Hey, there! Log in / Register
State to buy 325 new buses for the T
By adamg on Mon, 06/29/2015 - 4:18pm
MassDOT today approved a $222.2 million contract to replace the T's current fleet of 325 CNG buses with a new fleet of CNG/hybrid buses.
New Flyer, Inc., of Winnipeg, is expected to start delivering the 40-foot buses, many of which will run out of the Forest Hills yard, in July, 2016, with all buses in service a year later.
The federal government will pick up 80% of the cost.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Source?
Edit: found it.
https://blog.mass.gov/transportation/mbta/massdot-board-approves-contrac...
Is the state really buying
Is the state really buying the buses if 80% of the funding is coming from the feds??
...yes.
...yes.
Let's play it out
If you want to buy a coffee and it costs $1 and you ask me to give you $0.80 so that you can buy it with your $0.20, who bought the coffee?
Hint: there's only two people, and I didn't buy a coffee.
Who bought the beer?
Some people think that if friend gives a twenty year old student five dollars to buy a beer, that the student's parents bought the beer and can be sued. Some people get pretty confused.
That's from an earlier thread. Sorry for being off topic.
Where did the feds get the cash?
You (or rather bond holders) paid for the buses one way or another.
And we didn't
even need the Olympics for it to happen!
All tax money
Yeah and we're on the hook for the costs regardless.
Yeah, well...
...that's sorta how public assets work. Do you think the private sector will be paying for all the O investments? That's sorta the point of the big argument....
Good
Normally, we'd give the feds all that money and they'd go and hand it to Alabama or Kansas or some other shit state that can't manage to handle thunderstorms these days without declaring a state of emergency to get FEMA help in. So, instead of rebuilding someone else's home, we're going to buy healthier buses for ourselves. And for your portion, you could have bought like one PS4 game instead. And not the latest one. I'm talking used bargain bin Happy Kitten Fun Time with a scratch on it. Wouldn't you rather breathe cleaner air instead? I know I would. I can pirate download Happy Kitten Fun Time.
Plus, new buses
actually benefit society. PS4 and other video games are just a wasteful use of resources that only encourage kids (and some adults who should really know better) to become lazy and fat.
My bad
I forgot they took the "public" part out of public transit.
And Gov Baker just cut out
And Gov Baker just cut out funding for the DMU project, so I'm not sure if we're not just in the middle of Business as Usual.
While I find the governor's
While I find the governor's committment to public transportation dubious at best (although far superior to Cuomo or Christie), in all fairness the DMU project wasn't going anywhere because the Feds have refused to update their railroad regulations to take into account the fact that it's not 1845 anymore and so light trains like DMUs can't run on the same tracks as heavy trains, even though some of the tracks they were going to put DMUs on would never have heavy trains on them!
I have two words
for you - Clapham Junction. Plus, one additional word - Paddington.
Look those up on Google. Then come back and tell us how "outdated" and "unnecessary" the FRA specifications are.
I have two words for you
Red herring.
There is nothing about those particular FRA regulations (referred to by Matt_R) that would have prevented either of those disasters. The FRA regulations that make trains heavier do not help prevent crashes but they do cause many maintenance problems, and make it impossible to purchase modern trains used by the rest of the world (I suppose that some people in the industry would view that as a 'feature': it gives more money to them).
Now, the kind of technology that would actually work to prevent those disasters has been called "Positive Train Control" by American regulators, but they have dragged their feet on actually implementing it, while European operators have widely done so (they call it Automatic Train Protection and have converged on a standard named ERTMS).
But you know, America -- fuck yeah! Rah rah rah! We can do no wrong!
Oh wait, the FRA is on the verge of issuing changes that would eliminate the pointless and counterproductive 'buff strength' requirement.
I guess even the FRA doesn't agree with you either.
The FRA is issuing their changes
under political pressure, not because the current regulations are considered to be grossly outdated. And while the root causes of the Clapham Junction and Paddington crashes had nothing to do with the train cars involved, the effects of the crashes would have been lessened had the DMUs involved met current FRA regulations.
Wrong and wrong
Nope, the current regulations are outdated. Most of them come from the early 1930s. The amount of knowledge we have about engineering and crash avoidance/mitigation has advanced tremendously since then.
If we designed automobiles the way we designed railroad trains then all American cars would resemble Soviet tanks.
The auto industry has moved far, far ahead of the railroad industry in terms of crash-energy management techniques. Of course, automobiles are far more likely to be involved in a crash than a train, and railroads actually have mature technology to prevent crashes from happening in the first place, which is a much better outcome. Prevention is the best cure.
What leads you to believe that?
The United States has seen mass-casualty railroad crashes. Our record is worse than most other modern countries, in fact (although still massively safer than the automobile road network, don't anyone forget). So the FRA has nothing to brag about in terms of safety.
FRA-compliant vehicles have been involved in plenty of crashes with large numbers of fatal injuries. It's difficult to make comparisons between crashes, since every case is unique, but I don't see any reason to believe without evidence that FRA-compliant vehicles are safer in any way than UIC vehicles, or Japanese vehicles.
I believe FRA-compliant DMUs
I believe FRA-compliant DMUs exist.
Wow
I wonder why this is done. Many of the original CNG buses are only 10-15 years old (far less than a normal MBTA 'life cycle'
I wonder if it's because they realized most places can't use CNG buses (i.e. Lechmere busway, or any busway that is covered).
12 year life for CNG
The linked article in the 1st comment above has a bit more detail. Apparently the service life of the CNG fleet was expected to be about ~12 years so this is a "planned" replacement.
wow
ok I suppose I could have read that :) But thank you, fine sir!
Interesting tho.. 12 years.. considering the RTS Diesels were running since the 80s.. (and some are still in use today)
The RTS buses running today
The RTS buses running today had rebuilds around 2000.
Oops
Yes you are correct about that. I forgot that they were rebuilt around that time. Oops!
Didn't help...
...that NABI made some real junk in their later years. Not surprised one bit that the MBTA is looking to replace them after the minimum service life.
New Flyer builds a much better bus. Just look at the 1400's or the new LMA shuttles.
Good point
The NABI buses have seen better days.
The 1400's are nice N fancy (the 111 uses them a lot), except I really hate the seats, you slide too much. And that stalling thing it does is very unnerving...
I was looking forward to the
I was looking forward to the wide aisle provided by the 2+1 seating, but the interior layout of these new buses makes no sense. And the interior lighting is too bright at night.
-
The NABIs are also exceptionally underpowered - those things have just no acceleration.
Is there any legitmate reason why
CNG buses can't also have a "mid-life' rebuild? Seems to me that this is a waste of resources and money to totally scrap them.
They did in 2009 - 2011
They sent the NABI buses based out of Arborway (Forest Hills) to a builder, Midwest, around 2009 and completed them in 2011; the ones based out of Cabot (South Boston) were rebuilt by Everett maintenance.
15 > 12
So if the diesels were rebuilt in 2000 they still have a longer second life than the LNGs when brand new.
Per fta guidelines...
Minimum service life for buses is 12 years. Although, this seems to have become the end of useful life in more recent times.
Sounds sketchy to me
Is there any actual mechanical issues that lead to LNGs being replaced so much faster? Honestly, what I gather from this thread is that when the Feds buy you hundreds of LNG buses they require you use them at least 12 years. So the T is using them for exactly12 years. Not one iota of work or effort after, as it just isn't their way. Time to stick your hand out and ask for replacements for the newer buses, with no plans to replace the 30 year old diesels which were rehabbed 15 years ago.
I do want to note
They are including CNG buses in this new order. Not all CNG, but some. I think it would be a shame if they just did away with the CNG infrastructure, and I think it is a better fuel compared to diesel. Heck, they guy who posted but one post here on how the T is basically choking the people of Roxbury to death with the diesel buses they don't run there will be happy that CNG remains.
They are actually really close these days...
Modern "clean" diesel is actually better in many emission catagories. Hybrid diesels reduce tailpipe* emissions even further.
I would be curious to see a side by side comparison between the modern purchases. Needless to say, diesel has come a long way in a very short timeframe
*i am ignoring hybrid's initial (and distant) environmental costs for this statement.
But I'm lazy
And it is easier to just say that gas is cleaner than diesel than to say that the diesel and exhaust systems now are cleaner than they were.
Of course, when it comes to commuter rail engines, the whole Tier III, IV, and V come into play, along with the discussion of how the electricity that would be used to power electric locomotives would come partially from coal and nuclear, but that is not a discussion for now.
I hope the new CNG buses aren
I hope the new CNG buses aren't slow wheezing pieces of crap like the existing ones. If they are, I'd rather have some clean diesels.
The CNG tanks from buses
The CNG tanks from buses built at that time are only good for 15 years and would have to be replaced to run them any longer. The cost of doing that plus the ongoing corrosion problems the NABI buses have makes it more prudent to replace. The Federal Transit Administration considers buses fully depreciated after 12 years and will help pay for replacements for any bus that old or older.
Thanks for the info.
Thanks for the info.
They're made in St. Cloud MN.
It's like outsourcing in reverse.
Yeah, the feds require them
Yeah, the feds require them to be built in the U.S.
At least there isn't the asinine requirement that they be built at a nonexistent factory in Massachusetts, like the new Red and Orange Line trains.
$685,000 bus with a 12 year lifespan?
Maybe I'm missing something in service and support charges but a $222.2M contract for 325 buses with a 12 year life span would seem to boil down to $57K/year/bus not counting operation and maintenance costs. Is this the standard cost of a public transit bus?
Good Question
I'm curious too. anyone know the answer? Ari?
I'm sure that's not including
I'm sure that's not including the operating costs - the diesel buses at least are hybrid buses, which cost significantly extra but get roughly twice the fuel economy as a regular diesel bus.
According to this, in 2013 a
According to this, in 2013 a diesel-only bus cost about $340,000, a diesel-hybrid costs about $500,000, and a CNG bus $380,000-$500,000.
The contract probably includes provisions for spare parts and maintenance, which probably explains most of the additional cost.
Where in the report do you see that range for CNG?
I saw $380-$400,000 for a 40' CNG bus. The report has figures lower than what the MBTA seems to pay. Does the MBTA use any articulated 60' CNG buses, or just 40' buses? I assume the inflation is so that driving personal vehicles doesn't look even more cost effective in terms of fuel efficiency and use of public funds!
12 years typical
The Feds seem to get nervous and they strongly encourage agencies to replace buses after 12 years, for some reason. Obviously wear and tear is rougher on a bus that runs in mixed traffic than a train on a dedicated right-of-way, not to mention the additional parts needed for the CNG or diesel engine and such.
Price tag seems a bit steep but perhaps it includes some facilities upgrades...
Those numbers seem about right...
...40' transit buses running about $400,000 (ish) for straight diesel sounds right. CNG should be a slight increase more, hybrid used to be a 40-50% increase, but I think it's come down recently. A figure of $685K would sounds plausible for a contract split between hybrids and CNGs.