6 ms·

It seems like San Francisco is one of the few places where you can have a company completely fail, only to see it revamp its product in a way that it will proba

It seems like San Francisco is one of the few places where you can have a company completely fail, only to see it revamp its product in a way that it will probably completely fail again. While I can't speak for San Francisco's bus system, everything about this product video screams to me that the solution that is being provided here does not actually solve a problem other than "I am white, privileged, and want to ride on a fancy looking bus where I can buy a Vita Coco. I also want to pay as much as $6 per ride, which is egregiously more expensive than something that amounts to little more than public transit needs to be." This whole thing is basically the epitome of the tech bubble and offers little to nothing of real value.

cpursley 12y ago
Yeah, they should drop all the frills. And those seats without backs looks terribly uncomfortable if not unsafe.
- solve 12y ago
  Take away the bus-style seats, and it's now more like a tram/trolly/subway/european busses, from the rider's perspective. This open layout is vastly better than the traditional US bus layout. Feels safer, less trapped. This is the right direction to be going, as public transportation in most of the rest of the world has already proven long ago.
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    >Take away the seats It must be wonderful to be so young and healthy and not have any issues that keep you from standing 60+ minutes on a moving and uneven platform.
jsprogrammer 12y ago
You might also want to look at the discussion of their TOS from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9220210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9220210 Basically, the TOS disclaims pretty much everything claimed by their marketing material (ie. they are not a transportation company, don't claim to be one, don't make any guarantees or promises about what they do, etc; also, you are dependent on the bus driver to actually transport you because the driver is the 'third party' you are actually contracting with and they won't refund you if they fail to transport you [which they most definitely won't, because they aren't a transport company]).
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  The circular logic looks somewhat familiar. This isn't a subsidiary of M & M Enterprises, by any chance?
- jusben1369 12y ago
  They're in a super competitive market (Other public transport, Lyft, Uber etc) If they don't provide a valuable reliable service they'll pay the ultimate price. Public transportation companies may or may not have a better TOS but the question is what happens to them if they don't hit their TOS? Nothing because they're taxpayer funded/subsidized.
sgrove 12y ago
An alternative comment (that would likely be more useful and spark more interesting conversation) might focus on listing the ways in which you see public transportation in SF as broken, and thoughts on how they might be sustainably (and profitably) fixed.
- jfb 12y ago
  It's not clear to me that profitability is a useful metric in thinking about how to fix public transportation, unless one is running a transportation startup.
  - msandford 12y ago
    Well it's useful in the sense that if an alternative transportation company as opposed to a city enterprise is able to turn a profit, that would indicate something. I think it would indicate that the city isn't making enough of an effort on the mass transit side of things. Overall it would be great if people could start up private bus lines that they believe are underserved which the city would then later take over. If you structure it so that the city paid a royalty to the entity which established the line for a few years, they could probably do a fair amount of good. Now, how would you prevent this from turning into a tollway that's only going to charge for 20 years but 50 years later it's still for-pay? By making the city pay an external entity rather than keeping the revenue. They'll keep their word -- at least when it comes to paying the bus startup -- very rigidly if it's an outflow. How would you ensure that they then lower the price once the royalty is done? That's harder. I guess at least the scam would be more transparent that way.
    - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
      >If you structure it so that the city paid a royalty to the entity which established the line for a few years, they could probably do a fair amount of good. This is very much how the UK's rail franchising system fails to work. Rail is complex because you have obvious economies of scale when you have the same entity managing rolling stock, tracks, other resources, and R&D. The UK's rail franchising is the worst of all possible worlds. Economies of scale are impossible because separate companies own the rolling stock, run the rolling stock, and maintain the track. And no R&D happens at all now. Worse, companies regularly scam the gov by collecting subsidies while they can and giving up franchises early when they're expected to start repaying some of their profits. So this is not necessarily a good model. >I think it would indicate that the city isn't making enough of an effort on the mass transit side of things. Why should public transport be profitable? It provides a valuable economic service, in that it moves employees to and from work. Demanding that it should make a profit is like demanding that pedestrian walkways or the freeway system should make a profit. Infrastructure is a public and corporate good. You can certainly debate who benefits from it the most, and who should pay for it on the basis of the economic value of those benefits. You can also debate if perhaps it's not as innovative as it could be - something which is often true of both public and private transport systems. But there's no obvious non-ideological need for it to be run on a for-profit basis.
dataker 12y ago
From a technical perspective, it is gathering data and training models that eventually would make it more affordable and efficient. Also, The "white privileged elite" seema to act as early adopters, willing to pay for the extra bucks. Eventually, the technology gets cheaper and accessible to more users.
ceallen 12y ago
People who drop an extra 4 dollars so their morning commute is reliable and moderately pleasant are now white privileged elite. I'd hate to hear what you think of people who drive cars. Wanting to be at work on time without allotting an extra 30 minutes for public transit shenanigans is hardly the epitome of privilege.
- AWolfAtTheDoor 12y ago
  What aspect of a fancy bus that drives in normal traffic like any other bus (or car, assuming there are not bus-only lanes) makes it any more capable of getting a person to their destination sooner? Addendum: this is a private company that technically speaking does not have to adhere to any schedule and isn't liable for various things (according to the TOS posted in this tree), so if anything you're more likely to be on the wrong end of things compared to an organized public transit system.
  - krschultz 12y ago
    You are assuming that there is no better way to define the schedules, no better way to communicate bus location, and no better way to start buses on time than what currently exists. There are two sides to on schedule performance - what the bus does, and what the schedule says. You are probably right that the bus can't move any faster just because it is private. On the other hand, I bet a tech savvy company can do vastly better at predicting what the actual bus schedule will be as well as communicating any deviations from the schedule in real time.
    - creshal 12y ago
      > On the other hand, I bet a tech savvy company can do vastly better at predicting what the actual bus schedule will be It's mainly traffic issues, or a single wheelchair/baby carriage clogging up the exits and requiring more time than anticipated. It's hard to make useful predictions for that. > as well as communicating any deviations from the schedule in real time. The municipal public transits in many European cities already have real-time schedule updates (and replacements) delivered via smart phone apps and digital signage posts at the bus stops. Big IT (I think Siemens, e.g.) has been offering and deploying solutions for this for years now.
ahallock 12y ago
Your comment is hyperbolic and race baiting. That this new service solves a problem or adds anything of value is up to the consumer. Maybe there are certain amenities that people want and will pay extra for. There's nothing wrong with that. In your world, it sounds like we should only use the bare minimum and everything else is waste and privilege.
- AWolfAtTheDoor 12y ago
  Your statement to an extent is correct, but at the same time it also supports the fact that those who have the ability to pay more for something are not privileged to be able to. I would love to see the public transit systems improved, busses included. The issue here is that the privatized system and frills that the Leap busses have, which for all intents and purposes are mostly unnecessary, scream upper class while coming across as if the goal is to improve the entire public transit system, when in reality it isn't anywhere near the case.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    while coming across as if the goal is to improve the entire public transit system Where? In their website, all the copy seems direct at the potential customer; I saw nothing about the goal being an improvement to the entire transit system.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- AWolfAtTheDoor 12y ago
  Anyone in the United States can get an iPhone 5S (and perhaps even a 6) for free somewhere on contract if they look around. If they really want to spend next to nothing, second hand 5 models are not much more expensive than most budget Android phones and will get far more mileage. It's not an issue of Android versus iPhone here.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
> "I am white, privileged, and want to ride on a fancy looking bus where I can buy a Vita Coco. Uh, lets not place the race card here. In all major US cities we have 100+ years of political corruption, union protectionism, bad planning, kick the can mentality, etc that have led to a shitty level of public services. A non-government competitor can help to keep the government honest as people see how much better things can be. As a Chicagoan, my advice is, don't become like Chicago. We ran full tilt towards the "don't challenge the government, we know best" approach which just led to the corrupt machine politics that is driving the city into bankruptcy. I would love to take a non-CTA bus to work. I can't see how anyone could possibly do worse than the CTA bus system. >Some critics have raised worries that these bus startups, like Chariot and competitor Leap Transit, will cause the broader public to disinvest in the city’s municipal transit system. This is a feature, not a bug. I mean, should universities and hospitals give up on their private bus system because it "threatens" the public one? If the public system is so terrible, continuing to prop it up makes no sense. Personally, the idea that we need to build this ultra-egalitarian society is highly hypocritical, especially on an entrepreneurial forum like HN. Yeah, I'm willing to pay to not ride with crackheads and criminals. There's nothing wrong with that, the same way I bought a house far away from crackheads and criminals.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > I would love to take a non-CTA bus to work. I can't see how anyone could possibly do worse than the CTA bus system. I don't know where you are in Chicago, but tooling around Streeterville/Gold Coast/Lincoln Park, I always found the CTA buses clean and punctual. I don't think CTA is a great example of union protectionism or bad planning in Chicago (I'd level those at CPS/CPD). If you can't see how anyone could do worse than CTA, try riding the public transit in the Rust-belt east coast cities (Philly, Baltimore, Wilmington). It can get so much worse.
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    >Streeterville/Gold Coast/Lincoln Park To be fair, those are the three wealthiest parts of the city, so there's incentive to make them work properly. I think when you leave the high-income bubble you'll see the CTA isn't like that normally. >Philly, Baltimore, Wilmington Those aren't remotely tier-1 cities with the budget we have. Its not a fair comparison. Not to mention, in places like Baltimore, driving and parking to work are feasible and economic options. In Chicago that's not going to work out.
jusben1369 12y ago
I'll admit the video is a little cringe worthy with hipsters and Vita Coco. But your criticisms are unfair and unfounded. Airplanes sell a range of seating options that have a price to comfort ratio. Train travellers have always had multiple cabins and pricing choices. Car services range from cheap taxis to black cars to take you to the airport. So there's no reason bus transportation can't offer an alternative to the current offering that's more expensive and therefore has better amenities. In general I'm completely bearish though on these new types of public transportation options. We're about 10 - 15 years away from self driving electric cars that could fit 2 - 4 or 8 people based on design that will optimize route choices and pick you up from your door and drop you at the door you want to go whether that's 3 miles away or intercity. And the economics are already there ($6 probably gets you a long way is a Lyft rideshare right now) Leap could pivot to support that new model but I think super large vehicles on fixed routes is going the way of the dinosaur.
- peterwwillis 12y ago
  The examples you give are examples of privilege which benefit the wealthy [who happen to be mostly white] and the only thing that's affected is "rider comfort", which is not real value when you consider the business is a transportation company and not a day spa. There's no reason they can't offer an alternative. But the reason they can and do offer an alternative is pretentious.
  - hsod 12y ago
    "rider comfort" is not real value? What if busses had no seats at all? What if they were 100 degrees? What if they didn't have shock absorbers? What if they smelled bad (worse)? Rider comfort IS real value. You've just anchored your perspective at the current level and decided that anything above that is "pretentious" which is itself kind of pretentious. Also, it seems tautological that luxury services benefit the wealthy. What's the alternative? Socialism?
    - peterwwillis 12y ago
      Sometimes, rider comfort determines value. Such as on an airplane, where a couple inches can determine if your neck and back are screwed up for hours. Or on a bus in Dubai, where air conditioning may determine if you look like you just stepped out of a lake of perspiration. In this case, the Leap is doing what someone else already alluded to: giving you a Lexus version of a bus. It's not like it's providing air conditioning where it didn't exist, or needed room where it didn't exist [in fact, it does the opposite]. Added value is when you get more for your money. Like when you get a free bag of peanuts with your ride, or your ride costs less, or introduces air conditioning. Adding luxury changes the value, but while also increasing the cost. And things introduced purely as a luxury tend to be pretentious. As it's designed now, there are less seats, higher prices, and increases the amount of traffic on the roads. If this service became popular they'd either have to raise the price (ala Uber/Lyft surges) or increase the number of buses, which forces you to choose between increased cost or increased traffic, neither of which improves transportation. I wasn't trying to suggest we shouldn't have luxury items. Just that when it comes to an alternative bus [transportation means], what we don't need is a luxury bus. We need a more efficient bus. Less seats, higher prices and a potential increase in traffic does not seem more efficient to me. -- Let's be honest. This service is intended to cater to people who are "too classy" for the bus, but too cheap for an expensive car service. It's not getting them there faster, and definitely not cheaper, but it is giving them fancy drinks and a space to open up their laptops away from the poor, unwashed masses. It's the upper-middle-class bus service. "Tired of looking at poor people? Need a place to USB charge your phone? Like the idea of going to work in a mobile coffee shop? Try Leap!" Now that's pretentious.
patcon 12y ago
> "San Francisco faces some very real challenges. Taxis are impossible to hail. Private car services are extremely expensive at peak times," I'll admit that this line actually made me angry.

cpursley 12y ago

Yeah, they should drop all the frills. And those seats without backs looks terribly uncomfortable if not unsafe.

solve 12y ago
Take away the bus-style seats, and it's now more like a tram/trolly/subway/european busses, from the rider's perspective. This open layout is vastly better than the traditional US bus layout. Feels safer, less trapped. This is the right direction to be going, as public transportation in most of the rest of the world has already proven long ago.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >Take away the seats It must be wonderful to be so young and healthy and not have any issues that keep you from standing 60+ minutes on a moving and uneven platform.

jsprogrammer 12y ago

You might also want to look at the discussion of their TOS from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9220210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9220210 Basically, the TOS disclaims pretty much everything claimed by their marketing material (ie. they are not a transportation company, don't claim to be one, don't make any guarantees or promises about what they do, etc; also, you are dependent on the bus driver to actually transport you because the driver is the 'third party' you are actually contracting with and they won't refund you if they fail to transport you [which they most definitely won't, because they aren't a transport company]).

lotsofmangos 12y ago
The circular logic looks somewhat familiar. This isn't a subsidiary of M & M Enterprises, by any chance?
jusben1369 12y ago
They're in a super competitive market (Other public transport, Lyft, Uber etc) If they don't provide a valuable reliable service they'll pay the ultimate price. Public transportation companies may or may not have a better TOS but the question is what happens to them if they don't hit their TOS? Nothing because they're taxpayer funded/subsidized.

sgrove 12y ago

An alternative comment (that would likely be more useful and spark more interesting conversation) might focus on listing the ways in which you see public transportation in SF as broken, and thoughts on how they might be sustainably (and profitably) fixed.

jfb 12y ago
It's not clear to me that profitability is a useful metric in thinking about how to fix public transportation, unless one is running a transportation startup.
- msandford 12y ago
  Well it's useful in the sense that if an alternative transportation company as opposed to a city enterprise is able to turn a profit, that would indicate something. I think it would indicate that the city isn't making enough of an effort on the mass transit side of things. Overall it would be great if people could start up private bus lines that they believe are underserved which the city would then later take over. If you structure it so that the city paid a royalty to the entity which established the line for a few years, they could probably do a fair amount of good. Now, how would you prevent this from turning into a tollway that's only going to charge for 20 years but 50 years later it's still for-pay? By making the city pay an external entity rather than keeping the revenue. They'll keep their word -- at least when it comes to paying the bus startup -- very rigidly if it's an outflow. How would you ensure that they then lower the price once the royalty is done? That's harder. I guess at least the scam would be more transparent that way.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    >If you structure it so that the city paid a royalty to the entity which established the line for a few years, they could probably do a fair amount of good. This is very much how the UK's rail franchising system fails to work. Rail is complex because you have obvious economies of scale when you have the same entity managing rolling stock, tracks, other resources, and R&D. The UK's rail franchising is the worst of all possible worlds. Economies of scale are impossible because separate companies own the rolling stock, run the rolling stock, and maintain the track. And no R&D happens at all now. Worse, companies regularly scam the gov by collecting subsidies while they can and giving up franchises early when they're expected to start repaying some of their profits. So this is not necessarily a good model. >I think it would indicate that the city isn't making enough of an effort on the mass transit side of things. Why should public transport be profitable? It provides a valuable economic service, in that it moves employees to and from work. Demanding that it should make a profit is like demanding that pedestrian walkways or the freeway system should make a profit. Infrastructure is a public and corporate good. You can certainly debate who benefits from it the most, and who should pay for it on the basis of the economic value of those benefits. You can also debate if perhaps it's not as innovative as it could be - something which is often true of both public and private transport systems. But there's no obvious non-ideological need for it to be run on a for-profit basis.

dataker 12y ago

From a technical perspective, it is gathering data and training models that eventually would make it more affordable and efficient. Also, The "white privileged elite" seema to act as early adopters, willing to pay for the extra bucks. Eventually, the technology gets cheaper and accessible to more users.

ceallen 12y ago

People who drop an extra 4 dollars so their morning commute is reliable and moderately pleasant are now white privileged elite. I'd hate to hear what you think of people who drive cars. Wanting to be at work on time without allotting an extra 30 minutes for public transit shenanigans is hardly the epitome of privilege.

AWolfAtTheDoor 12y ago
What aspect of a fancy bus that drives in normal traffic like any other bus (or car, assuming there are not bus-only lanes) makes it any more capable of getting a person to their destination sooner? Addendum: this is a private company that technically speaking does not have to adhere to any schedule and isn't liable for various things (according to the TOS posted in this tree), so if anything you're more likely to be on the wrong end of things compared to an organized public transit system.
- krschultz 12y ago
  You are assuming that there is no better way to define the schedules, no better way to communicate bus location, and no better way to start buses on time than what currently exists. There are two sides to on schedule performance - what the bus does, and what the schedule says. You are probably right that the bus can't move any faster just because it is private. On the other hand, I bet a tech savvy company can do vastly better at predicting what the actual bus schedule will be as well as communicating any deviations from the schedule in real time.
  - creshal 12y ago
    > On the other hand, I bet a tech savvy company can do vastly better at predicting what the actual bus schedule will be It's mainly traffic issues, or a single wheelchair/baby carriage clogging up the exits and requiring more time than anticipated. It's hard to make useful predictions for that. > as well as communicating any deviations from the schedule in real time. The municipal public transits in many European cities already have real-time schedule updates (and replacements) delivered via smart phone apps and digital signage posts at the bus stops. Big IT (I think Siemens, e.g.) has been offering and deploying solutions for this for years now.

ahallock 12y ago

Your comment is hyperbolic and race baiting. That this new service solves a problem or adds anything of value is up to the consumer. Maybe there are certain amenities that people want and will pay extra for. There's nothing wrong with that. In your world, it sounds like we should only use the bare minimum and everything else is waste and privilege.

AWolfAtTheDoor 12y ago
Your statement to an extent is correct, but at the same time it also supports the fact that those who have the ability to pay more for something are not privileged to be able to. I would love to see the public transit systems improved, busses included. The issue here is that the privatized system and frills that the Leap busses have, which for all intents and purposes are mostly unnecessary, scream upper class while coming across as if the goal is to improve the entire public transit system, when in reality it isn't anywhere near the case.
- icebraining 12y ago
  while coming across as if the goal is to improve the entire public transit system Where? In their website, all the copy seems direct at the potential customer; I saw nothing about the goal being an improvement to the entire transit system.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

AWolfAtTheDoor 12y ago
Anyone in the United States can get an iPhone 5S (and perhaps even a 6) for free somewhere on contract if they look around. If they really want to spend next to nothing, second hand 5 models are not much more expensive than most budget Android phones and will get far more mileage. It's not an issue of Android versus iPhone here.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

> "I am white, privileged, and want to ride on a fancy looking bus where I can buy a Vita Coco. Uh, lets not place the race card here. In all major US cities we have 100+ years of political corruption, union protectionism, bad planning, kick the can mentality, etc that have led to a shitty level of public services. A non-government competitor can help to keep the government honest as people see how much better things can be. As a Chicagoan, my advice is, don't become like Chicago. We ran full tilt towards the "don't challenge the government, we know best" approach which just led to the corrupt machine politics that is driving the city into bankruptcy. I would love to take a non-CTA bus to work. I can't see how anyone could possibly do worse than the CTA bus system. >Some critics have raised worries that these bus startups, like Chariot and competitor Leap Transit, will cause the broader public to disinvest in the city’s municipal transit system. This is a feature, not a bug. I mean, should universities and hospitals give up on their private bus system because it "threatens" the public one? If the public system is so terrible, continuing to prop it up makes no sense. Personally, the idea that we need to build this ultra-egalitarian society is highly hypocritical, especially on an entrepreneurial forum like HN. Yeah, I'm willing to pay to not ride with crackheads and criminals. There's nothing wrong with that, the same way I bought a house far away from crackheads and criminals.

rayiner 12y ago
> I would love to take a non-CTA bus to work. I can't see how anyone could possibly do worse than the CTA bus system. I don't know where you are in Chicago, but tooling around Streeterville/Gold Coast/Lincoln Park, I always found the CTA buses clean and punctual. I don't think CTA is a great example of union protectionism or bad planning in Chicago (I'd level those at CPS/CPD). If you can't see how anyone could do worse than CTA, try riding the public transit in the Rust-belt east coast cities (Philly, Baltimore, Wilmington). It can get so much worse.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >Streeterville/Gold Coast/Lincoln Park To be fair, those are the three wealthiest parts of the city, so there's incentive to make them work properly. I think when you leave the high-income bubble you'll see the CTA isn't like that normally. >Philly, Baltimore, Wilmington Those aren't remotely tier-1 cities with the budget we have. Its not a fair comparison. Not to mention, in places like Baltimore, driving and parking to work are feasible and economic options. In Chicago that's not going to work out.

jusben1369 12y ago

I'll admit the video is a little cringe worthy with hipsters and Vita Coco. But your criticisms are unfair and unfounded. Airplanes sell a range of seating options that have a price to comfort ratio. Train travellers have always had multiple cabins and pricing choices. Car services range from cheap taxis to black cars to take you to the airport. So there's no reason bus transportation can't offer an alternative to the current offering that's more expensive and therefore has better amenities. In general I'm completely bearish though on these new types of public transportation options. We're about 10 - 15 years away from self driving electric cars that could fit 2 - 4 or 8 people based on design that will optimize route choices and pick you up from your door and drop you at the door you want to go whether that's 3 miles away or intercity. And the economics are already there ($6 probably gets you a long way is a Lyft rideshare right now) Leap could pivot to support that new model but I think super large vehicles on fixed routes is going the way of the dinosaur.

peterwwillis 12y ago
The examples you give are examples of privilege which benefit the wealthy [who happen to be mostly white] and the only thing that's affected is "rider comfort", which is not real value when you consider the business is a transportation company and not a day spa. There's no reason they can't offer an alternative. But the reason they can and do offer an alternative is pretentious.
- hsod 12y ago
  "rider comfort" is not real value? What if busses had no seats at all? What if they were 100 degrees? What if they didn't have shock absorbers? What if they smelled bad (worse)? Rider comfort IS real value. You've just anchored your perspective at the current level and decided that anything above that is "pretentious" which is itself kind of pretentious. Also, it seems tautological that luxury services benefit the wealthy. What's the alternative? Socialism?
  - peterwwillis 12y ago
    Sometimes, rider comfort determines value. Such as on an airplane, where a couple inches can determine if your neck and back are screwed up for hours. Or on a bus in Dubai, where air conditioning may determine if you look like you just stepped out of a lake of perspiration. In this case, the Leap is doing what someone else already alluded to: giving you a Lexus version of a bus. It's not like it's providing air conditioning where it didn't exist, or needed room where it didn't exist [in fact, it does the opposite]. Added value is when you get more for your money. Like when you get a free bag of peanuts with your ride, or your ride costs less, or introduces air conditioning. Adding luxury changes the value, but while also increasing the cost. And things introduced purely as a luxury tend to be pretentious. As it's designed now, there are less seats, higher prices, and increases the amount of traffic on the roads. If this service became popular they'd either have to raise the price (ala Uber/Lyft surges) or increase the number of buses, which forces you to choose between increased cost or increased traffic, neither of which improves transportation. I wasn't trying to suggest we shouldn't have luxury items. Just that when it comes to an alternative bus [transportation means], what we don't need is a luxury bus. We need a more efficient bus. Less seats, higher prices and a potential increase in traffic does not seem more efficient to me. -- Let's be honest. This service is intended to cater to people who are "too classy" for the bus, but too cheap for an expensive car service. It's not getting them there faster, and definitely not cheaper, but it is giving them fancy drinks and a space to open up their laptops away from the poor, unwashed masses. It's the upper-middle-class bus service. "Tired of looking at poor people? Need a place to USB charge your phone? Like the idea of going to work in a mobile coffee shop? Try Leap!" Now that's pretentious.

patcon 12y ago

> "San Francisco faces some very real challenges. Taxis are impossible to hail. Private car services are extremely expensive at peak times," I'll admit that this line actually made me angry.