How does Chariot compared with [Via](http://ridewithvia.com/) in NYC?
Chariot Wins First Round of San Francisco's Private Transit Battle
21–30 of 46 posts
Re: Chariot Wins First Round of San Francisco's Private Transit Battle
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, with wages like those they might actually be able to afford to live in the city they work in!
It'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.
Um, sorry, but it certainly is desirable that people be able to find an affordable short commute.
Re: Chariot Wins First Round of San Francisco's Private Transit Battle
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, with wages like those they might actually be able to afford to live in the city they work in!
Nobody is entitled to live in the city they work in.
And 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.
Re: Chariot Wins First Round of San Francisco's Private Transit Battle
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So how much of the city's residents' taxes turn out to be just subsidising the tiny minority who need wheelchairs?
Does it matter? That's why public transit and government exists, to offer services to every single person.
Re: Chariot Wins First Round of San Francisco's Private Transit Battle
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So how much of the city's residents' taxes turn out to be just subsidising the tiny minority who need wheelchairs?
Are you suggesting that that's a problem to be solved?
Re: Chariot Wins First Round of San Francisco's Private Transit Battle
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'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.
Um, sorry, but it certainly is desirable that people be able to find an affordable short commute.
Sure, 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.
Re: Chariot Wins First Round of San Francisco's Private Transit Battle
#27Re: Chariot Wins First Round of San Francisco's Private Transit Battle
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how much of the city's residents' taxes turn out to be just subsidising the tiny minority who need wheelchairs?
Does it matter? That's why public transit and government exists, to offer services to every single person.
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.
Re: Chariot Wins First Round of San Francisco's Private Transit Battle
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, sorry, but it certainly is desirable that people be able to find an affordable short commute.
Sure, 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.
You 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.
Re: Chariot Wins First Round of San Francisco's Private Transit Battle
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, sorry, but it certainly is desirable that people be able to find an affordable short commute.
Sure, 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.
In what way is it not desirable for everyone to at least have the option of shorter commutes?