6 ms·

I don't get it. The buses are cutting down on personal driving (a universally acknowledged evil), and paying for permits to use the stops (generating revenue fo

• ryguytilidie 13y ago
  "it does nothing but positive things for the employees, the city, and the environment." When you say something like this you really have to realize that there may be some bias here. I think these protestors feel pretty negative about this, I can't imagine that it's for no reason.
  • cia_plant 13y ago
    Assuming that everyone has a reasonable point, is also a bias. There are protests over gay marriage and "get the government out of medicare" and all kinds of ridiculous things.
    • ryguytilidie 13y ago
      First, i never said reasonable point, you did. I don't think its disingenuous to assume that a large group of people protesting have even a single reason to be doing so. The person I'm responding to seems to believe they have NO REASON to be protesting. I'm simply saying that I don't think a bunch of people went and wasted their AM for no good reason.
      • cia_plant 13y ago
        The person you're replying to never said they had no reason to be protesting, only that the google buses benefit the city, employees, and environment. This leaves an enormous number of reasons. For example, "Buses are, in reality, evil ghosts" is a reason to protest google buses, even if they are good for the environment, city, and employees.
    • HelloMcFly 13y ago
      But even protests over ridiculous things tend to have at least some understandable, and sometimes reasonable, argument. Sticking to this scenario, can you not think of a single one for the protesting residents?
      • thetrb 13y ago
        There are already several reasons mentioned in the comments here: - AFAIK currently the companies don't pay to stop at the MUNI stops. - A working public transportation system for everyone would be greatly preferred to a system that's only working for employees of certain companies. - By offering these shuttles companies contribute to more people living in SF, driving up rents (I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to offer this, but it's an argument one could reasonably have) - These shuttles might actually make an improved public transportation system less likely since none of the Google (and other companies') employees would most likely use it, even if something better than Caltrain existed. BTW: I'm not generally against these shuttles, but you were asking for arguments against them and I think there are several.
        • HelloMcFly 13y ago
          Oh yes, I'm aware of several. My comment was strictly targeted towards the person I was responding to, who either has little imagination or was moving the conversation in a different direction.
        • deleted 13y ago
          [deleted]
• ebiester 13y ago
  No. At least the ones I've heard from, they want employees of companies in the South Bay and Peninsula to live outside of San Francisco. They believe that the mass influx of money is driving long time residents out, and that building more housing is the wrong solution. I remember reading one article that suggested there should be a wait list to get to live in the city.
  • mahyarm 13y ago
    They deserve the anti-development bed they create.
  • Cookingboy 13y ago
    Right, and that simply does not work in a free country. These people moved to SF a while back, but they still displaced the local culture that was before them, and now they are settled in and they think they rightfully own the place. The draconian zoning laws and anti-development sentiment is only gonna hurt these people more, since the cost of living is being driven up artificially and the people they are trying to ward off are gonna move in no matter what.
    • malandrew 13y ago
      Reminds me of this story posted by moxie[0] a while back: There's an old wobbly story: A wobbly was riding a freight train across the midwest one summer, in between jobs. The train sided out in the middle of nowhere, and it was scorching hot, so the wobbly got off the train and started walking down a dirt road. After a couple of miles, the road passed by an apple orchard. The wobbly hopped over the fence, and sat down to rest under the shade of a big apple tree. The wobbly sat there enjoying the shade for 20 minutes, until a farmer came across him. "You can't be here!" exclaimed the farmer, "This is my land!" The wobbly looked up at the farmer and asked "Really? What makes it your land?" "What are you talking about you dirty tramp, I inherited it from my father!" replied the farmer, almost bewildered at such an indignant question. "Hmm, and what made it his land?" asked the wobbly. "Why, he inherited it from his father!" replied the farmer, now really angry. "It's been in my family for three generations!" "And what made it your grandfather's land?" asked the wobbly. The farmer, now barely able to contain himself, yelled proudly "Why! My grandpappy fought the indians for it!" The wobbly nodded, stood up, pulled back his sleeves, and replied "Uh huh. Then I'll fight you for it, right now." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5222540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5222540 (Moxie's original post with comments)
• nhaehnle 13y ago
  Question 1: Do you think the underlying complaints of the protests, which are presumably about problems like gentrification, are valid? Question 2: If so, what do you propose the people do? As to one of your questions: Presumably, the protesters want the city and those companies to sit together and create a public transport system that works for everybody. It's fine to have lines and stops specifically laid out to be beneficial to the primary users, as long as everybody else can ride along. That's what tends to happen over on this side of the pond, and I find it an exceedingly reasonable suggestion, because everybody would win even more.
  • sokoloff 13y ago
    No, the companies and their employees would NOT win more if it were public. Want to have a semi-confidential conversation? Better be on the private bus. Want to have the bus have wifi VPN'd back to the home office? Works better on a private bus. Want more certainty of finding a seat, or having a power outlet to charge your laptop? Works better on a private coach. Want special hours to accommodate a hackathon, or a holiday party or other special event? Works better for a private service. Want to keep protesters from annoying your employees...? It's not the case that everyone would win more, IMO.
• mellis 13y ago
  As someone who's tried to get from San Francisco to Silicon Valley without a car, I'd love to see companies like Google advocating and supporting better public transportation as well as just providing a private solution.
  • sirkneeland 13y ago
    between Nimbys and public sector unions and the fact that the Bay Area is essentially under one-party rule...no. It's just not going to happen. Private initiatives are the only hope.
  • Cookingboy 13y ago
    Public sector unions and corrupt/incompetent government workers in SF Bay Area is the root cause of the atrocious public transportation in this area, money is not. There are plenty of cities around the world that spends less per capita on infrastructure but still has a way more effective system.
    • yapcguy 13y ago
      Yes, the muni is not as good as in Tokyo, Hong Kong or London, but so what? Here's the problem in a nutshell. Google & co. did not ask anybody before they started using the public Muni stops. I repeat, they did not ask anybody, they just did it. The problem has become so big that the city is now forced to consider a pilot program where Google & co. pay for use of some of the muni stops. If you or I started running a private shuttle service which made use of public Muni stops we would have been not only ticketed but prosecuted. Basically, Google and other large corporations are bullying the city. This is the real issue.
      • bmelton 13y ago
        Thank you. I've skimmed the article a couple of times now, and for some reason, misread it into thinking that they were already paying for use. I've been wondering what the todo was about, and this explains it, or at least partially helps understand the motivation.
    • 13y ago
• jpwright 13y ago
  They are not paying for permits. The MTA has proposed a permit system for a limited number of shared private/public bus stops, but it has not been introduced, voted on, or even released publicly, and has lingered since as early as October 2012[1]. Even if the pilot program succeeds (maybe some time next year), and Google, et. al., start paying for bus stop permits, there's still the issue of the city turning a blind eye to all the illegal stops that have gone on for the last 5 years or so. It's great for the city to create a program that encourages mass transportation, but subsidizing it for only a select class of people is a poor use of public funds at best, and discriminatory at worst. [1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/rules-proposed-for-commuter-shuttle-buses-in-san-francisco/Content?oid=2317470 http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/rules-proposed-for-co...
  • yapcguy 13y ago
    Yes, yes and yes. Google & co. did not ask anybody before they started using the public Muni stops. They just used them. To hell with regulations, traffic laws, and the city of San Francisco. Google & co. are bullying the city. This is the real issue.
    • pslam 13y ago
      The city isn't turning a blind eye at all, and there's no bullying. There's a conversation going on between the city and the private companies involved, in fact. They recognize that the coaches aren't permitted to use Muni stops, but there is currently no better solution - to eliminate them would greatly increase road traffic or choke Muni with the increased passengers. This is a highly complex issue and you cannot pick on just one player. It doesn't help anyone.
      • yapcguy 13y ago
        Of course it's bullying. The private companies have been violating traffic laws, repeatedly, for years. They know what they are doing is against the law, but they keep on doing it. Any impact on road traffic or Muni has got nothing do with the above violation of the law.
• Lagged2Death 13y ago
  Would these people rather the Google employees all drive personal vehicles, increasing wear and tear on the roads, congestion, pollution, etc., costing the city money? In fact (reasonably sized) private vehicles create very little wear and tear on the roads, where heavy vehicles like trucks and buses create a lot. So much that in many cities the roads at bus stops are specially re-enforced, surely at some not-insignificant cost. Regardless, as others have pointed out, using the public bus stops is illegal, it can interfere with official transit operations, and it even generates citizen complaints. Which can't be followed up on because the charter bus companies don't identify themselves. Surprise, the companies doing this are not paying permit fees to do their illegal activities. http://www.metro-magazine.com/channel/motorcoach/article/story/2013/08/san-francisco-proposal-allows-muni-private-carriers-to-share-stops.aspx http://www.metro-magazine.com/channel/motorcoach/article/sto... I agree that more shuttles and fewer cars would almost certainly be a good thing all around, but should the charter bus companies be allowed to break the law with impunity, just because we all think the end goal is a good idea?
• michaelt 13y ago
  One general objection to two-tier systems is that they are a symptom of people with the ability to effect change saying "we know this is broken, but we've decided to just fix it for ourselves, not for you". The emergence of the new tier shows they have the power to effect change, even as it removes their incentive to cause further change. For example, if the boss has a reserved parking space it's a sign the other parking sucks and he/she doesn't plan to fix that. If the politician puts their kids in private school it's a sign they think public schools don't work, but they don't plan to fix them. If the affluent community installs gates and hires their own guards. In countries with public healthcare, if upper middle class families buy private medical insurance. When the powerful eat the same dog food as the rest of us, the theory goes, we get better dog food than otherwise. A person with this view might think Google should use their evident power fix the public transport system instead of putting in place a parallel private system.
  • bmelton 13y ago
    If that's the view, why would this person imagine that Google had any power or obligation to fix the public transit system? If a politician were doing it, I would understand the inclination towards protest -- a politician who felt that a public transportation system that was inadequate should try to fix it, assuming they had sway over it -- assuming of course that there aren't more pressing matters, like rampant crime, poverty, etc. Otherwise, I'm having a hard time identifying here. Should I be obligated to fix the train system because I choose to fly? Why not? Am I not rich enough to be held responsible? There may be some large piece that I'm missing here, I don't know, but there's really very little about this situation that makes sense to me. Edit: It's been explained elsewhere that Google is using the municipal stops illegally. Somehow or another, that wasn't clear to me from my reading of the article. This at least helps me understand the motivation.
  • Houshalter 13y ago
    Politicians putting their kids in private schools is hypocritical because they are in charge of the public education system. Google has no responsibility whatsoever for the public transportation system and would probably prefer one (since they wouldn't have to pay for and deal with their private bus system.) Your argument applies to anyone who has ever solved any problem for themselves rather than the common good.