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

301–310 of 590 posts

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#301

Post by johnQdeveloper »

nickff wrote: post #273
tehjoker wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preventative care is free because it saves a tremendous amount of money for the insurance company and physical and emotional hardship for yourself by catching bad things early.

Your view is a commonly-held one, and makes a lot of sense; unfortunately there is very little support for it. One data point to the contrary is the Oregon Health Care Study, which showed that 'free' preventative care increased healthcare spending, but did not improve lifespan or reduce long-term cost.

Anecdotally, if I hadn't gotten tested as part of a long term physical I wouldn't know about stuff that would cause my body to fail much younger than it would otherwise and lead to an early death.

So hey, at least in my case, it worked as the commonly held belief states.

And that study doesn't look at multi-decade long term effects like diabetes, etc. where you need it for a decade (or longer!) untreated (or poorly managed) before it kills ya. But it still kills ya years early.

So even the "raising rates of diabetes detection" in combination with your belief from that study proves you incorrect when people talk long term.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#302

Post by cogman10 »

Symbiote wrote: post #139
bluGill wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 susp…

This honestly makes a lot of sense, particularly because the number of people that need wheelchairs is so much smaller than the general population.

I visit hospitals pretty frequently and while it's not never that I see someone in a wheelchair, it's not every day and it's definitely not a majority of the visitors.

When I'm out and about in public, I basically never see wheelchair users.

It makes sense to simply have a taxi service instead. Far more convenient for the wheelchair user and you don't need to retrofit every bus with wheelchair access.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#303

Post by conductr »

crazygringo wrote: post #264
conductr wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You see a city bus 4 blocks away, and the bus stop is 1 block away, and if you walk fast you can make it to the bus stop in time to catch it. If you didn't look and just walked at normal speed you'd end up having to wait 20 more minutes for the next bus.

I half expected that answer and I personally feel it’s not the responsibility of the buses to invest in custom paint to afford you this convenience. Obviously it would be nice if buses ran on time and I could just tell you to rush if you knew you were running late, but even without that, I feel haste is your responsibility if you’re concerned with making the next bus and not having to wait by just missing it

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#304

Post by goalieca »

decimalenough wrote: post #250
lazyasciiart wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they certainly don’t all come with AC and heat.

I haven't seen a non-AC bus in ages, even in developing countries.

In Vancouver the climate generally does not need them. Some days it gets hot and those suck.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#305

Post by hdgvhicv »

ericmcer wrote: post #257
RobKohr wrote: post #202

"Federal funding typically covers 80% of bus purchases, with agencies responsible for the remainder." Well, there is your answer. The one making the purchase isn't the one primarily paying for the purchase. This makes them less sensitive to pricing. Kinda like how expensive healthcare is since it is paid for by insurance. Or how you don't care how much you put on your plate or what you choose to eat at an all you can…

It's even worse, I will use my healthcare just because it is free. I would feel like a moron not get my free physical, bloodwork and other labs every year. If it was $20 I wouldn't bother but its almost obligatory to take something "because its free". Once I learn something is free it is like I already own it, so now I don't get it if I take it, I lose it if I don't.

It’s not fee though is it. How many hours does it take do go somewhere and have a checkup? Almost certainly more than $20 worth.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#306

Post by MrMorden »

axiolite wrote: post #278
vkou wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the choice between clogging up the city grid for car commuters, and clogging up the rail grid because buses are pushed to share rail lines, I'm going to pull the trigger on the first option, every day of the week. Clogging up the rail grid was somewhat acceptable when it was a few end-of-line terminal stops, but now those tunnels are in the middle of the rail network. A bus breaking down and blocking the tunnel…

It's not that pushing buses onto surface streets makes it worse for cars. It's that it makes it worse for buses, which then leads people to take cars instead, which makes things even worse.

Only because the current mayor hates non-drivers and is sandbagging bus lanes. Seattle's buses will become a lot faster in January once the Wilson administration starts putting bus lanes everywhere.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#307

Post by vkou »

axiolite wrote: post #278
vkou wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the choice between clogging up the city grid for car commuters, and clogging up the rail grid because buses are pushed to share rail lines, I'm going to pull the trigger on the first option, every day of the week. Clogging up the rail grid was somewhat acceptable when it was a few end-of-line terminal stops, but now those tunnels are in the middle of the rail network. A bus breaking down and blocking the tunnel…

It's not that pushing buses onto surface streets makes it worse for cars. It's that it makes it worse for buses, which then leads people to take cars instead, which makes things even worse.

1. Priority bus lanes are solving that problem.

2. If getting through downtown by bus is slow, getting through it by car isn't any faster.

Anyways, Seattle's transit problem isn't bad downtown bus service, it's godawful spoke-and-last-mile coverage, which eviscerates ridership, makes the overall network less efficient, and forms a negative-feedback-loop that blocks transit improvements.

Nobody likes sitting around for half an hour waiting for a bus that will take them to another bus.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#308

Post by cogman10 »

xjlin0 wrote: post #167
bluGill wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Taking a look at NYC or SF bus, are you sure that more riders solve security issues?

Yes, this is simply a well known fact.

You can look up the NYPD report on crime for the month of june the total amount of reported crime was 427 for all forms of transport (metro, bus, etc). 3.6 million people use public transport in NYC daily.

No matter where you are, you'll never drive that number to 0. But if you wanted to make it better then you'd stop positioning the police to catch turnstile jumpers and you start positioning police to ride public transport during low ridership times to prevent incident.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#309

Post by thegreatpeter »

RobKohr wrote: post #202

"Federal funding typically covers 80% of bus purchases, with agencies responsible for the remainder." Well, there is your answer. The one making the purchase isn't the one primarily paying for the purchase. This makes them less sensitive to pricing. Kinda like how expensive healthcare is since it is paid for by insurance. Or how you don't care how much you put on your plate or what you choose to eat at an all you can…

Posts like these on Hacker News are quite interesting bc if this scenario comes up in any "left vs right" debate, it's always shot down as a terrible concept and idea to keep the government out of it.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#310

Post by bsder »

infecto wrote: post #22
lenerdenator wrote: post #2

> "A new paper argues that lack of competition, demand for custom features and “Buy America” rules have driven up costs for transit agencies in the US." If that's not the most NYC finance-centered headline ever, I don't know what is. "If we just offload our bus-building industry to somewhere else, we could save $x on taxes each year. Yeah, it eliminates jobs and is another blow against strategically-important heavy i…

One of the worst takes I have ever seen. It’s not about offloading an industry but if another geography has a comparative advantage everyone benefits. I would also argue that customizations are indeed a total waste of money for systems that already cash strapped.

> if another geography has a comparative advantage everyone benefits.

I don't necessarily agree. Outsourcing has a cost in that you also lose the knowledge of the entire engineering chain.

That engineering chain has a LOT of value to us as a society. However, it has negative value to a single CEO looking at his quarterly bonus.

Post reply on HN