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

←back to thread

355 points pavel_lishin | 16 comments | | HN request time: 0.546s | 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 #
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 #
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 #
1. baggy_trough ◴[] No.45390110[source]
We solved that several generations ago with cars.
replies(3): >>45390223 #>>45392680 #>>45394467 #
2. kuschku ◴[] No.45390223[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 #
3. baggy_trough ◴[] No.45390265[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 #
4. estebank ◴[] No.45390327{3}[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 #
5. baggy_trough ◴[] No.45390433{4}[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 #
6. Jensson ◴[] No.45390952{5}[source]
How do you get to work when you stay home?
replies(3): >>45391399 #>>45391458 #>>45392124 #
7. dotnet00 ◴[] No.45391399{6}[source]
Just be a rich tech worker with a remote job /s
replies(1): >>45394499 #
8. baggy_trough ◴[] No.45391458{6}[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.
9. recursive ◴[] No.45392124{6}[source]
You wouldn't. If you need to get to work, that wouldn't be the option you would exercise.
replies(1): >>45392161 #
10. namibj ◴[] No.45392151{4}[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.
11. namibj ◴[] No.45392161{7}[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.

12. cmxch ◴[] No.45392680[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 #
13. itopaloglu83 ◴[] No.45394467[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.

14. itopaloglu83 ◴[] No.45394499{7}[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.
15. baggy_trough ◴[] No.45397149[source]
Nobody goes there any more, it’s too crowded?
replies(1): >>45400585 #
16. cmxch ◴[] No.45400585{3}[source]
Only the rich are allowed to be free in congestion zones. All others must bow to the transport and fare schedules.