Most active commenters
  • cyberax(3)
  • jodrellblank(3)

←back to thread

US cities pay too much for buses

(www.bloomberg.com)
355 points pavel_lishin | 19 comments | 26 Sep 25 13:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.656s | source | bottom
Show context
bluGill ◴[26 Sep 25 15:13 UTC] No.45387448[source]▶
Don't be fooled, paying less won't help much since the cost of a bus is a small part of the costs of running a bus route. about half your costs are the bus driver. The most expensive bus is still only 1/3rd of your hourly cost of running the bus. If a more expensive bus is more reliable that could more than make up for a more expensive bus (I don't have any numbers to do math on though).

Half the costs of running a bus route are the driver's labor. The other half needs to pay for maintenance, the cost of the bus, and all the other overhead.

replies(6): >>45388984 #>>45389045 #>>45389067 #>>45389306 #>>45390436 #>>45392621 #
esafak ◴[26 Sep 25 17:33 UTC] No.45388984[source]▶
I'm hearing you say we should have self-driving buses... which is feasible since their route is fixed.
replies(7): >>45389011 #>>45389392 #>>45389917 #>>45390587 #>>45391005 #>>45392626 #>>45394044 #
1. kjkjadksj ◴[26 Sep 25 17:36 UTC] No.45389011[source]▶
Bus driver also does things like trigger ramp for handicapped people, strap in wheelchairs securely, answer questions about the route, and security surveillance.
replies(2): >>45389130 #>>45389417 #
2. bluGill ◴[26 Sep 25 17:47 UTC] No.45389130[source]▶
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

replies(3): >>45389258 #>>45389517 #>>45390134 #
3. Symbiote ◴[26 Sep 25 18:00 UTC] No.45389258[source]▶
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 suspect wheelchair users prefer to call the disability taxi service. It's free for wheelchair users and blind people [1]. I don't know if this service is more or less expensive to provide than adapting buses and trains, but it is probably easier for everyone.

[1, in Danish] https://www.moviatrafik.dk/flexkunde/flexhandicap

replies(3): >>45389544 #>>45390196 #>>45391181 #
4. cyberax ◴[26 Sep 25 18:16 UTC] No.45389417[source]▶
You can have a fleet of specialized self-driving taxis for people with disabilities. They can have articulated ramps or other special accommodations.
replies(1): >>45391534 #
5. xjlin0 ◴[26 Sep 25 18:25 UTC] No.45389517[source]▶
Taking a look at NYC or SF bus, are you sure that more riders solve security issues?
replies(1): >>45391237 #
6. rootusrootus ◴[26 Sep 25 18:28 UTC] No.45389544{3}[source]▶
That's relatively similar to how my local (US) municipality handles disabled passengers. All of the big infrastructure supports wheelchairs, but it is only occasionally used. Disabled people are served by mini-buses which operate point-to-point and charge them the same fare they'd pay for the big bus.
7. johnnyanmac ◴[26 Sep 25 19:28 UTC] No.45390134[source]▶
>the driver strapping them in is robbing everyone else of their valuable time

Oh so we're now fine putting more of our tax dollars into specialized disability services? If our time is more valuable, this is a steal.

replies(1): >>45390575 #
8. pessimizer ◴[26 Sep 25 19:35 UTC] No.45390196{3}[source]▶
Wheelchairs, sometimes multiple, are on Chicago buses all the time. Also rolling grocery trolleys, walkers (especially for dialysis patients where they have a medical functions) and also old people whose legs don't work so good and need the bus lowered.
9. hamandcheese ◴[26 Sep 25 20:12 UTC] No.45390575{3}[source]▶
It's paying either way. I'd rather pay with money.
replies(1): >>45390899 #
10. johnnyanmac ◴[26 Sep 25 20:51 UTC] No.45390899{4}[source]▶
I'm the same. When brought up for policy, the results tend to be very disappointing, though.
11. cogman10 ◴[26 Sep 25 21:26 UTC] No.45391181{3}[source]▶
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.

12. cogman10 ◴[26 Sep 25 21:32 UTC] No.45391237{3}[source]▶
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.

13. jodrellblank ◴[26 Sep 25 22:12 UTC] No.45391534[source]▶
You could have trams and trains with level boarding which helps people who don't have disabilities too, costs less, takes less space in the city, makes less noise, needs less maintenance, and moves more people.
replies(2): >>45391629 #>>45392631 #
14. cyberax ◴[26 Sep 25 22:27 UTC] No.45391629{3}[source]▶
Except that they don't cost less. And are more inconvenient, especially if you can't move a lot. And they're slower, and will require you to make a transfer. And don't run at night.

But otherwise,yeah. Sure.

replies(1): >>45395331 #
15. dzhiurgis ◴[27 Sep 25 01:32 UTC] No.45392631{3}[source]▶
Ah yes 100x more expensive and 10x less practical. How did we get to posting blatant nonsense here.
replies(1): >>45453891 #
16. zbentley ◴[27 Sep 25 12:56 UTC] No.45395331{4}[source]▶
Slower? In top speed maybe, but not in time-to-destination (or, given congested streets, average speed).

Trains “require” you to make a transfer? Depends on your city, I guess; many train systems are hub-and-spoke-like enough (and dense enough) that common commutes don’t require any transfers. Also, I’m curious whether bus-centric mass transit requires more or fewer transfers than train-centric or hybrid.

replies(1): >>45398847 #
17. cyberax ◴[27 Sep 25 19:54 UTC] No.45398847{5}[source]▶
> Slower? In top speed maybe, but not in time-to-destination (or, given congested streets, average speed).

Yep. Transit is ALWAYS slower on average compared to cars. It is faster only in a very narrow set of circumstances.

Try an experiment: drop 10 random points inside a city, and plot routes between them for cars and transit (you can use Google Maps API). Transit will be on average 2-3 times slower, even in the rush hour.

replies(1): >>45453804 #
18. jodrellblank ◴[02 Oct 25 18:53 UTC] No.45453804{6}[source]▶
The grass is greener where you water it. Try an experiment: don't give over the entire public space to cars, so there's no on-street parking, no surface parking lots, and the driving routes are narrow, and always give priority to people outside a car without them having to wait while pedestrian crossings give priority to cars, and then compare.
19. jodrellblank ◴[02 Oct 25 18:59 UTC] No.45453891{4}[source]▶
Tokyo's a very impractical city. It would be much more practical if all 14,000,000 people owned cars and drove them everywhere all the time. And 100x cheaper!

How did you get to posting blatant nonsense here?