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

431–440 of 590 posts

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#431

Post by hackernewds »

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...

there's no reason to be patronizing or condescending

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#432

Post by conductr »

crazygringo wrote: post #378
conductr wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Huh? Why not have identifying paint? I can't even imagine what would give you this idea. Like, they've got to be some color or set of colors. Do you think police officers should just wear street clothes rather than us paying for their uniforms? Should taxis that you hail from the street be indistinguishable from regular cars because you think the little illuminated sign on top is enough? We color things and make them…

I didn’t ask for your help other than accepting other opinions exist. In some cases the distinction is of high value. In some cases it’s at low cost. I’m of opinion this is low value and high cost, thus the cost benefit analysis fails. You’re free to disagree.

Cop uniforms are low cost and serve a significantly higher purpose. Taxis being a distinct color is unnecessary too. If I can identify a Dominos delivery vehicle from a distance, than they just need to try harder with their lit signs. A simple redesign could render vehicle paint job obsolete. Just because it’s been that way doesn’t mean it is the best or only solution and it certainly doesn’t mean it has to remain that way.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#433

Post by vasco »

hackernewds wrote: post #431
Y_Y wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

there's no reason to be patronizing or condescending

This is an example of the agent thinking it has to defend the principal but misunderstanding context.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#435

Post by kjkjadksj »

jmyeet wrote: post #173
kjkjadksj wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “tiny towns” like merced where the HSR will stop are some of the fastest growing cities in California.

There's a whole host of concessions and project redesigns that occurred for essentially political reasons. Just look at the currently proposed route map [1]. It deviates to the east side of the valley because that's where these towns are vs the west side, which is more direct. Deviating a supposedly high speed route for small towns doesn't make a ton of sense. Not only does it increase the cost and travel time direct…

The central valley is where growth is expected. See growth projections into the middle of the century. It is expected to double in population. Look at the rate of growth already. These "little towns" of 100k people basically double in size every 20 years. Greenfield is where the growth happens because CA urban politicians are against meaningful amounts of infill development. If they built it along the 5 in 50 years when the central valley has over 15 million people, you'd say it was foolish not serving these communities when they had a chance.

Brightline is building a victorville to vegas train. They have no plan to reach LA. Maybe as close as Rancho Cucamonga. In either case no work has been done yet on that project while construction on the HSR is ongoing.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#436

Post by kjkjadksj »

comte7092 wrote: post #115
kjkjadksj wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t most busses CNG these days?

Most buses are diesel, and are transitioning to either battery electric or hydrogen fuel cell. Almost no fleets in the US are running majority CNG.

LA metro has 2200 CNG busses.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#437

Post by danpalmer »

4MOAisgoodenuf wrote: post #415
danpalmer wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But a bus isn't just a bus, there are differences in what is needed in different cities That's sometimes true but often not. Utah might need buses to go up the canyons, but might have passed some requirement at some point that said that all the buses need to be able to do this because someone got burnt once by not having enough of those buses. Or some well-meaning (or vote seeking?) city councillor might have put t…

Do you have a specific citeable example of unnecessary “custom requirements” driving up the cost of city buses in the US

My point about the buses is about "missing the forest for the trees", so the fact that you've focused on getting a specific citable example while missing the point is quite ironic.

Here's an industry article about the phenomenon: https://enotrans.org/article/a-bus-is-a-bus-the-costs-of-exc...

And here's a study documenting excess customisation as a driver of the costs: https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/paying-less-for... – which notes that "70 percent of contracts in the BGS data in 2024 were for unique buses".

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#438

Post by kortilla »

qgin wrote: post #398
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…

I have a $6500 deductible. I definitely care what things cost because my insurance almost never actually helps pay for anything unless I have an unbelievably bad year. The problem is that literally nobody can tell me how much anything is going to cost until I get the bill in a month. Not even because they don't want to tell me. Nobody at the desk even knows what my price is going to be because it's all numberwang.

You care about small costs but not the large ones. Even with a relatively large deductible it’s irrelevant to you if your hospital charges $50k or $90k for a surgery.

$6500 is nothing once surgery, radiation, and/or anesthesiology enters the picture.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#439

Post by kortilla »

avar wrote: post #325
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…

> 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…

Markets with prices fixed by the government have fixed prices. This isn’t interesting for markets

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#440

Post by littlestymaar »

itsmek wrote: post #296
littlestymaar wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Global commodities are not competitive?

What commodity isn't ruled by intergovernmental agreements, a cartel, a monopsony or something else?

Please name just one.

Post reply on HN