5 ms·

A privatized intracity bus service? Somewhat interesting. But how can this compete with heavily subsidized, existing public bus service - without hitting all th

A privatized intracity bus service? Somewhat interesting. But how can this compete with heavily subsidized, existing public bus service - without hitting all the same pitfalls that it does? (Like buses getting steadily less "express" as time goes on)?

maxk42 12y ago
Well for one: privatized bus services generate more revenue as ridership increases as opposed to subsidized buses which have to stretch the same amount of resources further.
- JimboOmega 12y ago
  I don't think that's the case. A public bus that's more full generates more revenue. They just also have subsidies that enable them to run services at a loss. I suppose on a per-rider basis this generates more revenue - because it costs a lot more.
pjlegato 12y ago
Because the heavily subsidized public bus service in San Francisco, Muni, operates abysmally. Buses are usually filthy, massively overcrowded during rush hour, often very late, and make frequent stops. In many cases, taking the bus is only slightly faster than walking. Compounding the problem is the lack of buses on many popular commute routes, such as the Lombard-downtown route that Leap follows. They will either avoid these pitfalls or go out of business, because nobody will pay 3x more for a private bus service that is just as bad as the 1x public bus.
- baddox 12y ago
  > In many cases, taking the bus is only slightly faster than walking. I live in Soma, within one block of stops on several ostensibly good bus routes, but I still find that I need to be going at least 2 miles (sometimes even 3, depending on the destination) for it to be faster to bus than to walk. This obviously wouldn't be the case if any of said bus routes stuck even remotely to the stated schedule, or if traffic was at least somewhat predictable. Heck, it wouldn't even be the case if the real-time bus tracking worked (it doesn't), because then I could at least time my departure to avoid waiting 15+ minutes at the bus stop.
  - JimboOmega 12y ago
    The bus is pretty heavy on shenanigans, but I have found the real-time tracking to be pretty accurate - though there are a few places it can get way off (especially where it's not tracking an already-moving bus, e.g., at the transbay terminal). Traffic is probably the biggest factor that causes randomness and there's no avoiding that, private bus or no. Bicycling, though... is often the fastest way for me to get around the city.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    > This obviously wouldn't be the case if any of said bus routes stuck even remotely to the stated schedule, or if traffic was at least somewhat predictable. These are symptoms of the same problem. In France (at least in Grenoble where I worked for a year) there are dedicated bus lanes (dedicated lights for those lanes). Without those, buses are subject to the same issues caused by traffic. I agree with the commenter above who remarked that the public transport woes are due to poor urban planning. To answer why urban planning is so misguided you'd have to follow the money.
    - SilasX 12y ago
      San Francisco has those too, like on the Geary/O'Farrell corridor, though not on every bus route.
    - baddox 12y ago
      The two problems are definitely not always related. There have been plenty of times where traffic is mild and buses simply aren't coming.
- jlees 12y ago
  This is very true, but it does bring up a point about scaling. Bus services aren't as terrible in other cities, though there are always some deficiencies.
themagician 12y ago
It competes by doing things like not complying with existing regulation, laws, or unions. It's an "app" and thus except from all regulation. So they don't pay a driver $70,000/yr and give him or her a pension. They can pick stops based on profitability, not access. They carry the bare minimum of liability insurance because if anything happens they can just close up shop. They don't have to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. They don't have to pay for any kind of additional safety or environmental inspections that public transit must comply with. They don't answer to the residents.
- pjlegato 12y ago
  If the regulated, unionized public transportation service actually answered to the residents, services such as Leap could not exist. They'd be unnecessary and unused.
  - Apocryphon 12y ago
    It's certainly possible to simultaneously believe that the regulated, unionized public transportation contains service deficiencies, while at the same time advocating that a private transportation that provides better service should also be regulated and unionized.
- baddox 12y ago
  And when they do all of those things, they find customers willing to pay and drivers willing to work.
- aianus 12y ago
  Ok, I'll bite, why on earth does a bus driver deserve $70,000 a year and a pension? There are billions of people in the world who would kill to do that job for $35,000 and no benefits.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    Exactly who I want driving me around in a giant metal box: a stressed-out, poverty-level person with no benefits.
aetherson 12y ago
Guys. It costs 3x as much, and it's a hassle to get on without a smartphone. That's how it competes. It's a bus that tries to price out the poorer people (and doesn't serve their neighborhoods. And is most convenient with a smartphone). Their bet is that you won't miss the $4 per ride surcharge if you can avoid dealing with poor people.
- pjlegato 12y ago
  Assumes facts not in evidence; there is no reason to suppose that a class-based explanation is correct when the much simpler explanation of "not having to leave an hour early to work around Muni's terrible service quality" adequately explains the situation.
  - girvo 12y ago
    A class-based explanation and Muni being a terrible service "ripe for disruption" are not mutually exclusive. You can't, however, argue that a private bus service that requires a smartphone and costs 3x what regular public transport does doesn't have interesting effects on who can and can't use it.
    - pjlegato 12y ago
      Smartphones may have been highly class correlated in 2006, but they're not now. You can get one prepaid for around $30 at any cell phone shop. 77% of those 18-29 with an annual income under 30k own a smartphone.[1] Atrocious public bus service impacts the poor much more than those who are better off: someone with a salaried professional job who comes in late a couple of times a week due to Muni will usually not even register on the organization at all, whereas someone making minimum wage on a time clock will likely be fired for that -- and thus strongly motivated to pay extra for a transportation mechanism that is likely to arrive on time. [1] http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2...
      - aetherson 12y ago
smackfu 12y ago
Existing bus services aren't subsidized for the popular routes, they are subsidized for the unpopular routes. When you take the bus at 10 PM, and are near the end of the line, and you are the only one on the bus for 10 minutes... that's what is subsidized. A private bus company could just say, "sorry, not enough passengers to run that route today."

maxk42 12y ago

Well for one: privatized bus services generate more revenue as ridership increases as opposed to subsidized buses which have to stretch the same amount of resources further.

JimboOmega 12y ago
I don't think that's the case. A public bus that's more full generates more revenue. They just also have subsidies that enable them to run services at a loss. I suppose on a per-rider basis this generates more revenue - because it costs a lot more.

pjlegato 12y ago

Because the heavily subsidized public bus service in San Francisco, Muni, operates abysmally. Buses are usually filthy, massively overcrowded during rush hour, often very late, and make frequent stops. In many cases, taking the bus is only slightly faster than walking. Compounding the problem is the lack of buses on many popular commute routes, such as the Lombard-downtown route that Leap follows. They will either avoid these pitfalls or go out of business, because nobody will pay 3x more for a private bus service that is just as bad as the 1x public bus.

baddox 12y ago
> In many cases, taking the bus is only slightly faster than walking. I live in Soma, within one block of stops on several ostensibly good bus routes, but I still find that I need to be going at least 2 miles (sometimes even 3, depending on the destination) for it to be faster to bus than to walk. This obviously wouldn't be the case if any of said bus routes stuck even remotely to the stated schedule, or if traffic was at least somewhat predictable. Heck, it wouldn't even be the case if the real-time bus tracking worked (it doesn't), because then I could at least time my departure to avoid waiting 15+ minutes at the bus stop.
- JimboOmega 12y ago
  The bus is pretty heavy on shenanigans, but I have found the real-time tracking to be pretty accurate - though there are a few places it can get way off (especially where it's not tracking an already-moving bus, e.g., at the transbay terminal). Traffic is probably the biggest factor that causes randomness and there's no avoiding that, private bus or no. Bicycling, though... is often the fastest way for me to get around the city.
- r00fus 12y ago
  > This obviously wouldn't be the case if any of said bus routes stuck even remotely to the stated schedule, or if traffic was at least somewhat predictable. These are symptoms of the same problem. In France (at least in Grenoble where I worked for a year) there are dedicated bus lanes (dedicated lights for those lanes). Without those, buses are subject to the same issues caused by traffic. I agree with the commenter above who remarked that the public transport woes are due to poor urban planning. To answer why urban planning is so misguided you'd have to follow the money.
  - SilasX 12y ago
    San Francisco has those too, like on the Geary/O'Farrell corridor, though not on every bus route.
  - baddox 12y ago
    The two problems are definitely not always related. There have been plenty of times where traffic is mild and buses simply aren't coming.
jlees 12y ago
This is very true, but it does bring up a point about scaling. Bus services aren't as terrible in other cities, though there are always some deficiencies.

themagician 12y ago

It competes by doing things like not complying with existing regulation, laws, or unions. It's an "app" and thus except from all regulation. So they don't pay a driver $70,000/yr and give him or her a pension. They can pick stops based on profitability, not access. They carry the bare minimum of liability insurance because if anything happens they can just close up shop. They don't have to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. They don't have to pay for any kind of additional safety or environmental inspections that public transit must comply with. They don't answer to the residents.

pjlegato 12y ago
If the regulated, unionized public transportation service actually answered to the residents, services such as Leap could not exist. They'd be unnecessary and unused.
- Apocryphon 12y ago
  It's certainly possible to simultaneously believe that the regulated, unionized public transportation contains service deficiencies, while at the same time advocating that a private transportation that provides better service should also be regulated and unionized.
baddox 12y ago
And when they do all of those things, they find customers willing to pay and drivers willing to work.
aianus 12y ago
Ok, I'll bite, why on earth does a bus driver deserve $70,000 a year and a pension? There are billions of people in the world who would kill to do that job for $35,000 and no benefits.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  Exactly who I want driving me around in a giant metal box: a stressed-out, poverty-level person with no benefits.

aetherson 12y ago

Guys. It costs 3x as much, and it's a hassle to get on without a smartphone. That's how it competes. It's a bus that tries to price out the poorer people (and doesn't serve their neighborhoods. And is most convenient with a smartphone). Their bet is that you won't miss the $4 per ride surcharge if you can avoid dealing with poor people.

pjlegato 12y ago
Assumes facts not in evidence; there is no reason to suppose that a class-based explanation is correct when the much simpler explanation of "not having to leave an hour early to work around Muni's terrible service quality" adequately explains the situation.
- girvo 12y ago
  A class-based explanation and Muni being a terrible service "ripe for disruption" are not mutually exclusive. You can't, however, argue that a private bus service that requires a smartphone and costs 3x what regular public transport does doesn't have interesting effects on who can and can't use it.
  - pjlegato 12y ago
    Smartphones may have been highly class correlated in 2006, but they're not now. You can get one prepaid for around $30 at any cell phone shop. 77% of those 18-29 with an annual income under 30k own a smartphone.[1] Atrocious public bus service impacts the poor much more than those who are better off: someone with a salaried professional job who comes in late a couple of times a week due to Muni will usually not even register on the organization at all, whereas someone making minimum wage on a time clock will likely be fired for that -- and thus strongly motivated to pay extra for a transportation mechanism that is likely to arrive on time. [1] http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2...
    - aetherson 12y ago

smackfu 12y ago

Existing bus services aren't subsidized for the popular routes, they are subsidized for the unpopular routes. When you take the bus at 10 PM, and are near the end of the line, and you are the only one on the bus for 10 minutes... that's what is subsidized. A private bus company could just say, "sorry, not enough passengers to run that route today."