18 ms·
Silicon Valley’s Economic Indicator: Caltrain Ridership
- nugget 11y agoThe future is here it's just not evenly distributed, as they say. Besides a bubble either bursting or continuing to inflate it seems likely that mature tech companies like Yelp, Twitter, Salesforce, and others will realize they can't afford to keep paying their average developer $250,000/year and relocate people to cheaper second tier cities. Yes, you need superstars wherever they are but instead of treating everyone like a superstar can you differentiate between mission-critical and non-mission-critical roles and locate them appropriately? I haven't seen this happen yet but it makes sense that at some point it would, due to the diminishing quality of life in the bay area. Or do they wait for the capital markets to turn on them before doing this?
- browseatwork 11y agoBy average developer do you mean in terms of general deveoper skill or in terms of average salary? I'd be surprised that even that the companies you list, the average salary for developers is 250k. And I'd be even more surprised if it's the median salary.
- Patrick_Devine 11y agoIt's close to that when you factor in benefits and perks. That said, proximity has a lot going for it, and software is a high margin business. I don't see companies moving away from the Bay Area any time soon, and I don't see developers salaries falling soon either.
- browseatwork 11y agoIt might be, but it's still hard to believe. Has anyone written a blog post with some reasonable napkin math? Some breakdown of a prominent company of engineers by salary range? Fully agree, a lot of software will be entrenched in the Bay for decades to come.
- pm24601 11y agoMaybe look at glassdoor: http://www.glassdoor.com/ http://www.glassdoor.com/ ?
- johnrob 11y agoI think about this quite often. Perhaps a more effective argument for this effort is social impact (rather than financial savings). The tech industry is reeking havoc upon lower income earners by rapidly increasing the cost of living. Ironically, many of these companies are social minded and have programs to assist those in need from a day-to-day perspective (i.e. free meal, cleanup projects, etc etc). However, the elephant in the room is that they've done far more damage than is possible to rectify via charity. Which comes back to the social argument: if tech companies proactively migrate these highly paid tech workers to other municipalities, it could significantly reduce the pressure on rent and home prices. The initiative could be sold as a massive goodwill effort to the local community. And, of course, the employees who willingly move away would get rewarded with a much lower cost of living.
- gorkemyurt 11y agoThis is an option right now, almost all big tech companies have offices in Seattle Austin or Boulder. People just want to stay in San Francisco.. Its a great city to live in both when you are a fresh collage hire and if you are trying to raise a child.
- johnrob 11y agoCompanies aren't proactively encouraging employees to migrate though. The employee has to ask for a approval, and if granted it's generally considered a favor.
- Reedx 11y agoI assume you meant not a great city if you're trying to raise a child? Between the insane rent and child care costs... it's just not worth it. ~$4k/mo for a 2 bedroom and then you're looking at $1k+/mo for one kid in daycare. I've been living in SF for the past five years and despite how much I like it, I'll probably move out with a baby on the way.
- sawthat 11y agoI have two kids and I live in SF. I'm just a regular old developer too. For day care you should probably be budgeting more like $2k, FYI. I live in the outer sunset and I own my home.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoAs long as big tech makes big bucks in the Bay Area, the money's gonna want their labor within arm's reach. Remote work has its place but for most companies you can't have your cake and eat it - remote is either all or nothing. That leaves local employment. Paying a quarter million to a developer seems like a lot, until you compare the efficiency gains of keeping everyone in one place. I think the real issue with Silicon Valley's future isn't financial, it's cultural. I believe it is rapidly becoming a second Wall Street: the place where young professionals tough it out for a few years until their bank accounts and resumes are good enough for a more fulfilling job in a cheaper and more preferable location without the cost and the crazy. The Bay Area is a great place to make money, but is it truly a great place to live? Strip away the nice weather and trendy restaurants, and it's hard not to notice how much of the communitarian counterculture that peaked in the 60s has been, like so much of the world today, eaten by software.
- rconti 11y agoI think it's a fantastic place to live, albeit expensive. I don't go to trendy restaurants, but there's a lot to do in the area. Lots of hiking/running/mountain biking opportunities. Don't undervalue the nice weather; it's a lot less enjoyable to do most outdoor activities when the weather is crappy or unpredictable. Easy access to the ocean. Relatively easy access to the mountains, assuming they get snow again. I'm a motorsport enthusiast; lots of great racetracks and mountain roads for cars+motorcycles.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoWhile I don't disagree with you, I do want to make clear for the sake of argument that those mountains were there before the microchip, and they'll remain for a very long time. My point is that a big money monoculture is a great way to homogenize and wash out a cosmopolitan culture. The homeless might remain, but the hippies are long gone...
- Decade 11y agoThe hippies are starting to die of old age, anyway. San Francisco is a city defined by successive invasions.
- methodover 11y agoI feel like Oakland is the place to be right now. It's super convenient to the city. BART isn't the worst thing in the world -- it gets you where you need to go. Housing prices aren't too bad (I'm paying $1k for a 1 bedroom). Traffic isn't too bad. Office prices aren't bad either -- the startup I work for got a great deal on real estate.
- cpncrunch 11y agoPerhaps the low property prices are due to the high crime rates?
- roflchoppa 11y agoI'm down for high crime if it keeps the yuppies at bay.
- cpncrunch 11y agoReally? You don't give a shit about personal safety or your possessions? I live in a (practically) zero crime area that has no yuppies and is very cheap. It's nowhere near SFO :)
- Kalium 11y agoThe parts of Oakland near BART are either not that cheap or Fruitvale levels of get-shot-for-not-being-poor.
- krakensden 11y agoYou are nuts. Crime in east oakland is almost entirely "poor people vs poor people".
- Kalium 11y agoI was exaggerating for effect. Parts of east Oakland are definitely the kind of place where you might get mugged for looking like a techie and carrying a laptop.
- ido 11y agopaying their average developer $250,000/year Are these really the kinds of salaries you get in SF/SV?
- browseatwork 11y agoSome people do but they are expectational and not average. It'd be interesting to know but I don't think there is good data. http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-software-engineer-salary-SRCH_IL.0,13_IM759_KO14,31.htm http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-software-eng...
- joncooper 11y agoNo, but the prevailing myth is part of what a previous commenter referred to as the area becoming the new Wall Street. All the carpetbagging MBA types I'm acquainted with who would've gone to NYC/London in the go-go mortgage bubble days are here now. It's the logical place for a talented young person with hustle to go and try to get some.
- dclowd9901 11y agoTo anyone who doubts this direction, come to Portland, aka Bay Area 2. While you're here, ask local realtors how many homes sold to Californians in the last year.
- technoir 11y agoIt rains all year in Portland-- and it's cold. Artisanal is just another word for amateur. Wages are low. This is bad advice -- do not move here.
- dclowd9901 11y agoWasn't advising, just stating the facts: people are coming here from the Bay Area in droves.
- ilyanep 11y agoI know brilliant people who live 5 to a 2br in SF despite being all on Tech salaries. As long as people think that this is the living arrangement they want, companies will be able to get away with hiring people in a housing shortage here.
- dnautics 11y ago"The ridership growth follows the trajectory of the Nasdaq." If you look carefully at the graphs, it's actually a lagging indicator. Which makes the hook, "Wondering if the Silicon Valley’s tech boom is waning?" meaningless.
- wlesieutre 11y agoWondering if the Silicon Valley’s tech boom was waning a year ago? Check Caltrain ridership!
- dnautics 11y agoI retract my claim of meaninglessness!
- samcheng 11y agoOne key insight that they're missing is that the 'trendy' office location has shifted from Silicon Valley to San Francisco over the past few years. The result is that people who may have settled in the valley now find themselves commuting to the city. It's much more comfortable to spend that commuting time on the train than in rush-hour traffic!
- adpirz 11y agoThis is especially true on the Caltrain baby bullets. Outlets and tables galore!
- jrockway 11y agoI took an afternoon baby bullet last week and they were running it using the normal gallery car equipment. I was worried I had accidentally gotten on a very late local train instead.
- ChuckMcM 11y agoI was also surprised by how many people live in SF and commute by Caltrain to offices in the south bay. Sort of "maximize my housing cost AND my commute time." As someone who rides from the fourth most popular station (Sunnyvale) I find that even if it takes a bit longer on CalTrain to get to work, the fact that I'm not fearing for my life on 101 makes all the difference in the world.
- bdamm 11y agoIt's a real shame about the monthly suicides, otherwise it would almost be a reliable train service.
- trhway 11y ago>I was also surprised by how many people live in SF and commute by Caltrain to offices in the south bay. man, when i came 15 years ago here (after living for years in a real city - St. Petersburg Russia), i was staggered that people choose to live in the "backwater villages" like PA, MV, SV, etc... instead of living in a nice vibrant city SF. Well, today i own in a "backwater village" and SF is too young and vibrant for me, and the once in a year or two ride in CalTrain reminds me about my youth and all the time spent in the public transport back then :)
- jedberg 11y agoAs someone who commuted on Caltrain daily from 2007 to 2011, I got to witness the rise and fall and rise again of the ridership. It is definitely a lagging indicator. Other good indicators are traffic on 101 and and Dim Sum wait times on weekends.
- cjensen 11y agoBridge traffic is also useful[1]. I wish they would break out the Dumbarton Traffic since that is an amplified value due to the fact that once the Valley is fully occupied, additional employees must come from somewhere else. [1] http://bata.mtc.ca.gov/tolls/historic.htm http://bata.mtc.ca.gov/tolls/historic.htm
- twentythree 11y agoIf you want to spend the time to dig into it, Caltrans has a more detailed dataset of historical traffic [1]. I used to research traffic in the Bay Area, and it was fascinating to see the way in which it responded to different events. [1] http://pems.dot.ca.gov/ http://pems.dot.ca.gov/
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- klipt 11y ago> It is definitely a lagging indicator. Almost as if a competent city planner could see the congestion coming in advance and make changes to prevent it!
- jmspring 11y agoI'd argue Hwy 85 is a good indicator, but it's actually been pretty horrible since about 6 months after it opened in the 90s.
- philsnow 11y ago> SurveyMonkey is planning to move its headquarters to within blocks of the Hillsdale stop Right now there's a huge SurveyMonkey building across the street from Palo Alto caltrain, is that the current headquarters? Palo Alto is a great stop because so many of the bullet and limited trains stop there. Hillsdale in comparison isn't served as well (only half of the bullets have a stop there in the morning). If they're moving from 50 feet away from a great caltrain stop to "a few blocks from" a good-but-not-great stop, that doesn't support the article's argument very well. I guess as opposed to moving far away from any caltrain stop it's a good point.
- dave5104 11y agoThey just moved into that office less than a year ago. I can't see why they'd be moving again so soon.
- dwynings 11y agoI was shocked to see they were moving out of Palo Alto so soon – but it appears to be true: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/08/17/surveymonkey-prepares-to-leave-palo-alto http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/08/17/surveymonkey-p...
- codecamper 11y agoIs Caltrain still powered by diesel?
- samcheng 11y agoYes, although there is an electrification effort planned: http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject.html http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/... Current completion date is estimated at 2020, but it keeps slipping...
- chrisseaton 11y agoI don't get why the trains running on Caltrain are so enormous and industrial. They're like something from a steam-punk comic book. Instead of a two-level leviathan with an entire car devoted to the engine, running once an hour during the day, why not do UK-style small trains with four or so carriages with engines underneath the passengers, running every 15 minutes? When I first took the Caltrain I was worried I was accidentally boarding a long distance service that would run for hours because it was so huge and heavy, instead of a local stopping service. How much energy does it take to get those things moving again at each stop?
- malchow 11y agoLike most people here, I know nothing about trains. But I do know that Caltrain trains are enormous, monstrous, loud machines that, on every departure and arrival, seem to portend the end of the universe. I grew up in New Jersey, whose train system is a hundred years older than NorCal's, and serves a denser population. And its trains are like the Concorde compared to Caltrain. For what, exactly, are we giving California 10% of our income?
- pm24601 11y ago> For what, exactly, are we giving California 10% of our income? So you can get better service than what you have today. Caltrain has no dedicated funding source and relies (too much) on handouts from Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. As a result, is is always short of money to really ramp up the service. Hopefully high-speed rail money will change this.
- kposehn 11y agoSo, one of the interesting ways Caltrain can expand is to simply add additional rolling stock (cars) to handle capacity. However, there's a problem with that: each additional car reduces acceleration and directly effects the timetable. For example, currently caltrain consists are 1 locomotive + 5 cars. Locomotives range from 2,500 usable horsepower (after HEP) to 3,600. The highest horsepower locomotives, the MP36PH-3C's, are pretty much reserved for the baby bullet service. This means that to add an additional car to a train would increase weight on average by 20% - a big addition to a train that has is running flat out at nearly all times. The problem that caltrain faces is pretty simple: they can't expand capacity without significant investment of capital into additional locomotives and rolling stock.
- pbreit 11y agoIf it only affects acceleration, not that big a deal since the Express trains matter most and only have a few stops.
- Patrick_Devine 11y ago... and electrification is coming which means a large part of their rolling stock will be redundant within the next five to six years.
- ryanx435 11y agosounds like a runs_per_hour vs capacity_per_run issue. there is likely a point where the decrease in runs_per_hour is offset by the increase in capacity_per_run. This assumes that the users will still use the service as long as the time_per_run (how long it takes to get from point A to point B) doesn't increase to a point where users choose to travel by different means.
- samcheng 11y agoIndeed. Lighter, nimbler, quieter, and less-smoggy trains are planned, which will run from electricity instead of diesel. The project is estimated to cost $1.5 Billion and finish in about 5 years.
- SilasX 11y agoI thought the bottleneck was station size, since they already have enough cars to fill them up? Do they have room to add more cars?
- sgustard 11y agoWSJ didn't drill into the financial side of the story. Remember five years ago? "Caltrain has gone broke and will likely need to wipe out half its service — including weekend, nighttime and midday trains." http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_14803959 http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_14803959
- deathanatos 11y agoI commute daily into SF. - The evening train I take (the 5:14 out of SF) is habitually late; we run into (not literally) the train ahead of us between Palo Alto and Mountain View; that train is habitually late too (it's the cause of the 5:14's problems; we usually hit PA on time, but the train in front of us is still in Mountain View when we should be arriving. i.e., the train ahead is arriving at our arrival time) - it has definitely gotten worse since I started riding. I recently asked a conductor what the load was: that particular train was 100% oversubscribed: for every butt in a seat, there was another standing. Frankly, the car's AC doesn't seem to be able to keep pace with the summer heat, either. If there's a Giants game … well, it's worse. When the Giants parade happened, the line was out the station, snaked through a ton of stanchions, and then stretched more than a block down the road. - rarely, I've seen passengers denied boarding due to load; but I see this much more regularly with bikers. I don't know if CalTrain takes this into account in its statistics. (I don't think I've ever seen some of those folks counted, especially outside SF.) - they got some additional cars, but half-ish of them seem to still be sitting in SF. No idea if they're just not ready yet, or what… (also, the cars feel like a blast from the past when you walk into it, compared to the CalTrain ones. They look the same, but yellower… it's surreal.) I've wondered if they wouldn't fair better if they had an additional (third) track all the way from SF to SJ. Trains could then pass, which I think might let you add more trains to the system. (Given how we're always stuck behind a train, I feel like the two-tracks are at capacity, train-wise, and you can only add so many cars before you exceed the platform length.) Not sure there's enough room all the way for an additional track, though, so this is probably a crazy idea. I wonder if it wouldn't really help with accidents though. (The first quarter of this year, for example, was hell… it was heartbreaking.) Also, > The annual Caltrain passes cost companies either $15,120 or $180 per user—whichever is greater. Is that $180 figure correct? CalTrain charges my route $2,148 annually for a pass, and I'm not even going the full SF to SJ distance. (Granted, that's the low figure, so you need the ridership to get it… but still! It's a 91% quantity discount, if you get enough people.) (SF to SJ is $2,784 annually.)
- azylman 11y ago> Is that $180 figure correct? CalTrain charges my route $2,148 annually for a pass, and I'm not even going the full SF to SJ distance. (Granted, that's the low figure, so you need the ridership to get it… but still! It's a 91% quantity discount, if you get enough people.) Yup, when I still commuted via Caltrain I was pretty jealous of my friends who had this sweet deal: http://www.caltrain.com/Fares/tickettypes/GO_Pass.html http://www.caltrain.com/Fares/tickettypes/GO_Pass.html
- asab 11y agoWhy is WSJ comparing ridership stats to Nasdaq? Correlation is not causation and this is a stretch.