Apple, Google commuter shuttles to be charged fee for using San Francisco bus stops

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    zabazaba Posts: 226member
    Ridiculous! Setting up a charging system whose income is to provide the cost of operating said system. Nothing against the idea of charging, seems reasonable but the money should benefit the people in some way.
  • Reply 22 of 35
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Incredibly stupid and frankly fully expected from a city like San Francisco. Just another reason for decent people to avoid California and its poorly managed cities.
  • Reply 23 of 35
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    zaba wrote: »
    Ridiculous! Setting up a charging system whose income is to provide the cost of operating said system. Nothing against the idea of charging, seems reasonable but the money should benefit the people in some way.

    No the idea of charging for a service that effectively benefits the city is stupid. As for benefitting the people, the people need to be willing to work. San Francisco simply has too many free loaders, frankly many of them in Government, which explains why San Francisco has been one of Americas failed cities for so long.
  • Reply 24 of 35
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member

    This is crazy about charging fees for these stops.

  • Reply 25 of 35
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,374member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by leftoverbacon View Post

     

    ...............

     

    If these busses were to disappear, some would pay more, but many more would save.

    1) The public wouldn't be subsidizing a service that benefits a particular private corporation. 

    2) Without the perk of WiFi enabled shuttle craft, Silicon Valley would have a harder time recruiting staff that wants to live in the city. If these Silicon Valley Corps started have difficulty staffing their offices, then they may either: A) offer higher salaries or B) open an office within the city limits thereby recruiting staff who wants to live in the city. At the same time they would be adding to the revenue base of the city directly through real estate taxes and other services used within the city limits.

     

    Basically, the activists don't like seeing their city turned into a wealthy commuter suburb of San Jose. If these companies were based in the city, the workers would eat lunch in the city, they would utilize other businesses in the city: Delivery Companies, Contractors, entertainment, etc. San Francisco is a city, not a bedroom community. These shuttle craft are basically making San Francisco into a place where Silicon Valley tech workers have very expensive crash pads, and that is a very sad thing.


    What? ...... dinner at home don't count? These buses aren't a 24 hour door to door taxi service for the employees. Many employees still have to take public transportation to where their corporate buses stops. The buses takes them to work and then back about 8 hours later . The employees still spends about 16 hours a day and their days off in the city. They still spend their money in the city. They still utilize city businesses during the 16 hours they are not at work. They shop there. They dine there. They go to movies there. They patronize neighborhood businesses.  You make it seems as though these workers takes the bus from work to the city just so that they can spend 8 hours in the city sleeping. While with the other 16 hours, they're spending their money in the community where they work. 

     

    Besides the real issue is not about the use of the bus stops. It's about these protesters misconception that these tech workers, that commutes to work on these buses, are solely responsible for driving up the rent and creating a rental shortage. They only target the buses in hope of having them banned so that the inconvenience of a commute would cause these tech workers to consider moving out of the city and closer to work. The fact that the city will allow the buses to operate for a fee is not a victory for these protesters. Not even if the city were to triple the fee. And even if they got a ban on the buses, most of the tech workers would just commute to work in their own cars or carpool. The commute south to Silicon Valley is not that bad. Most of the workers would probably spend more time driving through the city, than the 30 minutes on the freeway to work. That would mean 1000's of more autos driving through the city, twice a day. Which can't be a good thing for the city.  

     

    Having corporations build branch offices in the city will not satisfy these protesters. The protesters want these tech workers out of the city so they can have their low cost rental units back. To these protester, creating more jobs in the city will only drive up the rent more and create even a bigger rental shortage. Not to mention all the "artist" that will be forced to move from their low rent lofts in warehouses, when the value of commercial property goes up and the property owner decides it's a good time to sell. They couldn't care less about how much more tax dollars it brings in. To these protesters, what is the use of bringing in more tax dollars to the city coffer, if they can no longer afford to live in the city.  

  • Reply 26 of 35
    Let the activist fight it out. I am sure there are many that would like to see private cars outlawed, they can have a rumble with the ones wanting to get rid of bus service that allows people to not use their private cars for the daily commute. Does SF charge all the tourist buses for use of stops?
  • Reply 27 of 35
    I don't know enough about the specifics - are the buses using the public stops without permission from the government? Does it hold up the public transportation? Can any old person with a van use the public stop to pick up a friend?

    Aside from the fees, which depending on other questions could be reasonable, there seems to be some out of whack inhabitants protesting. Class wars? What do they think of the Mercedes and limousines driving around? Are they a part of the problem? Cost of living too much? The only way to fix that would be to make it illegal for the rest of the world to visit or live there. They sound like they're trying to outlaw growth. There are plenty of other cities to choose from with less growth - you may want to move there if the people in that city don't outlaw it. The whole world is sorry that your housing costs are rising, but we can't help you.. and even if we could, we've got bigger issues to worry about.
  • Reply 28 of 35
    These are not public busses. These are private charter busses for the private employees of a particular corporation. Taxis must pay licensing fees to operate in the city, while providing a service to the general public. If you pull over to pick up or drop off someone as a matter of business, yes, you can be subject to regulation. If you are operating as a commercial driver, and you are not properly registered, you could even face fines and/or incarceration. That's why "gypsy cabs" are illegal.

    The city would be well within its rights to force these private charters to purchase facilities off of the public way for their charter shuttle operations. Embarking and disembarking of passengers, by a charter operator, within the public way, can be regulated by a municipal government. The city also has a right to charge the shuttle operators a tax for operating their service within the city limits since the city is a primary place of operation of said business.

    Busses are heavy and cause significant wear and tear on the city infrastructure. The city should be collecting revenue to offset these costs.

    Cities don't have "rights", people have rights.
  • Reply 29 of 35
    aduzik wrote: »
    Wait, they're going to charge a fee that will raise $1.5 million, and the money will be used to pay for the cost of collecting the $1.5 million? Do I have that right?

    It will keep legions of public revenue sucking bureaucrats employed, and that's really more important than sensible minimal government. /s
  • Reply 30 of 35
    So as I understand it they're going to charge those tech companies (such as Apple, Google etc) who operate their own transportation structure for their employees a fee to pick up said employees?
  • Reply 31 of 35
    wizard69 wrote: »
    No the idea of charging for a service that effectively benefits the city is stupid. As for benefitting the people, the people need to be willing to work. San Francisco simply has too many free loaders, frankly many of them in Government, which explains why San Francisco has been one of Americas failed cities for so long.

    It's quotes like this...

    "Not all employees being shuttled back and forth from San Francisco are "billionaire riders," however. Regular working class citizens like Google program manager Crystal Sholts are among those caught in the middle of the so-called class warfare.

    "I'm not a billionaire. Like many people, I'm still paying off my student loans," Sholts said."

    ...that make San Francisco a city of winners. /s
  • Reply 32 of 35
    "Busses are heavy and cause significant wear and tear on the city infrastructure. The city should be collecting revenue to offset these costs."

    That's supposed to be what fuel taxes pay for.
  • Reply 33 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by spacekid View Post



    "Busses are heavy and cause significant wear and tear on the city infrastructure. The city should be collecting revenue to offset these costs."



    That's supposed to be what fuel taxes pay for.

    Exactly right! Thank you sir for thinking clearly and not being led astray by pro-government cheerleading. We need more of you.

  • Reply 34 of 35
    Sometimes I wish we could just let California float out into the Pacific.
  • Reply 35 of 35

    Better, Thanks to all.

Sign In or Register to comment.