6 ms·

Google's new bus is for the people

41 points by sbilstein 12y ago

Kalium 12y ago
I fully expect to see this dismissed as a stunt that abuses public transit and hurts the poor sometime in the next hour.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Of course it's a stunt. Google gets some good publicity and if people make use of it it will be harder to bash them. It's good for the people but it's still a stunt - Google doesn't just give out buses for no reason :) Nobody does.
  - dguaraglia 12y ago
    Also, let's face it, "the people" in this case are most probably employees of other tech companies in the area. It's not like this is going to improve the life of the average, non-SV-employed, citizen.
    - jpatokal 12y ago
      I take it you're not very familiar with Mountain View's geography. Google and the vast majority of other SV companies there are to the north of the 101, which is already well served by existing shuttles, and where the bus (rightly) only barely ventures. Most of the route connects shopping centres, the Caltrain station, the hospital etc, which is very useful for eg. senior citizens who can't drive.
      - dguaraglia 12y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I've only used the Google shuttle going from Caltrain to Charleston/Googleplex, and only on occasion (I work mostly from a different Google office so I go to MTV rarely.)
- sbilstein 12y ago
  The reason I'm personally excited by this is because SV corporations often seem to wash their hands about any significant civic output (other than occasional donations to non-profits) because it should be the responsibility of the government. In the world we inhabit, where companies in some ways can exert much greater power locally (in some specific ways) than a local government can, they should step up and use some of that power to help the general good. Companies like Google can at the drop of hat move tens of thousands of works into a municipality; if they're choosing to exercise that right they should think about other ways they can make that change responsibly.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Personally, I view this as symptomatic of the NIMBY-ism that pervades SV and SF. Both want all the money that comes from tech and can be relied upon to want the people to go somewhere else. That a company has to pick up the "civic output" slack says a great deal about the failings of Mountain View and its voters.
  - pyrocat 12y ago
    I, for one, welcome our new feudal corporate overlords. But seriously, it's great that Google is doing this. I just wish they didn't have to.
  - brandonmenc 12y ago
    > corporations often seem to wash their hands about any significant civic output because it should be the responsibility of the government Public transit is the responsibility of the government. If you want these companies to contribute more, raise taxes.
    - sp332 12y ago
      Raising taxes is inefficient and indirect. By providing buses, Google (et al.) can quickly address a need in the community. And they don't need to use other people's money to do it.
      - 12y ago
hnriot 12y ago
Isn't this the city's job? I actually think it's kind of creepy that Corporations are taking the role of the City. The general idea is the City collects taxes and uses those to provide services like buses.
- dmishe 12y ago
  Well yes, but Mountain View isn't exactly good at anything like that.
- cmelbye 12y ago
  In my anecdotal experience, it seems like at least a few Bay Area cities have a hard time doing that properly. Public transit is terrible here. I'm excited at the prospect of a private company giving it a try as a free service to the public. Of course, it's not pure altruism, there are PR motivations. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    My general impression is not that cities have a hard time doing public transit properly. It's that the politics of it make good public transit damn near impossible. Exclusive bedroom communities don't want to be accessible to carless commuters and Muni is impossible to improve because everything is a racist plot against minorities.
    - cmelbye 12y ago
      Good public transit is not impossible. It's done in other cities. There's just something about the political process of San Francisco, for example, that makes it difficult to improve MUNI.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        In political terms, I suspect perfect has become the enemy of good.
  - mattmurdog 12y ago
jpatokal 12y ago
The news hidden away at the end, about a bunch of SV companies getting together to operate a shared shuttle service, is arguably much more interesting. It's a huge waste to have each company operate buses for their own employees only: sharing there costs and making them open to all makes a lot more sense. Now if only they'd start doing this for SFO-MTV as well... http://www.mvgo.org/maps-and-schedule.html http://www.mvgo.org/maps-and-schedule.html
- Cookingboy 12y ago
  One thing that can make this difficult is a lot of company shuttles have corporate wifi on them and sometimes people even take meetings during the ride. Obviously this wouldn't work due to security/NDA reasons if you have employees from multiple companies on the same bus.
  - deepsun 12y ago
    From Google shuttles you still need VPN, just the same as you need from a Starbucks. And a secure corporate laptop, of course. It's considered very bad to talk in Google shuttles anyway, meetings or not, folks hate that.
    - Cookingboy 12y ago
      Doesn't matter, people still do that, I always had teammates attending our morning sync-ups while on the bus :)
    - thesnider 12y ago
      Apple prohibits most employees from working on their shuttles, interestingly enough -- too much risk that a fellow employee would see something they're not cleared for.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    Perhaps the buses could have a few 2-4 person private booths, to support confidential discussions?
- 12y ago
peatmoss 12y ago
I'd be pretty disappointed in El Goog, if they weren't taking this opportunity to learn something about providing public transit service--with an eye toward making public transit better. In transportation planning, we sometimes differentiate between "fixed route" (a.k.a. the busses and trains you're accustomed to) and other specialty forms of public transit that often serve some particular demographic in a more flexible manner. Now, think about Google's self-driving cars for a minute here. What are the big challenges? Well, it appears Google needs to have a LOT of data about the rights-of-way that they drive. New and novel driving environments are handled by way of "pull over and stop." Could Google perchance see some value in pursuing the "fixed route transit" market? Oh my yes. It's a perfect use-case for their technology more or less as it exists today. Further, let's think about the economics. It is a fact that labor costs are typically the greatest single cost when providing public transit in the developed world. Busses are relatively cheap compared to the drivers. See where this is going? Transit typically doesn't manage farebox cost recovery by quite a wide margin (cars don't internalize nearly all their costs either, but that's another story). A lot--enough to have an enormous impact on policy--of transit funding in the US comes from the federal government. Transportation is the second largest appropriations package Congress passes after military, and there is typically a big fight over how much will be allocated to public transit. This tends to break down along party lines as you'd expect: godless, commie pinko scum want public transit; fascist plutocratic narcissists don't. I can just imagine the appropriations discussions now: Google announces self-driving bus and all of a sudden Republicans have a means by which they can support public transit--provided in large part by private industry--and that hurts a big segment of organized labor in the process (bonus?). And, of course if there is an upset in Congress, selling improved public transit to democrats isn't hard either. I like that there are good paying jobs for bus drivers currently, but I like good public transit more. So I'm pretty bullish about Google getting into this game... assuming they're getting into the game, which they should be. Google, if you're getting into this game and looking for transportation planners to shower with money and hot lunches, this humble PhD student bicycles past your Seattle offices daily. Just sayin' ;-)
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "It is a fact that labor costs are typically the greatest single cost when providing public transit in the developed world." Labor costs include maintenance and administration. It's possible that "Busses are relatively cheap compared to the drivers" still holds but I hope you have considered it specifically rather than inferring it from the content of your preceding sentence.
driverdan 12y ago
> "They're [Google] responsible for a lot of the pain the area is feeling," said newly inaugurated City Councilman Ken Rosenberg Can anyone explain this? What "pain" in the area is Google responsible for?
- jpatokal 12y ago
  Primarily ludicrous housing prices, I presume. Although the city (and its residents) are IMHO equally responsible for approving every office development in sight while doing all they can to resist building new residential properties.
- clueless123 12y ago
  Just yesterday there where (here at HN) a couple of great articles about just how crazy is housing & real estate over the bay area...

41 points by sbilstein 12y ago

I fully expect to see this dismissed as a stunt that abuses public transit and hurts the poor sometime in the next hour.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
Of course it's a stunt. Google gets some good publicity and if people make use of it it will be harder to bash them. It's good for the people but it's still a stunt - Google doesn't just give out buses for no reason :) Nobody does.
- dguaraglia 12y ago
  Also, let's face it, "the people" in this case are most probably employees of other tech companies in the area. It's not like this is going to improve the life of the average, non-SV-employed, citizen.
  - jpatokal 12y ago
    I take it you're not very familiar with Mountain View's geography. Google and the vast majority of other SV companies there are to the north of the 101, which is already well served by existing shuttles, and where the bus (rightly) only barely ventures. Most of the route connects shopping centres, the Caltrain station, the hospital etc, which is very useful for eg. senior citizens who can't drive.
    - dguaraglia 12y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I've only used the Google shuttle going from Caltrain to Charleston/Googleplex, and only on occasion (I work mostly from a different Google office so I go to MTV rarely.)
sbilstein 12y ago
The reason I'm personally excited by this is because SV corporations often seem to wash their hands about any significant civic output (other than occasional donations to non-profits) because it should be the responsibility of the government. In the world we inhabit, where companies in some ways can exert much greater power locally (in some specific ways) than a local government can, they should step up and use some of that power to help the general good. Companies like Google can at the drop of hat move tens of thousands of works into a municipality; if they're choosing to exercise that right they should think about other ways they can make that change responsibly.
- Kalium 12y ago
  Personally, I view this as symptomatic of the NIMBY-ism that pervades SV and SF. Both want all the money that comes from tech and can be relied upon to want the people to go somewhere else. That a company has to pick up the "civic output" slack says a great deal about the failings of Mountain View and its voters.
- pyrocat 12y ago
  I, for one, welcome our new feudal corporate overlords. But seriously, it's great that Google is doing this. I just wish they didn't have to.
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  > corporations often seem to wash their hands about any significant civic output because it should be the responsibility of the government Public transit is the responsibility of the government. If you want these companies to contribute more, raise taxes.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Raising taxes is inefficient and indirect. By providing buses, Google (et al.) can quickly address a need in the community. And they don't need to use other people's money to do it.
    - 12y ago

hnriot 12y ago

Isn't this the city's job? I actually think it's kind of creepy that Corporations are taking the role of the City. The general idea is the City collects taxes and uses those to provide services like buses.

dmishe 12y ago
Well yes, but Mountain View isn't exactly good at anything like that.
cmelbye 12y ago
In my anecdotal experience, it seems like at least a few Bay Area cities have a hard time doing that properly. Public transit is terrible here. I'm excited at the prospect of a private company giving it a try as a free service to the public. Of course, it's not pure altruism, there are PR motivations. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
- Kalium 12y ago
  My general impression is not that cities have a hard time doing public transit properly. It's that the politics of it make good public transit damn near impossible. Exclusive bedroom communities don't want to be accessible to carless commuters and Muni is impossible to improve because everything is a racist plot against minorities.
  - cmelbye 12y ago
    Good public transit is not impossible. It's done in other cities. There's just something about the political process of San Francisco, for example, that makes it difficult to improve MUNI.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      In political terms, I suspect perfect has become the enemy of good.
- mattmurdog 12y ago

jpatokal 12y ago

The news hidden away at the end, about a bunch of SV companies getting together to operate a shared shuttle service, is arguably much more interesting. It's a huge waste to have each company operate buses for their own employees only: sharing there costs and making them open to all makes a lot more sense. Now if only they'd start doing this for SFO-MTV as well... http://www.mvgo.org/maps-and-schedule.html http://www.mvgo.org/maps-and-schedule.html

Cookingboy 12y ago
One thing that can make this difficult is a lot of company shuttles have corporate wifi on them and sometimes people even take meetings during the ride. Obviously this wouldn't work due to security/NDA reasons if you have employees from multiple companies on the same bus.
- deepsun 12y ago
  From Google shuttles you still need VPN, just the same as you need from a Starbucks. And a secure corporate laptop, of course. It's considered very bad to talk in Google shuttles anyway, meetings or not, folks hate that.
  - Cookingboy 12y ago
    Doesn't matter, people still do that, I always had teammates attending our morning sync-ups while on the bus :)
  - thesnider 12y ago
    Apple prohibits most employees from working on their shuttles, interestingly enough -- too much risk that a fellow employee would see something they're not cleared for.
- gojomo 12y ago
  Perhaps the buses could have a few 2-4 person private booths, to support confidential discussions?
12y ago

peatmoss 12y ago

I'd be pretty disappointed in El Goog, if they weren't taking this opportunity to learn something about providing public transit service--with an eye toward making public transit better. In transportation planning, we sometimes differentiate between "fixed route" (a.k.a. the busses and trains you're accustomed to) and other specialty forms of public transit that often serve some particular demographic in a more flexible manner. Now, think about Google's self-driving cars for a minute here. What are the big challenges? Well, it appears Google needs to have a LOT of data about the rights-of-way that they drive. New and novel driving environments are handled by way of "pull over and stop." Could Google perchance see some value in pursuing the "fixed route transit" market? Oh my yes. It's a perfect use-case for their technology more or less as it exists today. Further, let's think about the economics. It is a fact that labor costs are typically the greatest single cost when providing public transit in the developed world. Busses are relatively cheap compared to the drivers. See where this is going? Transit typically doesn't manage farebox cost recovery by quite a wide margin (cars don't internalize nearly all their costs either, but that's another story). A lot--enough to have an enormous impact on policy--of transit funding in the US comes from the federal government. Transportation is the second largest appropriations package Congress passes after military, and there is typically a big fight over how much will be allocated to public transit. This tends to break down along party lines as you'd expect: godless, commie pinko scum want public transit; fascist plutocratic narcissists don't. I can just imagine the appropriations discussions now: Google announces self-driving bus and all of a sudden Republicans have a means by which they can support public transit--provided in large part by private industry--and that hurts a big segment of organized labor in the process (bonus?). And, of course if there is an upset in Congress, selling improved public transit to democrats isn't hard either. I like that there are good paying jobs for bus drivers currently, but I like good public transit more. So I'm pretty bullish about Google getting into this game... assuming they're getting into the game, which they should be. Google, if you're getting into this game and looking for transportation planners to shower with money and hot lunches, this humble PhD student bicycles past your Seattle offices daily. Just sayin' ;-)

dllthomas 12y ago
"It is a fact that labor costs are typically the greatest single cost when providing public transit in the developed world." Labor costs include maintenance and administration. It's possible that "Busses are relatively cheap compared to the drivers" still holds but I hope you have considered it specifically rather than inferring it from the content of your preceding sentence.

driverdan 12y ago

> "They're [Google] responsible for a lot of the pain the area is feeling," said newly inaugurated City Councilman Ken Rosenberg Can anyone explain this? What "pain" in the area is Google responsible for?

jpatokal 12y ago
Primarily ludicrous housing prices, I presume. Although the city (and its residents) are IMHO equally responsible for approving every office development in sight while doing all they can to resist building new residential properties.
clueless123 12y ago
Just yesterday there where (here at HN) a couple of great articles about just how crazy is housing & real estate over the bay area...