From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 11-Apr-15 15:13, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   > Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   >> On 10-Apr-15 23:41, hancock4 wrote:   
   >>> Until SEPTA has the substantial capital funds to build--and   
   >>> maintain*--every station to full length high platform, it will   
   >>> need bigger crews.   
   >>   
   >> ... and paying for those larger crews robs them of the funds they   
   >> need to improve the situation.  That's why you use bonds for such   
   >> things.   
   >   
   > But will the amortized cost of building and maintaining long high   
   > platforms at every station result in a net savings of money in crew   
   > size?   
      
   Maintenance (and utilities) isn't amortized, but it's not that large an   
   expense in the first place.  Building new platforms would be amortized   
   over 30-50 years.   
      
   Combined, it should be _far_ lower than extra crew on every train,   
   especially at union wages.  Heck, just taking _one_ crew member off   
   _one_ train would easily pay for improving one station, and you have a   
   lot more trains than stations.   
      
   > While some stations have plenty of room, some are squeezed in.   
      
   That's the problem: you have to improve _every_ station to get the   
   benefits.  Still, while some will be more expensive than others (you may   
   even have to relocate some), what matters is the average cost.   
      
   >>> *Maintenance will include lighting, repair, and snow removal and   
   >>> these are added costs.   
   >>   
   >> The difference in cost to maintain short vs high platforms is   
   >> negligible.  Longer platforms will cost a bit more to maintain, but   
   >> not enough to matter in the long run.   
   >   
   > Given that many SEPTA platforms are only four cars long but some rush   
   > hour trains are seven cars long, many platforms will be nearly   
   > doubled in length.  There is an additional cost to that.   
      
   The amortized capital costs are negligible unless you're out of physical   
   space, and based on your past comments (and my own observations when I   
   visited), SEPTA is amazingly incompetent at maximizing the use of the   
   space they do have available.  They need to get out some and see what   
   folks are doing elsewhere--both good and bad.   
      
   > Snow shoveling and salting ain't cheap.   
      
   Salt ain't cheap, but you can reduce the need by covering and enclosing   
   the platforms--and that cost can be amortized.  It also makes the   
   stations more comfortable on windy or rainy days, and it makes things   
   like heaters more effective, which in turn reduces the salt needed.   
      
   Snow removal and salt application should be done by powered equipment,   
   the cost of which can also be amortized, to reduce labor costs.   
      
   > I don't think the power cost for the extra lighting would be too much   
   > (I figure an extra 600 KW per station, but multiply that over 12   
   > hours, all the stations, and 365 days a year and it adds up).   
      
   Doubling a tiny figure results in another tiny figure.  You'll spend   
   more money on labor to replace burned-out bulbs than on the bulbs   
   themselves plus the electricity to run all of them.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)