Jump to content
East New York

2012 40'/60' Procurement

Recommended Posts

Again, high floor buses are not even the topic of discussion. I dont know why it keeps coming up.

And who said anything about high floor buses THIS time? I do think my point was quite clear in regard to Bushunter's statement about who's likely to win out is that the only thing we can make a good guess on for now is that they much likely to want to stick with low floor buses in GENERAL and that tells us nothing about who we can say wins the contract and that the only thing we can probably make a reasonable guess on if we were to look only at past performance with low floors as he was proposing is that it could still be a toss up in that case between NOVA and New Flyer since both gave CTA decent performance. Now who's misquoting whom? Now my apologies on my own misquote but it still stands that MTS has some pretty tough competition since they won't actually have a workable articulated bus for four more years and they have yet to produce a low floor bus model for a TA beyond the two test models you mentioned. Even though your company's low floors passed the Altoona tests unlike the NABI artics and putting the consideration of articulateds aside for the moment, the fact that the CTA is still in a court fight over the NABI contract still raises the bar higher for your bosses and gives them a tougher sell to make than the other two, because despite your declaration that the Extreme is no different from a regular RTS other than it being lower to the ground, the CTA execs who are in charge of procurements are still going to be saying behind closed doors, "Hey we're already currently in a court battle because of the the purchase of an unproven bus since no one else bought it for regular revenue service before us. Do we want to risk it again with this court fight still ongoing for a similar situation (as far as being first to buy a particular bus model)?" Not saying you can't win, but I am saying as I have consistantly said outside that misunderstanding over your later post that MTS has a very high bar to get over when it comes to selling CTA a 40 foot low floor bus because of the mishaps that they and NABI made in the purchase of CTA's first low floor articulateds.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Now my apologies on my own misquote but it still stands that MTS has some pretty tough competition since they won't actually have a workable articulated bus for four more years and they have yet to produce a low floor bus model for a TA beyond the two test models you mentioned. Even though your company's low floors passed the Altoona tests unlike the NABI artics and putting the consideration of articulateds aside for the moment, the fact that the CTA is still in a court fight over the NABI contract still raises the bar higher for your bosses and gives them a tougher sell to make than the other two, because despite your declaration that the Extreme is no different from a regular RTS other than it being lower to the ground, the CTA execs who are in charge of procurements are still going to be saying behind closed doors, "Hey we're already currently in a court battle because of the the purchase of an unproven bus since no one else bought it for regular revenue service before us. Do we want to risk it again with this court fight still ongoing for a similar situation (as far as being first to buy a particular bus model)?" Not saying you can't win, but I am saying as I have consistantly said outside that misunderstanding over your later post that MTS has a very high bar to get over when it comes to selling CTA a 40 foot low floor bus because of the mishaps that they and NABI made in the purchase of CTA's first low floor articulateds.

Let's remember that the topic started with:

Good day all!

My name is Dante, and I am a Transit Systems Engineer based in NYC. ...

I know a little about the upcoming procurement as I have the RFP, but from your prospective, who all do you think has a chance at this contract, and who would you like to see it awarded to?

Now, since it appears that he is a consultant for Millennium, I repeat, what is the point? At least asking a bunch of transit fans, (and I bet 90% of the members here don't work for CTA, and none of the procurement department hangs out here) what they want, and then trying to do a sell job on us on a company that has the hurdles jajuan describes?

As I noted in response to a question whether CTA could specify "not NABI," there were several neutral criteria starting on page 9 of the RFP, including:

  • Summary of customers/properties who have purchased the same or comparable model bus being proposed in this procurement. [The only thing Millennium could say is that customers bought the RTS08 from TMC or Novabus; otherwise the answer is NONE or very few.]
  • Structural defects experienced in the contractor's proposed vehicle. [see my comment, above. I suppose that NABI could say that the 62BRT is different from the 60LFW, but that wouldn't be convincing.]
  • Description of production facility and testing procedures. [Maybe Millennium has something to say, but probably not compared to the other two companies.]
  • Show order book. [While this is undoubtedly for CTA to see when this order can get into the production schedule, I'm sure an empty order book also would demonstrate something.]
  • A table that summarizes the number of vehicles delivered to transit agencies during the past 3 years. [Answer: None, or less than 20.]
  • Location of service facility for CTA buses.

Then, starting on page 241, there is a Vehicle Questionnaire for 40 and 60 foot vehicles, basically asking for the manufacturer of each major component. NF and Nova apparently have a supply chain in place, since they are delivering buses to TAs; does Millennium?

Since you say you have the RFP, Dante, you can verify that the above are in it.

Now, maybe CTA will be completely insane and ignore all of these requirements, but I doubt it (especially in light of the lawsuit mentioned by jajuan).

It is up to Millennium whether the resources needed to submit a bid are worth their expenditure, but (in light of what was reported with regard to the Bombardier and Alstom competition in about 2006 over the L cars), if they want to sneak in, it would make more sense to hire a politically-connected lobbyist, than some consultant to make arguments on an enthusiasts' board. This is Chicago, after all.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it still stands that MTS has some pretty tough competition since they won't actually have a workable articulated bus for four more years and they have yet to produce a low floor bus model for a TA beyond the two test models you mentioned. Even though your company's low floors passed the Altoona tests unlike the NABI artics and putting the consideration of articulateds aside for the moment, the fact that the CTA is still in a court fight over the NABI contract still raises the bar higher for your bosses and gives them a tougher sell to make than the other two, because despite your declaration that the Extreme is no different from a regular RTS other than it being lower to the ground, the CTA execs who are in charge of procurements are still going to be saying behind closed doors, "Hey we're already currently in a court battle because of the the purchase of an unproven bus since no one else bought it for regular revenue service before us. Do we want to risk it again with this court fight still ongoing for a similar situation (as far as being first to buy a particular bus model)?" Not saying you can't win, but I am saying as I have consistantly said outside that misunderstanding over your later post that MTS has a very high bar to get over when it comes to selling CTA a 40 foot low floor bus because of the mishaps that they and NABI made in the purchase of CTA's first low floor articulateds.

Yes, the Extreme is unproven, but the Legend is, and the CTA could get a better version of the 4400 rts. Although I'm rooting for the return of the high floor, it would be a longshot. But then why would the CTA want a bid from MTS as East stated? Well, wheelchair lifts have gotten much better since 1990, so no reason to beat that dead horse. And how concerned is the CTA with the boarding of elderly and disabled passengers onto high floor buses? Well, it worked for over 50 years, so it's not a new concept.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Extreme is unproven, but the Legend is, and the CTA could get a better version of the 4400 rts. Although I'm rooting for the return of the high floor, it would be a longshot. But then why would the CTA want a bid from MTS as East stated? Well, wheelchair lifts have gotten much better since 1990, so no reason to beat that dead horse. And how concerned is the CTA with the boarding of elderly and disabled passengers onto high floor buses? Well, it worked for over 50 years, so it's not a new concept.

And it seems East should be venting his frustations at you about bringing up high floors since he wants to stick to discussing low floors and lashed out at me that the discussion wasn't about high floor buses when I've been making the argument that CTA likely wants to stay with low floor buses. Next time he wants to wonder why floor buses keeps getting brought up he can take a better look and see the source is you since you gladly admit you cheer for a return to them even if you state the qualification that it's a long shot. And just because CTA had elderly and disabled struggling up and down a high floor for over 50 years doesn't make it necessarily the right direction to go especially when you consider for most of those 50 years you bring up, the buses were nonaccessible buses with no lifts or ramps at all. And it definitely doesn't mean it worked but rather it was the only means either group of passengers had to get to where they needed to go despited the short-sightedness of folks who are abled body and have full range of motion. But I digress..... ;)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Extreme is unproven, but the Legend is, and the CTA could get a better version of the 4400 rts.

To add what jajuan said, supposedly the 5800s were a test of a low floor bus,* but apparently successful enough that in about 1998, CTA put out a specification for 450 low floor buses, which Nova won.

At that time, CTA could have put out a specification for a high floor bus if it wanted an "updated RTS." Although I can't find the press release that says when Nova stopped production of high floor buses and closed the Roswell facility, secondary sources indicate it was in 2002, coincidentally when Nova closed the Schenectady plant on completing the CTA order for the LFS. Probably this source is as close as any.

Anyway, the current RFP is for low floor buses.

_______

*Also, in that CTA bought 330 6000s at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Busjack goes, I'm not even going to entertain your questions at all. And for the record, I don't work for MTS. I own my own consulting firm, and my reach extends to every manufaturer except Gillig and ElDorado.

Instead of interrogating me, why don't you call MTS or CTA and ask them all these questions. They both have working phones and general email.

And if Millennium wanted to sneak in, Im quite sure I wouldnt know anything about any of this. Besides, why waste money on a lobbiest when your product will speak for itself?

CTA is aware of the fact that MTA will be receiving some low floors, and there are about 2180 buses on the pre-production log. So again, whatever happens happens. I had to go through these same shinnanigans when I made a post on my forum about New Flyer in a similar situation after NYC filed a law suit againt them. When I posed NYC was working on a deal for 90 XD40's, 90 XD60's, and up to 475 C40LF's, everyone said I was crazy, and the biggest issue was there would be no way MTA would take delivery of 2012-2013 C40LF's because they were discontinued, and second, MTA had a lawsuit againt them in 2006. That was all true, however, the NFI guys told be that because of the huge CTA cancellation, they had parts for the LF, and would offer,that bus because the MTA was not interested in the LFR.

That being said. We shall see! And just do everyone knows, Im not,the type to say I told you so at all. But when it comes to anything regarding buses in North America, what I post end up being right 99.9% of the time. From 2007-2012, im batting 1000. I could be wrong, as I am not perfect. But if,you wanna keep asking these technical questions, call the people directly involved. Good day!

FYI, the white bus with yellow stripe on the MTS brochure, is the actual low floor that NYC tested themselves.

Now, in the near future, I am hoping to land a job with Millennium now that I will no longer consult with Daimler. Daimler doesnt do a good job of listening..... Yet, I'm still helping them out with a few "loose ends." One of their contracts was just transfered to New Flyer for additional C40LF's. It was best they do that instead of dealing with MTA well into next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Busjack goes, I'm not even going to entertain your questions at all. And for the record, I don't work for MTS. I own my own consulting firm, and my reach extends to every manufaturer except Gillig and ElDorado.

...

Now, in the near future, I am hoping to land a job with Millennium in the very near future now that I no longer consult with Daimler.

  • I don't care if you are an independent contractor or an employee. Most consultants have their own firm. That's what a "consultant" is.
  • According to my spell checker, you can't spell manufacturer.
  • The last sentence does say what your motivation is. I'm sure you are going to use this thread as a resume. But you never cared what the respondents said.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • I don't care if you are an independent contractor or an employee. Most consultants have their own firm. That's what a "consultant" is.
  • According to my spell checker, you can't spell manufacturer.
  • The last sentence does say what your motivation is. I'm sure you are going to use this thread as a resume. But you never cared what the respondents said.

Lmao! You are funny! I'm sorry, but typing as fast as I do on an Android device, mistakes happen. Didn't know this was English class. If I didn't care what anyone said, I would have never started the thread...... Duh!

Clearly posting on a transit forum does nothing for my resume which is already extensive. I don't have an issue with what anyone has said. I always welcome a healthy debate. You just like to be an ass! This definitely isn't the first time we have crossed paths either, so none of this is new when it comes to you! Stop acting brand new. You will counter whatever I say, even when you know yourself it's a fact.

Interesting that when I counter something you say, all you do is change the subject. It's ok to be,wrong buddy. We are only human! Can't we all just get along? Lol

Now as far as anyone else here, I would be glad to continue this discussion. As for you Mr. Busjack, Next Bus Please!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we go. Yet another person who joined a transit enthusiast board not to discuss transit issues outright but to brag on being an expert in X, Y, and Z. And our latest one has more self serving motivations than the others. But again that much was obvious.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jajuan is usually the one who mentions the terms of service. Apparently he didn't bring up a person who claims to be the moderator of a transit board, but violated the terms of service here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, the solicitation was amended to up to 600. However, this might just be to make up for the apparent math mistake earlier of 300-450 40 footers and 50-150 60 footers. Or, they may actually be intending to take 50 more than first stated.

Anyway, as I predicted, the bid opening date has been extended three times, although the last amendment to the Addendum Response Date says that it doesn't affect the bid opening date of Oct 9. We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: BYD has submitted a bit to CTA, and MTS is persuing [sic] CTA outside of the current procurement for a test fleet very similar to New York City's.

Who the bleep is BYD? If they are a Chinese firm (possible result of Google search) good luck meeting Buy America Act requirements.

And I guess despite what you said before, MTS is not bidding. And given how CTA has reverted to form, any experiment would be on MTS's risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many MPG are the buses going to get? That is the biggest area that can be improve.

Based on what's being bid (40 foot all diesel, 60 foot either hybrid or diesel), there might be improvements compared to the Novas they replace, but not necessarily compared to what was recently obtained from New Flyer. New Flyer has a chart on its Xcelsior page comparing that 40 foot hybrid with others, and if any in the range of 5.2 to 5.8 reflects actual city driving, that would be much better than the 3.4 to 3.8 usually mentioned for diesel buses.

Speaking of "partnering on an experimental bus," DesignLine claimed somewhere near 8, but NY tested some, but sent them back because they were not powerful enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: BYD has submitted a bit to CTA, and MTS is persuing CTA outside of the current procurement for a test fleet very similar to New York City's.

What is BYD??? Bring Your Design? Bring Your Driver? :lol: . In all seriousness though, only two manufacturers stick out to do any procurements for CTA Buses in the immediate future...

-NOVA Bus

-New Flyer

And way, way down in the heap, even beyond the unknown companies that may be making transit buses in the US...

-NABI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is BYD??? Bring Your Design? Bring Your Driver? :lol: .

After asking the same above, I went further into Google and got this:

"BYD is a top high tech enterprise in China, specializing in IT, automobile, and new energy" (including electric bus). However, all factories are listed in China.

Google for "byd bus" only indicates the electric bus, and we know where CTA is getting its 2. Hence, if it is this BYD, it doesn't seem responsive to a solicitation for diesel and hybrid buses.

But since you bring up NABI:

  • At least NABI had an assembly plant and made deliveries in the U.S. before getting a CTA contract for a "first of that model" bus. Based on the continuing litigation, I don't see CTA going down the path of a vehicle unproved in U.S. service again.
  • Besides the Buy America Act requirement in the specification, to the extent Build Illinois money is involved, I really doubt that Quinn and associates (after making a big deal that the Japanese Metra cars would be assembled in Rochelle) are going to tolerate tax money that was supposed to create jobs in Illinois going to China.
  • The "disclose your production book" requirement in the specification indicates that if the bidder does not have a domestic assembly plant lined up, it is going to be hard to meet that requirement.
  • Throw in other requirements, such as tour of the plant, having a service facility available, Altoona testing, compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and complete list of component manufacturers, doesn't give a new entrant a leg up.
  • Not to mention the Chinese wheel bearing journal stink with regard to the 5000s.

But the Beijing Olympics proved that some company is building articulated buses in China, as I said, it depends whether that is the same BYD and if someone really has information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth as a guide,Here is a SF muni new purchase order for 40FT Hybird N.F Xcelsior buses

http://www.sfmta.com...seagreement.pdf

What is interesting is that staff explored the cooperative purchase, acquiring options, or the regular RFP process (page 3).

Apparently, the FTA information on how to do this is hidden under the FAQs,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the bleep is BYD? If they are a Chinese firm (possible result of Google search) good luck meeting Buy America Act requirements.

And I guess despite what you said before, MTS is not bidding. And given how CTA has reverted to form, any experiment would be on MTS's risk.

For one, I never said It was a guarantee MTS was bidding. How many times do I have to type that same phrase?????? Don't quote me on that MTS statement. New developments tell a different story. So as of right now, MTS may still be in there, and I cannot confirm either way.

BYD is an established (New in the North American Market) manufacturer of standard low floor buses. I have a few photos from APTA that I will try to find and post. Until then, here is a shot taken by a friend of mine.

However, I was not aware of the fact BYD still produced diesel buses, and I didn't think they had 60 foot buses. So it is hard to know what exactly they bid until the documents become public after the bid opening date, which is now set for October 16th. (Date subject to change)

http://www.byd.com/

BYD_BYD_ZEB.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice looking BYD. VERY stylish. That said, I agree with Busjack concerning the Buy America component of the bid, BYD doesn't qualify.

Best bets are Nova and New Flyer.

NABI pretty much can be crossed off the list, even though technically they do qualify. Based on prior history with CTA, I doubt seriously CTA would give them another crack at it.

Gillig doesn't build artics.

Orion is out of the bus building business in America.

Eldorado doesn't build artics either. But they are the U.S. builder for the Alexander-Dennis Enviro 500 Double Decker buses. The Deuce on the Las Vegas Strip is an example. However, CTA has not indicated, to my knowledge, any interest in double deckers in addition to or as opposed to artics.

VanHool doesn't qualify under the Buy America Act. Yes VanHool does build transit buses. According to ABC Companies' website, they build 60' and 80' artics as well.

http://www.abc-companies.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eldorado doesn't build artics either. But they are the U.S. builder for the Alexander-Dennis Enviro 500 Double Decker buses. The Deuce on the Las Vegas Strip is an example. However, CTA has not indicated, to my knowledge, any interest in double deckers in addition to or as opposed to artics.

The obvious reason why not is that the double decker requires a 14' clearance (168 inches height), which you rarely have in Chicago (spec sheet).

There was a debate on the Yahoo group on how CMC could have run its double deckers, given the clearance currently marked at such places as the L overpass over Sheridan at Devon, even if they were not as tall as other double deckers of their era. But if roof packs on top of a hybrid impose a constraint of at least 11 ft., just imagine the problem trying to find a route for a double decker now.

Also, we previously mentioned the city's viaduct clearance list. For instance, the one on Sheridan is posted as 12'8". The ones across Jeffery are posted at 11'6', which probably means that the hybrids barely clear them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NABI pretty much can be crossed off the list, even though technically they do qualify. Based on prior history with CTA, I doubt seriously CTA would give them another crack at it.

They had plenty of cracks at it... in the articulation joint of the 60-LFW models :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice looking BYD. VERY stylish. That said, I agree with Busjack concerning the Buy America component of the bid, BYD doesn't qualify.

Best bets are Nova and New Flyer.

NABI pretty much can be crossed off the list, even though technically they do qualify. Based on prior history with CTA, I doubt seriously CTA would give them another crack at it.

Gillig doesn't build artics.

Orion is out of the bus building business in America.

Eldorado doesn't build artics either. But they are the U.S. builder for the Alexander-Dennis Enviro 500 Double Decker buses. The Deuce on the Las Vegas Strip is an example. However, CTA has not indicated, to my knowledge, any interest in double deckers in addition to or as opposed to artics.

VanHool doesn't qualify under the Buy America Act. Yes VanHool does build transit buses. According to ABC Companies' website, they build 60' and 80' artics as well.

http://www.abc-companies.com/

I have no idea of how they will comply, but they are definitely bidding, along with New Flyer, Nova, and just confirmed in stone, Millennium.

They had plenty of cracks at it... in the articulation joint of the 60-LFW models :lol:

NABI is out of the question, and all the bidders are listed just above. There will only be 4 of them, and CTA could award contracts to 3 of the 4 bidders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...