←back to thread

US cities pay too much for buses

(www.bloomberg.com)
355 points pavel_lishin | 2 comments | 26 Sep 25 13:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.482s | source
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 #
1. balozi ◴[26 Sep 25 19:58 UTC] No.45390436[source]▶
Federal subsidies don't stop at paying for much of the bus purchase costs, they are also paying for much of the roads and bridges the busses run on. Subsides cover of the operating costs, especially labor and energy. And at the very end, the reason most localities are able to offer free rides or very low cost rides is because federal dollars are subsidizing the final ride fares.
replies(1): >>45395283 #
2. zbentley ◴[27 Sep 25 12:48 UTC] No.45395283[source]▶
Yes, and?

The outcome of that approach is that an important service has uniform low costs to direct consumers, many of whom rely on the service for their quality of life, and many of whom would be unable to afford the service if its costs were passed along to them instead of subsidized via government debt and taxes.

In other words, a public service. That’s a good thing.