Google Co-Opts Whale-Watching Boat To Ferry Employees 373
theodp writes "Purportedly intended to defuse tensions over gentrification that have led to blockades and vandalism of Google's ubiquitous shuttles (video), which make use of public San Francisco bus stops (map), Wired reports that Google is now chartering a ferry to take its workers from SF to Silicon Valley. 'We certainly don't want to cause any inconvenience to SF residents, and we're trying alternative ways to get Googlers to work,' Google explained. Inconveniencing whale-seeking visitors to The Aquarium of the Pacific, however, is apparently not considered evil. After learning that Google had co-opted the $4 million, 83-foot, 150-passenger whale-watching catamaran MV/Triumphant to ferry as few as 30-40 Googlers to work, some expressed concerns on Facebook that Google would be The Grinch That Stole Whale Watching Season (not to worry; the boat's slated to make its 'triumphant' return to Long Beach after Google's '30-day trial')."
Whalewatching (Score:4, Funny)
People in the traffic jams are now able to watch whales getting brought to work by boat.
Re: (Score:2)
People in the traffic jams are now able to watch whales getting brought to work by boat.
This has me thinking you are talking about whales commuting to work.
How many lanes do they take otherwise? A boat might really be the answer.
Re: Whalewatching (Score:3)
Re: Whalewatching (Score:5, Funny)
Below average BMI? How is that possible, given all that free junk food that permeates the entire Google campus?? There's a reason that " Googler 15" phrase exists.
I didn't take a position at Google because they didn't have the right kind of krill on the menu.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are the Google programmers not old enough to drive or what's going on there? Why does Google have to drive them to school^wwork like a soccer mom?
One bus displaces 30 to 60 cars.
If more companies did this our streets would be less crowded.
It seems the main point of contention here is that these buses made an arrangement with the city to use existing
bus stops, (which didn't inconvenience anybody and simply made better use of a public resource).
Had they set up their own bus stops, on private property, perhaps near park-and-ride lots I suspect the protests
would have been exactly the same.
Because this issue isn't about the buses. Its racism, pure and sim
Re: (Score:3)
This is a boat, not a bus. Now, boats can be incredibly efficient means of transportation if scaled up large enough and loaded to capacity, but using a small boat for a small group is astoundingly inefficient unless you're looking at a sailboat, which won't be fast enough for commuter purposes (or if so, certainly not dry enough).
This is the boat designer and a similar boat: http://www.teknicraft.com/showcase/kachemak-voyager [teknicraft.com]
If we assume that Triumphant is similar to this sister:
engines: 2 x Caterpillar
Re: (Score:3)
Actual boat specs:
http://www.allamericanmarine.com/project/83-whale-watch-tour-catamaran/ [allamericanmarine.com]
It looks like the engines in the boat are the ones listed on page 8 of the pdf I referenced above (the website for the boat says the engines will do 2300 rpm, but the Cat materials say 2100 rpm). Anyway, at 2100 rpm, the 1300 hp version burns 64.4 gph, so two of them would 128.8 gph.
Now certainly it doesn't run always at top speed, but it probably still burns in the high 50s gph per engine at cruising speed.
Re: (Score:3)
For reference, a Gilig hybrid 40 passenger (seated) plus 32 passenger (standing) bus gets about 4.64 mpg (with 30 passengers, that would be 139 passenger miles per gallon).
see pages 3 & 4:
http://146.186.225.57/buses/reports/409.pdf?1347373958 [146.186.225.57]
Back to the boat, with a cruising speed just a hair over 31 mph, and assuming 100 gph to cruise, that boat gets 0.31 mpg. At 30 passengers, that is 9.3 passenger miles per gallon.
The thirstiest hummer gets 10 mpg (combined) and with one passenger, that would be 10
Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
theodp, do you have any source whatsoever to actually back up your assertion that the use of the boat is intended to defuse tension?
And since when is "inconveniencing" tourists by chartering just ONE of the boats "in the fleet" considered evil, as you imply?
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently if a boat is used for something besides its original purpose, no other boat can ever replace it. You know, cause boats and tasks mate for life.
I'm no free market fanatic, but it's like they're *trying* to misunderstand basic supply and demand.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
That was my impression too. This sounds like the equivalent of, "a company rented a van for a business trip that a family could have used for sight-seeing."
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Informative)
There are some real problems with this, though. The US is fairly unique in that the poor live near city centers, due to urban decay and white flight among other things. Europe usually has the opposite problem - poor concentrated in the suburbs. Poor concentrated anywhere is a bad problem to have. The problem remains that the jobs tend to be closer to the rich people, but now you are making the poor drive cars into the city for work instead of taking the bus or train when they live in an urban area. Access to services is also worse when the poor are forced into a suburban setting - everything is more spread out geographically.
Anyway, it's not Google's fight - but it is a symptom of an unhealthy housing situation. You don't want all the people of means to be completely disconnected from the problems of everyday people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"It is a symptom of an unhealthy housing situation" caused by Prop 13 making commercial development more attractive than residential development to those interested in building a tax base.
Re: Citation Needed (Score:4, Informative)
Buy this man a cookie.
If you live in the Bay Area, you know why it's so screwed up.
Prop 13.
Your neighbor can live in a $1.6million house but pay taxes like its worth $160k.
Prop 13 has created a very unhealthy real estate market where there is significant incentive not to move, even if you want to.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up - as someone who moved from Australia to the US recently, this was one of the things that struck me almost immediately about most US cities. They are 'inside out' in terms of property prices/desirability.
In almost all Australian cities (and for that matter European and Asian cities), the closer you get to the CBD/downtown, the pricier property is. People want to live close to work, close to the vibrant downtown lifestyle (shops, cafes, restaurants, entertainment, nightlife etc.). Right in the urban core you have the super-expensive high-density places where the young, rich and hip want to live. Then as you go out in rings you get suburban housing of gradually decreasing price. First, the older, leafy, established suburbs with big old houses and established families that may have held the land for a long time. Expensive, because it's close to downtown while still offering detached houses rather than apartment living. Then mid-range suburbs ... then right at the outskirts of the city, the newest-built dwellings that are also generally the cheapest because they are far away. This where you'll find young families and first home buyers. They may eventually sell and move closer in once they can afford to. Or they may stay there (and eventually, these outer areas aren't as 'outer' anymore as the city expands).
But in the US it's all backwards. The areas in/close to downtown are the cheapest and no one seems to want to live there, and the expensive houses are all at the outskirts. It's kind of weird. Gives many US downtowns a kind of drab, utilitarian feeling ... a place people go to work but not live. (There are exceptions of course, NYC being the most obvious one, but sounds like SF is that way too, though I haven't been there).
The other point the parent made was excellent too - you don't want to segregate the social classes too much (either by concentrating the poor at the outskirts or in the center of the city). I used to live in Canberra, Australia, and one very noticeable thing there is that they have public housing developments (subsidized/free housing for poor people) scattered relatively evenly across all neighbourhoods. From the wealthiest to the poorest. You can easily have a block of public housing next to trendy modern townhouses or across the road from multi-million dollar ranch-style homes. This means you don't get that disconnect between social groups (and also means you don't get much crime, as you don't have these concentrated areas of desperate people where that activity can thrive)
Re: (Score:3)
In almost all Australian cities (and for that matter European and Asian cities), the closer you get to the CBD/downtown, the pricier property is. People want to live close to work, close to the v Right in the urban core you have the super-expensive high-density places where the young, rich and hip want to live. Then as you go out in rings you get suburban housing of gradually decreasing price.
So what? Different cultures do things differently.
There are vibrant lifestyle (shops, cafes, restaurants, entertainment, nightlife etc.) available all over a city, in many trendy locations, and most of it is not downtown, where there is zero parking.
Our culture is different. Owning your own house has always been a significant part of the American dream, and if you can't find a single family dwelling close enough to where you work an apartment or condo is the next best thing. But most people do not want to
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the larger point: the Bay Area hasn't built much in the way of housing in the past 30 years, despite the fact that many successful companies have expanded rapidly.
This problem was completely avoidable, nobody "had" to be pushed out.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, as much as I would like to work in the "big leagues" of the tech world, I guess I'm happy to be in flyover country where the mortgage on my 3 bedroom 2.5 bath house is just over 1000 a month.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you'd consider my area to be flyover country as it is the 6th largest city in the US, yet my 3 bedroom 2 bath (with a pool) house is $700 a month (which I split because I don't live here alone.) It's a pretty nice house too; probably far more comfortable to live in than something four times the price in SF.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Wow, as much as I would like to work in the "big leagues" of the tech world, I guess I'm happy to be in flyover country where the mortgage on my 3 bedroom 2.5 bath house is just over 1000 a month.
You share that sentiment with a lot of people (including myself) but it is bad because it stratifies the industries that can afford to pay for gentrified workers vs those that prefer to go after the best cost workers. For example, why should your talent not be brought to bear at Google? Just because you find it unconscionable to pay $3000 a month to rent a meager apartment barely big enough for 2 to live comfortably (forget having an actual family)? Google (like many large, mobile companies before it) is
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it a Google's problem — or a Google's fault? Are you going to argue, a corporation is "evil" because it pays its employees high wages — which leads to them being able to pay higher rents?
And there is nothing wrong with it — those "kids" still have to live somewhere. Are you going to restrict their freedom — for the dubious goal of preserving "a vibrant ethnic neighborhood"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes the rhetoric about taking care of the poor and underprivileged emanating from these geographic areas ring especially hollow.
The whole area is a hot mess of progressive policies and political correctness. Yet, when it comes to money, all else falls away to what's best for the bottom line.
Re: (Score:3)
is somebody who makes $75k/year poor and underprivelaged? no, but they can't afford SF. rule of thumb is rent should be 1/3 your gross income. so $3000/mo is $9000/mo gross income which is $108,000. Six figures for a 1br.
I'm not saying help the poor and underprivelaged. I'm saying longtime residents are pissed and google sending employees by boat won't make a difference and they know that.
Re: (Score:3)
That rent is on par with many cities around the world (in Europe, Asia, Australia and even other North American cities such as NYC). Hell, even some not-so-major cities ... I was paying only marginally less than that when I used to live in Canberra (Australia) which is a relatively small, suburban place of 350,000 people. I now live in the US in a moderately-pricey city and I get a lot more floorspace for the same money. Close to double, I'd say.
US rents are renowned worldwide for being insanely cheap (even
Re: (Score:2)
This was a state of the art whale watching boat christened just lasr July, coincidentally the same week that a bunch of folks from Google and the [Eric] Schmidt Ocean Institute were attending Ocean Exploration 2020 at the Aquarium of the Pacific with some of the world's foremost ocean explorers.
Re: (Score:2)
So? That makes me about as mad as when a corporation charters a private jet, when I think of all the people who would've liked to fly in that jet instead. You're really not selling me on the whole "Having nice things is despicable" argument. (Before you call that a strawman, I'll note that you're the one who put this action in the context of google's "Don't be evil" motto.)
Re: (Score:2)
From the Wired article linked to in the post: "The move, first reported by local CBS affiliate KPIX, seems aimed at defusing tensions that have led to blockades and vandalism of the ubiquitous shuttles, which make use of public San Francisco bus stops."
Re: (Score:3)
OK, that's better than nothing; but Wired's unfounded editorializing isn't really a valid source, either. It seems a stretch to believe that Google would be so tone deaf as to think chartering a boat would appease the anti-Gentrification protesters that are taking there angst out on Google.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, clearly my slashdot account with excellent karma in good standing for ten years is a Google PR sock puppet.
I have a bias, just like others do. But, as it happens, I live in the city, work for a tech company in the city, and walk to work. I don't use the Google shuttle, I don't personally care what happens to it, but it's simple fact that the Google shuttle isn't the problem, isn't the cause of the problem, and isn't even a symptom of the problem; the protesters have simply selected it as a symbol.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, the residents are a micro version of those same poor displaced whale-watchers. What's happening to them is a free market economy. They rent an asset owned by someone else. That owner has an unarguable right to seek the best return on their investment: It is greatly in their interest to rent their property for as much money as they can.
Why aren't you angry at the landlords for raising rents and using the Ellis act to evict people? That's not Google's fault. Google isn't driving people out; they're just paying their employees well and adapting to their needs (in this case, providing a shuttle from SF to Redwood, since a number of employees live in SF).
Why aren't you angry at the city for not issuing housing permits for more economic high-density housing? (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/7205/) Google isn't the one that lobbied and protested to keep the 120-year-old Victorian your 60-year-old woman lives in intact, instead of replacing it with a highrise.
Sure, it sucks that the place you lived forever is changing in ways you don't like. It sucks that residents' NIMBY-esque actions to stop that change turned out worse for them in the long run, because someone came along that's willing and able to pay more for your space than they are, and they resisted the kind of development that would've helped to make enough space for everyone.
If you don't want to be driven from "your" rented home, you have to own the place you live. If you can't afford to own it but you can afford to rent it, that means you're living in a kind of bubble: Your landlord thinks the land is worth more than what you're paying, meaning they think they can get more rent for it later, meaning at some point or another the occupant will be paying what the owner wants, whether the occupant is you or someone working for a startup that's getting paid five times what you get paid. It's a free market, and shit like this happens.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is just finally learning the very European art of hating other people flaunting their money. The twist in this case is that googlers are not stratospherically paid, and many are just jealous that some companies take better care of their people than others.
I mean, really "hey, here's a free bus so you can be more productive." is causing unrest...
Google's reaction? "hey here's a free boat so you can still be more productive"
What do people expect Google to do? Cut salaries and build dorms in Mountain View? Outsource to China or learn worker management from Dubai? Stop trying to help their employees be happy productive people, and turn into unhappy whipped people walmart-style?
People should think before they call them evil. That boat isn't cheap, and they have no obligation to pay their people much, or help them get home from work.
Re: (Score:3)
They pay a lot more taxes if you don't discourage them from living in the city.
They have to work in Mountain View, but they choose to live in SF.
Google helps them live in SF.
From a macroeconomic standpoint, this is one the best things to happen to SF in a long time: high-income people getting helped to live in the city, and not clog the highways at rush hour.
On the other hand, SF isn't exactly tiny, Googlers don't all live there. There's a bit of hysteria by the people renting (don't hear homeowners complai
Re:Citation Needed (Score:4, Informative)
Particularly since they are using it in the off-season to keep the boat in use year round. Whales are in Hawaii now.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:4, Funny)
Particularly since they are using it in the off-season to keep the boat in use year round. Whales are in Hawaii now.
Great! Google hijacked so many boats the poor unemployed whales had to move to Hawaii. What's next, gentrification of the clouds?
Re: (Score:3)
Whale watching season is over for the year.
It was great in November and we did see a few driving down the coast in December but they've gone to Baja and they won't be back until spring.
Moronic. (Score:5, Insightful)
So instead of peacefully letting the tech workers board somewhat environmentally friendly busses that are subjected to stringent emissions regulations, they harass google and others to the point where they have to ride a boat with NO emissions regulations to and from work? Not to mention the fuel economy of boat vs wheels is horrible.
Its about the bus stops ... (Score:2, Informative)
If Google were picking up its employees somewhere else there would probably be no controversy.
Re:Its about the bus stops ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a law against using the bus stops? (I don't live there, I truly don't know.)
I get that we're saying they're for public buses, but how are they "specifically" for public buses any more than the roads are only for public transport? Just because no other buses have used it before? It seems to me a bus stop is simply a short term stopping point for drop offs and pick ups that happens to be large enough for buses and sometimes have benches or shelters for people. Private traffic impacts the performance of all kinds of city services. It can slow down fire trucks, ambulances (not always city services, where I live they are privately owned and operated). Some cities deal with these by putting in emergency lanes that actually do have laws that enforce nobody else using them, but unless that law exists for the bus stop I don't see a problem here. Either add more bus stops or enlarge existing ones due to usage patterns, or pass a law (if it's not already passed) stating that the stops are only for publicly operated city buses and then fine accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
It could be that my city is an outlier but I just looked it up in the municipal code and it is legal here. First the law states that anyone, whether or not they are a bus, may stop and load or unload passengers in an expeditous manner so long they do not impede the flow of other traffic or a bus. Secondly the law doesn't seem to differentiate between privately or publicly owned buses. I'm sure the law could be different in San Fransisco but I couldn't find anything relating to bus stops in their municipal c
Re: (Score:2)
I think the issue is that Google is using city bus stops without permission. In other words appropriating a public asset for private use. And possibly impacting the performance of a city service, have city buses had to wait while the google shuttle cleared the stop?
If Google were picking up its employees somewhere else there would probably be no controversy.
Google is not the only company doing this by the way. Additionally, this week SF announced a pilot project to license and charge companies for the use of specific bus stops on some sort of cost-recovery basis.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/us-google-commuterbus-sanfrancisco-idUSBREA0517L20140107 [reuters.com]
"City rules forbid the city from collecting more than the cost of providing the service, officials said."
God forbid the city make a profit on the use of their assets. It seems like they could use this to s
Re: (Score:2)
If this is a problem, change the rule. It is just a rule, it is unlikely to be carved in stone anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
If this is a problem, change the rule. It is just a rule, it is unlikely to be carved in stone anywhere.
I would not be surprised if it was a rule enacted to follow some misguided legislation prohibiting municipal governments from "unfairly" competing with the private sector. While I can sometimes see how that would be something worth avoiding, I don't usually have a knee-jerk reaction against services being offered by governments in every possible case.
Transportation is evil (Score:4, Insightful)
> Inconveniencing [whale watchers] is apparently not considered evil.
I don't understand what anyone involved in this debacle wants google to do. Cease to exist? Develop transporter technology? In general, complaints about gentrification seem ridiculous. You can't complain about rich people outbidding you for your home any more than you can about immigrants stealing your jobs. What do you want, an act of congress to protect your economic niche? Hope you have a lobby.
Re:Transportation is evil (Score:5, Interesting)
The protesters basically want Google employees to leave San Francisco and stop causing rents to go up. They are angry at Google for making it easier for the employees to live here. The better pay means landlords can charge higher rents, and the landlords are using a loophole (the Ellis act) to evict residents that have been there longer, which usually means (due to rent control) they're paying less.
It's not even an economic niche. It's an island that's being overtaken by rising tides, and the field mouse on the island are protesting the schools of fish that are taking up residence.
Re:Transportation is evil (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds to me like a failure of rent control, not a problem with Google. Either it was implemented poorly or it is a fundamentally flawed concept. You have a bunch of people who seem to feel entitled to lower-than-market living costs. Now, I agree that gentrification is a real social problem, and possibly some kind of rent control could help mitigate it - but this is a problem that the community needs to solve, not a company. While there might be some added incentive for people to live where they otherwise might not, the fact is that the main effect of the Google buses is probably of taking cars off of the road. SF was gentrifying before Google came along - it's a trend in many US cities right now. I'm glad we are talking about it, but I think Google is being singled out a bit unfairly.
Since we are talking about gentrification, I wonder if a system requiring rent-to-own contracts instead of leases would serve the same purpose? By that, I mean where every day you live in a house/apartment, you own a little more of it. When you move out, the landlord can buy you out or profit share with you. If the area gentrifies rapidly, your share of the property will be worth a lot more than you paid in and you'll gain from the neighborhood's resurgence. I'm sure there are all sorts of ill effects that I haven't considered, but I'm just throwing it out there. I'm sure some legal eagles could make it all done in tax law, if there are constitutional concerns. Seems these days that the constitution matters little if the legislation is done in the tax code.
Re: (Score:3)
Rent control is already forcing landlords to share profits with the renter. The renter gets below-market rent.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. It's a horse of a different color - not all that radical. However, it would eliminate the landlord's incentive to kick you out.
Re:Transportation is evil (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, complaints about gentrification seem ridiculous.
The complaints are especially ridiculous when they come from the same nimbys that lobby against the construction of any new housing in SF.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there room for more dormitory housing out in Google's suburb?
If employees want fashionable urban housing, try to fit into the existing city.
You mean like purchasing or renting housing on the open market? Isn't that what they are doing?
The problem is not that higher income earners can't find fashionable urban places to live - the problem is that the lower income earners are being displaced out of their fashionable urban housing, and are understandably unwilling to leave town to find cheaper housing. Google could build a bunch of dorms out in the boonies, but I doubt the people needing the housing (ie. those being displaced) want to move out ther
Re: (Score:3)
If employees want fashionable urban housing, try to fit into the existing city.
They are. The people who aren't fitting are the anti-gentrification people.
Sold! (Score:2)
Develop transporter technology?
Proposal accepted.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
gentrification
One of the many problems is they have rent control.
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap18p1.html
Think of it this way. Lets say you have 100 houses in a desirable area. But say 50% are in 'rent control'. Those 50 are basically off the market. The people living in them have no incentive to move as long term their price of housing is going down due to inflation. This causes the remaining 50 houses to have a much higher burden of picking up demand. Thus raising the price on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Move to Austin? (Score:2)
Or they could ramp up their facility near here in Cambridge and rent the duck boats to take engineers over to Boston.
i dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:i dont get it (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't that Google hired the buses. It was that Google's buses were using the public-transit bus stops, interfering with the regular buses. That's an entirely reasonable objection, if Google wants to run buses then let them arrange all the infrastructure needed themselves or pay the transit system for using public bus stops.
Re:i dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sort of. The protesters latched on to that as a visible and easily protestable symbol of the real problem.
It's easy to get really, really angry at a super nice charter bus that's picking up the young and well-paid tech workers from your neighborhood (perhaps that you've lived in for a decade or more) that you're about to get kicked out of because you can no longer afford the rising rents.
Re: (Score:2)
If you rent the neighborhood does not belong to you.
Having been variously tenant, homeowner, and landlord I can see their side, but renting is transient and if you don't own you should not be planning to stay anywhere for a very long time. If you do own you should have a plan to adapt to changing property values and do well. If those values and the place you live in can be expected to crater (as was correctly anticipated in Detroit a LONG time before that happened), don't stand on sentiment and have a pla
Re:i dont get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:i dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
It was that Google's buses were using the public-transit bus stops, interfering with the regular buses. That's an entirely reasonable objection
No, that is not the objection. The protesters are primarily upset that Googlers are living in SF. It is legal for their buses to use the bus stops. Other private buses use them as well. There is minimal interference with the public buses.
if Google wants to run buses then let them arrange all the infrastructure needed themselves or pay the transit system for using public bus stops.
Everyone benefits from more buses and fewer cars on the roads. Allowing them to use the public bus stops is a good way to encourage desired behavior that benefits everyone, and it is legal for that reason. Requiring everyone with a bus to build their own redundant infrastructure would be idiotic.
Google is acting responsible here. The protesters are idiots.
Re:i dont get it (Score:4, Informative)
No it's not. It's not legal for any vehicle other than a city bus to use a city bus stop. At least that's the way it's been up until very recently. Now, the bus operators will have to pay to use the stops [sfgate.com].
Re: (Score:3)
If Google had built their own bus stops, people would have been up in arms about them not peacefully coexisting with existing infrastructure.
It's all sour grapes.
I know SF runs on a tight schedule - it's always moving quickly to its next destination - but you can't have it both ways.
Reminds me of a little neighborhood here downtown. [Overall, downtown here is a hit-and-miss mixture of early century houses, new businesses, run down junk, industrial areas - quite a mix indeed.] Anyway, a corner full of aban
Re:i dont get it (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't that Google hired the buses. It was that Google's buses were using the public-transit bus stops, interfering with the regular buses. That's an entirely reasonable objection, if Google wants to run buses then let them arrange all the infrastructure needed themselves or pay the transit system for using public bus stops.
Google is now paying the city $100,000 annually for the use of the public bus stops.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't that Google hired the buses. It was that Google's buses were using the public-transit bus stops, interfering with the regular buses. That's an entirely reasonable objection, if Google wants to run buses then let them arrange all the infrastructure needed themselves or pay the transit system for using public bus stops.
If interfering with regular buses was actually the problem, then I don't see that having Google pay for the privilege of using the bus stops solves anything.
I can't find any evidence that that was really an issue, though. It sounds like this is more of a money thing -- complaints that Google employees are using infrastructure built for the public buses without having to pay for it. From that perspective, I agree that it is sensible to have Google pay to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As for paying to use the stops. A) Did they? No one has indicated what arrangements Google made with the city. B) It would be highly irresponsible for the city of San Francisco to charge for the use of these stops. They are on the street where cars drive
Co-opted or hired? (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like Google didnt' co-opt the boat, they just hired it. The company that owns it and hires it out decided to take Google's offer over that of the whale-watching company who apparently didn't have a long-term contract for it's use. That's frankly one of the risks you take when you make your company's operation dependent on someone else without locking it down with an iron-clad air-tight contract: that someone else may change their mind and you're left high and dry.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like Google didnt' co-opt the boat, they just hired it. The company that owns it and hires it out decided to take Google's offer over that of the whale-watching company who apparently didn't have a long-term contract for it's use. That's frankly one of the risks you take when you make your company's operation dependent on someone else without locking it down with an iron-clad air-tight contract: that someone else may change their mind and you're left high and dry.
Plus there's not exactly a shortage of charter boats operating out of Long Beach. TFS is a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Shh... you're interrupting the "OMG GOOGLE IS EVIL" circlejerk.
"co-opted" means something else (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think "co-opted" means what you think it means. I'm pretty sure Google just paid the operator for their service.
I'm just waiting . (Score:2, Interesting)
One day, Google is just going to build a space station and all of their workers will be up there. Then other companies will follow suit.
Eventually, all that will be left on the hot drought stricken planet will be the unemployable dregs with no skills and no worthwhile education - you know, all those losers that companies say have no skills or inadequate education. And the folks who don't fit into the corporate culture *cough*too old*cough*.
Then in the meantime, when those losers complain about job prostpec
Re: (Score:2)
One day, Google is just going to build a space station and all of their workers will be up there. Then other companies will follow suit.
Eventually, all that will be left on the hot drought stricken planet will be the unemployable dregs with no skills and no worthwhile education - you know, all those losers that companies say have no skills or inadequate education. And the folks who don't fit into the corporate culture *cough*too old*cough*.
I watched Elysium too!
Missed the point (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the anger is misplaced in the first place but this doesn't actually address what I see as the actual gripe.
The reason people are mad a Google buses is because it enables and encourages Google employees to live in SF without paying expensive transportation costs or suffering the inconveniences of public transportation, which makes a two tiered system of those who work for a deep pocket tech companies and those who don't.
It causes an increase in demand for housing which SF building laws do little to m
Re: (Score:2)
So if SF public transportation is inconvenient, then everybody should be inconvenienced?
What about this angle: Google's busses are clearing up traffic of 20 cars.
Is Google the new M$? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't anyone bitching about the owners of the boat letting Google use it? Becuase that wouldn't get
Environmental impact? (Score:3)
I would guess that moving 30-40 passengers via bus uses far less fuel than taking them by boat.
Way to go SF! Save your bus-stops...
We should expect pro-environment Berkley folks to be protesting the pro-bus-stop SF residents...
In other news about G+ (Score:2)
From this summary: "...some expressed concerns on Facebook..."
From another summary today: "Google today announced new integration between Gmail and Google+..."
Oh this irony!
Not an Aquarium Boat (Score:2)
The boat doesn't belong to the Aquarium of the Pacific; it belongs to a private harbor cruise company. If the cruise company would rather charter the boat to Google than run whale-watching tours, why shouldn't they do so?
As to the buses -- it seems that the excuse a lot of opponents use is that Google and other companies use the city's bus stops without paying for the privilege, either through fees or through fines. But the mayor of San Francisco doesn't seem to have any issues with this. Muni is actuall
Google transportation (Score:3)
I'm surprised Google is bothering with a boat. The boat only takes people as far as Redwood City. They've only doing a little more than half the trip by boat. They'll have to take buses at both ends. It doesn't seem worth the trouble to change vehicles twice.
Personal story about ferries (Score:2, Funny)
I rode on a ferry once. I was heading to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. 'Give me five bees for a quarter', you'd say. Now, where were we? Oh, yeah...the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They d
Re: (Score:2)
I rode on a ferry once. I was heading to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. 'Give me five bees for a quarter', you'd say. Now, where were we? Oh, yeah...the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war; the only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Exactly!
It's in beta. (Score:4, Funny)
...after Google's '30-day trial'...
Good grief. Even their boat chartering is in beta.
Telecommuting? (Score:2, Insightful)
If Google's people are so friggin' smart why are they wasting all this money on buses and ferries? Keep all the employees at home, make them telecommute, and use Hangout for meetings. How hard is that???
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't realized that the Vandals [wikipedia.org] objected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did not. THE Vandals [wikipedia.org] objected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Against the middle ages Germanic tribe [wikipedia.org], perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be lazy, people. Use your own car, public bus, carpool with others, whatever.
What's the difference between what Google is doing and carpooling on a large scale?
Re: (Score:2)
People aren't upset at the car/van/bus-pooling per se.
They're upset about the gentrification of neighborhoods, as tech millionaires "ruin" old neighborhoods by living in them.
As an example, look how "awful" Brooklyn is now. Damned hipsters and their mayonnaise store. [gothamist.com]
Re: (Score:3)
If nothing else, the Google shuttle could be considered simply a form of non-monetary compensation to Google's employees. (In the same way that all their free food is actually taxed as income.)
That's the way an economy works. They might not be paying cash for it, but at the end of the day they're making less money because some of their compensation is in the form of a free bus ride down the Peninsula.
Re: (Score:3)
They're all for it. Google is actually *ENHANCING* their privacy, as they no longer have to worry about those pesky humans watching their every move.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, until the WhaleView Cameras come out...
Re: (Score:2)
Individual employees driving cars (or even carpooling) would be worse for the environment and worse for traffic. A lot of the folks probably don't own cars (it's hard to own a car in San Francisco); they'd be paying for parking, which would actually drive rents up further. Space is space, whether you're putting yourself in an apartment or a car in a parking space.
Public transportation doesn't go directly to where they need to be to work, and it doesn't go there as quickly as the Google shuttle would (what w
Re: (Score:3)