SF MUNI needs competition. Badly.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.)<p>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.
<i>...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.</i><p>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 <i>something</i> going.