7 replies to this topic

[BlueMound]

San Francisco May Crack Down on Corporate Shuttle Buses

http://allthingsd.co...-shuttle-buses/

Edited by AndyN, 31 July 2013 - 10:46 AM.
Violation of posting policy

[Keller Pirate]

I checked out the site that the original post came from.  They are basically anti anything to do with success.  They object, in the first place, to the tech people living in San Francisco because they are gentrifying neighborhoods with their money and driving up rent for "us" poor people.  Naturally they are going to take it out on the busses that take them to work, probably a dirty word.  Funny thing is, this guy is publishing a blog on the net, he couldn't do that without the people he hates.  The busses are regulated, this guy doesn't just want another unknown layer of regulation, he wants them gone altogether.

[Doohickie]

...this guy is...

 

"This guy" is named Liz.  Just sayin'.

 

And to say that the writer thinks work is a dirty word is just projecting your own spin on the situation, as is the line about "anything to do with success."  From just a single article, you've constructed a totally unjustified viewpoint.

 

I think it's a valid point to ask the corporate bus operators to pay for use of public bus stops if the corporate buses are stopping there.  That's public infrastructure, built specifically for public transit users, being put to private use.  Only fair to ask the private operator to share in the upkeep.  There are probably alternatives though; if they are asked to pay to use the stops, the operators could just choose instead to use local Starbucks as their stops; I'm sure Starbucks wouldn't mind as it would increase their business (and help pay for the upkeep of the Starbucks locations).

 

Sure, it's an ugly article that takes a negative view of the buses, but it's on a blog, not a major news outlet.  And the writer should realize that the "often enormous and unmarked big white buses" are actually keeping congestion down by keeping cars off the streets.  Nuthin wrong with being green. 

 

I used to ride similar buses to employers back in the '80s.  I loved it.  It allowed my family to get by with one car, and the mile walk to and from the stop gave me regular exercise.

[cberen1]

 

...this guy is...

 

"This guy" is named Liz.  Just sayin'.

 

And to say that the writer thinks work is a dirty word is just projecting your own spin on the situation, as is the line about "anything to do with success."  From just a single article, you've constructed a totally unjustified viewpoint.

 

I think it's a valid point to ask the corporate bus operators to pay for use of public bus stops if the corporate buses are stopping there.  That's public infrastructure, built specifically for public transit users, being put to private use.  Only fair to ask the private operator to share in the upkeep.  There are probably alternatives though; if they are asked to pay to use the stops, the operators could just choose instead to use local Starbucks as their stops; I'm sure Starbucks wouldn't mind as it would increase their business (and help pay for the upkeep of the Starbucks locations).

 

Sure, it's an ugly article that takes a negative view of the buses, but it's on a blog, not a major news outlet.  And the writer should realize that the "often enormous and unmarked big white buses" are actually keeping congestion down by keeping cars off the streets.  Nuthin wrong with being green. 

 

I used to ride similar buses to employers back in the '80s.  I loved it.  It allowed my family to get by with one car, and the mile walk to and from the stop gave me regular exercise.

 

 

I generally agree, but paying for the stops is a little silly, IMO.  The city benefits by not having to subsidize the cost of transporting these folks around and by the decreased conjestion (as you pointed out).  The city should be thrilled.

[Doohickie]

Yeah, that makes sense, but it's a question of going through proper channels.  Had they approached the city up front, then maybe they could have arranged something.  But there is zero benefit to the transit agency, perhaps some lost revenue (from any riders on the private buses that might have otherwise used public transit), and incurred expense of extra maintenance/wear-and-tear on the bus stops.  I'm sure that from the transit system's perspective, they feel like they're getting the shaft.

[Keller Pirate]

 

...this guy is...

 

"This guy" is named Liz.  Just sayin'.

 

And to say that the writer thinks work is a dirty word is just projecting your own spin on the situation, as is the line about "anything to do with success."  From just a single article, you've constructed a totally unjustified viewpoint.

Um... The original site that posted the article was not "All Things Considered" and Liz, this came from SFist and was written by Jay.  PBS just picked up the story and through in a link to the original site.  Also, I didn't say the writer thinks work is a dirty word.  I said the people that run the site probably think work is a dirty word.  If you look at all the stories on the site it would be an easy conclusion to reach.  By the way, most of the bus stops in SF are just aluminum signs stuck in the sidewalk that say bus stop.  The busses stop in regular traffic lanes blocking vehicles behind them.  There is no wear and tear on the bus stops and the city officials really don't have a problem with the busses.  In fact some have stated that public transportation couldn't handle all these riders without millions of hard to come by dollars from unknown sources.  Nice to see a private solution to something that should be a public problem.  The writer, Jay, was pretty severely criticized in the comments section on the SFist site for his conclusions and biased reporting in the article.  Maybe there is some small sliver of hope for that city.

[Doohickie]

Is All Things Digital == All Things Considered?  I don't think so; the website is "© 2005-2013 Dow Jones & Company Inc."

And if what you wanted to discuss was the article linked from the article linked in the first post, why didn't you just provide a direct link to the one you wanted to discuss? There are 7 links in the article in the first post; I have no idea which one goes to the article you're talking about.

[Russ Graham]

But there is zero benefit to the transit agency, perhaps some lost revenue (from any riders on the private buses that might have otherwise used public transit), and incurred expense of extra maintenance/wear-and-tear on the bus stops.

 

I'm speculating here, but it could be that some riders would take public transit to meet their employer's bus if they're not walking distance to the actual stop - the transit agency would get some fares out of it.   It's not like there are competing municipal options to get to these places that are being bypassed...