7 ms·
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
by hugh4 11y ago
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.
- xxpor 11y agoCompletely different situation. Muni can't just stop a route if it's not profitable.
- istvan__ 11y agoIt does not help that some of their maintenance staff is on 200K/y salary. Last time I have checked their wages it was pretty obvious that some of the staff is overpaid greatly. I also know some anecdotal stories about how employees exploiting the company.
- dogecoinbase 11y agoWow, with wages like those they might actually be able to afford to live in the city they work in!
- argonaut 11y agoNobody is entitled to live in the city they work in.
- jdavis703 11y agoRights are an arbitrary idea. Simply emphasizing that something is or isn't a right is tantamount to writing a fictional book. Even something as literally life altering as whether your own government (assuming you live in a democracy) can rightfully kill you or not is arbitrarily decided [0]. 0: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/10/former-navy-chief-expresses-concern-over-uk-role-in-syria-drone-strikes http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/10/former-navy-c...
- argonaut 11y agoLook. I work in the SOMA neighborhood of SF. That doesn't give me the right to live there (and I don't - it's too expensive, so I live in the south bay).
- venomsnake 11y agoAnd as we saw with the recent refugee crisis no one is entitles to live at all. But if we strive to build a good society for whatever reason, one of the optimum solutions is to mix people of different backgrounds and paths of life together to enhance the social mobility.
- argonaut 11y agoI didn't say people are not entitled to live.
- colordrops 11y agoDepends on your philosophy, ideology, religion, and politics.
- organsnyder 11y agoWhy not? Is a living wage really a luxury?
- argonaut 11y agoThat's a false equivalence. I never said nobody is entitled to a living wage. If SF is too expensive, live in Oakland or Milbrae or Daly City.
- hugh4 11y agoIt's neither realistic nor desirable that maintenance workers in San Francisco should live in San Francisco. Any more than the cleaners at the Hilton should live in the Hilton. San Francisco is a small expensive area within a large metropolis, it's not that tricky to commute from somewhere a lot cheaper.
- SamReidHughes 11y agoUm, sorry, but it certainly is desirable that people be able to find an affordable short commute.
- hugh4 11y agoSure, it's desirable for them. In the same way that it's desirable to own a Ferrari. However, more broadly speaking, it is neither necessary or desirable for everyone to own a Ferrari. Given that a place in SF costs many times more than a Ferrari nowadays, I don't think it's an inapt analogy.
- SamReidHughes 11y agoYou don't think what's an inapt analogy? Wait, your Ferrari analogy that you made in the same post? And it is indeed a great analogy because it shows how wrong you are -- having advanced cars that can rapidly accelerate to freeway speeds be affordable is a very desirable thing, and the fact that a Honda Civic of today is a vastly superior automobile to a Ferrari of the past (or better yet, a Volvo of the past) is a triumph of modernity. You think what, cars are too good? Likewise, the fact that many people of today find that the best way to live involves throwing years of their lives away on a long commute is a human tragedy, and thinking that it's not desirable for this to be fixed is equally brain-damaged as thinking people shouldn't have good cars.
- MiddleEndian 11y agoIn what way is it not desirable for everyone to at least have the option of shorter commutes?
- istvan__ 11y agoI know people live in this city and having a lower wage...
- simoncion 11y ago> ...when I ride the MUNI I'm the only person actually paying a fare... By this, do you mean "I'm the only one who seems to be paying in cash?". If you do, then the vast majority of folks who aren't fare-jumping are either: * Using a Clipper Card [0] that has a "cash" balance * Using a Clipper Card that has a monthly pass on it * Using a Clipper Card that has a transfer from another bus on it * Using a paper transfer from a previous actual-cash transaction with the farebox [0] RFID tag which locally stores a balance, a couple of ticket types, and a shocking amount of your fare history. I presume that the data from the card readers on the buses are synced up with some central DB periodically.
- cbhl 11y agoYup - you can download 60 days of ride history from clippercard.com if you register your card. Tracks every tag (so entry only on Muni/AC Transit/VTA, entry/exit on BART and Caltrain).
- wooster 11y agoAnecdotally, at least, I see a lot of people riding Muni who are fare evading. I've also never seen any fare enforcement on a Muni bus, despite living here for ~6 years.
- simoncion 11y agoYou must have never done anything like -say- use the 38 to connect to CalTrain shortly before or shortly after rush hour. :) I made the 38->30/45->CalTrain or 47->CalTrain ride every single day for nearly a year. It seemed like once a month or once every other month, MTA fare inspectors would board the 38, 47, or -far more rarely- 30/45 I was riding and check everyone's proof of payment. On the 38 and the 47, it always took about five minutes and was a... fairly irritating delay on top of a really irritating commute.
- wooster 11y agoI mostly take the 7 (nee 71), 6, and 21.
- bruceb 11y agoWhen 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 11y agoSo how much of the city's residents' taxes turn out to be just subsidising the tiny minority who need wheelchairs?
- jeromegv 11y agoDoes it matter? That's why public transit and government exists, to offer services to every single person.
- hugh4 11y agoThat'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 11y agoThe 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.
- 11y ago
- andronebula 11y ago> It's interesting that Chariot can sell a bus ride for barely more than the (heavily subsidised) MUNI costs. It's because they serve only high-density areas with commuter-only routes that operate only in a very limited time frame (morning hours). I think that such a model can not be called 'urban transit', a better term for it would be 'commuter private transit'. And it has nothing to do with efficient massive urban transportation, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10207669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10207669 Edit: grammar