S.F. to charge operators of tech commuter buses

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The operators of employee shuttle buses for Silicon Valley technology and Peninsula biotech firms, which have become a symbol of income disparity in San Francisco, will start paying to use public bus stops, city officials said Monday.

... Fairly or not, the air-conditioned, Wi-Fi equipped buses and their passengers have become the most tangible symbol of backlash against the tech boom as long-time San Francisco residents and others try to cope with soaring housing prices and commercial rents that have forced out tenants, artists and nonprofits.

... Under a pilot program that Mayor Ed Lee announced Monday, the shuttle companies, such as Bauer's and Compass Transportation, will be subject to a fee based on the number of stops they make in Muni bus zones. That fee will presumably will be passed along to the contracting tech and other companies.

The fees, by state law, will be limited to covering the costs of overseeing the program. The program still needs the approval of the Municipal Transportation Agency board of directors.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-to-charge-operators-of-tech-commuter-buses-5118477.php

[kelly1mm]

1. Wait, isn't this the definition of make work? From the OP:

"The fees, by state law, will be limited to covering the costs of overseeing the program."

So, let me see - we will have a program that has employees count how many stops you make, and then we will send you a bill based on the number of stops in proportion to the salaries of the employees who count the stops? Is that was is going on here? If there is no revenue generation and will simply raise the cost of providing 'mini' mass transit, why is this being proposed?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

2. Because bus-stop counters vote ...

... and the more people your machine can hire, the more votes you direct.

Local politics, old school.

[Laelth]

3. Perhaps.

And that does make sense, but what about the people riding the buses who will have to pay increased fares? Do they not vote as well?



-Laelth

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

4. Isn't the company paying for these shuttles?

I've used company-sponsored shuttles. It was an alternative to company-paid parking.

It worked for a while, when I had an assignment with predictable hours. When the job got "flexible", I needed to drive my own car.

[Laelth]

5. You're probably right.

The article doesn't really say who pays the shuttle companies, but I'll take your word for it that the businesses, themselves, do, and not their employees.



-Laelth

[kelly1mm]

7. I do believe the companies (for the most part) pay for the service. But in this

case what is the benefit? I suppose there may be 2-3 jobs created but no revenue for the city and increased costs for the companies (which may lead to them charging fares/eliminating the service all together). The tone of the article (air-conditioned, wifi enabled busses) makies it out to just be a class warfare issue. Now, I am all for class warfare when it makes sense but this ..... meh!

[bobclark86]

6. So wait a second...

A company, rather than being dicks and destroying the environment by making all employees drive, they have a bus pick up their employees.

So... we punish them for actually taking care of their employees and the environment?

Also, what's the big deal with wifi on buses. Buses in the middle of Podunk, Nowhere around me have wifi.

[kelly1mm]

8. Class warfare of the ridiculous kind, IMO. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

9. How is it environmental responsible to hog public transit stops & add traffic to congested streets?

They're providing shuttles because their employees want to live in the cool city while the employers have offices out in boring suburbia. If the employers wanted to be environmentally responsible they'd move the company to the city.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

12. Because the anarchists would just totally go for that

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24475855/twitter-ipo-outside-headquarters-celebration-angry-protesters

That would even bring more of the maligned "techies" into town.

[Gormy Cuss]

13. Well then, build some condos in Sili Valley complete with a faux urban shopping strip.

That would be more environmentally responsible than the endless tracts of single family detached housing.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

14. There will always be a certain number of douchebags who just have to live in

Manhattan or San Francisco.

[Bradical79]

10. They're using public bus stops though

Seems like some kind of fee is reasonable if you are using public bus stops for your luxery private transportation business.

[bobclark86]

15. Are they holding up traffic at the stops?

Do they charge cab companies to pick people up, too?

[Bradical79]

17. If they are anything like busses in my city

Then yes, they are holding up traffic I've heard from some visitors that our public transportation is inferior to most major cities, so maybe it is an anomaly here (Columbus).

As for cabs, I usually don't see cabs hanging out at bus stops, or people gathered at bus stops waiting for cabs. I used busses a lot for a year and never saw a cab stop at any of my stops.

[Starry Messenger]

20. Cabbies pay a fine of nearly $300 if they stop at bus stops.

The buses have a tangible presence, of which traffic is just one part. This Kos post makes good points:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/12/1201298/-What-s-the-matter-with-The-Google-Bus

[freshwest]

21. Cabs where I live have to pay to park and pickup at the airport, a valued venue. It's done by

license fees for parking there as it's very busy and it's not cheap. Might be the same concept. London charges a fee daily for vehicles entering it. And the cab drivers there pay a lot to be cabbies. The busses, I don't know, but the passengers pay fares to ride them. These guys are not part of the system that supports the streets, etc., really. So I don't think a fee is out of line, as every person in SF is leasing the ground they stand and walk on, one way or the other, if you think about it.

[arcane1]

26. Yes, yes they do.

And they block the stops from Muni buses, too.

[mulsh]

30. the "big deal" is using Muni maintained stops, blocking access to Muni busses

endangering Muni passengers by forcing us to board or exit buses in the middle of the street due to blocked Muni bus stops.

Employer provided shuttles are a pretty good benefit. employer provided shuttles that endanger regular Muni riders and cause wear and tear on Muni equipment are the issues. The least these companies can do, and with Mayor Lee in office companies pretty much get free reign, is pay for some of the inconvenience and damage.

BTW AC Transit (East Bay) commute buses also have wifi, at least on the longer routes.

[eggplant]

11. This is not a new argument

School vouchers take money from public schools and give it to private schools.

UPS can't put packages in your USPS mailbox.

Private shuttles can't use Muni bus stops.

In each case, the private organization would be taking advantage of the publicly funded infrastructure for free. All they are saying is that if you want to use the taxpayer-funded bus stops (and their benches, shelters, etc) then pay for it. This seems completely reasonable. If the private companies don't like it, then they can build and maintain their own bus stops.

[jsr]

16. +1

[Starry Messenger]

18. Boom.

[Xithras]

24. Most of the stops are just a painted curb.

Not much "infrastructure" to wear out.

[arcane1]

27. Well said.

[Nye Bevan]

19. So the bus stops somehow wear out quicker if these buses use them?

Isn't a "public bus stop" just a designated spot on the street? Why the need to charge these buses to stop at them?

[eggplant]

31. no.

they typically have signage, benches, shelters, and often special features in the roadway (pulloff lanes, etc) that require additional maintenance costs.

[Le Taz Hot]

22. So, if native San Franciscans can't afford to live in SF anymore

and have to move away, who will they look down their noses at now since they no longer can afford to live in "the city?" ( San Joaquin Valley residents know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.)

[Xithras]

23. BAT's

Blight of the Valley

[Le Taz Hot]

25. Yeah, well that "blight"

feeds you and millions of others.

[Xithras]

28. Lol. No. BAT's are blight, not the Valley.

Maybe the term isn't used further south where you live. In the northern part of the SJ valley (Modesto, Stockton, Tracy, Manteca, etc), "BAT's" is an old derisive term for Bay Area Transplants (it's been around at least since the 80's).

It's a reference to people who move to the Valley from the Bay Area and then proceed to act like they're "superior to the natives". It's the old "I'm from the Bay Area so I'm better than you" mindset. Most acclimate within a few years of moving over, but some never do.

Generally speaking, they're a bunch of annoying twats.

[Le Taz Hot]

29. Ah, sorry 'bout that.

I'm so used to Bay Areans jumping in and telling me how I live in a "cesspool" (actual terminology used by a Bay Area DUer) I just kind of expect it. My apologies for jumping to conclusions.

Yeah, I always wondered why so many move here and then bitch about the Valley. If you hate it so much, DON'T MOVE HERE!

I forgot that you're just north of me.