|
Space-Bird posted:I think everyone knows the buses themselves aren't the problem. They've just become the symbol of the problem, however misguided. I think most people understand it's not the buses themselves, right? It's like, you know, like how SF has like the highest income inequality in the country, and median market rent for a studio apartment is above 2.2k a month. People are really stupid then. I can assure you, huge increases in demand for property is caused by capitalists (both foreign and domestic), not rank-and-file tech workers. Also hasn't the recent Piketty publicity taught everyone that wealth inequality is far more important than income inequality? Tax the capitalists! High income workers are a smoke screen. Edit: This kind of populist thinking has soured me on American leftism in general. Crap like food deserts causing obesity, biking being the solution to urban planning, excessive marijuana consumption being "cool" and "safe," etc. Grow up people! Slobjob Zizek fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jun 18, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
Space-Bird posted:I think everyone knows the buses themselves aren't the problem. They've just become the symbol of the problem, however misguided. I think most people understand it's not the buses themselves, right? It's like, you know, like how SF has like the highest income inequality in the country, and median market rent for a studio apartment is above 2.2k a month. I wish most people knew that the buses aren't the problem, but I don't agree that's the case. It proved to be a tremendously effective wedge issue that was recognized as such by many bay area activist communities. As someone who lives car-free in SF and rides a tech shuttle (after riding Muni or biking to the pickup) to work every day , it's pretty disappointing that the most effective wedge issue they could come up with is one that would disappear overnight if we all commuted via private automobiles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Yeah well it's 90% white+Asian, which in America is basically shorthand for "white." Also, the overall ethnic breakdown of Google proper is not necessarily the same as the Google bus ridership, or other private busses. Plus, gender and age contribute the stereotype too. If you only care about certain cherry-picked ethnic groups, that's fine, but it's not really something Google should worry about. One reason I know the diversity push is bullshit is that when Google was brought before a congressional hearing on diversity, congressmen focused on "How many black people do you hire?". Not asian, not hispanic, not native....black. gently caress those congressmen who care about black political patronage rather than actual diversity. As a non-black minority, I will never vote for any congressperson who does this. Yes, exactly, Google is far from a whites-only company.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
gonger posted:Tech shuttles are a replacement for private point-to-point automobile travel, not the sort of general mobility that public transit is meant to provide. Are you really in that much of a hurry to further subsidize the commute of tech workers? Tech shuttles are literally the only form of non-subsidized mass transportation going in the bay area right now, and they're doing it at no cost to the public. I get that you're riled up about the optics of the situation, but I don't think you have a proper appreciation for the cost or political capital associated with expanding public transit. Both resources are pretty damned hard to come by for transit, and it sounds like you're suggesting it would be a good to burn them in order to replace something that's already working at no public expense. It's a bit disingenuous to argue that the tech buses have no cost to the public. While they were operating illegally there were many documented cases of them making MUNI buses even later. Plus they are still using public resources for private good. Regardless, I'm saying that these companies could easily open these programs up to the public, with a public fare they subsidize for their employees. That's the way to turn this into mass transit that's more than just the physical representative of income inequality. Also it's a bit of a leap to assume everyone on a tech bus would be driving instead. There are other mass transit options available. But this is what I'm talking about, if I wanted to use a ton of bus stops and asked I would either have had to pay upfront or not gotten permission. Meanwhile tech companies can break the law and come back and make amends only if there is enough outrage. They didn't even need to use the bus stops, but it was more convenient so break the law until we get a deal, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
on the left posted:Yes, exactly, Google is far from a whites-only company. Now men, on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It's a bit disingenuous to argue that the tech buses have no cost to the public. While they were operating illegally there were many documented cases of them making MUNI buses even later. Plus they are still using public resources for private good. Regardless, I'm saying that these companies could easily open these programs up to the public, with a public fare they subsidize for their employees. That's the way to turn this into mass transit that's more than just the physical representative of income inequality. They couldn't open them up to the public because then the busses would need to install the same lovely anti-vandalism fixtures that public busses need. Also, not that many San Franciscans need to travel directly to Google headquarters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
on the left posted:They couldn't open them up to the public because then the busses would need to install the same lovely anti-vandalism fixtures that public busses need. Also, not that many San Franciscans need to travel directly to Google headquarters. Uh? Somehow the other private bus companies don't need to add fancy anti-vandalism things do that. But you're right, they might have to add a stop at the VTA station after dropping people off at Google. Plus we're not just talking about google and SF. Many tech companies run private buses to and from all over the Bay Area. Some of them chose to use public transit resources for private transit, without pre-agreement or payment and did so until outrage forced them into a payment deal. Somehow we shouldn't criticize them for this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Plus we're not just talking about google and SF. Many tech companies run private buses to and from all over the Bay Area. Some of them chose to use public transit resources for private transit, without pre-agreement or payment and did so until outrage forced them into a payment deal. Somehow we shouldn't criticize them for this? I don't think that it's a big deal at all for a bus to have the audacity to pick people up on the side of the road. Anyways, i'll be laughing my rear end off when Google turns around and says "You are right, busses are terrible for San Francisco. We are immediately rolling out a fleet of self-driving cars that will be available to Google employees 24/7. To save money, they will never park, but rather clog the streets while looking for the next pickup. We hope that the rest of San Francisco will enjoy seeing all Google employees galavanting around the city for free."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Now men, on the other hand... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-b7-fLOjlY
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Having taking public buses around the bay area quite a bit I can say that i've never been delayed by a google bus before but I've been delayed by private cars almost every time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
on the left posted:I don't think that it's a big deal at all for a bus to have the audacity to pick people up on the side of the road. That's the whole point. They didn't just "pick people up on the side of the road" they used the bus stop where it is illegal for non-public transit buses to stop or stand. Private buses had been using the side of the road for years with no problem, its when they started illegally using public transit stops that people got upset. But you know, facts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
gonger posted:I wish most people knew that the buses aren't the problem, but I don't agree that's the case. It proved to be a tremendously effective wedge issue that was recognized as such by many bay area activist communities. As someone who lives car-free in SF and rides a tech shuttle (after riding Muni or biking to the pickup) to work every day , it's pretty disappointing that the most effective wedge issue they could come up with is one that would disappear overnight if we all commuted via private automobiles. Yeah, you're probably right  . It's kind of frustrating to explain that (especially if you've came here recently chasing a job), you're losing a lot of wages to shelter/food. Especially if you're comparing a salary to, say, cost of living in the midwest. I guess you can always shop at the Smart and Final.  Edit: Slobjob Zizek posted:People are really stupid then. I can assure you, huge increases in demand for property is caused by capitalists (both foreign and domestic), not rank-and-file tech workers. I'd agree that I've seen people have no idea what real wealth is, and just because you can afford a slightly more expensive version of the same consumerist junk, you're the richy-riches, but it's probably worse to lord it over people just because you can afford a 60 dollar blouse made in the same factory the 10 dollar blouse is made in, or whatever.
hell astro course fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
on the left posted:One reason I know the diversity push is bullshit is that when Google was brought before a congressional hearing on diversity, congressmen focused on "How many black people do you hire?". Not asian, not hispanic, not native....black. gently caress those congressmen who care about black political patronage rather than actual diversity. As a non-black minority, I will never vote for any congressperson who does this. I completely agree with this, and I've definitely noticed it too. There's something extremely problematic with the notion that blacks are the only real diversity. I mean, excuse me? What the gently caress does that say about equality in America?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
The rampaging rampant arrogance of BLACK LEGISLATORS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I completely agree with this, and I've definitely noticed it too. There's something extremely problematic with the notion that blacks are the only real diversity. I mean, excuse me? What the gently caress does that say about equality in America? Why are there apparently insignificant numbers of Hispanics, despite California being a minority-majority state?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why are there apparently insignificant numbers of Hispanics, despite California being a minority-majority state? Hispanics are only a tiny portion of UC admissions, which would explain a large part of the disparity. Also, if the immigration system were loosened up, you'd probably see a lot more immigrants from South America even out a lot of the numbers on white collar employment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
If the busses never existed, those workers would have the same commute pressures as the rest of those people not working at cash flush tech companies and housing growth would happen in closer cities like San Jose vs San Francisco. Hell there might even be the demand pressure to improve public transit solutions that would benefit everyone instead of just the few. ...but yeah mostly they're just a giant rolling metaphor for income inequality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:If the busses never existed, those workers would have the same commute pressures as the rest of those people not working at cash flush tech companies and housing growth would happen in closer cities like San Jose vs San Francisco. Hell there might even be the demand pressure to improve public transit solutions that would benefit everyone instead of just the few. Yeah imagine if Google, Apple, et al. put a bunch of money into lobbying for actual local and regional transit access.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
I think that's what gets me. If the  liberal utopia that is the San Francisco Bay Area can't even advocate for something as basic as public transit, then what hope is there for the rest of this country?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I think that's what gets me. If the A gay man was executed for having the gall to be elected in San Francisco within my lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I think that's what gets me. If the But You don't understand, we outlawed Foie Gras!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:A gay man was executed for having the gall to be elected in San Francisco within my lifetime. I think that says less about San Francisco and more about how old you are 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Uber and Google busses are just the most visible examples -- there are much more obscene startups popping up every day. This kind of "gently caress you I'm rich / poor people get out" attitude is everywhere in SF right now. Holy poo poo that last one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Kenning posted:Holy poo poo that last one. lol 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
I feel like I can't help but disagree with people in this thread on virtually everythjng Which is pretty wild, because I'm not a Republican of any sort. MUNI buses have to be designed to be beaten the hell up. The seats have to be ready to be pissed on, not because they should be pissed on but because it's inevitable they will be. On a Google bus, pissing your pants into the seat can be rectified through disciplinary measures not available on a public bus. I think $1 per stop is ridiculously low, though. $1 per rider would make more sense, as it would go a way to address the needs of mass transit and still is, I think, just a little cheaper than if each of these people bought a bus pass. I get that MUNI has problems and should have leverage in this, but I'm also not broken up over the classism of people riding a bus that goes directly to their intended destination if it isn't robbing the public of significant revenue. If the buses didn't exist, all these people would be carpooling anyway. As far as Uber, gently caress the taxi cartel. I feel this way because I moved from California to Las Vegas, where the taxis are incredibly corrupt; to the degree that even other corrupt industries like strip clubs hate them. They take long routes to drive up fares, have much higher-profile access at the airport than mass transit, clog up the road infrastructure when some political battle isn't going their way, and display varying levels of aggressiveness in to hustling. Naturally, Uber can not actually exist there, as the state government (which exists to serve the monopolistic interests that are willing to do business here, like not taxing the mining companies while they extract the state's finite resources for profit) wrote a protectionist law giving them entitlement to any for-hire driver in the state. That isn't to say that unions don't have their place in society, or that we should expect to have to tip service workers if we're unable to give them a living wage. But that living in Nevada will slowly cause you hate the labor class for being just as aggressive as elites at loving everyone else if it means more for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I think $1 per stop is ridiculously low, though. $1 per rider would make more sense, as it would go a way to address the needs of mass transit and still is, I think, just a little cheaper than if each of these people bought a bus pass. I get that MUNI has problems and should have leverage in this, but I'm also not broken up over the classism of people riding a bus that goes directly to their intended destination if it isn't robbing the public of significant revenue. If the buses didn't exist, all these people would be carpooling anyway. MUNI transit authorities agree with you, and they wanted to charge more, but the reality is that they are bound by state anti-profiteering statutes that prevent the state from exacting fees that are in excess of costs. And unsurprisingly, it doesn't really cost MUNI much to let other buses use the curb, and the wear and tear on a seat from a handful of additional riders at an existing stop is insignificant. Basically the $1/stop figure comes out to a percentage contribution to the infrastructure cost of building the stop (maybe $10,000 for a standard non-electrified shelter) and maintaining it. edit: Oh and perhaps some confusion exists because of the dual meaning of the word "stop". Under the pilot program, commercial buses pay $1 for every time they halt their vehicle at a bus shelter, so if they run two commuter routes through each of the 200 stops involved in the program, then that comes out to $400/day or $100,000/year (the program's stated average fee per company). That leaves MUNI with significantly more money than $1/rider per route. edit2: To put it in perspective: If we thought of the MUNI-GoogleBus plan in terms of metered parking, and we consider that the average bus loading dwell time is 30 seconds, then that $1/stop comes out to an absurd $120/hour. Even if we assume that the GoogleBus is significantly less efficient at loading (which to be fair, seems unlikely since there is presumably only a single point of offloading), that $1/stop is still many times more expensive than the average SF parking meter rate of $2.50/hour. Obviously renting access to a bus stop is not precisely the same as metered parking, but I don't think that the city is getting a raw deal here. Kaal fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:obscene startups popping up every day. This kind of "gently caress you I'm rich / poor people get out" attitude is everywhere in SF right now. The pay-for-parking startup is extra stupid, because it will definitely lead to fights. A dude was even murdered for trying to save a parking spot several years ago. It's not like parking-rage murder is common, but still...why risk getting into arguments/fights/getting stabbed, just to make 5 bucks? I know I would be mad if I saw someone getting ready to leave a parking spot, and then they told me that they were saving it for someone else who was going to give them $5, or told me that they'd give it to me instead for $5. Thankfully I'm not the stabby type. Did the people who thought this dumb poo poo up really not take into account that this will piss a lot of people off, or do they just not care? "Maybe if you don't want to be mad, you should be able to afford $5 for parking. It's not our fault someone more deserving got that parking spot" 
Rah! fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Rah! posted:The pay-for-parking startup is extra stupid, because it will definitely lead to fights. A dude was even murdered for trying to save a parking spot several years ago. It's not like parking-rage murder is common, but still...why risk getting into arguments/fights/getting stabbed, just to make 5 bucks? I know I would be mad if I saw someone getting ready to leave a parking spot, and then they told me that they were saving it for someone else who was going to give them $5, or told me that they'd give it to me instead for $5. Thankfully I'm not the stabby type. Did the people who thought this dumb poo poo up really not take into account that this will piss a lot of people off, or do they just not care? Literal rent-seeking/classic parasitic rentier capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Boston has been dealing with this sort of thing for a long time, since their regular snowstorms puts cleared spots at a premium. During the Winter, Bostonites claim parking spaces with buckets and cones, with the excuse that they cleared the spot and so they've earned it. It's not uncommon to see confrontations break out when someone ignores a "claim" on a parking space, and it's also pretty common to see people trying to claim spots long after the snow has fallen. The mayor of Boston eventually had to impose a policy of 48-hour post-blizzard lenience, which is then followed by object removal by city employees. And it wasn't something started by "rent-seeking capitalists", it was started by working-class neighborhoods. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/19/southie_custom_of_claiming_parking_spaces_spreading/
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:MUNI buses have to be designed to be beaten the hell up. The seats have to be ready to be pissed on, not because they should be pissed on but because it's inevitable they will be. On a Google bus, pissing your pants into the seat can be rectified through disciplinary measures not available on a public bus. I agree with both of these things, but what you're essentially saying is that it's OK for rich, mostly white tech workers to ride around in nice busses and taxis with great service, while the service workers, public servants, and Mexicans ride in lovely busses and corrupt taxis along with the homeless and mentally unstable. The solution to lovely public transit shouldn't be, in my opinion, giant rolling gated communities. quote:If the buses didn't exist, all these people would be carpooling anyway. I highly doubt that. More likely some would drive, some would live in other neighborhoods, some would move closer to work, some would bitch about the failings of the regional public transit system, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I agree with both of these things, but what you're essentially saying is that it's OK for rich, mostly white tech workers to ride around in nice busses and taxis with great service, while the service workers, public servants, and Mexicans ride in lovely busses and corrupt taxis along with the homeless and mentally unstable. The solution to lovely public transit shouldn't be, in my opinion, giant rolling gated communities. Yes, I think that there's no problem with this, and if they weren't using public shelters there would literally be no issue. I have no drivers license and only get around via transit or rides from others. I am a transit advocate, and want better transit, but I also know that public buses are going to be built to be "ridden hard and put away wet", so to speak. They will never have the creature comforts of a motorcoach or your neighbors minivan, because there's no affordable way to give leather seats and TV entertainment centers to customers who don't give that much of a poo poo. There is not going to be an express MUNI route to Google HQ, which is why I said all these people would be in cars (if we're lucky, carpools) if the buses didn't exist. The problem is that you have this paradigm in your head where these buses and mass transit can't coexist or are directly competitive. From what I know, these buses don't take the wealthy, mostly white people to the mall or the Giants game or the markets or that restaurant in the Mission. They still rely on MUNI for that, right? This is about getting to work, and the buses are competing with A Whole Bunch Of Cars Making Traffic. Because that's what will happen without them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
How difficult would it be for the tech buses to get their own stops, independent from the MUNI ones? That way they wouldn't be blocking other buses during departure/arrival.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:How difficult would it be for the tech buses to get their own stops, independent from the MUNI ones? That way they wouldn't be blocking other buses during departure/arrival. Probably extremely difficult in San Francisco where a single street side parking space would fetch probably multiple tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars if it could be meted out on the free market.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
You should see the pants-making GBS threads that happens then someone proposes taking out a street parking space for any reason at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:How difficult would it be for the tech buses to get their own stops, independent from the MUNI ones? That way they wouldn't be blocking other buses during departure/arrival. Really that's just an issue of scheduling more than anything else. I mean the average load/unload takes only 30 seconds, and a commercial commuter bus doesn't have to unload. And in most cities there's a good number of shelters that are designed to take multiple buses, though I don't know how true that is in SF. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why are there apparently insignificant numbers of Hispanics, despite California being a minority-majority state? Google hires from all over the country. Of course, they hire proportionately more from CA, especially when you're talking about new college grads, but you still have to factor in that they have offices in other places, and are more than willing to do relocations (as they did in my case). There aren't that many Hispanic CS majors even now. Plus, college enrollment right now is a leading indicator of occupational demographics; if overnight, Hispanics became the majority of CS majors, it would still take many years for that to be reflected in software engineering stats, as old guys gradually retired and new guys gradually came into the workforce. Since Hispanics are a growing demographic in the US (and I'd bet that they're growing as a proportion of CS majors as well), it'd be more realistic to look at how many there were 10-20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
The thing is, is if the tech companies wanted to earn some respect from their communities it is relatively easy to work with transit authorities to pay for additional bus routes that cover your commuter need. Other large employers do this all the time, even here in the Bay. Adding public transit capacity and paying the $1 fee would have gone a long way to removing community support for the most extreme anti-tech activists. Even if they just added 1 public commuter run for every 5-10 private runs, that would have solved so many of the issues here. And of course their own employees could use the public run too. These companies are big, powerful and influential. They could have easily turned this into a PR blessing with some stupid rear end SOMA-SV connector bus and then get the mayors to talk about how these companies that are used to connecting us digitally are helping to connect us physically or some poo poo. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Really that's just an issue of scheduling more than anything else. I mean the average load/unload takes only 30 seconds, and a commercial commuter bus doesn't have to unload. And in most cities there's a good number of shelters that are designed to take multiple buses, though I don't know how true that is in SF. Many stops in SF are shared already by multiple agencies: MUNI, AC Transit (Alameda/Oakland), SamTrans (San Mateo), and Golden Gate (Sonoma and Marin counties) use the same stops on Mission Street alone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The thing is, is if the tech companies wanted to earn some respect from their communities it is relatively easy to work with transit authorities to pay for additional bus routes that cover your commuter need. Other large employers do this all the time, even here in the Bay. Unfortunately capitalism says that a public company's first responsibility is to its shareholders and it must come in the form of maximizing profits. You can bet your rear end that some shareholders (especially rich/influential ones) would throw a hissyfit if they found out that these companies are planning to do "socialist" stuff like improve public transit. And if the companies in question have one bad quarter, programs like that would be the first to get cut anyway, making the improvements unreliable and sporadic. From the city government's perspective, the way I would approach the problem would be by providing tax benefits or other financial incentives to companies who allow their employees telecommute. Reduce the number of people who need to be in the office every day of the week and you'll go a long way towards solving issues related to commuting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
I would rather wealthy companies not be able to buy route designs to beat a path to their doors. Because when it comes time to cut service we know whose service will not be impacted and who will. Really, what costs the city more: a couple minutes at a curb, or buses and drivers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 01:49
|
|