Those infuriating private buses

03.14.13 - 2:02 pm | Tim Redmond |

(140)

Photo from Thetenssf.com

People in the Mission continue to get more and more angry with the private tech-company buses clogging streets and filling up Muni stops; here's a great photo of two of the behemoths forcing Muni passengers to walk out into the street to catch the bus that is supposed to be at the stop.

There's a way to put an end to this, of course. Any other outfit that blocked Muni stops that regularly, with that much of an impact, would not only get repeated $250 tickets (as if Google cares about $250) but would eventually get a cease-and-desist order from the city. I know it's not an earth-shattering problem, but it drives a lot of us nuts -- and at some point, the city attorney needs to make it clear that violating city bus zones on a daily basis is not acceptable.

Comments

The stentorian nature of his posts as well

As if a massive crowd, hushed in expectation, is awaiting his every word. Poor dear. I believe he actually thinks what he says here has an impact. "If a lillipublicans falls in the forest..."

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 2:31 pm

Barely flattering but wildly disturbing to realize that Lucretia

has no doubt wet her little panties over me over thoughts of me. (Sombody show her the door, please.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 2:55 pm

Sexism - again?

You fall so easily into caricatures of what most progressive men are REALLY like when the PC veneer falls away. You and your hero Ross Mirkarimi.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 3:24 pm

Lilli, you flatter yourself. As an admitted virgin, it is fairly

easy, and quite repugnant, to imagine you in real life. So better for everyone if you remain a virtual troll with no real world significance.

At least you never mated.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 3:33 pm

He's quite unattractive

His Disqus pictures shows that much.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 3:36 pm

I dare not look

Oh, the horror.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 16, 2013 @ 6:57 am

You'll risk burning your corneas

He is a DOG.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 16, 2013 @ 2:34 pm

Sexism? Oh, yes.

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned,
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

--William Congreve

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 3:42 pm

...err... did I say "little" pink panties?

I meant to refer, of course, to that which others call the "frilly pup tent which is missing its poles."

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 16, 2013 @ 8:56 am

You are so obviously the person you are denying being that

I am surprised you think that anyone will buy into your shtick.

You're busted.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 9:54 am

The SFASC cannot resist the urge

to respond to this comment by repeating its statement that it is not posting under the name "guest."

What is "obvious" to you is not reality even in the somewhat imaginary world of internet commentary.

Down with stupidity!!!

Power to the thoughtful!!!

Posted by San Francisco Anti-Stupidity Campaign on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 10:12 am

You were caught out posting as "Guest" so denying that now

is futile.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 10:51 am

No, you're wrong and lilli's right. I'm the "concern troll."

Liili has labelled me a "concern troll" from about the first time I started posting here. While I may share some of his goals towards a more "progressive" future, I generally don't like his (or her) style at all. I abhor his knee-jerk reactions to troll posts; his personal attacks against those he doesn't agree with; his belief that most of us are so stupid that we need his assistance to discount the mostly inane and self-serving comments from Lucretia, anon, and other trolls; his dismissal of any comments that don't fit his very narrow, rigid worldview; his constant spitting matches with obvious trolls; and his obsessive posts to this site as if he's some sort of godhead who demands our attention and respect. To me he represents much of what is dysfunctional about the the "progressive community," to wit, the complete lack of empathy and respect for people who are different from us, and his constant engagement in rear-guard personal attacks instead of keeping focused on policy and issues.

If someone were to ask me for the poster children for what is ailing the progressive community, commenters such as lilli would be Exhibit 1A. A community can't move forward when it's engaged in stupid spats with people who are obviously adversaries but who are meaningless in the quest of achieving policy goals. Lilli actually seems to think Lucretia and anon are something other than lonely souls just trying to have some fun here stirring up trouble. The fact he responds to them so often either means he lacks awareness of what's really happening (which discounts his supposed superior insight about important policy goals too), or he's just looking for an excuse to write another post and share his long list with us (yet again). Or maybe he's more like anon and Lucretia than we thought: just another lonely soul looking for some human connection missing from his "real" world.

Unlike SFASC that is doing some very important work here, I'm much more like anon and Lucretia, just stirring the pot a bit instead of focusing on more important tasks. My understanding is the SFBG comment section is open to all, even detested posters like myself.

s/Concern Troll. Out and Proud.

Posted by Concern Troll on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 11:37 am

By definition, you aren't concerned about any of these things

You are just here to stir up trouble. Here's the definition for the type of troll you are:

"Concern Troll: A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble... They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending."

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 12:03 pm

His portrayal of Lilli is right on the money.

But he should be able to see throiugh SFASC's antics and disruptions as well, as they are two peas in a pod, both adopting the same intolerance for diversity, and indulging in ad hominem attacks as a first resort.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 12:46 pm

And what type of troll is it that obsesses about other trolls?

A troll troll?

Posted by anon on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 12:47 pm

A troll named "anon"

You obsession with other trolls is obvious, but doesn't come close to Lucretia Snapples obsession with herself.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 1:58 pm

I do not know "anon". I am "Guest"

The Guest is dead. Long live the Guest.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 2:02 pm

I was responding to anon's post

R.I.P. Guest

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 2:14 pm

What Lucretia wants

Lucretia gets.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 16, 2013 @ 10:54 am

what have you got Lucretia?

besides hot air...that is, when you're done blowing smoke up your own ass

Posted by Guest on Mar. 16, 2013 @ 11:51 am

I got you to respond

That's what I "got."

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 16, 2013 @ 2:27 pm

Oh, Enrique!

Oh, Enrique!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 12:45 pm

I thought I was Enrique

I've been so many people in my short time here...

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 12:52 pm

Qui est-ce?

Alors.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 12:58 pm

I'd like to point out that

I'd like to point out that these buses run like clockwork and ALWAYS manage to be on time... If MUNI stuck to a reliable schedule as well, there wouldn't be a clusterfuck at the stop!

If the people in your picture are begrudging something, it's likely that they are 10 minutes late to work!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 4:23 pm

Muni cannot run a schedule because the operators are so overpaid

incompetant and secure from ever being fired that they have no incentive to ever do a good job, or even an adequate one.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 5:39 pm

If that exact same bus was taking a party of cross-dressing

homeless midgets of color to a rally expressing support for unemployed lesbians against capitalism, you'd be telling us how wonderful this is.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 4:26 pm

Peel the onion further to the actual issue...

I'd like to point out that these buses run like clockwork and ALWAYS manage to be on time... If MUNI stuck to a reliable schedule as well, there wouldn't be a clusterfuck at the stop!

If the people in your picture are begrudging something, it's likely that they are 10 minutes late to work!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 4:26 pm

"Peel the onion"??? More like "pull the wool."

If Muni ran lines only radially from outlying stations; had fixed numbers of riders with no cross connected lines; made only one or two stops per run; and had enough buses so that one vehichle could be dedicate to each run with one or two as back-ups...

You must be really dumb -- or you expect everyone else is.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 5:48 pm

That's exactly what Muni should do i.e. run the heavily

traveled routes and try and actually pay for itself, instead of demanding subsidies so it can run routes like the 37 whose routes look like it was designed by a maze designer and which typically carries one person or less.

Funny thing is, the muni drivers probably make twice the salary package that the incompetent muni drivers do, and yet do a job that is twice as good.

We should outsource muni to google.

Posted by anon on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 5:52 pm

I'm going to go with the anon = Guest = dumb concept.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 6:08 pm

IOW, you cannot think of a refutation and so you will

instead insult a poster who made a great point

Posted by guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 5:58 am

As long as it benefits the

As long as it benefits the "affluent" (I'm so sick of hearing that goddamned overused word) and bourgeois elite snots, it's perfectly fine and legal in the San Francisco of today. The wealthy is all that matter.

Thank you for the article.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 4:58 pm

Here's an idea

Charge the private bus companies a fee for use of any bus stop in the city, and use the money to improve MUNI. Win-win.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 5:01 pm

Common sense, but...

That's a fine common sense solution. But it is up to the city to ask for the money. You can't expect someone to just volunteer it.

But it still wouldn't solve the basic problem of having high wage earners on a comfortable private bus in San Francisco. Tim will still seethe every time he sees one.

Posted by Troll on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 5:29 pm

Do we charge tourist buses? There's far more of those.

UCSF buses?

Academy of Art buses?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 5:40 pm

Yes, we should charge them

Yes, we should charge them all!

Posted by marcos on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 5:53 pm

Good luck implementing that.

How about charging cyclists and pedestrians too? They consume street space and resources too.

Charge everyone for everything!

Posted by guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 6:09 am

My understanding of these

My understanding of these buses is that they are for all company employees - not just the ones that the writer assumes are part of the 1% and make millions. So while every day people are trying to get to work so they can make money to buy food and provide housing for their families - this Bay Guardian writer sits by his computer complaining about it. Can he offer an alternative? Can he provide transportation for them or suggest another way they can get to work?

Who was it who wrote there's no point in complaining about things unless you are ready to offer solutions? Not sure who it was, but it obviously wasn't Tim Redmond.

Posted by Kristin on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 5:12 pm

No Kristen. Nobody said all the Google riders are 1%ers.

The complaint is that those private buses are interfering with the public bus system in particular -- and since the Muni buses have to double park to load passengers, with every aspect of vehicular traffic in the city.

Nobody who means to tell Google "stop interfering with public buses" is responsible to solve Google's problem of how to provide buses and facilitate their employees from colonizing San Francisco as a bedroom community.

The only problem I worry about is one I already have a solution to: I think the white buses should just get booted and impounded.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 6:06 pm

The shuttles stop for 20-30 seconds at each stop

Sometimes less if there are only a couple people getting off. They are not "interfering with the bus system." MUNI has lots of problems, like one of their mechanics earning $285,000 last year and a terrible problem of running behind schedule, but shuttles stopping for seconds at "their" stops is not one of them.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 6:26 pm

I agree with you. I watched

I agree with you.

I watched the 33 (going towards the Haight) wait yesterday at Castro/18th because the double-decker corporatist shuttle was in the Muni stop and Muni couldn't get to their own stop. Asinine. If the corporatist tank hadn't been docked there in the Muni stop, the 33 would not have had to wait. Muni passengers were trying to look around to see what the problem was and why the 33 wasn't moving. "Why are we stuck in this intersection?" was the look on most people's faces on the 33. It was because of this "luxury designer condo" shuttle complete with cut glass finger bowls and finger buffet.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 7:42 pm

Envy is a very poor basis for public policy

Perhaps you should get a job where shuttles are part of the solution to employees driving themselves.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 8:06 pm

Envy has nothing to do with it

Those stops were put in place for the public bus system, not for the benefit of private business. This is just another example of corporations sponging off the public dime. If Google wants its own bus stops, let them pay for it. Fuck corporate welfare!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 16, 2013 @ 11:57 am

I wish these huge

I wish these huge double-decker "luxury condo" buses---is there a heated pool in them with tennis court and texting center?---were the size of the small UC shuttles. The UC shuttles are all right. Most of them are small, I feel safe crossing an intersection when one of them is approaching and I rarely see them using a Muni stop.

Why is it that the bourgeois elite can't ride a bus like the rest of us? Why can't they just rent Firststudent type buses, for example? Is their ass too good to plop on those seats? Why can't they just use the local public transport like the rest of us? Are they too good for that too? They might have to wait a little longer in their precious commute but that would give them more time to fulfill more of their texting addiction.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 6:04 pm

"Why is it that the bourgeois

"Why is it that the bourgeois elite can't ride a bus like the rest of us? " - Please name one MUNI line that provides a direct trip to Google, Apple, or any other company outside of the city. They should double or triple their commute time because you are unhappy with them?

Just be honest. You're just jealous that they work for companies that provide all sorts of perks. Here's a realization for you: these companies make ungodly amounts of money and in order to continue making that money, they need to employ highly skilled individuals with a very in demand skill set. The way that they hire and retain these individuals is through salary and benefits. These benefits include things like these shuttles, cafeterias on premises that provide cooked to order meals, gyms, and all sorts of other nice things that they feel will increase employee productivity and make people want to work there.

And as much as you don't like it, money allows people to have nicer things.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 6:53 pm

Exactly, he sounds envious and petty. If he cannot enjoy success

then he doesn't want anyone else to either.

And of course the analogy with UCSF buses is disingenuous since they operate short routes and serve a very distributed facility, wheres the SV buses are commute-only and to one specific location.

Does it ever occur to these critics that the people on these buses create a lot more wealth than most people, and so their time and comfort is more valuable?

And these buses are eprks of the job, just like those unsustainable health and pension benefits that city workers get. Shall we take those away too?

Posted by guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 6:08 am

Apple, for one, pays below

Apple, for one, pays below industry standard wages because it is viewed as a privilege to work for Apple.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 6:19 am

Yeah, but they still do OK and of course much of the

remuneration comes in the form of bonuses, profit-sharing and stock options, as with any high-value professional job.

Posted by guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 6:39 am