Most active commenters
  • baggy_trough(5)
  • itopaloglu83(4)
  • namibj(3)

←back to thread

355 points pavel_lishin | 27 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
ecshafer ◴[] No.45389198[source]
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 have been on busses all over the country, a metro bus, is a metro bus. There are not really differences based on topography or climate.

>Two US transit agencies, RTD and SORTA, bought similar 40-foot, diesel-powered buses from the same manufacturer in 2023, but RTD's 10 buses cost $432,028 each, while SORTA's 17 cost $939,388 each.

The issue here appears to be: Why is SORTA's purchasing so incompetent that they are buying 17 busses for the price of 35? They are over double the price of RTD.

> That same year, Singapore’s Land Transport Authority also bought buses. Their order called for 240 fully electric vehicles — which are typically twice as expensive as diesel ones in the US. List price: Just $333,000 each.

Singapore has a very efficient, highly trained, highly educated, highly paid administrative staff, and their competency is what is being shown here. They thought to get a reduction in price because of the large number of busses they are ordering.

One solution the author doesn't point out is that Federal funds often come coupled with a large amount of bureaucratic red tape. It could be cheaper in the long run to have more tax collection and expenditure at the local level, and not rely as much on federal grants.

replies(14): >>45389294 #>>45389609 #>>45389643 #>>45390216 #>>45390300 #>>45390395 #>>45390484 #>>45392114 #>>45392534 #>>45392723 #>>45393130 #>>45393219 #>>45393997 #>>45395252 #
itopaloglu83 ◴[] No.45389294[source]
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 six thousand dollars. When we acquired private funding, we were able to get everything under two thousand, you can see the same pricing with Zoom hardware as a service leasing prices as well, they're leasing some equipment almost at twice the cost due (as far as I know) to all American sourcing.

I'm not questioning the sourcing restrictions, but trying to point out that it's a little more than the education level of the staff only.

replies(3): >>45389563 #>>45391783 #>>45393242 #
1. citizenpaul ◴[] No.45389563[source]
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 was once told it cost something like $250+ every time an empty bus drives one direction on its empty route. And there are hundreds of busses that do this for hours each day. Just so in case someone is there they can be picked up.

It seems like a dynamic system for determining where where people that need the bus are would be a massive saving. Or really just changing to a taxi style system only using buses during rush hours. I think some cities are actually experimenting with this.

Someone is gonna come at me about the reliability scheduling of transport for underprividged. But they have never actually rode a bus route so they don't know that the buses are as reliably late as they are on time in 90% of cities. This change would likely improve scheduling for people that need it.

replies(8): >>45389718 #>>45389782 #>>45389794 #>>45389947 #>>45390336 #>>45390450 #>>45390617 #>>45393360 #
2. SpicyUme ◴[] No.45389718[source]
There are some variable pickup transit services, but you may not see them because of when/where they go. I know around me there are zones where you can call for pickup and they use small shuttle buses. I think they drop of within the zone or at other bus stops, but I haven't used the service so I'm not sure.

My preferred way to solve bus lane reliability would be to shut down streets or lanes to only allow buses.

3. milesvp ◴[] No.45389782[source]
I've thought about this a lot, and wonder if the last mile problem could be lessened with an uber style pickup you suggest. I have a civil engineer relative who follows this stuff better than I do, and he says all the pilot programs he's seen (in the US) tend to be wildly unprofitable.

That said, I think that some program like this is essential to bootstrapping a really good transit system. The last mile problem really does stop a lot of would be commuters and is a huge, largely hidden cost, in regional transit planning. You could have fewer, more reliable trunks, that can run less reliably after core commuting hours, all because you have ways of alleviating the pain associated with difficulty getting to out of the way places. This allows people to make life decisions that they might not otherwise be able to make. And once you have a solid core, you can continue to grow it, by continuing to encourage long term ridership. Couple this with increasingly aggressive zoning changes to allow for density, and I think you could really grow out a transit system in 10-20 years.

But this is a fantasy of mine. It would likely be wildly unpopular to run an unprofitable program long enough to make all of this possible, and would probably only work in regions that have the potential for good transit anyways. You'd also need a large cohort of YIMBYs, that while currently growing in many regions, aren't guaranteed to still vote that way in a decade when they have more to lose.

replies(1): >>45390227 #
4. itopaloglu83 ◴[] No.45389794[source]
Yes, they're empty, but it's also a catch 22 because it takes urbanization, frequent bus services, and a lot of time for people to adjust to it. Anyone who spent enough time in Europe can tell you about how efficient, convenient, and efficient a bus network can get. Also, most people go to work, so buses tend to be very busy in the morning and at shift changes etc.

It's not magic though, there are a lot of places where buses simply will not work and we need to find better ways to improve mobility. I don't have the slightest idea how, it's a generational effort.

replies(1): >>45390110 #
5. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.45389947[source]
>Someone is gonna come at me about the reliability scheduling of transport for underprividged. But they have never actually rode a bus route so they don't know that the buses are as reliably late as they are on time in 90% of cities. This change would likely improve scheduling for people that need it.

So your justification for not having reliably scheduling comes down to "well we never had reliable scheduling", and your solution is to make the schedule more chaotic?

Why do we just accept and the broken windows in order to try and make new buildings, instead of fixing the windows?

6. baggy_trough ◴[] No.45390110[source]
We solved that several generations ago with cars.
replies(3): >>45390223 #>>45392680 #>>45394467 #
7. kuschku ◴[] No.45390223{3}[source]
Considering the amount of traffic jams, wasted space due to parking lots, and lost third places, I'd argue "solved" isn't exactly accurate.
replies(1): >>45390265 #
8. treis ◴[] No.45390227[source]
Most bus systems in the US are wildly unprofitable and quite costly. My local system is just under $10 per unlinked trip (i.e. get one on bus). That makes getting from point A to point B not much cheaper to provide than Uber because it will usually involve a transfer.

Everyone would be better off in an Uber type system but there's no appetite or budget to subsidize rides at the level people would use it

replies(1): >>45392223 #
9. baggy_trough ◴[] No.45390265{4}[source]
Traffic jams are solved by congestion pricing. Parking lot congestion can be solved the same way with pay-parking lots. I don't know what cars have to do with "lost third places".
replies(1): >>45390327 #
10. estebank ◴[] No.45390327{5}[source]
Congestion pricing works when there are alternatives. If you have both no public transport and congestion pricing, what you have is only increased tax collection with no behavioral change.
replies(2): >>45390433 #>>45392151 #
11. Johnny555 ◴[] No.45390336[source]
Because buses are shared and follow a fixed-route and can't support an on-demand model. It may take a bus over an hour to complete the entire route.

Would you rather have to call for a bus that might take an hour (or might take 2 minutes) to get to your stop when you call it, or would you like to know that it comes at 4:45, 5:45 and 6:45 so you can plan ahead to know when to get to your stop.

(failing to run on schedule is a separate issue, but on-demand rides won't solve that). In cities, one solution to that problem is to run at such frequent headways that a late bus doesn't matter -- when I lived in SF, I had 2 busy bus routes that could take me to work, during peak hours a bus ran every 6 minutes, so even if they weren't on schedule I didn't care since I knew another would be along soon.

If you want me to ride the bus to work every morning and home every evening, you still have to have buses in mid-day so I can go home early if I need to. Even if those buses are mostly empty.

12. baggy_trough ◴[] No.45390433{6}[source]
That's false because everyone has alternatives (you can stay home, for example). Raising the price will always on margin reduce trips.
replies(1): >>45390952 #
13. decimalenough ◴[] No.45390450[source]
> Why don't the buses anywhere have some sort of uber style pickup.

They do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-responsive_transport

14. throw7 ◴[] No.45390617[source]
So in my area, believe it or not, there is experiments with uber-style point-to-point pickup/dropoff and electric car short term "rentals".

https://www.cdta.org/flex https://drivecdta.org/

The few flex areas are small and I've never tried the electric rentals.

Every once in awhile I do use the bus system to check out how things are going and I get how depressive an empty bus is... I was just on an empty bus to the airport (which I have to take two routes to get there, another tough negative to solve).

15. Jensson ◴[] No.45390952{7}[source]
How do you get to work when you stay home?
replies(3): >>45391399 #>>45391458 #>>45392124 #
16. dotnet00 ◴[] No.45391399{8}[source]
Just be a rich tech worker with a remote job /s
replies(1): >>45394499 #
17. baggy_trough ◴[] No.45391458{8}[source]
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.
18. recursive ◴[] No.45392124{8}[source]
You wouldn't. If you need to get to work, that wouldn't be the option you would exercise.
replies(1): >>45392161 #
19. namibj ◴[] No.45392151{6}[source]
No, you'll get car sharing and even if just because you swing by a spot your friend recommended to pick up passengers to near you office, on days you feel like driving yourself, and likely become one such passenger yourself after a couple weeks of that, provided you're not amongst those who couldn't do it without their own car.
20. namibj ◴[] No.45392161{9}[source]
You'd really quickly find a way to work differently as soon as driving in to work to work for a shift becomes a net-negative on your finances.

Be that a pay raise, be that partially remote work, or carpooling.

21. namibj ◴[] No.45392223{3}[source]
Don't calculate the amortized (over a reasonable 30 years if you also ignore inflation and major maintenance/refurbishment costs) capex of the proposed Dallas red line northern extension, seen in a per-passenger-mile figure..... (I got 54ct per passenger mile just in capex (well, a capex-based view on the cost of having the track there and operable; costs from direct wear and tear of running trains and electricity and the trains themselves are additional)...)
22. cmxch ◴[] No.45392680{3}[source]
And broke it with congestion pricing so that only the few have the freedom to go where transit won’t or doesn’t.
replies(1): >>45397149 #
23. kmeisthax ◴[] No.45393360[source]
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.

24. itopaloglu83 ◴[] No.45394467{3}[source]
A typical household would have 4-5 people in it and only two cars if you’re lucky. A person needs mobility from the age of roughly 7 to at least 70 for all kinds of reasons.

Please travel the Europe and see how they treat their people and how increased mobility creates a great environment and freedom for everyone. I assure you that it’s not a backwards place as some people claim.

As a side note: All this car craze coincided with baby boomers (roughly) and now that they’re losing their physical and cognitive abilities we’re seeing a lot more accessibility support from them (duh) and I wouldn’t be surprised if they started pushing for free public taxi service for themselves but nothing that would serve the public. And we’re not talking about heavily subsidized industries like cars, but something that can be profitable and worthwhile because it allows people to go to work, school, shopping, hospital, theater, and more.

25. itopaloglu83 ◴[] No.45394499{9}[source]
Exactly, we will need to shutdown all the factories when nobody can come to work due to not being able to effort congestion pricing.
26. baggy_trough ◴[] No.45397149{4}[source]
Nobody goes there any more, it’s too crowded?
replies(1): >>45400585 #
27. cmxch ◴[] No.45400585{5}[source]
Only the rich are allowed to be free in congestion zones. All others must bow to the transport and fare schedules.