Live data from Hacker News

US cities pay too much for buses

bloomberg.com

421–430 of 590 posts

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#421

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…

We also don't know much about these so called purchasing contracts either. For example. do they contain sustainment services, maintenance equipment, storage facilities, or other sourcing requirements? When using federal funds, you're generally required to purchase all American products, I remember trying to furnish an office with just two desks and four chairs (nothing fancy), and the initial cost estimates were over…

  We also don't know much about these so called purchasing contracts either.

https://www.go-metro.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Planning...

Something from this article doesn't add up. In 2023 the SORTA board approved purchase of buses with a base price of $530,000.

  Gillig LLC was the sole responding vendor and is recommended for award.

  The contract will be a firm fixed price contract with a 5-year term
  beginning immediately upon contract execution and ending on June 30, 2028.
Back in 2012 SORTA estimated that hybrid buses would cost an additional $240,000.

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/oes/mobility1/public-transport...

Assuming that $530,000 is for diesel only buses you'd have to more than double the premium to get to Bloomberg's figure as not all of the order was for hybrid buses.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#422

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…

But a bus isn't just a bus, there are differences in what is needed in different cities. Some need heat, some need AC, some need both. In Utah there are buses that go up the canyons and they have gearboxes focused on climbing steep hills, while a bus in the valley might never need that ratio and can be optimized for efficiency on the flats. Seattle has buses with electric trolley lines above, and buses that were desi…

PHEV drivetrain with a 50 mile all electric range: would handle virtually all of the situations.

Climbing a steep hill? EV drivetrains don't care and provide great torque. Start/stop? perfect. Regenerative braking? There you go. Need all-electric for a spell? Gas to extend range? Gas for AC/Heat? ok ok ok. Smooth operation? Low noise? Low/no emissions? yes yes yes Less wear? Less gas? Lower operating costs? Simpler drivetrains? Simpler repairs? yes to all of it.

Every bus should have been forced to be a PHEV drivetrain within a decade of the Prius/Insight being released in 1997. The USPS should have been all PHEV by then too.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a bus isn't just a bus, there are differences in what is needed in different cities. Some need heat, some need AC, some need both. In Utah there are buses that go up the canyons and they have gearboxes focused on climbing steep hills, while a bus in the valley might never need that ratio and can be optimized for efficiency on the flats. Seattle has buses with electric trolley lines above, and buses that were desi…

> Seattle has buses with electric trolley lines above, and buses that were designed to go through the tunnel under downtown on battery power to avoid causing air quality issues in a confined space. And then the city government, in its infinite wisdom, decided to shut the tunnel down and make it light rail-only, forcing the buses up onto the surface and clogging up the street grid.

The tunnel belonged to King County, not the city government, and transferring it to Sound Transit was in fact a wise decision. It would not be possible to run a train every six minutes during peak hours if they still had to share the tunnel with buses, and the 3rd Ave transit corridor sees more bus throughput than the tunnel ever did.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#424

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 left? The US doesn't have a leftist party. Any time a leftist starts looking like they are gaining both parties do everything possible to shut them down.

In American parlance, Joe Biden is "the left" and Nancy Pelosi is "the far left". I'm guessing both are probably considered center-right from an international perspective?

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also don't know much about these so called purchasing contracts either. For example. do they contain sustainment services, maintenance equipment, storage facilities, or other sourcing requirements? When using federal funds, you're generally required to purchase all American products, I remember trying to furnish an office with just two desks and four chairs (nothing fancy), and the initial cost estimates were over…

All the contract stuff is too muddled to even consider debating online. I'd start with one HUGE obvious waste. Why don't the buses anywhere have some sort of uber style pickup. My point. I see countless buses running empty all the time through the day where I live outside of busy hours. It is so depressing to watch 3 empty busses pull up to an empty stop to not pick anyone up then do it again and again and again.. I…

What you're talking about does exist, but it is specialized. For example, UTA (Utah Transit Authority) has both UTA On Demand - a "microtransit" service that's basically an Uber run by the bus company - as well as Flex buses that will deviate on request for a slightly higher fare (although you do have to set it up in advance). UTA uses these services for two specific niches of transit riders:

1. People who live in transit-poor suburbs

2. People with physical disabilities

To be fair, these have significant overlap. The common factor being "demand that can't be aggregated to a fixed bus route".

Once you have enough demand to have a fixed bus route, however, the most important thing is frequency. Schedule anxiety is the worst part of taking any public transit system. I find that if a bus or train comes every 15 minutes, I stop checking the schedule. Additionally, once you start scheduling frequent buses, then transfer times go down, which makes the bus network dramatically more usable.

Think about it this way: if you need to take a trip that involves a transfer between two buses, and the buses come hourly, you have an average transfer time of... 30 minutes, where you won't be doing anything to progress towards your destination. Your transit operator can futz with scheduling to try and make that transfer tighter, but buses infamously have to share infrastructure with private cars, which means they'll never actually come on time. The worst case scenario being you schedule tight transfers on an infrequent bus, then the first bus gets delayed enough to turn that tight transfer into an hour long wait[0].

Alternatively, you can just run more buses, and so long as they all make progress in the road grid you get tight transfers naturally. Miss your transfer? Oh no... anyway, here's the next bus.

On the other hand, if you're seeing three empty buses pull up to the same stop all at once, that sounds like you have bunching, which is the most catastrophic failure mode of any transit system. What happened is that your transit agency scheduled frequent buses at reasonable times, but some blockage along the route - traffic, construction, etc - delayed a bus long enough to arrive alongside the next bus in the sequence. The front bus will be nearly full and the next buses on will be almost empty. And as the day continues this can continue delaying buses until you have destroyed almost all the capacity and frequency in the system unless they take emergency action to pull buses out of the system and reinsert them at different parts of the route.

The way you prevent this is to give the bus dedicated lanes. The whole BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) concept involves moving bus stops to the center of streets, having offboard fare payment[1], level boarding, digital signage, signal priority at stoplights, and so on. Some of this is just to make BRT feel more "train-like", but a lot of it also lets buses maintain a tight schedule and not bunch up.

[0] I am aware of some bus systems where the bus drivers will actively radio one another to request a delay specifically so that riders don't miss their transfers. AFAIK, Suffolk Transit will do that, but only if the two buses are on the same part of the network, since ST is actually four bus companies wearing a trenchcoat.

[1] When bus drivers are responsible for fare collection, riders have to all enter from the front and all other doors on the bus are exit only. Which increases dwell time (the amount of time you spend at each stop). In fact, this is why Zohran Mamdani wants to make NYC buses free - specifically to speed them up.

Also, while I'm talking about bus boarding, I have rode buses in Japan that had people paying with IC cards enter from the rear, or worse, enter from the front and then tap your IC card at the back exit while the bus driver is trying to explain this to you in incomprehensibly mumbly Japanese.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, he told us that without subsidies, the life cycle costs would be "diesel buses, followed by hybrids, and then with a huge difference, EV buses and then fuel cell buses." He asserts that, as things stand, "neither EV buses nor fuel cell buses would be profitable in terms of life cycle costs without subsidies." > Tai said, "Relying on subsidies to introduce EV buses and fuel cell buses cannot be co…

Your link doesn't work. However, I know electric busses have won tenders over diesel in many places that don't have any eco-subsidies. Japan may have special conditions, like diesel/electricity price may be unfavorable or "build local" rules and no local competition in EV building.

ok, it looks like `?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en` parameters were mandatory, sorry. fixed link: https://trafficnews-jp.translate.goog/post/587367/3?_x_tr_sl...

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing is, fundamentally there is very little difference between a truck, a bus and a tank. I can see your point, but I'm not buying this argument for multiple reasons. First, if you do blanket-protectionism like this, the actual strategic gain per "wasted" tax-dollar is abysmal. You could have just bought those singaporean busses, and spent the money on skunkworks and lithium mine subsidies instead if you actua…

> But secondly, I would argue that you really don't. What kind of war are you even anticipating where you would need massively scaled up tank production of all things? The war we're seeing in Ukraine right now. Europe has by far not enough tanks, especially heavy self-propelling artillery, to counter Russia. And for whatever reason, despite us actually having manufacturers for vehicles, we still haven't spun up large…

What is your threat scenario? Russia marching on EU capitals? After the showing in Ukraine I'm fairly confident that Poland alone with moderate support could put a complete stop to that. They are still growing and modernizing their land forces, but Russia has plenty of losses to recover from, too.

But I feel that argument almost supports my point: If you think Poland/Germany urgently needs more armored vehicles, then spending taxes specifically on that is way more efficient than subsidising the local bus industry.

Isolating yourself is also straight up painful economically, and you also lose a soft way of de-escalation/prevention. I'm not convinced that's a net gain.

Aggregate numbers also don't look that bad to me from a Europe vs Russia point of view; if you sum up vehicle numbers for European countries the gap is no longer that big, and European inventories are on average more modern/capable, too.

How much growth in those numbers would you like to see to be able to sleep at ease?

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#428
post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The second you detach the consumer from the > price of something, even through an > intermediary such as health insurance, that > is when they stop caring about how much > something costs, and so the price jumps. In reality, this claim doesn't survive a cursory glance at the OECD's numbers for health expenditure per capita[1]. You'll find that (even ignoring the outlier that is the US health care system) that in so…

If consumers actually directly paid the whole cost for health services (as opposed to a fixed price, like a $20 copay, etc.), the prices charged would become far more regular. An easy way to examine this is to compare the price of over-the-counter versus pharmaceuticals. If a third party weren't paying for them, the price would have to either come down to something affordable to the average person, or else the market…

If it "would have" to happen, how do you explain the data cited by the comment you're responding to where it clearly hasn't?

Reasoning about things abstractly without taking in into account actually measured phenomena that conflict with your conclusions; just ask Aristotle.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#429
post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm convinced that a great majority of problems in the US these days fundamentally boils down to principal agent problems. The 2008 financial crisis is a great example. Once banks no longer kept mortgages on their own books, it just became a matter of time until that was going to blow up. The incentives change.

It takes more than just misaligned incentives to get a banking crisis -- you have to have structural corruption preventing the transfer of the loss gradient back to the "misaligned" decision makers. It's somewhat disingenuous (or overly innocent) to reimagine the pathways which power structural corruption as "innocent ignorance in the face of bad incentives". The real world has "actually bad" actors -- not just misal…

Try to think of corruption as inefficiency to get the desired effect instead of some dude accepting some money under the table.

Sometimes a dude getting some money does not yield the worst outcome which is why some countries still run despite the corruption.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, he told us that without subsidies, the life cycle costs would be "diesel buses, followed by hybrids, and then with a huge difference, EV buses and then fuel cell buses." He asserts that, as things stand, "neither EV buses nor fuel cell buses would be profitable in terms of life cycle costs without subsidies." > Tai said, "Relying on subsidies to introduce EV buses and fuel cell buses cannot be co…

Life cycles costs are not what is being argued here, but operating costs of a battery electric bus compared to a diesel one. The electric variant is clearly significantly cheaper to operate (like my linked source shows) even taking charging infrastructure and maintenance into account. Battery electric busses becoming CAPEX competitive with diesel ones is also just a matter of time in my view (case in point: singapore…

  > Even looking purely at the financials, diesel is fucked.
  > My takeaway: No reasonable assumption exists that would make operating battery electric busses more expensive than diesel ones.
The problem here is that these were your initial opinions that aren't supported by the reality. Diesel is fucked, long term, and that's good, but that's also long term future, not the reality right now like you were arguing. The matter of time is sometimes the matter.
Post reply on HN