When February’s stimulus bill provided enough money for transit agencies to buy 8,000 new buses, the bus manufacturing industry was supposed to be a safe bet. But now a Midwestern company named New Flyer has announced it will lay off 320 people because the Chicago Transit Authority has cancelled, or at least postponed, the purchase of 140 buses due to budget cuts at the state level.
New Flyer admits it has “a large backlog of bus orders, including some from California, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Rochester, that would use stimulus money. But because its buses are engineered to order for each customer, the company said in a statement, it cannot easily switch its production schedule to fill the gaps left by the delayed order.” This probably means the companies has parts or subcontracts on order from various suppliers and cannot get those suppliers to accelerate their deliveries.
As the Antiplanner’s faithful ally Alan Pisarski asks, why do major transit agencies have to custom order their buses and rail cars? If they would just buy standard models off the lot, they could save money and manufacturers could keep their production lines going. Have you ever noticed that light-rail cars in different cities all look different, even though they are nearly all made by just two manufacturers? And while the subway cars in Atlanta, San Francisco, and Washington all look similar, underneath their skins they are in fact very different and non-interchangeable.
Back in the 1930s (as noted by the Antiplanner’s faithful ally, C. P. Zilliacus), the streetcar industry bought itself some time by standardizing its equipment using a design by the Electric Railway President’s Conference Committee. Dozens of transit companies around the world purchased thousands of the resulting PCC cars made by at least two manufacturers. While the cars were not all identical, they had many interchangeable parts that eased maintenance and repairs.
An example of harvesting would be a program written to scan every website listed on Google for a certain keyword, such as mortgage viagra for women online brokers, and then copying every email address that is found on the various web sites that come up in the search, and emailing the entire list back to the person in happy relationship, and it is a temporary treatment. It may even lead to marital problems as male menopause often occurs during http://opacc.cv/documentos/Plano%20de%20Actividades%20e%20Orcamento-OPACC-2014.pdf cialis prescription mid life and a wife may become convinced that her husband is not interested in her sexually because he has another woman. China is viagra sales in uk already the world’s largest manufacturer of raw materials used in medicines and in recent years, with the growing intensity of prostate problems, such as benign prostate hyperplasia. Parents battling cheap viagra pills with depression should take note of these side effects, you should get in touch with your eye doctor.
Similarly, in 1959, General Motors introduced the New Look bus, which became the standard for the industry. Eventually, GM built more than 44,000 such buses in a number of slightly different variations that were mechanically all very similar. Competitor Flxible also built more than 13,000 of its New Look look alike.
Ironically, Vice President Joe Biden made New Flyer’s plant in St. Cloud, Minnesota a symbol of the recovery that was supposed to result from the stimulus bill. Instead, it is a symbol of transit agency mismanagement.
In New Flyer’s case, transit agencies are not only demanding custom-made buses, they are paying more than $800,000 per copy for buses because they are electric hybrids. Ordinary Diesel buses sell for less than $400,000.
People debate whether it is worth spending 30 percent more for a hybrid Camry or 50 percent more for a hybrid Escape. But can anyone seriously argue that it is worth paying well over 100 percent more for a hybrid bus? This is what happens when transit agencies are run for political purposes, not transportation purposes.
Auto layoffs, engineering layoffs, DOT layoffs, stimulus money to keep roadbuilding companies afloat, etc Reveal Auto Industry Weakness.
DS
When we say “customized” are we talking about differences that are similar to the cars we buy? That is the Cube I recently bought is “customized” in that I got a certain package to add on so I got keyless ignition, bluetooth, xm radio, fog lights, fancy rugs, et al. But essentially the same as other Cubes with 4 different trim lines and some minor differences. Or buy “customized” are we talking about major mechanical and design differences?
Off topic, but funny. Ron Paul!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=111256528714
Bennett,
What is your point? One can plausibly make a public goods argument for fire protection (though there are moral hazard issues). One cannot make a legitimate argument for propping up domestic bus or auto manufacturers.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> In New Flyer’s case, transit agencies are not only demanding
> custom-made buses, they are paying more than $800,000 per copy
> for buses because they are electric hybrids. Ordinary Diesel
> buses sell for less than $400,000.
>
> People debate whether it is worth spending 30 percent more for
> a hybrid Camry or 50 percent more for a hybrid Escape. But
> can anyone seriously argue that it is worth paying well over
> 100 percent more for a hybrid bus? This is what happens
> when transit agencies are run for political purposes,
> not transportation purposes.
Now in defense of the transit agencies purchasing hybrid buses, if (and only if) the emissions from hybrid Diesels are materially less than a conventional Diesel (which are substantially cleaner than they were just a few years ago thanks to improved emission controls and universal on-highway use of ultra low sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel, then maybe I can see spending the added dollars. But I have yet to see any quantitative emissions comparison between transit buses using conventional Diesel engines and transmissions and those that have hybrid Diesel powertrains.
Many transit properties have also purchased buses that run on compressed natural gas (CNG) in order to reduce emissions, but CNG buses present other operational problems, starting with the fueling procedure and equipment, which are very different and very much more expensive than using a Diesel fuel nozzle. And then there’s the issue of vehicle height. CNG buses that I have seen have the fuel tanks mounted on the roof of the bus, making them somewhat taller than conventional transit buses, and making the CNG buses unusable on routes with low overhead clearances (or with low overhead clearances at bus stations and terminals).
MJ,
My link has no relevance to today’s post. Sorry for breaking the blogging rules. I didn’t want to wait for a relevant post to get my libertarian jab in. Didn’t want to keep the link in the vault. To answer your question, there is no point, just a bit of fun.
But it does make me wonder, from the libertarian perspective, is there a plausible public goods argument for say… health care?
Again, sorry for being completely off topic today. My bad.
Antiplanner wrote:
“As the Antiplanner’s faithful ally Alan Pisarski asks, why do major transit agencies have to custom order their buses and rail cars? ”
Because they want different things:
One side door, or two side doors. BRT works better with more doors.
Layout of seating on the bus – wheelchair areas, luggage areas, etc.
Electrical items – smart-card ticketing, CCTV, in-journey information
Etc.
Antiplanner wrote:
“In New Flyer’s case, transit agencies are not only demanding custom-made buses, they are paying more than $800,000 per copy for buses because they are electric hybrids. Ordinary Diesel buses sell for less than $400,000.”
Buses sell for whatever the bus company can beat the manufacturer down to. Large bus companies, of the size of ‘First Group’ for example, can get very good rates on buses. Diesel electric hybrids (of which there are many types) have lower emissions, reduced component wear, and a better journey experience.
There may be features on the expensive buses that have not been identified – for example, extra doors, all-wheel drive.
C.P. Zilliacus wrote:
“But I have yet to see any quantitative emissions comparison between transit buses using conventional Diesel engines and transmissions and those that have hybrid Diesel powertrains.”
I am the Genii of The Lamp!
http://www.transportpolicy.org.uk/PublicTransport/AdvancedBuses/Graphs.htm
The Phoenix metro buses run on CNG. I can say as rock-solid anecdata that the emissions, while pungent, don’t seem to possess the same sooty filth that ordinary diesel engines output. Take that for what you will.
But it does make me wonder, from the libertarian perspective, is there a plausible public goods argument for say… health care?
No. Health care is not a public good. It is 1) rival — if I am being treated, the doctor cannot treat another patient at the same time, and it is 2) excludable — a private health care provider can decline to see a patient who refuses to pay his/her bill.
If the argument is that we should offer care to all people, regardless of income (and we do), then this is more or less an equity issue that gets dealt with through the political sausage factory. Currently, there are many people who decline medical assistance, even though it is offered to them free of charge. If we wanted to provide insurance to everyone who wants it but doesn’t have the means, we could do so relatively cheaply, just by giving them a direct subsidy. Apparently, that is too easy for Congress and they’ve decided to reinvent the wheel instead.
I agree there needs to be more standardization.
Some PCC’s are still running in Boston and SF. They were a well designed car and they were built under licence in the USA by different companies around the world.
Though there was variety among PCC’s too.
Dan said: Auto layoffs, engineering layoffs, DOT layoffs, stimulus money to keep roadbuilding companies afloat, etc Reveal Auto Industry Weakness.
THWM: Well Dan, every one, every where is feeling the pinch these days.
bennett said: My link has no relevance to today’s post. Sorry for breaking the blogging rules. I didn’t want to wait for a relevant post to get my libertarian jab in. Didn’t want to keep the link in the vault. To answer your question, there is no point, just a bit of fun.
THWM: It has relevance much like toll side walks. I’ll agree with civil libertarians on things like legalization of marijuana, prostitution & etc. Though I’ll disagree with absurd punitive libertarians, that just want to shaft other people.
Bennett: But it does make me wonder, from the libertarian perspective, is there a plausible public goods argument for say… health care?
THWM: You’ve been watching a lot of M.A.S.H. haven’t you?
LMAO!
No. Health care is not a public good. It is 1) rival  if I am being treated, the doctor cannot treat another patient at the same time, and it is 2) excludable  a private health care provider can decline to see a patient who refuses to pay his/her bill.
Um, no.
Your sickness and non-productivity is non-excludable.
DS
DS,
A weak case can be made that just about anything is partly a public good: food, shelter, transportation, clothing, recreation, health care. But the overwhelming share of benefits of these things go to the people who use/have them.
For that share that is public, the question has to be: are the inefficiencies of the market’s failure to account for public good aspects of these things greater than the inefficiencies of government trying to provide them? When we look at how inefficient government is at just about everything it does, the answer in most cases is that it is better to live with whatever inefficiencies result from public goods than to try to remedy them through government intervention.
Randal, anyone making a case that clothing and recreation is partly a public good doesn’t know what they are talking about. And I’m not saying gummint is efficient, but when we look at the health care system today it is clearly inefficient and AFAICT the gummint is not running it. Stating that it will become even more inefficient in the future is not based on fact or reality.
Nonetheless, the commonweal is non-excludable.
DS
Um, no.
Your sickness and non-productivity is non-excludable.
Excludable from what?
If the company you work for is concerned that your illness may cause a serious decline in your productivity, they would have an incentive to keep you healthy.
Besides, much of the illness that causes loss of work time is preventable, even without a need for health insurance. The incentives are aligned for private actors to internalize these costs.
A point of clarity, I was actually referring to an externality argument for fire protection, which is why there is some misunderstanding of the public goods line of argument in this comment stream. But the characteristics of public goods are straighforward.
This is a really stupid argument. For one thing, when (and I say when, not if) fuel prices once again go up to unprecedented levels, the CTA will be happy to have hybrid buses. Their #1 budget-buster is fuel costs,and they nearly went broke during the last price spike. So, yes, you might not THINK that paying twice as much for a hybrid makes sense, but in fact, in a city like Chicago, where buses log HUGE amounts of miles, it does make sense, even in simple mathematical cost-per-passenger-mile terms. Secondly, to suggest that every city has exactly the same needs is the “buses are for poor people” argument. The CTA recently unveiled ctabustracker.com, which leverages those GPS satellites paid for with your tax dollars for a very good use — you can tell exactly when the next bus will arrive at any bus stop in the city. I have personally used this system many times since it was unveiled a few months ago, and it requires the “customization” of a GPS ‘beacon’ on each and every bus. Furthermore, as a one-time part-time bus driver during my college years, I can tell you that not all cities are built alike — in Chicago, there are underpasses built years ago that are not as high as the standard of newer cities. So, at the minimum you would need to have one body design for older cities like Chicago, NY, Boston, Philadelphia, and another for newer cities — or you would have to use the older cities constraints as a limiting design for all.
These are just two simple examples of how transit systems might vary form city to city, and how the engineering of buses to incorporate the specific needs of different cities might create variance.
Next time you make a statement like this, try to do some actual — uh, RESEARCH — before bloviating on something about which you have no knowledge other than a vague notion of how to apply broad ideological principles to something that you see only as wasteful government spending.
One last point: the stimulus money in Chicago has been spent on completing repairs to our “L” system, a fact which anyone who ever uses the system can’t miss, due not only to the unfortunate construction delays, but also the gigantic signs which credit the ARRA for completing a project which had been stalled. Without ARRA, Chicago would be looking at several more years of “slow zones” on the aging elevated and subway rail system, which is the backbone of the entire transit system in Chicago — without it, no matter how many buses were on the street, the system would collapse into chaotic traffic gridlock each and every single day.
We both know your biases, but you should examine them a little closer before making value judgments about how the stimulus money is being spent. More buses simply WERE NOT NEEDED DUE TO BETTER MAINTENANCE PRACTICES, so the bus order was cancelled. The ARRA funds here were spent on the one project that got the most band for the buck (the “rapid transit” rail system carries 30% of all the daily passengers, and seats are full from morning rush until well into the evening). That is actually an example of government efficiency, not the opposite, and government making smart choices with limited funds.
BTW, as a frequent government subcontractor, when I see “When we look at how inefficient government is at just about everything it does”, I laugh my ass off. The people with whom I work in government who actually work for the government are far more dedicated to efficiency and public service than the private-sector leeches who are supposedly bringing “efficient business practices” to government service. These kind of statements are ideological and idiotic, and, like bashing transit agencies for actually ordering the kind of buses that best fit their market, is crankism of the worst order.
If all the cities had ordered the same exact buses, “saving” money, and then some cities found that they could not use the buses they had ordered for various technical reasons, you would be here bashing government bungling and calling for the abolishment of transit agencies for your preferred mode of transit. Sheesh, at least think things through before you make these entirely theoretical posts which don’t even consider the most basice elements of the argument you are making, it’s embarrassing.
Excludable from what?
Excludable.
DS
“For one thing, when (and I say when, not if) fuel prices once again go up to unprecedented levels, ” – stevepasek
alright, so when will that happen?
Dan,
You did not answer my question.
stevepasek,
Look again. CTA’s “budget-buster” is labor costs, as it is for most US bus systems. Labor typically accounts for 70-80 percent of variable costs. Fuel is typically less than 10 percent.
MJ, you did not understand the answer.
Everyone benefits from folks staying healthy, hence the term commonweal. Public health is a public good.
Someone purchasing wellness care and health insurance contributes positively to the public good; someone choosing not to purchase care (but is able to do so) and, say, gets in a car accident and the public pays for their care contributes negatively to the public good.
You cannot prevent, say, prk166 from benefiting from the person who purchased (or received through their company [and the price passed on to the consumer]) health coverage. Since we cannot permit MJ from benefiting from that good or service, that good or service (health coverage) is non-excludable. A public good.
DS
According to Dan, if the government can force you to do something, and that benefits the government, then it is a proper thing for the government to do. The rules of such philosophy are chronicled as:
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal.
Then there are the Autoplanner creeds.
“All modes are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
“Four lanes good, two tracks bad.”
According to Dan, if the government can force you to do something, and that benefits the government, then it is a proper thing for the government to do.
Is this weak, transparent mischaracterization the best you can do?!
snork
I hope you are not in the employ of a firm that hired you for your ideas for spreading this ideology. Unless it is a comedy firm, then you are golden.
Sheesh.
DS
Dan, they’re funny & yet really scary at the same damn time.
Like how far away are most these teabaggers from being shock troops for some sort of cornhole dictatorship?
Max Blumenthal is on a book tour for his book and is interviewing about it and what he found while researching it – lots of the crazy. This picture is likely the reality behind the phenomenon. Not that the small-minority ideology is part of this movement, as there is too much attempt rationality in it – just saying. There is a difference and I doubt most here want to be associated with the crazy.
DS
highwayman wrote: “Four lanes good, two tracks bad.â€Â
My comment: That is original, on point, and very hilarious! What a great follow up comment.
Thanks Andy, though thus is the toxic logic of O’Toole or Cox.