Interesting article about the Bus Mechanics

[cta_44499_FG]

I don't think there was anything really wrong with the bus. The roads were extremely challenging last night around 7 or 8 pm thanks to no salt trucks hardly being on the street. I thought there would be more on main roads, but the Mayor must be really cutting the budget. The bus was probably displaying that because it was trying to inform you that it was losing traction. The bus I was on was sliding all over the place and when the gas was pressed at times it would noticably rev before it took off like the wheels were slipping. Now that's only a 40 footer I'm talking about. An artic is even worse with the drive wheels on the center axle when it starts slipping on takeoff it makes the tail start fishtailing. I guess the only thing you can do is take it as easy as you can being late is better than wrecked.

Well, I had several buses pass me, and none of them did as mine was doing. When I pumped the brakes, I literally mean it felt like the bus would not stop. It very well could of been a tire problem.

Also, being that I was after all on Marine Drive (which is very narrow and in close proximity to parked vehicles), I wasn't willing to chance it.

[jajuan]

I don't think there was anything really wrong with the bus. The roads were extremely challenging last night around 7 or 8 pm thanks to no salt trucks hardly being on the street. I thought there would be more on main roads, but the Mayor must be really cutting the budget. The bus was probably displaying that because it was trying to inform you that it was losing traction. The bus I was on was sliding all over the place and when the gas was pressed at times it would noticably rev before it took off like the wheels were slipping. Now that's only a 40 footer I'm talking about. An artic is even worse with the drive wheels on the center axle when it starts slipping on takeoff it makes the tail start fishtailing. I guess the only thing you can do is take it as easy as you can being late is better than wrecked.

Only one problem with that assessment, the drive wheels on CTA's current artics are on the rear axle not the center like their artics of the past, hence the term pusher seen used to describe them today.

[BUSANGEL#1]

Jajuan is right. There are no circumstances that would justify having a seven-year-old (or even a 12-year-old for that matter) in a working bus maintenance shop.

That you, and apparently your uncle, would think that there are, shows an extreme level of poor judgment. It also calls into question the opinions and characterizations that your uncle shared with you and you shared with us.

What it does show, if represented accurately, is that during that time period you refer to that CTA management in the garages you visited showed an appalling lack of judgment (if they were aware of your visits), and perhaps this was reflected in their management or maintenance practices. I only hope it's not reflective of the current culture. (though I can't believe it is).

I never said it was right to have a child in a maintenance shop, but it was okay for me. CTA employees bring their children to work all the time with them and CTA knows about it. It is a good experience for a child to learn exactly how transit works. I just had a rare opportunity to see what happens behind the scenes at the garages. The experiences I had made me appreciate the hard work that a lot of dedicated employees do.

[Busjack]

I never said it was right to have a child in a maintenance shop, but it was okay for me. CTA employees bring their children to work all the time with them and CTA knows about it. It is a good experience for a child to learn exactly how transit works.

Give us contact information for the program. I know calling MOhawk4-7200 doesn't work, and there are all those "no tresspassing" signs I previously mentioned. I would sure like to take a tour.

Especially, since you claim to have an "in" at 74th, which to me seems like a stone building with all the doors closed.

[trainman8119]

I don't quite understand what the big deal is here. I got a tour of Archer and Keeler

when I was in my junior years. Yes, I know there are some high level security

issues now, compared with 1969. But if an employee takes someone in and has

them under watch, who cares !!!!! Now, if I walked in unannounced without an

escort, then we have something.

[busfan]

I don't quite understand what the big deal is here. I got a tour of Archer and Keeler

when I was in my junior years. Yes, I know there are some high level security

issues now, compared with 1969. But if an employee takes someone in and has

them under watch, who cares !!!!! Now, if I walked in unannounced without an

escort, then we have something.

It's not a big deal. I went to see my neighbor who works at Kedzie garage Wednesday and walked right in and sat on the bus with him and we talked for about 15 minutes. I walked right in the door, asked someone in the office, and they told me where he was and I walked right through the garage un-escorted and that was it. There is no big "high security". From what Im told CTA had security at some garages but decided it cost to much so they got rid of them. My friend tells me that sometimes the homeless walk right through the garage and often steal the tools from mechanics that walk away from their open toolboxes. Now Im hearing that they are having a lot of problems with starters going out on the New Flyers. They are getting then New Flyer Hybrids and they are coming in with all sorts of engine code lights lit up on the dash like a christmas tree. CTA is going to "park" all them Nabis that are less than 5 years old. They realize they made a big mistake when they bought them, they are unsafe, unreliable, and our good old government just wasted all that money buying them Nabis for CTA and now they are just going to "scrap" them. CTA places a bus order, does a hundred different changes to the bus, then they are nothing but problems. I guess as long as the tax payers keep that endless supply of money going to CTA, Huberman dont care.

[Busjack]

CTA is going to "park" all them Nabis that are less than 5 years old. They realize they made a big mistake when they bought them, they are unsafe, unreliable, and our good old government just wasted all that money buying them Nabis for CTA and now they are just going to "scrap" them.

Obviously, you aren't in an official position to make this declaration (only the CTA Board is), so this is garage talk. Nonetheless, according to federal regulations, if they did so, they would have to repay the federal government for the up to 7 undepreciated years left in their 12 year FTA approved life.

Early Disposition Policy. If a vehicle is replaced before it has achieved its minimum normal service life, the grantee has the option of returning to FTA an amount equal to the remaining Federal interest in the vehicle or applying the "Like-Kind Exchange" policy (discussed below) and placing an amount equal to the remaining Federal interest in the vehicle into a newly purchased vehicle.

To determine the Federal interest in a federally funded vehicle during its minimum normal service life, a straight-line depreciation formula is used: for example, for a bus with a 12-year minimum normal service life, the bus's value decreases each year by 1/12 of its original purchase price. Similarly, the Federal interest in the bus decreases each year by 1/12 of the amount of the Federal grant that was awarded for its purchase.

That means CTA would have to return about $320,000 per bus, or trade them in for that kind of money (and then get the remaining $500,000 for a NF artic hybrid, which costs in excess of $800,000).

Given that the CTA doesn't have that money, and given your assertions that the New Flyers are coming in with engine codes lighting up the dashboard, you prediction is not likely.

[busfan]

That would not have to be aproved by the board. The garage manager II's have more power than people realize. From what I hear a little over a year ago the manager at 103rd didnt like them Optima's and he had them shipped to another garage. CTA has to keep a bus for 10 or 12 years. Why do you think they are getting all them New Flyer Artics ? They will be replacing the Nabis. Yes CTA has to keep a bus for 10 or 12 years but there is nothing stopping them from "parking" that bus for 10 or 12 years and then scrapping it. I guess the managers are talking about parking the Nabis as early as January. It depends on how soon they can resolve the electrical problems on all the New Flyer Artics and get them all out on the street. CTA has about 2200 buses on the street every day, if they are extending that contract for 900 New Fler Atrics, I know for a fact they will not be having a total of over 3000 buses on the street. They are laying off Mechanics and there is no way they would be hiring 900 more bus operators.

[rmadisonwi]

From what I hear a little over a year ago the manager at 103rd didnt like them Optima's and he had them shipped to another garage.

Not true. That's not why the Optimas were moved out of 103rd.

CTA has to keep a bus for 10 or 12 years. Why do you think they are getting all them New Flyer Artics ? They will be replacing the Nabis. Yes CTA has to keep a bus for 10 or 12 years but there is nothing stopping them from "parking" that bus for 10 or 12 years and then scrapping it.

I'm not going to comment on any speculation regarding the future of the NABIs. You guys can decide to believe or not believe whatever you want. However, there are several factors that prevent a system from parking a brand new bus for a long time and then scrapping it. For one, agencies must report their spare ratio. Parked buses count towards the active fleet, and thus towards the spare ratio. The feds tend to frown upon high spare ratios for fleets of new buses.

If a transit system were to want to park a fleet early, they would have to seek a special exemption from the FTA. That happened in the 1980s with the old Grumman buses.

[Busjack]

If a transit system were to want to park a fleet early, they would have to seek a special exemption from the FTA. That happened in the 1980s with the old Grumman buses.

That is exactly right. And in that case, while NY MTA didn't pay back the money, they also didn't get federal money for the replacement RTSs. They at least were able to sell the Grummans to New Jersey. Now, busfan, who is going to buy the bad rep. NABIs? Does your garage foreman have that kind of scratch ($320,000 x 226=$72,320,000)?

As far as the RFP for 900 more NFs, first it is for up to 900. CTA hasn't accepted any bid yet, and even if it does:

• The contract allows CTA to fill in the quantity at each stage of the process. It is like the Optima announcement that the base order was up to 50, with options for 75 more, and CTA only took 45.
  
• There are four options that extend over five years.
  
• Even if the base order is fully exercised, it is only for 140 buses. The last 500 are in the back end options.
  
• The options are assignable (the same as Seattle having assigned its options eventually to CTA). So, maybe it will sell some of the options to another transit authority.
  
• Any award is contingent on finding funding.
  

So, maybe by 2014 CTA will be replacing 900 buses, including the NABIs, but it sure is the case that

• CTA does not appear to have the money to add 900 buses immediately.
  
• Garage foremen do not have the money (which now appears closer to $900 million) to implement your plan, and certainly not the authority to scrap or park 226 buses, or to appropriate $72 million to repay the federal government. Only the board has that.
  
• New Flyer couldn't immediately assemble 900 buses (in addition to its current order backlog).
  

I agree with jajuan that busfan seems to have some other agenda here. The only purported CTA bus driver in this topic that seems to be conscientious in his work and show care in his remarks is CTA__FG. Several other people here reflect poorly on the quality of some CTA employees. You can rely on wild garage gossip, and defend guys like Big Baby, but if you really believe the stuff you are posting, you should resign. However, since the CTA job fair indicates that others want the positions, maybe the answer is to fire those who, in their own way, do things like those track inspectors: only put in a five hour day, then complain there isn't enough time to get the job done, and then falsify records saying that they did their jobs. Since the pay of CTA employees now comes 2/3rds from the taxpayers, we expect better than this. (I don't believe Stroger is running the CTA at the moment, but I could be wrong.) Which brings us back to the point at the beginning of the thread: what kind of "workers" is the union defending here?

Finally, busfan, if you really believe that the garage foremen are acting on their own authority, you better delete the defamatory remark you made about Huberman.

[BusHunter]

As far as the RFP for 900 more NFs, first it is for up to 900. CTA hasn't accepted any bid yet, and even if it does:

• The contract allows CTA to fill in the quantity at each stage of the process. It is like the Optima announcement that the base order was up to 50, with options for 75 more, and CTA only took 45.
  
• There are four options that extend over five years.
  
• Even if the base order is fully exercised, it is only for 140 buses. The last 500 are in the back end options.
  
• The options are assignable (the same as Seattle having assigned its options eventually to CTA). So, maybe it will sell some of the options to another transit authority.
  
• Any award is contingent on finding funding.
  

So, maybe by 2014 CTA will be replacing 900 buses, including the NABIs, but it sure is the case that

• CTA does not appear to have the money to add 900 buses immediately.
  
• Garage foremen do not have the money (which now appears closer to $900 million) to implement your plan, and certainly not the authority to scrap or park 226 buses, or to appropriate $72 million to repay the federal government. Only the board has that.
  
• New Flyer couldn't immediately assemble 900 buses (in addition to its current order backlog).
  

I have to admit the up to 900 bids do raise questions for me. Now according to my math after the #4000 - #4149 are received it should leave around 76 #6000's. OK I understand replacing those soon is imperative. But it still leaves you with about 90 artics coming, based on the 3 to 4 ratio. What would you replace with those. Novas? Not until late 2012/early 2013 can they begin to be replaced because they are not yet 12 years old. Now with the award for NF that puts us roughly no more than 2 years from seeing the initial 140 in 2010 or 11. That's a year or two early. It does seem part of this 900 order could be replacing the #7500's because they would be up for replacement by 2015, but that's also a little late. 5 years from now is 2013/2014. Huberman has mentioned in past news conferences, his desire to have a smaller fleet. This is what artics do get you in the long run. Less maintenance, less mechanics, less drivers. It does save money for the budget. The Huberman admin. is good at saving money with the newer lighting being placed at garages and at "L" stops. His move in getting these hybrids save on the gas bill too. Bottom line it's all about saving money and that's his job as president.

[Busjack]

I have to admit the up to 900 bids do raise questions for me. Now according to my math...

No dispute with your math, and we have discussed some of these questions before.

It appears that some increase in the fleet is contemplated as (1) apparently at least 45 are from the BRT grant (and apparently are part of the 58 mystery options) (2) implementing BRT on the 100 mile scale (instead of the 10 mile scale indicated in the current grant documents) would need a lot of new buses.

I can see junking the NABIs a year or two early, but not 7. I can also see saying that eventually (but not in the next two years) BRT vehicles will take over for Novas on Western.

Now, as to why CTA now advertised for proposals for up to 900, where management thinks they will go, and when CTA will actually act on any proposals received are beyond my knowledge. For instance, with regard to the procurement of the 1000s, NABI at first said it was the low bidder, then the RFP was withdrawn, and it was readvertised a year later, with New Flyer eventually winning. At the same time, Pace kept extending the deadline for proposals on what became the 2600s for over a year before making an award. So, one can't make definitive statements until a contract is awarded, and, in addition, (as the Optima example indicates) a pattern emerges with regard to the exercise of the options. And, until the contract is awarded, one can't be sure of what are the five years after that date.

[BusHunter]

No dispute with your math, and we have discussed some of these questions before.

It appears that some increase in the fleet is contemplated as (1) apparently at least 45 are from the BRT grant (and apparently are part of the 58 mystery options) (2) implementing BRT on the 100 mile scale (instead of the 10 mile scale indicated in the current grant documents) would need a lot of new buses.

I can see junking the NABIs a year or two early, but not 7. I can also see saying that eventually (but not in the next two years) BRT vehicles will take over for Novas on Western.

Artics will end up on Western for sure if the RFP's come to fruition. In indeed they do replace Nova's and NABI's, all garages will most likely end up with a least a few artics and possibly 77th could go all artic or close to it, due to it's heavy ridership. If indeed as you predict, 100 miles of BRT is implemented wouldn't that just tax the CTA to the point of needing another garage?