnerships, etc. I would like to see the county and cities at least try to take action on the MVET option. It seems unlikely to work but at least the county would have an additional bargaining chip with the state ("We tried that!").
The “new” hours being added have either been in planning for a long time or like RapidRide should be get grant funding which pays for itself. I don’t think it would be right to simply cut SE Seattle’s planned service adjustments due to light rail just because they happen to be unlucky enough for the system to come online during a financial crisis. Similarly I don’t think it would make sense to de-fund the SLU Streetcar simply because we can’t afford to build a Central Streetcar that would make more efficient use of the expensive streetcar base.

There’s no easy answer to the probable 9% cuts. It’s going to be a mix of cuts, routes revisions, service partnerships, etc. I would like to see the county and cities at least try to take action on the MVET option. It seems unlikely to work but at least the county would have an additional bargaining chip with the state (“We tried that!”).

]]> By: Chris Stefan http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72229 Chris Stefan Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:05:27 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72229 I think there were some good ideas revealed in past threads. I'm not really sure what else you would have us do. The harsh reality is unless Metro gets some new tax authority cuts are going to be necessary. I could see the argument for using the hours for RapidRide to reduce the cuts, but the argument for keeping it is also compelling, which is to give the voters SOMETHING for passing Transit Now. For the net new hours in SE I'd like to see how many of those are being paid for by the City. Otherwise I agree with your point that service hours shouldn't be added without taking them away elsewhere. A general rationalization of the Metro system would likely lead to some areas seeing service increases while others see decreases. But this is just expanding to a neighborhood level what some have been arguing in a broader sense with suburban or rural service vs. urban service.
I think there were some good ideas revealed in past threads. I’m not really sure what else you would have us do. The harsh reality is unless Metro gets some new tax authority cuts are going to be necessary.

I could see the argument for using the hours for RapidRide to reduce the cuts, but the argument for keeping it is also compelling, which is to give the voters SOMETHING for passing Transit Now.

For the net new hours in SE I’d like to see how many of those are being paid for by the City. Otherwise I agree with your point that service hours shouldn’t be added without taking them away elsewhere. A general rationalization of the Metro system would likely lead to some areas seeing service increases while others see decreases. But this is just expanding to a neighborhood level what some have been arguing in a broader sense with suburban or rural service vs. urban service.

]]> By: Martin H. Duke http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72221 Martin H. Duke Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:50:51 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72221 good point, I've added an update.
good point, I’ve added an update.

]]> By: Mike Skehan http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72212 Mike Skehan Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:28:25 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72212 I’m concerned that many of STB’s readers are missing some important points that Martin has been trying to shed light on – Metro is in financial crisis, and the problem is getting worse. Even dire warning in today’s post (graph and all), merited only a couple of comments before the thread digressed into technical comments of graphing, definitions, smoking and SLU ridership. METRO IS BLEEDING CASH and it’s not being solved. Here’s one example, and I’m not picking on ST. SE Seattle has seen dramatic increases in service levels in the past year, with more to come. 5,500 ‘net-new’ service hours from Metro, and 70,000 new hours from Link serving MLK (plus DSTT and airport riders). In a recent SE Seattle meeting, Metro revealed they intend to add another 35,000 hours next Feb. to SE Seattle. (http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/archives/180763.asp#comments) “Metro's manager of service development said 35,000 hours of bus service will be added next February to local streets in Southeast Seattle.” A recent post on STB placed all of this in perspective, showing SE Seattle service hours (Editorial: Stand behind your agency) In one year overall service has dramatically increased, and more is on the way! But Metro is broke, and will soon begin to cannibalize reserves, degrade service, shelters, buses, customer service, and accept huge ridership losses and bus overloads. What’s wrong with this picture? Another example: Metro unveils a new Rapid Ride route from Burien to Renton. The post quickly turns to running light rail between the two, and places for the station. This sounds like GM unveiling a new Hummer variant just before they beg DC for more cash. I read and post to STB for several reasons. I’ve moved out of the area, but still have kids and grandkids who depend on a healthy Metro to get around and I still have lots of friends who work at Metro and am saddened by today’s financial crisis. STB is read, posted to and respected for presenting facts and ideas on transit when local media is off covering the latest fashion craze or pop star sighting. Plus it’s a fun read for a transit junkie. OK STB and readers -- Metro needs your help. Constructive ideas Welcome!
I’m concerned that many of STB’s readers are missing some important points that Martin has been trying to shed light on – Metro is in financial crisis, and the problem is getting worse.
Even dire warning in today’s post (graph and all), merited only a couple of comments before the thread digressed into technical comments of graphing, definitions, smoking and SLU ridership. METRO IS BLEEDING CASH and it’s not being solved.
Here’s one example, and I’m not picking on ST. SE Seattle has seen dramatic increases in service levels in the past year, with more to come. 5,500 ‘net-new’ service hours from Metro, and 70,000 new hours from Link serving MLK (plus DSTT and airport riders). In a recent SE Seattle meeting, Metro revealed they intend to add another 35,000 hours next Feb. to SE Seattle. (http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/archives/180763.asp#comments)
“Metro’s manager of service development said 35,000 hours of bus service will be added next February to local streets in Southeast Seattle.”
A recent post on STB placed all of this in perspective, showing SE Seattle service hours (Editorial: Stand behind your agency)

In one year overall service has dramatically increased, and more is on the way!
But Metro is broke, and will soon begin to cannibalize reserves, degrade service, shelters, buses, customer service, and accept huge ridership losses and bus overloads. What’s wrong with this picture?
Another example: Metro unveils a new Rapid Ride route from Burien to Renton. The post quickly turns to running light rail between the two, and places for the station. This sounds like GM unveiling a new Hummer variant just before they beg DC for more cash.
I read and post to STB for several reasons. I’ve moved out of the area, but still have kids and grandkids who depend on a healthy Metro to get around and I still have lots of friends who work at Metro and am saddened by today’s financial crisis. STB is read, posted to and respected for presenting facts and ideas on transit when local media is off covering the latest fashion craze or pop star sighting. Plus it’s a fun read for a transit junkie.
OK STB and readers — Metro needs your help. Constructive ideas Welcome!

]]> By: alexjonlin http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72193 alexjonlin Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:26:18 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72193 Interestingly, the streetcar if put along with the bus routes is 6th or 7th in ridership per mile based on <a href="http://orphanroad.com/blog/2008/05/more-ridership-data" rel="nofollow">this ridership table</a>. After Amazon opens, it could very well become the highest ridership per mile route in the system.
Interestingly, the streetcar if put along with the bus routes is 6th or 7th in ridership per mile based on this ridership table. After Amazon opens, it could very well become the highest ridership per mile route in the system.

]]> By: joshuadf http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72181 joshuadf Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:40:04 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72181 Actually, the streetcar does move more people than many bus routes. It has similar ridership to the 31 Magnolia/Fremont/U-District. You're also comparing apples to oranges by counting the streetcar base, while Metro's figures do not include. There is no doubt in my mind that the SLU Streetcar has turned out to be a premature investment. City of Seattle did not have the capital funds to build the network that would create total system operating costs efficiencies. But no one knew that before October 2008.
Actually, the streetcar does move more people than many bus routes. It has similar ridership to the 31 Magnolia/Fremont/U-District. You’re also comparing apples to oranges by counting the streetcar base, while Metro’s figures do not include.

There is no doubt in my mind that the SLU Streetcar has turned out to be a premature investment. City of Seattle did not have the capital funds to build the network that would create total system operating costs efficiencies. But no one knew that before October 2008.

]]> By: Chris Stefan http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72176 Chris Stefan Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:46:17 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72176 While I think the Amazon and Gates Foundation campuses opening along with MOHAI moving and the park finishing should bring a few more riders. I don't think the line is really going to be much of a success other than in possibly attracting slightly more development and investment to the neighborhood unless one or more of the following is done: 1. The frequency is increased such that there is "a car in sight at all times". 2. The line is extended, even a short extention to 5th & Pine or 1st & Stewart would dramatically improve ridership, though a loop in front of the Pike Place Market would be even better. 3. The line is made free, though this is less necessary if either (or both) of the above are done.
While I think the Amazon and Gates Foundation campuses opening along with MOHAI moving and the park finishing should bring a few more riders. I don’t think the line is really going to be much of a success other than in possibly attracting slightly more development and investment to the neighborhood unless one or more of the following is done:
1. The frequency is increased such that there is “a car in sight at all times”.
2. The line is extended, even a short extention to 5th & Pine or 1st & Stewart would dramatically improve ridership, though a loop in front of the Pike Place Market would be even better.
3. The line is made free, though this is less necessary if either (or both) of the above are done.

]]> By: Martin H. Duke http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72172 Martin H. Duke Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:21:27 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72172 Zed, Bernie has every right to be interested in and comment on any issue on this blog. We're not segmenting commenting privileges based on where people live and work. Furthermore, I'm grateful that Bernie is both intellectually honest and willing to dive into the numbers. When he's been factually corrected, Bernie is readily willing to concede. Bernie, go right on doing what you're doing.
Zed,

Bernie has every right to be interested in and comment on any issue on this blog. We’re not segmenting commenting privileges based on where people live and work.

Furthermore, I’m grateful that Bernie is both intellectually honest and willing to dive into the numbers. When he’s been factually corrected, Bernie is readily willing to concede.

Bernie, go right on doing what you’re doing.

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72169 Bernie Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:52:43 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72169 <blockquote>You neither work nor live in Seattle, you don’t pay for it, </blockquote> WRONG! Metro is taking over funding which I as a King county resident DO pay for. I don't see why you wouldn't care about wasteful spending when we're facing cuts in transit service hours. I also care about it because ST wants to build another streetcar which I will also be paying for and I'd like to avoid a similar boondoggle by building it such that it has ridership that supports the cost. That's not as likely to happen if misinformation like "streetcars are cheaper to operate" keeps being spread.

You neither work nor live in Seattle, you don’t pay for it,

WRONG! Metro is taking over funding which I as a King county resident DO pay for. I don’t see why you wouldn’t care about wasteful spending when we’re facing cuts in transit service hours. I also care about it because ST wants to build another streetcar which I will also be paying for and I’d like to avoid a similar boondoggle by building it such that it has ridership that supports the cost. That’s not as likely to happen if misinformation like “streetcars are cheaper to operate” keeps being spread.

]]> By: Zed http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72168 Zed Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:43:06 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72168 Why do you care so much about the streetcar? You neither work nor live in Seattle, you don't pay for it, you don't even have to see it. You've been griping about it every chance you get, what's the big deal? The streetcar has zero impact on your life.
Why do you care so much about the streetcar? You neither work nor live in Seattle, you don’t pay for it, you don’t even have to see it. You’ve been griping about it every chance you get, what’s the big deal? The streetcar has zero impact on your life.

]]> By: Steve http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72166 Steve Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:28:09 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72166 But Metro must allocate service hours to existing routes, right?
But Metro must allocate service hours to existing routes, right?

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72164 Bernie Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:38:12 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72164 <blockquote>Oh, and how about when Amazon and Gates Foundation open?</blockquote> And we bump the average number of riders per trip all the way up to 18. Whoopy! Those lucky folks save 5 minutes over what would be a 20 minute walk. They should just make the damn thing free since I can't seem more than a handful of curiosity seekers paying if they're not going to be transferring and it's not worth the cost of fare inspection.

Oh, and how about when Amazon and Gates Foundation open?

And we bump the average number of riders per trip all the way up to 18. Whoopy! Those lucky folks save 5 minutes over what would be a 20 minute walk. They should just make the damn thing free since I can’t seem more than a handful of curiosity seekers paying if they’re not going to be transferring and it’s not worth the cost of fare inspection.

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72163 Bernie Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:28:46 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72163 Numbers for bus service hours are from this post. Numbers for streetcar service hours and ridership from seattlestreetcar.org and the <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009827536_streetcars09m.html?syndication=rss" rel="nofollow">Seattle Times</a>.
Numbers for bus service hours are from this post. Numbers for streetcar service hours and ridership from seattlestreetcar.org and the Seattle Times.

]]> By: Ben Schiendelman http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72162 Ben Schiendelman Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:22:53 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72162 That's basically impossible to quantify so easily - not only does the frequency matter, but also the length of the route.
That’s basically impossible to quantify so easily – not only does the frequency matter, but also the length of the route.

]]> By: Ben Schiendelman http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72160 Ben Schiendelman Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:21:43 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72160 Bernie, where are your numbers for the previous bus service and the current Streetcar ridership? You really can't make these statements without them. Oh, and how about when Amazon and Gates Foundation open?
Bernie, where are your numbers for the previous bus service and the current Streetcar ridership? You really can’t make these statements without them.

Oh, and how about when Amazon and Gates Foundation open?

]]> By: Steve http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/05/getting-the-numbers-right/#comment-72159 Steve Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:16:47 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8266#comment-72159 I don't have a good sense of what 16,800 hours of bus service buys. Can you put it in terms of an existing run? (Would 16,800 hours pay for, say, all service on the 70?)
I don’t have a good sense of what 16,800 hours of bus service buys. Can you put it in terms of an existing run? (Would 16,800 hours pay for, say, all service on the 70?)

]]>