|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 13:23:05 GMT -5
WP,
Yes, only AME/Eola boundaries, no other sites since we own AME and construction started at AME. Yes, there are other factors involved. One that was brought up was time spent on a bus; the reason Owen East was moved from MV to WV. There is serious concern that in the future route in the other area that are slated to have 'additional busses' will be consolidated which will increase that factor of time spent on a bus. Having a destination point closer for all involved will make that a non issue and at worst revert back to what is there today which is very very livable. The only thing that can numerically make that viable is to validate whether or not an increase in cost or route/mile will be offloaded in a lesser amount or a greater amount to other areas. If a rotational clockwise shift can be done at all levels based on closer geography per student than that should (in theory) make the route/miles decrease as well. The data to test this is unavailable and probably will not be available until Summer of 2009 which is usually when the actual routes will probably get posted. This does make one wonder how the 'averages' were derived though. I can understand if they were commitment levels that Laidlaw/First Student put in a term sheet that they will meet as a metric bit HOW they actually will meet it is yet to be seen (how many more route/miles or busses are we adding to meet or beat those average bus trip times).
They (Laidlaw) are not responsible for optimizing anything for us. They are responsible for moving area A of student population X to destination Y for price Z.
The A,X,Y are our variables to fill in, which in turn will be computed to derive Z that we all pay for.
edit: grammar pronoun/verb fix.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 13:24:21 GMT -5
I think Arch was trying to say that if an analysis was done on AME vs. no-3rd HS (similar to what was done with BB vs. no-3rd HS), we could mathematically compare the two without involving BB. If the savings were "only" 6%, we would know that AME's savings were 50% lower than BB's. In other words, instead of directly comparing AME vs. BB, which many are loathe to do, analyzing AME vs. no-3rd HS and then comparing that to BB's already calculated 9% would accomplish the exact same thing. That's a better idea of expressing where I was trying to go with this, but I messed up along the way w/ the pdf reference, obviously. Dock my salary
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 16, 2008 13:30:06 GMT -5
I think Arch was trying to say that if an analysis was done on AME vs. no-3rd HS (similar to what was done with BB vs. no-3rd HS), we could mathematically compare the two without involving BB. If the savings were "only" 6%, we would know that AME's savings were 50% lower than BB's. In other words, instead of directly comparing AME vs. BB, which many are loathe to do, analyzing AME vs. no-3rd HS and then comparing that to BB's already calculated 9% would accomplish the exact same thing. IMHO apparently someone did some analysis in order to com up with the assertion that there is no cost diff between the 2 sites.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 16, 2008 13:30:08 GMT -5
Let's say Laidlaw agreed to keep the AME price the same for good "customer service" for the remainder of this contract. When it comes time for renewal, they will certainly look at their costs which are directly tied to mileage. If there is a significant discrepancy between AME and BB, Laidlaw may in fact want us to pay more than it may have for BB. That is why we want to know the true comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 13:34:05 GMT -5
Let's say Laidlaw agreed to keep the AME price the same for good "customer service" for the remainder of this contract. When it comes time for renewal, they will certainly look at their costs which are directly tied to mileage. If there is a significant discrepancy between AME and BB, Laidlaw may in fact want us to pay more than it may have for BB. That is why we want to know the true comparison. In all fairness, even without comparing the 2 sites, it's good data to have going forward so we can data model changes and how they will effect costs. At some point either increasing the route/miles or decreasing them will make the price go up or down. That up or down is based on what the district decides for student movement.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 13:35:57 GMT -5
They (Laidlaw) are not responsible for optimizing anything for us. They are responsible for moving area A of student population X to destination Y for price Z. The A,X,Y are our variables to fill in, which in turn will be computed to derive Z that we all pay for. edit: grammar pronoun/verb fix. I disagree! For fixed cost, Laidlaw has every incentive in getting the most efficient routes, as they make more margin if their costs are minimal. I had a classmate who worked at the City of Chicago optimizing routes with computer models - the algorithms are pretty sophisticated and converge very quickly on the most efficient routes - variants of the Travelling Salesman Problem algorithms. So I expect that whatever Laidlaw comes up with will be the best way to transport kids. I don't think I would be able to do better unless I wrote similar models. BTW, gatordog's analysis on the other thread is pretty good, and demonstrates why teh costs are very similar even from a first principles calculation. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 16, 2008 13:37:03 GMT -5
Let's say Laidlaw agreed to keep the AME price the same for good "customer service" for the remainder of this contract. When it comes time for renewal, they will certainly look at their costs which are directly tied to mileage. If there is a significant discrepancy between AME and BB, Laidlaw may in fact want us to pay more than it may have for BB. That is why we want to know the true comparison. In all fairness, even without comparing the 2 sites, it's good data to have going forward so we can data model changes and how they will effect costs. At some point either increasing the route/miles or decreasing them will make the price go up or down. That up or down is based on what the district decides for student movement. I agree it would be nice to have the data...so if anyone can get it...please share with the rest of the group.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 16, 2008 13:37:25 GMT -5
And what we are saying is that there is a difference between Laidlaw promising to charge the same (for now), and an actual analysis of optimized mileage.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 13:39:03 GMT -5
They (Laidlaw) are not responsible for optimizing anything for us. They are responsible for moving area A of student population X to destination Y for price Z. The A,X,Y are our variables to fill in, which in turn will be computed to derive Z that we all pay for. edit: grammar pronoun/verb fix. I disagree! For fixed cost, Laidlaw has every incentive in getting the most efficient routes, as they make more margin if their costs are minimal. I had a classmate who worked at the City of Chicago optimizing routes with computer models - the algorithms are pretty sophisticated and converge very quickly on the most efficient routes - variants of the Travelling Salesman Problem algorithms. So I expect that whatever Laidlaw comes up with will be the best way to transport kids. I don't think I would be able to do better unless I wrote similar models. BTW, gatordog's analysis on the other thread is pretty good, and demonstrates why teh costs are very similar even from a first principles calculation. Cheers. I think we're talking through each other. I agree with you that LL has an incentive to make the most efficient routes from area X to destination Y (that we tell them) but they do not have an incentive to tell us to move area X to area Z because our asking them to move those students to area Y will cost us more than moving them to Z.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 14:12:49 GMT -5
Let's say Laidlaw agreed to keep the AME price the same for good "customer service" for the remainder of this contract. When it comes time for renewal, they will certainly look at their costs which are directly tied to mileage. If there is a significant discrepancy between AME and BB, Laidlaw may in fact want us to pay more than it may have for BB. That is why we want to know the true comparison. The biggest thing that I expect to impact the bussing costs will be the cost of gas - not any potential minor differences in routes. There are too many variables to reliably predict the what-if scenarios that you are asking for. My guess is that anything related to project bus route or bus route costs for BB is a fairly moot point at this point in time. And I fail to see why the SB/Admin or Laidlaw would be expected to spend any time on this going forward.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 14:14:51 GMT -5
Let's say Laidlaw agreed to keep the AME price the same for good "customer service" for the remainder of this contract. When it comes time for renewal, they will certainly look at their costs which are directly tied to mileage. If there is a significant discrepancy between AME and BB, Laidlaw may in fact want us to pay more than it may have for BB. That is why we want to know the true comparison. In all fairness, even without comparing the 2 sites, it's good data to have going forward so we can data model changes and how they will effect costs. At some point either increasing the route/miles or decreasing them will make the price go up or down. That up or down is based on what the district decides for student movement. I would think that they look at the capacity of schools, enrollment at schools, and projected enrollment at schools to decide boundary changes.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 14:17:55 GMT -5
Let's say Laidlaw agreed to keep the AME price the same for good "customer service" for the remainder of this contract. When it comes time for renewal, they will certainly look at their costs which are directly tied to mileage. If there is a significant discrepancy between AME and BB, Laidlaw may in fact want us to pay more than it may have for BB. That is why we want to know the true comparison. The biggest thing that I expect to impact the bussing costs will be the cost of gas - not any potential minor differences in routes. There are too many variables to reliably predict the what-if scenarios that you are asking for. My guess is that anything related to project bus route or bus route costs for BB is a fairly moot point at this point in time. And I fail to see why the SB/Admin or Laidlaw would be expected to spend any time on this going forward. Optimizing the miles within the district for all schools at all levels is something they should spend time with on an ongoing basis year to year. Agreed that the district should not do any more analysis w/ BB (though anyone in the public can to their heart's content since we're not paying them a dime to do it).
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 16, 2008 14:28:03 GMT -5
Let's say Laidlaw agreed to keep the AME price the same for good "customer service" for the remainder of this contract. When it comes time for renewal, they will certainly look at their costs which are directly tied to mileage. If there is a significant discrepancy between AME and BB, Laidlaw may in fact want us to pay more than it may have for BB. That is why we want to know the true comparison. The biggest thing that I expect to impact the bussing costs will be the cost of gas - not any potential minor differences in routes. There are too many variables to reliably predict the what-if scenarios that you are asking for. My guess is that anything related to project bus route or bus route costs for BB is a fairly moot point at this point in time. And I fail to see why the SB/Admin or Laidlaw would be expected to spend any time on this going forward. I wouldn't expect the SB to spend any time on BB now- but I would expect them to have models that help them optimize what we do today. BB is meaningless today from an operational standpoint - but if it was the be all, end all site they agreed it was - then it would be a good benchmark for total mileage - number of buses etc.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 16, 2008 15:37:24 GMT -5
I agree that it is a moot point going forward...but for discussions about whether the SB members did a thorough analysis of the financials, it is very relevant.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 15:47:43 GMT -5
I agree that it is a moot point going forward...but for discussions about whether the SB members did a thorough analysis of the financials, it is very relevant. This type of work seems more like a collective effort - I don't see how you can separate out what role each individual member played and how they contributed to this.
|
|