Transit fares and high gas prices

"Merritt Mullen" <mmullen8014@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-90683A.18255801052008@netnews.mchsi.com...
> In article <_LpSj.12413$V14.9624@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

>> 3% of PGE power is generated by coal. 47% by nat gas, which has
>> increased
>> in price. So at least for ba.transportation and la.transportation, the
>> price of coal is not relevent.
>
> And the other 50%? Mostly hydro and nuclear, which have not increased.
> But even natural gas has not increased like oil, which was the issue. I
> don't know of many private automobiles running on natural gas (or any
> other source of energy besides oil, for that matter).
>
> Are you prepared to show that the energy cost of running electric light
> rail vehicles has increased as much as the energy cost of operating a
> private automobile?

Hydro is small in the bay area. I don't think nuclear is large percentage
in California, certainly not near 50%. But coal is important in most of
the US. I have not paid much attention to natural gas prices on CNBC but I
think they have been going up significantly.

Now the kicker in your analysis is that the all the transit agencies were
almost bankrupted when fuel prices went up a lot. They asked for more money
and increase fares. So history just does not back up what you are saying.

"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0o4n14h8u4e2qrrgropv7rsun2cdi4olch@********...
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 01:19:21 GMT, Merritt Mullen
> <mmullen8014@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <25gj14d7akmrla6rmj4c7hbiiht694sv7l@********>,
>> jdoe <jdoe@aol.com> wrote:
>>

> At comparable capacity loading, I wouldn't take bets on that if you
> are talking about true automobiles. My Corolla normally is either 20%
> full (1 driver) or 40% full (passenger added). I would guess it
> averages 30 - 35% full because we sometimes have passengers. I would
> almost guarantee you that a LRV is heavier on a per seat basis since
> rail equipment has been getting heavier over the years (Tramways and
> Urban Transit did a comparison for Frankfurt, Germany that was
> dismaying) in most countries and even back in the 1950's rail was
> heavier on a per seat basis.

We are talking about the percent of cost of running transit which has
nothing to do with capacity loading except to increase fuel consumption as
capacity loading increases.

"kkt" <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote in message news:w9z3ap26l5l.fsf@zipcon.net...
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> <gl4316@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:gl4316-3004082018260001@69-30-10-100.pxd.easystreet.com...
>> > In article <suWdneggLvu6uYTVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Jack May"
>> > <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> What on earth are you talking about? An hour of running uses two
> gallons of fuel, which is around $10. Try to read the calculations,
> the $72 an hour includes $60 for the driver's pay and benefits.
> There's no way the fuel comes even close to 25% of the cost of the
> driver, let alone the driver and mechanic.

I have a mistake in my calculation on pay rate that I will correct tonight.
At least in the Northern California bus drivers have the highest pay in the
US at about $50K per year. Not $50 per hour, which is almost $24 per hour.

Diesel fuel can not be bought anywhere in the world for $2 per gallon
because it is determined by commodity market bidding. $4.50 per gallon
and probably more is a much more realistic price.

So the cost for fuel at 12 miles per hour at 2 MPG for a heavy loaded bus in
hilly areas is $54 per when including overhead on the fuel. I think a
totally empty bus is lucky to get 5 MPH on flat land with no wind .

Overhead has to be there because buildings have to be constructed and
management has to be paid as part of the fuel price. My estimate for
overhead are rough figures that VTA briefed me on several years ago. They
are probably in the ball park.

The cost for a driver and the cost of a maintenance person with overhead for
2 people is then about $144 per hour but probably more since the skilled
mechanic may make more than the bus driver.

That comes to a little over 27% of the total cost of per hour for the bus
that includes people and fuel.
>
> And I don't believe that they require as much time in the shop as they
> spend on the road, but even if they did that would make fuel a smaller
> percentage, not larger.

Uh, if you cut the amount of labor then that increases the percent fuel cost
of the cost for fuel plus labor.

That figure came from a transportation advocate site. It was given for light
rail and may be more for busses.

Almost everything gl4316 calculated is totally wrong. I certain will not
use the nonsense he posted.

"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:lAmSj.12382$V14.11097@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:UKSdnTEJkOuX1ITVnZ2dnUVZ_ryqnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> <gl4316@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:gl4316-3004082018260001@69-30-10-100.pxd.easystreet.com...
>>> In article <suWdneggLvu6uYTVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Jack May"
>>> <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fuel is apparently a high percentage of their operating cost. So in
>>>> the
>>>> past they have pulled the added cost out of the existing budget with
>>>> the
>>>> hope that they can eventually come up with more money from somewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>> One could just do some simple math to illustrate what is going on:
>>>
>>> Typical costs for a bus driver are about $60 per hour, including such
>>> items as health benefits, wages, pension, etc.
>>
>> Its more like $150 per hour with 2X overhead for a $50 per hour wage.
>
> The cost of employing someone full time is approximately twice their pay,
> not triple. And our transit operators are paid around $20, not $50. So
> that makes $40/hr total labor cost.

The overhead cost is typically about double the salary which is then added
to the salary which makes total hourly cost of about three times the salary
of the person. Overhead is the cost of the space (including power for heat,
air conditioning used by the person, all their benefits, and the cost of
management. Each of those costs tend to be about a third of the total
overhead. VTA has an overhead of 2 to produce a cost of three times that of
the persons wage rate. I have never worked anywhere where the wages plus
wages times overhead was twice the wages.

"Merritt Mullen" <mmullen8014@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-6B6AB0.18072801052008@netnews.mchsi.com...
> In article <lAmSj.12382$V14.11097@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> Nationwide, light rail's operating cost per passenger-mile is 3/4ths of
>> buses', according to the NTD. Sure, the numbers are higher for LRT per
>> vehicle mile, but their load factor is 65% higher, which is more than
>> enough
>> to overcome that. That's kind of the point of using rail: you can put a
>> lot
>> more people on a train, for a lower operating cost per person, than you
>> can
>> a bus.
>
> Also, it been a long time since I heard of a light rail operator paying
> for diesel, gasoline, or natural gas. I suppose Sprinter (a DMU) is an
> exception).

Geez!!! Another person that believes transit is fueled by pixie dust. We
are talking about the equivalent energy used directly in fuel or indirectly
in electricity fueled by some fuel.

<gl4316@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gl4316-0205080040490001@69-30-10-72.pxd.easystreet.com...
> In article <UKSdnTEJkOuX1ITVnZ2dnUVZ_ryqnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Jack May"
> <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> <gl4316@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:gl4316-3004082018260001@69-30-10-100.pxd.easystreet.com...
>> > In article <suWdneggLvu6uYTVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Jack May"
>> > <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >

>
>> > Diesel fuel at $2 per gallon:
>> > $60 for the driver + $2 * (12 miles / 6 miles/gal) = $64
>>
>> Diesel fuel is at least $4.50 per gallon at this time at least in service
>> stations. $2 per gallon would require the transit agencies buying at way
>> below Chicago commodity market prices which is not possible.

Not even remotely true any more. Trailer truck drivers are now paying more
than a thousand dollars per fill up and diesel now cost more per than
gasoline

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> writes:

> "kkt" <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote in message news:w9z3ap26l5l.fsf@zipcon.net...
> > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> <gl4316@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:gl4316-3004082018260001@69-30-10-100.pxd.easystreet.com...
> >> > In article <suWdneggLvu6uYTVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Jack May"
> >> > <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > What on earth are you talking about? An hour of running uses two
> > gallons of fuel, which is around $10. Try to read the calculations,
> > the $72 an hour includes $60 for the driver's pay and benefits.
> > There's no way the fuel comes even close to 25% of the cost of the
> > driver, let alone the driver and mechanic.
>
> I have a mistake in my calculation on pay rate that I will correct tonight.
> At least in the Northern California bus drivers have the highest pay in the
> US at about $50K per year. Not $50 per hour, which is almost $24 per hour.

$50k per year comes out to $25 per hour. 250 working days per year,
with holidays and vacations. 8 hours per day.

> Diesel fuel can not be bought anywhere in the world for $2 per gallon
> because it is determined by commodity market bidding. $4.50 per gallon
> and probably more is a much more realistic price.

Hello, the calculations you snipped assumed $5 per gallon.

> So the cost for fuel at 12 miles per hour at 2 MPG for a heavy loaded bus in
> hilly areas is $54 per when including overhead on the fuel. I think a
> totally empty bus is lucky to get 5 MPH on flat land with no wind .

I'm not going to believe the bus gets only 2 MPG, even in hills.
Seattle Metro reports that its articulated diesels get 4 MPG, and
Seattle is hilly and full of traffic too.

However, even if you USE 2 MPG, that's 12 miles/2 mpg = 6 gallons of
diesel used, which would be $30, not $54.

> Overhead has to be there because buildings have to be constructed and
> management has to be paid as part of the fuel price. My estimate for
> overhead are rough figures that VTA briefed me on several years ago. They
> are probably in the ball park.

Overhead for delivery of the fuel is already built into the fuel
cost. How do you think your neighborhood gas station pays for the
land, lights, accountants, etc.?

The overhead for maintenance of the bus is not part of the fuel cost,
it's general overhead, like the driver's pay. The point of this
thread was that rising fuel costs are not having a huge impact on
fares because fuel is a relatively small percentage of the cost of
running the bus.

> The cost for a driver and the cost of a maintenance person with overhead for
> 2 people is then about $144 per hour but probably more since the skilled
> mechanic may make more than the bus driver.

If you want people to believe your numbers, especially with your track
record, you need to show all your steps. Look, I'll do it, even using
your basic assumptions:

driver's pay $25/hr + $50/hr benefits and overhead = $75/hr
mechanic's pay same = $75/hr

bus uses 1 hr * 12 mi/2 mpg = 6 gal
fuel cost = 6 gal * $5/gal = $30

fuel cost / (pay benefits and overhead) = $30/$150 = 20%

So 20% even using your pessimistic assumptions.

3 to 4 mpg is more realistic for mileage. Put in 3 mpg and the
resulting fuel cost percentage is 16%.

> That comes to a little over 27% of the total cost of per hour for the bus
> that includes people and fuel.
> >
> > And I don't believe that they require as much time in the shop as they
> > spend on the road, but even if they did that would make fuel a smaller
> > percentage, not larger.
>
> Uh, if you cut the amount of labor then that increases the percent fuel cost
> of the cost for fuel plus labor.

Yes, so I don't know why you were trying to convince us that they take
more maintenance than they actually do.

> That figure came from a transportation advocate site. It was given for light
> rail and may be more for busses.
>
> Almost everything gl4316 calculated is totally wrong. I certain will not
> use the nonsense he posted.

You'll post your own nonsense that's not even internally consistent...

-- Patrick

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> writes:

> "Merritt Mullen" <mmullen8014@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:mmullen8014-6B6AB0.18072801052008@netnews.mchsi.com...
> > In article <lAmSj.12382$V14.11097@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> > "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Nationwide, light rail's operating cost per passenger-mile is 3/4ths of
> >> buses', according to the NTD. Sure, the numbers are higher for LRT per
> >> vehicle mile, but their load factor is 65% higher, which is more than
> >> enough
> >> to overcome that. That's kind of the point of using rail: you can put a
> >> lot
> >> more people on a train, for a lower operating cost per person, than you
> >> can
> >> a bus.
> >
> > Also, it been a long time since I heard of a light rail operator paying
> > for diesel, gasoline, or natural gas. I suppose Sprinter (a DMU) is an
> > exception).
>
> Geez!!! Another person that believes transit is fueled by pixie dust. We
> are talking about the equivalent energy used directly in fuel or indirectly
> in electricity fueled by some fuel.

In San Francisco, hydro power from Hetch Hetchy powers electric Muni
vehicles.

In Seattle, the grid power is over 90% hydro.

-- Patrick

On May 2, 10:35 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ... energy prices are not going to ever drop down to very low prices again..

We are in "the long emergency."

Ruben wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 02:15:32 -0400, Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> If the feds are going to spend money on
>> transportation projects, at least put them where there are people. $300
>> million is a good LRT system for a city that might need one. There's
>> no point in encouraging development in rural Alaska.
>
> We could use the oil, not to mention to help in saving the environment up
> there. Hnestly, I have no idea the direct affect of Alaksa on NY, but I'm
> sure we make money of Alaskan progress somehow. Exxon does own a building
> here.

Who said anything about oil? Getting oil out of Alaska *at a faster
rate* is a matter of drilling for more. I don't know how feasible that is.

What is feasible, maybe, is drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Reserve,
where there could be more oil. It might make a few people rich, but
everything I've read seems to suggest that it won't have any meaningful
effect on supply.