←back to thread

US cities pay too much for buses

(www.bloomberg.com)
355 points pavel_lishin | 7 comments | 26 Sep 25 13:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.311s | source | bottom
Show context
SoftTalker ◴[26 Sep 25 14:23 UTC] No.45386831[source]▶
Not sure why transit agencies are still paying for custom paint schemes or colors when they just turn around and wrap the whole bus with advertising. Just buy a plain white bus.

The article didn't mention corruption but I would not rule it out. Follow the money. Whose pockets are being filled when one transit agency is paying 2x what another one does for the same bus.

replies(5): >>45386843 #>>45387082 #>>45387093 #>>45387158 #>>45387200 #
michaelt ◴[26 Sep 25 14:43 UTC] No.45387082[source]▶
> Whose pockets are being filled when one transit agency is paying 2x what another one does for the same bus.

I mean, that could just be normal, routine failure to negotiate effectively. If every bus vendor says "call for pricing" and your organisation has "always" paid $940k per bus, when you're told to buy some more buses, you might not even know you can get them for half or a third of that price by getting competing quotes from other vendors.

And if you're an ambitious, hard-nosed type that can really turn the screws on vendors, leaving no stone unturned in your search for savings - would you be working in the purchasing department of a municipal bus company?

replies(3): >>45387148 #>>45387237 #>>45387239 #
1. xnx ◴[26 Sep 25 14:55 UTC] No.45387239[source]▶
> And if you're an ambitious, hard-nosed type that can really turn the screws on vendors,

Absolutely not. Cost savings is career suicide in the public sector. The goal is to spend all budget and then beg for more. Regardless of ridership, the ironclad rule is "budget must go up".

replies(1): >>45388385 #
2. Volundr ◴[26 Sep 25 16:35 UTC] No.45388385[source]▶
It funny because having worked both in private industry and public (transit!) service, my experience is the exact opposite. In private anytime my department were coming in under budget on anything, there was always the end of the year pressure to spend it on something lest accounting take it away. Meanwhile in the public sector my team went to great lengths to get rid of vendor services that weren't providing value.
replies(2): >>45388640 #>>45389787 #
3. xnx ◴[26 Sep 25 16:58 UTC] No.45388640[source]▶
Good example. That budget behavior is common. Fortunately, if that has true negative effects, the market corrects by putting one company out of business.
replies(1): >>45388723 #
4. Volundr ◴[26 Sep 25 17:06 UTC] No.45388723{3}[source]▶
Let me know when the market gets around to that. At this time it's ignored all the ones I've worked for.
replies(1): >>45389109 #
5. mh- ◴[26 Sep 25 17:45 UTC] No.45389109{4}[source]▶
Is it "ignoring" it, or is it priced in to the company's valuation?
replies(1): >>45392436 #
6. SoftTalker ◴[26 Sep 25 18:51 UTC] No.45389787[source]▶
In my fantasy world where I run things as a benevolent dictator, people would get bonuses for finishing the year under budget while still achieving all their objectives. I suppose that would just incent them to inflate the budgets to begin with though.
7. Volundr ◴[27 Sep 25 00:38 UTC] No.45392436{5}[source]▶
I mean could be, maybe their stock would be a touch higher, but it doesn't stop them from being some of the biggest players in their markets. A far cry from being "put out of business" as the commenter I replied to promised.