Not exactly. Vanpool is a mainstay of metropolitan commuting in the United States but it's an implementation that's well behind the times. Check out Seattle's for an example. Basically the way it currently works is: 1) The city buys a bunch of vans 2) You round up a bunch of people whose commute is similar to yours 3) You apply for the city to loan you a van 4) You become a bus driver for whoever is on your vanpool 5) profit Right now it's subsidized by a varying patchwork of city, state and federal funds (if I'm not mistaken). Chariot, which I'd never heard of, apparently goes through Steps 1 through 4 for you and takes (5) for itself. It's one of those forehead-smacking ideas: vanpool works gangbusters but setting up vanpool is a bitch. Chariot (and now Ford) are basically saying "we'll do that for a living" and using the already-available subisidies to increase profits and undercut the rideshares. 'cuz here's the thing about rideshare: it's versatile and handy. But here's the thing about rideshare: there's no advantage in giving up the versatility. If you're going to the same place five days a week and staying there for eight or nine hours, vanpool is the way to go. And if you're Chariot, the fact that you've got 100 vans instead of 1 actually allows you to offer more wriggle room on scheduling and routing. This is a company that deserves to win. The money is already there. Their service is basically expediting an already desired civic effect. They're competing in an open arena with no monopoly concerns - theoretically, a city could still buy the vans and lease it to whomever wanted to play. It's actually really exciting.
Another way I thought of internalizing this, is that the bus system apparently is inadequate to make good commuter flows possible. I say this from my European, bus-crazy point of view; over here all the good bus networks are specifically designed to cater to commuters. I wonder if a better designed (both in terms of the buses themselves, like Leap, and the network itself) system with a higher level of service should have filled this market of good and cheap commuting. I know buses suck in US metropolitan areas, but shouldn't the solution then be to improve that service instead of adding yet another layer? That said, I am all for new initiatives and this seems like an amazing idea. Didn't know vanpooling was a thing. But I wonder if it's just a great idea because of the terribleness of buses, not necessarily because this is the best way to organize local transportation.
The bus system in the United States is aimed entirely at the lower classes. With cars being the status symbol they are, public transportation predominantly serves the poor. I cannot count the number of times I've mentioned LA's Metro system to white people who had no idea we even have one. When I tell them that it's standing room only full of brown people who don't speak English (and the homless guys selling bottled water and sneakers of questionable provenance) they just sort of nod.