

How SF-Based Shuttle Startup Chariot Crowdsourced Its New Commuter Route - Nimi
http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/26/chariot-new-route/

======
discardorama
SF MUNI needs competition. Badly.

There was a time (ironically, I read this in the MUNI museum near the Ferry
Building) when SF had multiple, competing services. They would compete with
each other on getting people from the Ferry Building to (wherever) the
fastest.

MUNI gets a good chunk of its funding from the City government; it averages
around $1/ride. Services like Chariot (I have never used it, and don't know
anyone who uses it either) should be able to get similar funding from the
government, if they are providing local transportation. It's only fair.

~~~
smackfu
Generally speaking, municipal bus systems tend to have profitable routes and
unprofitable routes. The subsidy is to run the unprofitable ones. Of course
some commercial entity can come in and compete on the profitable ones, but
that doesn't mean they should get a subsidy too unless they also run the
unprofitable routes.

~~~
pjlegato
__Drive-by downvoters: at least post a reply and explain which part of this
you disagree with...

The larger problem is that Muni's quality of service is terrible on all of its
routes. The buses are usually filthy, late, slow, vastly overcrowded, falling
apart, and frequently contain dangerous and/or insane people.

If the bus system were better on any routes, there would be proportionately
less need for private mass transportation.

Combine this with Muni's seeming inability to run enough trains and buses on
high-demand routes, and inability to even operate what would be very
profitable routes on high-demand corridors such as the Marina to downtown, and
we have our situation today.

------
pjlegato
San Francisco had many private bus lines until the 1970s. They were called
"jitneys." The city made them illegal as Muni service continued to degrade, to
shield Muni from competition.

It's unclear how Chariot is getting around San Francisco's anti-jitney
regulations. My guess is they're just ignoring it and operating illegally.

~~~
No1
"It's unclear how Chariot is getting around San Francisco's anti-jitney
regulations."

From the article:

"... Vahabzadeh says it has received support from SF city Supervisors in
neighborhoods that it currently serves."

Seems like they have at least some political support.

~~~
pjlegato
This seems likely. SF supervisors are innundated with citizen complaints about
poor Muni service on a daily basis, and seem to be unable or unwilling to do
anything about Muni itself.

------
optimusclimb
Chariot is fantastic. I live in the Marina and work on Market. Taking the 30
sucks, period. As does Muni in general. I moved back to SF in September after
being away. After a month and half of constantly being reminded just how often
Muni failed, or was unreliable, I gave up and bought a bike.

Which was great, but there are PLENTY of days when it's either rainy, or cold,
or I just don't feel like dealing with the bike. Chariot makes those days sooo
much better than facing the 30 (or whatever I'd have to take if I were still
working in SOMA.)

There's apparently so much of a market here (for a commuter service not as
terrible as Muni) that another company, Loup, seems to be completely cloning
what Chariot is doing, complete with having people go up and directly try and
steal customers while they are waiting at Chariot's stops.

------
jessaustin
_...services like Chariot could end up funneling away revenues that would have
otherwise gone to public transportation services. At a time when only 30
percent of public transportation funding comes from passenger receipts,
squeezing those funds even further could have a significant impact on those
services._

That logic is backwards. If 90% of funding came from riders, then reducing
ridership would be a real threat to the system. Since only 30% comes from
riders, the implication is that even if ridership went to zero they could
probably keep _something_ going.

