3 ms·

You underestimate the amount of capital needed to even make a small dent in public transportation. I'm sure facebook's spend is not even a miniscule amount of w

You underestimate the amount of capital needed to even make a small dent in public transportation. I'm sure facebook's spend is not even a miniscule amount of what any public transportation project would take. It's quite amazing that these companies provide commuter buses, and that's probably the best way every private company can help the community. Each one of those buses probably takes hundreds of cars off the road, easing traffic and reducing pollution. I don't understand why the media is obsessed with viewing private buses as a symbol of privilege, and not as a practical solution to bay area's commute problem.

sschueller 12y ago
How much more capital is really needed to operate these busses at a fixed schedule with specific stops and allow anyone to use them for a fee? Uber for public transport if you will.
- hoka 12y ago
  It's not that simple. There are gigantic forces involved: government officials at several levels, unions, etc.
  - sschueller 12y ago
    If anyone can do it, it would be these companies which have more capital than god. :)
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      And here we circle back to the original argument - them doing private buses is more cost effective way to give back to the society than wasting boatloads of money on trying to integrate with public transport infrastructure.
DINKDINK 12y ago
Disclosure: I don't work in the tech sector. I agree with you that I doubt that the budgets of tech company's transit benefits probably wouldn't make a significant impact in the effectiveness of public transit (or even get the same amount of bang for the buck). A problem with many of the initial transit offset arguments was that they didn't take into account that given the presence of the buses how many people chose to live in communities farther way from their work, when absent the buses, they would have moved closer. This and other externalities. Regarding "the media is obsessed with viewing private buses as a symbol of privilege" is because it is a symbol of privilege -- Unless you want to make the argument that it's a symbol of disadvantage. Someone who has a personal driver is more privileged than someone taking a private bus than someone taking a private car than someone taking a public bus than some poor chap who has to bike or walk everywhere. The reason why the media and much of the non-tech public has disdain for the buses is that it creates two cities. One set of people has access to travel means A and B and the second set just has access to B. The last time that sort of forced social sorting was prevalent in the United States was in the 1960's when there were White and Colored water fountains. These are the connotations the general public thinks about consciously or subconsciously.

sschueller 12y ago

How much more capital is really needed to operate these busses at a fixed schedule with specific stops and allow anyone to use them for a fee? Uber for public transport if you will.

hoka 12y ago
It's not that simple. There are gigantic forces involved: government officials at several levels, unions, etc.
- sschueller 12y ago
  If anyone can do it, it would be these companies which have more capital than god. :)
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    And here we circle back to the original argument - them doing private buses is more cost effective way to give back to the society than wasting boatloads of money on trying to integrate with public transport infrastructure.

DINKDINK 12y ago

Disclosure: I don't work in the tech sector. I agree with you that I doubt that the budgets of tech company's transit benefits probably wouldn't make a significant impact in the effectiveness of public transit (or even get the same amount of bang for the buck). A problem with many of the initial transit offset arguments was that they didn't take into account that given the presence of the buses how many people chose to live in communities farther way from their work, when absent the buses, they would have moved closer. This and other externalities. Regarding "the media is obsessed with viewing private buses as a symbol of privilege" is because it is a symbol of privilege -- Unless you want to make the argument that it's a symbol of disadvantage. Someone who has a personal driver is more privileged than someone taking a private bus than someone taking a private car than someone taking a public bus than some poor chap who has to bike or walk everywhere. The reason why the media and much of the non-tech public has disdain for the buses is that it creates two cities. One set of people has access to travel means A and B and the second set just has access to B. The last time that sort of forced social sorting was prevalent in the United States was in the 1960's when there were White and Colored water fountains. These are the connotations the general public thinks about consciously or subconsciously.