Leap: Your daily commute redesigned | Hacker News Reader

Leap: Your daily commute redesigned

rideleap.com

64 pointsdkasper77 comments

Anyone know Leap's arragement with their drivers? Their TOS makes it seem like the Uber for buses.

From Terms of service - "LEAP DOES NOT PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, AND LEAP IS NOT A TRANSPORTATION CARRIER. IT IS UP TO THE DRIVER OR VEHICLE OPERATOR TO OFFER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WHICH MAY BE ARRANGED THROUGH USE OF THE SERVICES"

Got to love it when the ALL CAPS directly contradicts all published marketing and intuition.

>see why Leap is the daily commute you’ll love

>Here’s how you ride

>Our first route travels between Lombard Street and Downtown.

>You’ll love our buses

>Our buses are fueled by renewable natural gas and take cars off the road.

>We stripped our buses down

>Every bus has a Leap team member on board

>Our beautifully designed app is the perfect companion to our buses

It sounded somewhat cool until you brought up these terms in their TOS. Now I'm just thinking: fuck these guys.

Especially when the FAQ says:

"Do you use professional drivers?

All of our drivers have years of experience driving public and private transit. Each driver must pass through a complete background check and adhere to a zero tolerance alcohol and drug policy."

It sounds like its just a way to make bus drivers 1099 contractors, while dictating everything they do, since it seems unlikely to me that there are many bus owner/operators.

I don't know if you should go that far. It's probably just a practical matter of operating a carrier. It might not be advantageous to combine logistics and operators, just like it's not really practical to build the motor vehicles themselves, even for large operations like city public transit.

Fine, but who knows if that's true.

State that up front then, don't bury it in ALL CAPS in your lengthy disclaimer on a separate page while having all your marketing material present a much different view of what you are actually offering.

Most likely this is an attempt to maximize the "app's" profits while pushing as much liability as possible off on to other people (ie. the driver and your "users") and to flout industry standards and regulations.

> From Terms of service - "LEAP DOES NOT PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, AND LEAP IS NOT A TRANSPORTATION CARRIER. IT IS UP TO THE DRIVER OR VEHICLE OPERATOR TO OFFER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WHICH MAY BE ARRANGED THROUGH USE OF THE SERVICES"

Shameful. I hope these guys - meaning everyone tempted to try to get rich by ignoring the law, including but not limited to Leap - go to jail. Some decent jail sentences would be educational for the rest.

What's confusing to me is the relationship they have with the, uh, hardware, when compared to Uber. They clearly have their own buses, but they aren't a transportation service, yet they somehow pay people to drive their buses to provide transportation. Seems like there is an even bigger dependence on various loopholes to operate this when compared with 1-1 ride sharing.

You missed the best part:

>[Leap Transit, Inc] OFFERS INFORMATION AND A METHOD TO OBTAIN THIRD PARTY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, ^^BUT DOES NOT AND DOES NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES^^ OR ACT IN ANY WAY AS A TRANSPORTATION CARRIER, AND HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PROVIDED TO YOU BY SUCH THIRD PARTIES.

Some more goodies:

>We do not guarantee and do not promise any specific results from use of Leap and/or the Services.

>We, our subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees and our suppliers specifically disclaim any implied warranties of title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.

They also don't offer any refunds:

>Any fees that Leap Transit may charge You for the Licensed Application or Services are due immediately and are non-refundable. This no refund policy shall apply at all times regardless of your decision to terminate your usage, our decision to terminate your usage, disruption caused to our Licensed Application or Services either planned, accidental or intentional, or any reason whatsoever.

So, they are basically saying they won't transport you, they don't make any claims to transport you [despite what their landing/marketing page appears to say], they will take your money if you think they will transport you, and they won't give it back to you when they don't transport you [which they never claimed to (except on their homepage)].

This might have been a decent gig for Lloyd Dobler:

"I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that."

Isn't it a way to get out of all legal issues so they can test if their start up works? I mean they only have one small route in one city, at this point it's more a test than a real big company.

Things like this exist in New York, although they're significantly more... informal. Two dollars, cash.

http://projects.newyorker.com/story/nyc-dollar-vans/

Leap can be faster because they cut a lot of things that the SFMTA buses provides. A big delay on the public buses is letting people with wheelchairs on and off, if they are using the same design as the video it looks like they don't support that. They can also cream skim the most popular routes - SMFTA is sort of obliged to offer at least some route going near most places, regardless of whether that gets them anywhere quickly.

Reminds me of the Nairobi matatus, too: https://medium.com/@transitapp/hello-nairobi-cc27bb5a73b7

I can't shake the feeling that the existence of leap and that it seems compelling are symptoms of deeply flawed urban planning.

That's because it is a symptom of "deeply flawed urban planning", but we work with work we've got in SF...

I can't shake the feeling that it's an answer to the problem "I like the idea of commuting in a shared vehicle, but the bus is dirty and sometimes homeless people ride it."

You say that as though disliking a ride on a filthy bus while sitting next to a homeless guy who smells like urine and stale vomit and is leering saliciously at every woman on the bus while murmuring obscenities and rubbing his groin is some sort of illegitimate and invalid reason that only a precious bourgeois person would dare to think.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Nice one, going for the emotional and gender-based play. Homeless people are people too, surprisingly, and in my experience those that complain about homeless people on public transport are whinging about the mere presence of them, not saying that they're as extreme as your example.

I have used buses in SF. They are unreliable. Sometimes a bus just never shows up, regardless of what the schedule says. Then two buses show up at the same time. This has happened to me several times.

> Then two buses show up at the same time. This has happened to me several times.

This is called bus bunching, here's an explanation. http://www.wbez.org/series/curious-city/why-buses-arrive-bun...

I know someone who works at Muni (and generally will answer all my random muni questions).

Bus bunching is, as that article notes, kind of inherent to the system.

And the obvious solutions (like leapfrogging) drive people crazy. Actually, a lot of Muni's problems relate to "people get really upset when you do the obvious fix". Like reducing the number of stops... good luck with that!

>Then two buses show up at the same time

Just two? You've never caught a bus in Chicago then..

I think the "you can see where the bus is and how many seats are left in" is a really good way of doing public transportation.

I used to wonder, years ago when I lived in SF, why does a supposedly green city have such lousy public transportation? If this is successful, expect MUNI to use legal means to get rid of it.

Privately run, regularly scheduled bus services open to the public, called "jitneys," are already illegal in San Francisco.[1] Leap and similar services seem to be ignoring this law. They were banned in the 1970s as Muni's service degraded, to shield it from competition.

[1] http://missionlocal.org/2014/06/up-until-the-1970s-muni-had-...

That's interesting, considering, for many years, I've seen this bus around San Francisco with 'jitney bus' literally printed on the side: http://images.nymag.com/travel/weekends/20090910sanfransisco...

That guy is the last holder of an old jitney license. The ban was enacted by not issuing any new licenses. People who already had them were allowed to keep operating.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/A-One-Man-Traffic-Buster-...

http://www.yelp.com/biz/jess-losa-jitney-97-san-francisco

SF was puzzling to me when I live in the Bay Area.

In Paris, using your car is hell but you have a good transportation network.

In smaller French cities, the transportation network is less developed but you can take your car everywhere and park easily.

But San Francisco... Both parking and mass transit is bad! The only viable solution is the bike, but that only works if you're living in the city.

And bike is potentially deadly

It's absolutely deadly in traffic

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)?

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

San Francisco has those too, like on the Geary/O'Farrell corridor, though not on every bus route.

The two problems are definitely not always related. There have been plenty of times where traffic is mild and buses simply aren't coming.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And when they do all of those things, they find customers willing to pay and drivers willing to work.

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.

Exactly who I want driving me around in a giant metal box: a stressed-out, poverty-level person with no benefits.

Because we've decided as a society that paying people a decent wage is a good idea.

The same can be said for a lot of jobs, including so-called "software engineers." You can pay people in Romania $300/day instead of paying someone in SF $1,800 a day.

Dang. $1,800 a day? I've been missing out.

Why Muni can’t find good drivers: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/why-muni-cant-find-go...

The starting wage is $18 an hour, going up to $30. The $70k is with overtime. So the starting worker probably does make more like $35k, which isn't exactly amazing in San Francisco.

I wonder if there are other, undiscovered industries that can be "1099ified" for profit. Maybe construction?

Maybe medical? Actually, I would appreciate an app that let me consult with a doctor without having to actually schedule an appointment and go to the office - just to determine simple stuff like "does this need stitches?".

Granted, that's an area I'd be a lot less tolerant of someone who isn't complying with any regulation or laws.

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.

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.

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.

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-2...

People under 18-29 who make under $30k/year are much less likely to be traditionally "lower class" than other people in that income bracket.

But sure, smartphones are pretty widespread these days. If that were the only factor biasing these busses towards the wealthier end of the society, then the bias wouldn't be very much.

It's not the only factor.

It isn't a "class based" explanation. The poor and those riding the expensive buses are the same working class. I find it strange that the "middle class" considers it distinct from the "working class" when they themselves are also working class.

If you don't own a business, you are in the same class as 99% of the population.

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."

California Vehicle Code, §22500: No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control device, in any of the following places: [...] (i) Except as provided under Section 22500.5, alongside curb space authorized for the loading and unloading of passengers of a bus engaged as a common carrier in local transportation when indicated by a sign or red paint on the curb erected or painted by local authorities pursuant to an ordinance.

So I guess they aren't using SFMTA bus stops. At least, they aren't supposed to. § 22500.5 is the exemption for school buses. I don't live in SF, but is this rule usually followed? In Seattle it seems a lot of the city bus stops are quickly becoming inaccessible to non Seattle Transit vehicles by design (lots of new construction for bike lanes and separate lanes for public trans). So beyond the legal issues, I think something like this would start to run into real world physical limitations of which cities could actually support something like this - at least in the urban core. The sort of satellite commutes you see in cities like Minneapolis would be a different story.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh...

Edit: first link pointed to an older .gov site

There was a lot of fussing and moaning over tech buses using Muni stops, but that got resolved legally (even if people aren't all happy about it).

You should bear in mind that for a lot of similar startups (e.g., Uber) there's a sort of "we'll sort the legal stuff out later" attitude that, so far, has tended to work out well for them..

oakland to sf would be huge. compete with the increasingly overcrowded BART, especially on the pitt/bay point line, and the unreliable transbay buses. there's already a huge "casual carpool" culture you could eat into.

How in the world do you keep from falling on that thing when it comes to a stop? I'm a big fan of always sitting at the back of the bus. Whenever I am nearing my stop on a traditional city bus I really need to use all the hand holds to get to the front or side door to keep from falling down. This thing looks like it has none of those.

I don't understand why I would take this for $5 a ride over LyftLine or UberPool ($5/$7 without Surge) which offers presumably much quicker service and no walking to/from stops.

That being said, I would be pumped to see something like this between SF and Palo Alto

You're on a comfortable bus, in a comfortable chair with a table, with giant windows, and not being jostled around in the back of a minivan.

Don't forget all the attractive women and hipster-compatible snacks featured in the video! I'd be interesting in learning about Leap's program to keep flirtatious models aboard every operating bus, as the video seems to make that a primary selling point.

I wouldn't mind

Also, it seems you would be contributing less pollution to the city and burning less hydrocarbons, as a full bus running on natural gas is more efficient than a standard auto's ICE on gasoline which is transporting one person.

As a person who regularly rides the bus on my way to work I can assure you that you will most certainly not be able to work on a sideways positioned table in a CITY-bus.

Busses turn left, right with speed and in some cases break strongly. Speaking of motion sickness, most people I know are not even able to work riding a train (ICE for example, which is perfectly comfortable IMO), so why should/would/could they on a city bus.

However, the interior looks nice and if you're promised a seat then this might still be a nice alternative to public transportation.

Google Bus as a service. This would be a great way for a startup to offer that benefit without the huge costs. I like it.

the seats look sparse ..how are they going to get by with so few seats and still be competitive on price ?

It's expensive and they sell snacks too.

Assuming a bus costs 100k@4% financing, that's about 2,200 a month.

Salary for a driver could be another 100k (including benefits, taxes, etc). That's 8.3 k per month.

CNG buses get about 3mpg at about $2/gallon equivalent cost to diesel (http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/20120227-Die...)

Assuming 150 miles driven per day, that's $3,000 per month in fuel costs.

Total costs per bus: $13,500/month or $450 per day.

At $5 per ride, that's 2,700 rides per month or 90 per day. Even if they could only fit 10 people, that's less than 10 rides per day. Seems reasonable to me.

this does not include the many kind of fees, fleet maintenance expenses, other staffing costs, etc

It's not so competitive in terms of price to public transit. $6 for a single ride (compared to Muni's $2.25)

From the video the first thing I noticed was the lack of basic safety items, usually in regular buses there are tons of places that you can hold onto, and if it's a longer trip there is even belts, so I wonder how is the licensing of this automobiles.

Should probably mention it's SF-only at the start.

Indeed. I skimmed the top of the page and my first thought was "Is this a transit app? Oh, 'Lombard'. Must be SF-only".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com