If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   It's one thing to block the way of a charter bus that shuttles employees to their high paying tech jobs, but do you also have to vomit all over the windshield?   (blog.sfgate.com) divider line 25
    More: Sick, charter bus, Oakland, highs, Muni, windshields, bus, board of supervisors, MacArthur  
•       •       •

3055 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 7:39 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-02 06:22:00 PM
So you can live with Shuttle Buses

Or

You can live with LA-levels of traffic.  (And given that congestion exists at 3:00 in the afternoon, you're already pretty close).

Or of course, you can:

* Finish BART through San Jose
* Make the VTA light rail not suck and actually go to the tech jobs along 237
* Do Dumbarton Rail (Only mentioning because this particular bus was coming from Oakland, and Oakland to the Valley is difficult.  You can either sit on BART through the city to Caltrain, or drive).
* In a Google-specific case, yell at Mountain View until they fix the clusterf*ck that is Shoreline in the mornings (It takes about a half hour to go the 3 miles from downtown (and Caltrain) to Google in the mornings).
* Make Caltrain not suck and do Transbay linkup to BART from the East Bay.
* Do the other assorted things that you'd have to do for the last-mile stuff.
* Fix transit in SF proper to not make it take an hour to GET to the regional transit.
* I'd also personally ask for transit running up 85, but that won't help SF people.

So unless you're willing to spend tens of billions of dollars AND are able to screw over the NIMBY's, shut up about the shuttle buses.  They're the least evil solution.

Your fundamental problem is that your major job centers are 40 miles away from the housing loosely draped across tens of square miles of suburbs and there's no decent transit infrastructure on the suburban end.

/Or you know, go yell at the suburbs until they build more housing.  SF is ALWAYS going to be more expensive than the burbs because it's cooler.  And until the burbs are cheap, SF will be stupid expensive instead of merely expensive.
 
2014-04-02 06:33:03 PM
THIS FRISCO SPEW-IN NEEDS A SOUNDTRACK!   (NSFW)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vFFewvHwEY&feature=kp
 
2014-04-02 07:22:37 PM

meyerkev: So you can live with Shuttle Buses

Or

You can live with LA-levels of traffic.  (And given that congestion exists at 3:00 in the afternoon, you're already pretty close).

Or of course, you can:

* Finish BART through San Jose
* Make the VTA light rail not suck and actually go to the tech jobs along 237
* Do Dumbarton Rail (Only mentioning because this particular bus was coming from Oakland, and Oakland to the Valley is difficult.  You can either sit on BART through the city to Caltrain, or drive).
* In a Google-specific case, yell at Mountain View until they fix the clusterf*ck that is Shoreline in the mornings (It takes about a half hour to go the 3 miles from downtown (and Caltrain) to Google in the mornings).
* Make Caltrain not suck and do Transbay linkup to BART from the East Bay.
* Do the other assorted things that you'd have to do for the last-mile stuff.
* Fix transit in SF proper to not make it take an hour to GET to the regional transit.
* I'd also personally ask for transit running up 85, but that won't help SF people.

So unless you're willing to spend tens of billions of dollars AND are able to screw over the NIMBY's, shut up about the shuttle buses.  They're the least evil solution.

Your fundamental problem is that your major job centers are 40 miles away from the housing loosely draped across tens of square miles of suburbs and there's no decent transit infrastructure on the suburban end.

/Or you know, go yell at the suburbs until they build more housing.  SF is ALWAYS going to be more expensive than the burbs because it's cooler.  And until the burbs are cheap, SF will be stupid expensive instead of merely expensive.


And just to get an idea how these problems might be addressed -- they've been around for at least 50 years in their present form.
 
2014-04-02 07:35:01 PM
have to? sounds like a bonus to me...
 
2014-04-02 07:38:01 PM

This About That: And just to get an idea how these problems might be addressed -- they've been around for at least 50 years in their present form.


Oh yeah.

Wonderful article from 1999 that could've been written today by changing a few numbers.   http://www.sfweekly.com/1999-08-18/news/welcome-home/full/

From 1995 to 2000, the number of jobs in San Francisco will have grown by 52,340. The number of households, meanwhile, will only have grown by 8,350 homes. Cities grow, but San Francisco refuses to. So while in other metropolitan areas the suburbs bloom as wealthier white urban dwellers flee the downtown area, in San Francisco people are pushed to the hinterlands by a local populace that doesn't want any more neighbors.

Uh, what?  And mind you, the suburbs AREN'T any better.  The population of Berkeley FELL.

"Berkeley is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance," says Kennedy. "They talk and talk about affordable housing, then trash the general plan. Berkeley's the only city in the Bay Area that's lost housing in the last 20 years."

During the past 10 years, Berkeley has torn down 800 more housing units than it has built. And the remaining units accommodate fewer people: Since 1970, the city has lost 5,182 people, according to U.S. Census and California Department of Finance data.


http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housing-axed-i n- citys-general-plan
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405311190359110457647013 0 512662232

/And that's why the kid making just slightly more than the median county income has a roommate.
//And why there's congestion at 3 PM on a Wednesday.
 
2014-04-02 08:39:21 PM
These idiots have turned me from slightly sympathetic to their cause to pro-gentrification.

Eff them.
 
2014-04-02 08:53:03 PM
I'm posting this from a company chartered bus so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2014-04-02 09:01:26 PM
meyerkev: [demands ~$40 billion in transit improvements yesterday]

That's nice and all, but in every other post you make you say things about how stupidly high taxes are and that you sympathize with the Tea Party's frustration with gummint spendin'. So which is it?
 
2014-04-02 09:03:59 PM
If after reading you sign I still don't know what the fark your protesting. You have failed.
 
2014-04-02 09:25:14 PM
With the soaring costs of doing business in Silicon Valley and the vast improvement in teleconferencing tools over the last decade it's really time for companies to start looking at moving to other cities.

Yes, there's an appeal to being where everyone else is, but when you have to pay much higher salaries due to the high cost of living and run a bus service because even with the salaries you're paying your employees still can't live somewhere they can commute effectively, it may be worthwhile to look into setting up shop somewhere else.

You'll be able to hire talented employees for less money because even with a lower wage their standard of living will be higher in a more affordable area.
 
2014-04-02 09:26:12 PM
Why don't the tech giants just build their own arcologies?
 
2014-04-02 09:26:14 PM

stuffy: If after reading you sign I still don't know what the fark your protesting. You have failed.


They are protesting companies doing nice things for their employees. They don't like that the company is providing a transport service they can't use. Also, they don't like people with money moving in to cheaper areas, because that increases property values and because those people often will do things like call the police if you sell drugs from your house or have loud parties at 3am.
 
2014-04-02 09:34:47 PM
#firstworldproblems
 
2014-04-02 09:47:21 PM

StopLurkListen: meyerkev: [demands ~$40 billion in transit improvements yesterday]

That's nice and all, but in every other post you make you say things about how stupidly high taxes are and that you sympathize with the Tea Party's frustration with gummint spendin'. So which is it?


So I'm pointing out the stupidity of their current position.  "We don't want buses or transit or traffic or more freeways or ...".

And I'm saying that if they don't want buses, then what *DO* they want exactly?  The status quo?

2nd, I've never seen more where those idiots are coming from then when reading exactly how much money they're spending on so little.
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2014/03/calmod-gains-momentum.html? sh owComment=1394051312813#c8335650250861513429.  TLDR: They're utter farkups and it's their own fault. "No one forced them to" do a giant list of stupid things.

It's not that the government spending is necessarily good or bad, it's that the money that they're spending is way too much money for utter incompetence.  And then at that point, I get the "Seriously, what am I paying my taxes for" people.

There's a difference in degree between "All taxes Bad, get off my lawn" and "OK, so why does the train come once an hour and averages 37 MPH off-peak, and is there any chance of fixing that during your multi-billion electrification project?  No?  Then why are we doing it again?".  If you can't understand that difference, actually you're perfect for internet debating.

So right now, it's about 1.5 hours from here(Mountain View) to the far East Bay in traffic (and 1 hour with no traffic).  Except that it's 2.5 hours and a minimum of 2 transfers via transit.  Which is just SF's problem in general.  They keep talking about doing transit, and spending *billions* of dollars on doing so, and using "Fark you drivers, you should all be taking transit" as an excuse to not build infrastructure, but the transit is even shiattier than the traffic.  (Plus, of course, the major last-mile problems, which is WHY Caltrain has bike cars that are always full on their standing room only trains).

/Honestly, to get rid of *this particular bus*, they could probably get away with just doing Dumbarton Rail and some of the last mile fixes so that you wouldn't have to go through the city (And given that VTA light Rail goes right there to Yahoo, and I've *seen* the Yahoo shuttle buses from Caltrain, they already DID those).  They'd also have to seriously upgrade Caltrain capacity and speed, but that's not the end of the world.

//Seriously, where are you getting $40 Billion from?  Even with the 1.8x government incompetence multiplier, Caltrain electrification and Dumbarton would combine for ~$5 Billion, and BART through San Jose would be ~$6 Billion.  And then you could just force private companies to provide shuttles.  That whole list would *maybe* be $20-25 Billion, assuming standard incompetence multipliers for reasonable values of *fixing last mile problems*, and *making SF to regional transit not suck*.  Sure, the entire Bay Area transit infrastructure needs a complete rethink to ever be *good*, but doing everything on that list would get them to *pretty decent. especially for America*.
 
2014-04-02 09:56:21 PM
Google buses are a solution, not a problem.

Their employees making it rain googlebucks all over the SF economy is a good thing.
 
2014-04-02 10:21:39 PM
This is why San Francisco can't have nice things...

and gets a face full of mace when they sit down on the street.  Although UC Davis/Fairfield is a bit far a foot from normal Bay Area definitions...

Time for tech companies to move to NV/ AZ/ UT/ WA and OR!  Like Ebay has a call center in Draper UT or of course, Amazon and Microsoft up in Seattle!
 
2014-04-02 10:23:01 PM
Yes, yes I do.
 
2014-04-02 10:36:25 PM
This is my Boobies about this event.
 
2014-04-02 10:47:02 PM

TuteTibiImperes: With the soaring costs of doing business in Silicon Valley Hollywood/Broadway/Wall Street/etc and the vast improvement in teleconferencing tools over the last decade it's really time for companies to start looking at moving to other cities.

Yes, there's an appeal to being where everyone else is, but when you have to pay much higher salaries due to the high cost of living and run a bus service because even with the salaries you're paying your employees still can't live somewhere they can commute effectively, it may be worthwhile to look into setting up shop somewhere else.

You'll be able to hire talented employees for less money because even with a lower wage their standard of living will be higher in a more affordable area.


Similar pressures.

All the VC's/people/companies/industries are there because all the VC's/people/companies/industries are there.

And it's not that they can't live where they could commute effectively (Well, somewhat. But they make enough money that they can just afford to buy up all the local property and screw everyone else).  It's that *really cool city* is an hour up the road (and is actually more expensive than the suburbs), and the buses are actually faster than driving while letting everyone work on their work-provided laptops instead of drive.  The Google buses are NOT solving the "Oh gods, we can't commute" problem, they're solving the "Traffic sucks and the transit is at 130% capacity right now already before we dump another 7K people on it, requires transfers, and doesn't actually have WIFI or drop us off at the front door" problem.  If they really had to, and Mountain View would fix Shoreline (or Caltrain ran more trains to San Antonio), it'd be a trivial exercise to run shuttles from Caltrain to Google.
 
2014-04-02 10:54:14 PM

Swampmaster: Time for tech companies to move to NV/ AZ/ UT/ WA and OR! Like Ebay has a call center in Draper UT or of course, Amazon and Microsoft up in Seattle!


Yeah, not going to happen.

Tech companies can literally locate anywhere, but they still prefer to cluster in the same locations: Silicon Valley, New York, Seattle, etc.  Why? Because everyone else is there.

What's interesting is that the new start-ups that can afford it -Twitter AirBnB and the like- are moving to downtown SF rather than out in the middle of farking nowhere as their employees and owners like living in the city.
 
2014-04-02 11:25:17 PM
You jerks make me sick.
 
2014-04-03 01:19:45 AM
^^^^

Your mother dresses you funny.
 
2014-04-03 02:23:18 AM

Molavian: Why don't the tech giants just build their own arcologies?


Part of me wants to curse you for making me look up what has every appearance of being the bastard child-concept of a geek and a hipster.

The other part of me is geeking out way too hard on a thing I have never heard of.

Oh, also: this.
 
2014-04-03 02:27:23 AM

Swampmaster: This is why San Francisco can't have nice things...

and gets a face full of mace when they sit down on the street.  Although UC Davis/Fairfield is a bit far a foot from normal Bay Area definitions...

Time for tech companies to move to NV/ AZ/ UT/ WA and OR!  Like Ebay has a call center in Draper UT or of course, Amazon and Microsoft up in Seattle!


They named a town in Utah for that guy? Mad.
 
2014-04-03 03:20:25 AM
"...one photo claims protesters on the bus roof vomited on the windshield. The image is below."

I've about had it with that photo and its never-ending ridiculous claims!
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report