Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US cities pay too much for buses

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 590 posts

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#131

Post by [deleted] »

mcflubbins wrote: post #107
bluGill wrote: post #63

Don't be fooled, paying less won't help much since the cost of a bus is a small part of the costs of running a bus route. about half your costs are the bus driver. The most expensive bus is still only 1/3rd of your hourly cost of running the bus. If a more expensive bus is more reliable that could more than make up for a more expensive bus (I don't have any numbers to do math on though). Half the costs of running a b…

I wonder if they take into account the fact that if there are no bus routes (or less of them) there is a certain population of people that won't be able to work, and those worker pay taxes and put money back into the economy. Probably impossible to know what the effect is in total and I wouldn't be surprised if its not part of the TCO formula.

[deleted]

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#132

Post by 9rx »

twoodfin wrote: post #114
isthispermanent wrote: post #89

So the authors basic argument is to offshore bus production. As if that doesn’t carry any negative side effects. This is exactly what the majority of Americans voted against and exactly why the left can’t find its footing. Everyone is now fully aware that offshoring for a cheap sticker price comes with higher, harder to price costs elsewhere.

The side effects of “Buy American” rules do not include a dynamic, competitive domestic bus manufacturing industry. Just the opposite. If the Chinese want to subsidize our mass transit buildout, why not let them? Are busses really critical national security concerns? If we needed the existing NA producers to build military busses it sounds like we’d be screwed!

> If the Chinese want to subsidize our mass transit buildout, why not let them?

The contention is always around the debt that is created when you let them. If China never calls the debt, that's a huge win — you just got something for free! You'd be crazy not to take that deal. But others are concerned about what happens if they do call the debt. You might not like what you have to give up in return (e.g. houses, farmland, etc.). Just ask Canada.

Of course, there is always the option to stonewall their attempts to collect on the debt, but that creates all kinds of other negative effects when the USA can no longer be trusted to make good on its promises.

Tradeoffs, as always.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#133

Post by ecshafer »

I think that the authors solution, outsourcing production is not quite right, they gloss over other issues.

>In a large country like the US, some variation in bus design is inevitable due to differences in conditions like weather and topography. But Silverberg said that many customizations are cosmetic, reflecting agency preferences or color schemes but not affecting vehicle performance.

This is kind of absurd, I have been on busses all over the country, a metro bus, is a metro bus. There are not really differences based on topography or climate.

>Two US transit agencies, RTD and SORTA, bought similar 40-foot, diesel-powered buses from the same manufacturer in 2023, but RTD's 10 buses cost $432,028 each, while SORTA's 17 cost $939,388 each.

The issue here appears to be: Why is SORTA's purchasing so incompetent that they are buying 17 busses for the price of 35? They are over double the price of RTD.

> That same year, Singapore’s Land Transport Authority also bought buses. Their order called for 240 fully electric vehicles — which are typically twice as expensive as diesel ones in the US. List price: Just $333,000 each.

Singapore has a very efficient, highly trained, highly educated, highly paid administrative staff, and their competency is what is being shown here. They thought to get a reduction in price because of the large number of busses they are ordering.

One solution the author doesn't point out is that Federal funds often come coupled with a large amount of bureaucratic red tape. It could be cheaper in the long run to have more tax collection and expenditure at the local level, and not rely as much on federal grants.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#134

Post by kccqzy »

supertrope wrote: post #73
myrmidon wrote: post #7

I think this shows one of the downsides of trade barriers very well: You get stuck with undesirable industries (diesel bus manufacturing), binding capital and labor better used elsewhere (and you easily end up with underperforming, overpriced solutions, too). But I'm curious how much this actually affects transport costs. If such a bus is used 12h/day, then even overpaying 100% for the vehicle should get outscaled by…

2/3 of public transit budgets in wealthy countries is hiring employees. Vehicle costs are not the headline cost. However this cost does needs to be managed. Transit agencies are running on shoe string budgets. Until recently the US Federal Government funded capital expenses but never operating expenses. This lead to outcomes such as the feds distributing grant money with the requirement that buses must last at least…

I'm sorry but aren't these outcomes good? 12-year old buses should probably be replaced, and a natural gas bus or electric bus will be better than a diesel bus? I do not understand your point.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#135

Post by rootusrootus »

savanaly wrote: post #92
xnx wrote: post #39

Ultimately due to a lack of transit competition. Municipal transit will be bloated and inefficient on every level because no amount of failure will put them out of business. Indeed, most agencies' main goal is to increase budget (any increase in service or customer satisfaction is incidental) because more budget equals bigger projects and more staff which is more prestigious and higher paying.

I'm with you at heart, but experience says government owned transit works just fine and even great in other countries. What's their secret sauce?

Perception, maybe? My local transit agency seems to do pretty well. There will always be critics, but they don't seem unnecessarily bloated, the vehicles are well maintained and clean, etc. Not any different than a typical bus in, for example, UK. And I would caution that if you think everybody other than the US does government-owned transit very well, you may be focusing in a small subset of wealthy first world countries.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#136

Post by cocoto »

paddy_m wrote: post #106
mschuster91 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just pedestrians, but residents who gotta breathe in the particulate and other exhaust emissions. That, in turn, significantly affects poorer parts of the population who have no other choice than to live and rent near heavily trafficed roads.

Busses are loud, but not nearly as load and polluting as cars in aggregate

Completely false, buses are way louder than multiple cars. Buses make tons of noise when accelerating and many have obnoxious added sounds at stops for security reasons. As a full cyclist I would gladly prefer no bus and more cars. Moreover the bus are more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#137

Post by rootusrootus »

jmyeet wrote: post #27

As people should know by now, in the last few decades China has built a massive amount of public transit infrastructure, both within cities and regional [1]. Some of the subway systems are pretty amazing (eg Chongqing [2]). I'm interested in how they did this and I think it comes down to a few major factors: 1. They standardize rolling stock. The same stuff is used across the country. I think this is really important…

3a. The government in China does not accept no as an answer.

We could move a lot faster here if we removed or severely limited the ability for individuals and small organizations to completely stall progress on major societal efforts. I think this is not at all unique to the US, either, it is a problem to varying degrees in most modern democracies.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#138

Post by carliFigaroFiga »

isthispermanent wrote: post #89

So the authors basic argument is to offshore bus production. As if that doesn’t carry any negative side effects. This is exactly what the majority of Americans voted against and exactly why the left can’t find its footing. Everyone is now fully aware that offshoring for a cheap sticker price comes with higher, harder to price costs elsewhere.

[dead]

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#139

Post by Symbiote »

bluGill wrote: post #120
kjkjadksj wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bus driver also does things like trigger ramp for handicapped people, strap in wheelchairs securely, answer questions about the route, and security surveillance.

None of those should be needed. Get more people riding and they take care of security. wheelchairs are hard - but the driver strapping them in is robbing everyone else of their valuable time so we need a better soultion anyway

Every bus in Copenhagen has a button next to the door to lower the wheelchair ramp, but I have never seen anyone use it. I've never seen a wheelchair on a bus.

The metro and suburban trains have level boarding (the platform is at exactly the same level as the floor of the train so it's very easy for a wheelchair user to wheel themselves in). I've still only seen wheelchairs users on these trains once or twice.

I suspect wheelchair users prefer to call the disability taxi service. It's free for wheelchair users and blind people [1]. I don't know if this service is more or less expensive to provide than adapting buses and trains, but it is probably easier for everyone.

[1, in Danish] https://www.moviatrafik.dk/flexkunde/flexhandicap

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#140

Post by kccqzy »

jmyeet wrote: post #27

As people should know by now, in the last few decades China has built a massive amount of public transit infrastructure, both within cities and regional [1]. Some of the subway systems are pretty amazing (eg Chongqing [2]). I'm interested in how they did this and I think it comes down to a few major factors: 1. They standardize rolling stock. The same stuff is used across the country. I think this is really important…

As for the second avenue subway, you should take a look at the stations built. They are large, cathedral-like with full-length mezzanines full of grandeur. I'm not saying it's money well spent, but it's definitely a case where aesthetics is prioritized. In comparison most other subway stations are just overly utilitarian. Or take a look at the WTC Oculus station; that station alone cost $4 billion to build and is now so pleasing to look at that it's a tourist attraction on its own.
Post reply on HN