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

231–240 of 590 posts

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#231

Post by johnnyanmac »

taeric wrote: post #64
PaulHoule wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of it is that "legacy" products often involve more difficult engineering than people think. Circa 1980 this bus design was a notorious failure in NYC: https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Grumman_Flxible_870 Buses get shaken really hard.

It is amusing/depressing to consider this as getting punished for having expensive engineering to avoid failures. If you do put in more engineering to get a more robust solution, you wind up not hitting the expensive failures and people start to assume you just spent more money in engineering than you needed to.

It worked back then because labor was expensive, because unions were waning, but still strong in the 80's. If labor is expensive, you make sure to do it right once.

Nowadays with spending power way down, it may in fact be more "efficient" to get something out quick, and have frequent repairs. If you hit the expensive failure... welp, just throw it out and make a new one.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#232

Post by baggy_trough »

kuschku wrote: post #227
baggy_trough wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We solved that several generations ago with cars.

Considering the amount of traffic jams, wasted space due to parking lots, and lost third places, I'd argue "solved" isn't exactly accurate.

Traffic jams are solved by congestion pricing. Parking lot congestion can be solved the same way with pay-parking lots. I don't know what cars have to do with "lost third places".

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#233

Post by frollogaston »

SoftTalker wrote: post #220
frollogaston wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't insurance care about the pricing though? I get why federal govt isn't sensitive, given 0 competition.

Insurance profit is limited to a percentage of what they pay out. So the more they pay, the more money they make.

Oh, that's important info. Also such a rule suggests that health insurance isn't a competitive market.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#234

Post by 1024core »

This reminds me of the "trash can fiasco" that went down in San Fracnsico.

https://sfpublicworks.org/trashcanredesign

TL;DR: San Francisco government decided to go with custom-designed, bespoke, artisanal public trash cans. Each can ended up coming in at around $20K.

When, in fact, if you buy a typical run-of-the-mill public trash can that most other cities do, it would cost them less than $1000.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#235

Post by SoftTalker »

cyberax wrote: post #207
bluGill wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

general rule of thumb is 5 passangers for a but to break even. Now a civic is a smaller car so it will be better, and you specified 3 passanges whes single occupant is by far more likely - even with those unrealistic assumption a typical bus will do well overall.

> general rule of thumb is 5 passangers for a but to break even. "Break even" how? A bus has a road footprint of about 15 cars (it's more than the physical bus length because it also occupies the road during stops and is less maneuverable). 15 cars have the occupancy of about 25 people. > even with those unrealistic assumption a typical bus will do well overall. Nope. Buses absolutely fail in efficiency. They pollute…

They also contribute to pollution when they are stopped and you have 10 cars idling behind them because there's no room to pass. Repeat every 2 blocks.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#236

Post by avree »

1024core wrote: post #234

This reminds me of the "trash can fiasco" that went down in San Fracnsico. https://sfpublicworks.org/trashcanredesign TL;DR: San Francisco government decided to go with custom-designed, bespoke, artisanal public trash cans. Each can ended up coming in at around $20K. When, in fact, if you buy a typical run-of-the-mill public trash can that most other cities do, it would cost them less than $1000.

You are conflating two things with that story. The prototypes cost $20,000. The designed can cost $3,000. Higher than your "$1,000" can, but it also had a bunch of "features". If you've ever worked at a hardware company, you probably know that the price of DVT units, or any prototype, ends up being significantly higher than the production unit.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#237

Post by conductr »

crazygringo wrote: post #181
conductr wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buses typically have lit signage indicating their route number or next stop, it’s kind of a dead giveaway and paint job can be ignored

When they're further away you can't read the signage, and long-distance buses have signage too. The paint job really is important because it's vastly more visible. It also often does things like distinguish between local buses and commuter buses, depending on your city.

I really don’t understand why long distance visibility/visual identification is such an important feature. Care to elaborate?

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#238

Post by bee_rider »

ecshafer wrote: post #133

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 hav…

> 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.

I don’t know much about bus procurement, but I’m not sure I believe you just based on the fact that you’ve ridden on lots of busses.

I’d expect that things like tire choice, engine, and transmission choices could be dependent on weather and geography. I’d expect any expensive differences to show up there, and I don’t really see how a passenger would gain much insight.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#239

Post by littlestymaar »

frollogaston wrote: post #233
SoftTalker wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance profit is limited to a percentage of what they pay out. So the more they pay, the more money they make.

Oh, that's important info. Also such a rule suggests that health insurance isn't a competitive market.

There's no such thing as a “competitive market” in the real world.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#240

Post by estebank »

baggy_trough wrote: post #232
kuschku wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the amount of traffic jams, wasted space due to parking lots, and lost third places, I'd argue "solved" isn't exactly accurate.

Traffic jams are solved by congestion pricing. Parking lot congestion can be solved the same way with pay-parking lots. I don't know what cars have to do with "lost third places".

Congestion pricing works when there are alternatives. If you have both no public transport and congestion pricing, what you have is only increased tax collection with no behavioral change.
Post reply on HN