
Chariot Wins First Round of San Francisco's Private Transit Battle - evilsimon
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2015/09/08/chariot-wins-first-round-of-san-franciscos-private-transit-battle/
======
mc32
As well they should win. If the city bothered to provide proper services, then
these alternatives would not be profitable.

But godforbid someone might challenge their monopoly. San Francisco, learn how
to compete, don't be chicken and outlaw the competition, despite relying on my
and every other citizens taxes... Shame muni.

~~~
ginko
I've heard this opinion repeated often on HN, but personally I never had any
problems getting around SF using the Muni bus system when I was there. It
isn't even very expensive compared to fare prices here in Europe. What's the
problem with it?

------
hugh4
It's interesting that Chariot can sell a bus ride for barely more than the
(heavily subsidised) MUNI costs.

In my limited experience though, it seems that when I ride the MUNI I'm the
only person actually paying a fare. Everybody else either has some kind of
pass or is fare evading.

~~~
bruceb
When it was started it also was not wheelchair accessible. Not sure if this is
still the case. Cherry picking profitable routes is not the same as providing
access to all residents of the city.

~~~
hugh4
So how much of the city's residents' taxes turn out to be just subsidising the
tiny minority who need wheelchairs?

~~~
jeromegv
Does it matter? That's why public transit and government exists, to offer
services to every single person.

~~~
hugh4
That's one view of the role of government, I'm not so sure it's the right one.
I at least think it should be up for debate.

~~~
simoncion
The thing about common carriers is that they're _designed_ to be the carriers
of last resort. They have special dispensation from a governing body to
operate and -in return- they are _obliged_ to offer their services to _all_
who can afford them.

Common carriers are a long-standing practice that has _clear_ benefits for
society as a whole. What's more, back in the 1960s and 1970s we -as a nation-
realized that there is value in helping the weak, infirm, disadvantaged, and
those subject to discrimination participate as fully as they are able to in
the public sphere.

If you want a somewhat less _academic_ reason, remember that _you_ can be
afflicted by illness, infirmity, handicap, or -albeit on a longer timescale-
discrimination at _any_ time. When you're down, it's _good_ to have services
available that help prevent you from hitting rock bottom and allow you to help
yourself get back on your feet quicker than you would on your own.

------
monopolemagnet
Folks might want to see Nancy Pelosi's daughter's documentary _San Francisco
2.0_ on the impact of inequality on the city, which happened to be plugged on
the most recent _Real Time_.

[http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/san-
francisco-2-0/index.htm...](http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/san-
francisco-2-0/index.html)

~~~
tdyen
Inequality increases crime. Heaps of references like this

[http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-06/want-to-
fig...](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-06/want-to-fight-crime-
address-economic-inequality)

------
iskander
How does Chariot compared with
[Via]([http://ridewithvia.com/](http://ridewithvia.com/)) in NYC?

------
redwood
Like sharoots in Israel

~~~
ebiester
Or the dolmus in Turkey. Or the equivalent service in many countries.

It always irritated me that American countries don't use the more practical
neighborhood-to-neighborhood model to provide more convenient service outside
the main lines.

This could also be used to transport people in a hub-and-spoke model
throughout the valley, like they do in Istanbul. A combination of Caltrain,
BART, and quick-moving busses and vans could more efficiently move people.

The van drivers just couldn't make as much as a bus driver, or the subsidy
would have to be bigger. (12 people * 2 dollars = 24 dollars for an hour one-
way in rush hour, which is hard to make profitable.)

