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

311–320 of 590 posts

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#311

Post by theologic »

cogman10 wrote: post #288
tehjoker wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a counterintuitive study, when there are highly motivated political actors trying to deprive people of social benefits, makes me highly skeptical. Catching bad things early is almost always better. Diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc, cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to treat caught late and prevent people from working or doing things they like to do, and mere thousands to treat early while pre…

Cancer, in particular, can be practically free to insurance if caught early. Colon and skin cancer are the poster children. Colon cancer can be treated in the process of doing the screening when caught early. And skin cancer is a pretty minor "just lop off that mole" procedure that also ends up being the treatment. Letting it grow and catching it when symptoms arise is terribly expensive. The chemo, surgery, scans, a…

Another variation of this are GLP 1 drugs.

Obesity costs USA $1.75T (https://milkeninstitute.org/content-hub/news-releases/econom..., grossed up for inflation)

Number of people that are obese: 100M

Annual economic impact from obesity per person: $17,500 per year

GLP-1 "For All": $6,000 per year (assuming multiple vendors, and some will be over vs under)

Savings: $11,500 per year per person.

Economic impact: Around $1T

This should free up around 3% of GDP for better uses of money rather than just fixing up people.

Obviously, the devil is in the details, but the potential impact is so massive that it should be deeply studied.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#312

Post by maxerickson »

freeopinion wrote: post #255
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…

Your excerpts don't divulge whether one of the bus manufacturers is required by law to pay health insurance, social security, and other labor costs. Are they required by law to treat the water from their cooling towers before they dump it in the river? Do they have to pay a 50% tariff on imported parts? I'm sure there is a lot of slop in different purchasing departments. They can probably all tighten things up. But t…

The 2 bus contracts were with the same manufacturer, which is headquartered in California.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#313

Post by theologic »

Y_Y wrote: post #254
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…

And congratulations to any of today's lucky ten thousand who are just learning of the Principal-Agent Problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...

Throw in confirmation bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias and you have a lot of inertia from changing. Not only do they not have the right info, but because they have invested in the ongoing solution, it is difficult to get any change going because humans tend to simply see everything as supporting their current viewpoint.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#314

Post by maxerickson »

SoftTalker wrote: post #244
uxp100 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is tainted by the fact that the battery electric busses are new and the diesel busses are (comparatively) old, but our battery electric busses are far more comfortable to ride. Diesels are uh, jerky. Maybe the drivers fault, but that’s how it is.

It's probably more the brakes than the engine. Diesel engines don't provide much of an engine braking effect (unless fitted with additional mechanisms a/k/a "Jake Brake" to provide this) so the vehicles use friction brakes any time they need to slow down, which can be jerky especially with air brakes. Electric buses would have regenerative braking which is probably smoother.

They use hydraulic retarders in the transmission rather than engine brakes.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#315

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

lenerdenator wrote: post #103
PaulHoule wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is the public sector does have competition. We have a surplus of houses with XXL master bedroom suites in Arizona and a deficit of high speed rail. If they used union labor to build houses in Arizona and non-union labor to build high speed rail it would be the other way around. If it costs the public sector 3x as much to do things as the private sector people are going to turn against the public sector. Hav…

> If it costs the public sector 3x as much to do things as the private sector people are going to turn against the public sector. Have crazy people screaming on the street corner in the city and people will retreat to the suburbs and order from Amazon instead of going shopping, order a private taxi for their burrito instead of going to a restaurant. If the public sector were efficient, responsive and pleasant people…

Private sector knows how to keep costs down, but that's because the incentive is to enrich the people at the top. This eventually comes at the cost of quality.

Public sector sometimes acts like they have infinite money. They'll just print more and drive up inflation while paying lip service to voters and pretending to care during election season.

There's also the massive corruption in the public sector. All the work is actually done by the private sector, but the contract isn't decided on who will delivery the best quality at the lowest cost, no no no. You'd have to be naive to believe that. The actual decision is based on who will kick back the most money (labeled as "campaign contributions") to the people who are in charge of making the decision.

So really, both suck. Private sector will give you a shitty product at a great price. Public section will give you a terrible price with the quality being a complete gamble.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#316

Post by maxerickson »

logifail wrote: post #161

Ever since I first looked at the Oshkosh NGDV for the USPS I couldn't help but wonder WHY there was a need for a custom vehicle?* European parcel delivery firms and postal systems (Deutsche Post DHL, La Poste, Royal Mail, PostNL and all the non-legacy competitors) generally do not commission purpose-built vehicles, they buy off the shelf small vans and light commercial vehicles. * of course I do know why, "because jo…

The frame and overall design of these buses is not custom (and often changes little year to year). The drivetrain, accessories, and so on are selected from options.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#317

Post by NoahZuniga »

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.

These free things are preventative. If you take them, the insurance company expects you to need less healthcare in the future, so actually this is a good thing (and not a problem as in the op)!

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#318

Post by dotnet00 »

Jensson wrote: post #285
baggy_trough wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's false because everyone has alternatives (you can stay home, for example). Raising the price will always on margin reduce trips.

How do you get to work when you stay home?

Just be a rich tech worker with a remote job /s

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#319

Post by NooneAtAll3 »

estearum wrote: post #269
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.

Also the largest insurers increasingly own the doctors you’re seeing too. Also the pharmacy you get your drugs from. Also the entity that negotiates prices between pharma companies and your insurer. More healthcare consumption = better, across the board

> More healthcare consumption = better, across the board

no

more paid money for less healthcare consumed = better for insurence

thus all the declined treatments

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#320

Post by baggy_trough »

Jensson wrote: post #285
baggy_trough wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's false because everyone has alternatives (you can stay home, for example). Raising the price will always on margin reduce trips.

How do you get to work when you stay home?

If you have to go to work to keep your job, then staying home isn't a great alternative. But there are others! Carpooling for example. Or, maybe you're one of the people that will keep driving. But not everyone is like you, and some won't.
Post reply on HN