On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 11:29:41 AM UTC-4, 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?   
      
   While some stations have plenty of room, some are squeezed in.   
      
      
   > > *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.  Snow shoveling and salting ain't cheap.   
      
   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).   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)