[smackfu]

Generally speaking, municipal bus systems tend to have profitable routes and unprofitable routes. The subsidy is to run the unprofitable ones. Of course some commercial entity can come in and compete on the profitable ones, but that doesn't mean they should get a subsidy too unless they also run the unprofitable routes.

[pjlegato]

Drive-by downvoters: at least post a reply and explain which part of this you disagree with...

The larger problem is that Muni's quality of service is terrible on all of its routes. The buses are usually filthy, late, slow, vastly overcrowded, falling apart, and frequently contain dangerous and/or insane people.

If the bus system were better on any routes, there would be proportionately less need for private mass transportation.

Combine this with Muni's seeming inability to run enough trains and buses on high-demand routes, and inability to even operate what would be very profitable routes on high-demand corridors such as the Marina to downtown, and we have our situation today.

[discardorama]

If these routes were profitable, the MUNI could run more buses on these routes and not need as much subsidies, right? Win-win for both: MUNI makes more money, and people get better transit.

Most of the riders who suffer daily on MUNI are monthly pass holders anyways, so the MUNI already has taken their money; there is no economic incentive for MUNI to provide better service.