LAist: $54.6 Million in Fuel, Yet the Engines Continue to Idle.

SoapBoxLA

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:26:41 -0800

Still, Metro spent $54.6 million this year on fuel - up 3percent from two years ago when it spent $53 million. "The agency also expects to spend an additional 14 percent - or $7.4 million - on fuel next fiscal year as it adds more buses, said Michelle Lopes Caldwell, Metro's executive officer for management and budget. The agency bought 95 buses using CNG this year and plans to buy 120 next year. Nearly all buses in its 2,556-unit fleet run on CNG at a price Metro officials locked in a year ago at 90 cents a therm. The current market rate is $1.21. "We're in good shape with fuel," said Marc Littman, Metro spokesman."

kristinester

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:21:24 -0800

@anthonyt Finally someone that asks the question. Where do these numbers come from? And are these figured for natural gas? Or are they for unleaded gasoline?

SoapBoxLA

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:28:22 -0800

A 10% layover estimate (6 minutes out of every hour?) is veeerrry low and allows for fuel use variables. Each bus comes with an operator. The Bus Operators are represented by a very strong union. The Orange Line trip takes 40 - 45 minutes and has a 12 minute layover on the end. Perhaps the Metro would like to release the actual layover times and idling policy for the Orange Line and for the Metro as a whole. Perhaps the Metro would like to respond to the napping/idling 750 Operator at Universal. (20 minutes on top of a 53 minute run) They're wasting fuel, polluting our air, all because it's simpler than...supervising the Operators? providing equipment that simply works? setting a standard for responsible performance and then meeting that standard?

anthonyt

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:24:24 -0800

Shutting down the engines on layover (10% estimated reduction in overall run time) would save the Metro approximately $5 Million this year. where do these numbers come from?

amcallis

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:23:50 -0800

Paul: yes, exactly. First, 10% of time spent on layover is unrealistically high. And anyway, the bus uses a lot more fuel during drive time than during layover time. Plus, what's the time and gas cost of driving the maintenance personnel out to jump start the bus? What's the time and equipment cost to buy different buses or components to get them to start reliably wherever? These are the real questions that should be asked.

Militant Angeleno

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:20:57 -0800

LOL, they think they're trains!

paul

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:13:33 -0800

Your attitude seems to be just as bullheaded as Metro's. If you don't care about the reasons they give, it doesn't really motivate them to explain.

jrb

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:21:07 -0800

Good Post Steven. My suggestion would be that if these busses were converted to plug in hybrid, and were plugged in and charging during their lay overs, the mileage would be vastly improved, and fuel costs lowered even more. This would eventually pay for the costs of the conversions, and plug-in facilities at the lay over points.