
The City from the Valley - private bus routes SF to South Bay - powera
http://stamen.com/zero1/
======
potatolicious
A symptom of the sickness, IMO, and another example of the tech boom failing
to hit anyone except techies.

Our success and our wealth is failing to float all boats, or even any boats
that aren't our own. Instead of tech worker demand driving infrastructure, it
has simply created a separate (but equal?), exclusive, mirror transit system.

Also an example of complete and utter urban planning failing on the part of
the city of San Francisco. A large part of why companies don't set up shop in
SF proper (despite the bulk of their work force wanting to live there), is due
to the complete lack of development. Rents, both commercial and residential,
are completely out of control and it actively drives away business. Meanwhile
SF has completely crossed off new development in large swathes of the city -
including pretty much the entire downtown commercial core.

SF is a vibrant, innovative, creative population subsisting on the surface of
a government that is firmly hanging onto antiquated notions of the 19th
century, not even the 20th, and this conflict has reached epic proportions of
ridiculousness. Everywhere you go find vibrant pockets of activity, but you
can't shake the feeling that you're walking in a museum, instead of a
evolving, changing, adapting city.

~~~
vidarh
> Rents, both commercial and residential, are completely out of control and it
> actively drives away business.

I find this constant complaining about rents and zoning whenever the Bay Area
comes up amusing. Why should SF or the Bay Area strive for growth at all
costs?

The rents are presumably as they are because the demand for the space that
_is_ available is sky high? It would seem they don't particularly _need_ to
change.

The Bay Area also already has a population density that is high. If the people
who live there want to keep voting for local governments that wants to
restrict increases in density, and it stops you from living or setting up show
there, then don't.

Personally to me, the current character of the place is a huge part of what
would make the Bay Area attractive if I was to consider relocating anywhere.

~~~
rayiner
Rent is a factor of both supply and demand. High rents don't necessarily mean
that demand is sky high in absolute terms, just that it's high relative to
supply, which isn't a very meaningful statement if supply is artificially
restricted.

The point isn't to grow at all costs. The point is to not let the people who
already live in an area restrict growth so much that people who want to move
in cannot reasonably do so.

------
cletus
I've never lived in the Bay Area but I've visited a bunch of times. I've
considered what I would need to do to live there without a car and it's
difficult. Here are some glaring problems:

1\. Caltrain is dog slow, infrequent and doesn't tend to go to places you
want. Santa Clara County actually runs what seems to be a fairly decent VTA
light rail that will get you from, say, downtown Mountain View to tech
companies east of Moffett Airfield (Lockheed Martin, Yahoo, some of
Microsoft's buildings, etc) but sadly not to the Google campus (west of
Moffett Airfield).

To take public transport from SF would require you going to South SF (say half
an hour), 1h 20m to MTV and 15-20 minutes on a shuttle if one is running. It's
2 hours best case scenario or one hour (or slightly less) on the 101 on the
shuttle busses.

2\. Zoning is a disaster for commerce in the valley. Most land is reserved for
("zoned") single family residences on large blocks of land such that density
is very low. Public transit just doesn't work at low population density;

3\. New development is virtually nonexistent in SF. Rent control is, at this
point, an unmitigated disaster to a city that's still clinging to some 60s
idyll.

Personally I think NYC is far more attractive than the Bay Area in all ways
but two: the weather and the inertia of existing tech companies. You can live
5 minutes walk from work in NYC. There are very few places you could do that
(or would want to) in SF.

~~~
drstewart
>Personally I think NYC is far more attractive than the Bay Area in all ways
but two: the weather and the inertia of existing tech companies. You can live
5 minutes walk from work in NYC. There are very few places you could do that
(or would want to) in SF.

Interesting. Can you tell me what kind of cycling routes compare to what's
available in the bay area in NYC? As someone who's lived in both places,
there's no comparison, but since those are the only two things you can think
of...

~~~
cletus
Take a look at this map:

<http://www.nycbikemaps.com/maps/manhattan-bike-map/>

There are actually a lot of bike lanes and trails (trails are generally along
the Hudson or East River).

Some of this is relatively recent thanks to the controversial transportation
commissioner:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/top_right/2011/08/j...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/top_right/2011/08/janette_sadikkhan_new_york_city_transportation_commissioner.html)

who has, amongst other things, closed off Times Square to traffic and added
bike lanes to 8th (and other) avenues.

I'm not an avid cyclist but I have done some limited cycling in the Valley and
it's frigging dangerous. I simply won't go on anything other than back roads
and even there you're in constant danger of being wiped out by a car pulling
out of a parking lot of a car turning right at a red light (worst road rule
ever; it's illegal in the the five boroughs but some people are ignorant of
this).

I know someone who bikes in most days from Brooklyn but I think you need to be
attentive. Then again, as a cyclist on roads, I think that is universally
true.

In Norcal you can probably bike almost year round. In NYC less so. In winter
you do get issues with snow and ice. Overall it probably rains more in NYC
than in the Bay Area but I'm just guessing there.

~~~
potatolicious
Lived in SF, currently in NYC. I don't think the biking situation is
comparable. SF drivers are vicious, but biking is so prevalent that in many
parts of the city you own the streets.

Manhattan on the other hand is just one gigantic traffic clusterfuck - and
that's for cars. The risk of taking a bicycle through the streets of Midtown
is IMO many, many times of doing the same in downtown SF.

Sure, Manhattan has a great selection of bike trails (better than SF, IMO),
but cycling as a commuting or general transportation option? No fucking way.

~~~
jrockway
I think you're being your own worst enemy here. I also live in NYC and find
the cycling situation to be fine. There's a lot of traffic in midtown but
there's plenty of space for cyclists.

------
ak217
What this illustrates to me is the utter failure of Caltrain. That right of
way should have long ago been converted to a real public transit system. The
fact that it hasn't illustrates the disengagement and feudal attitude of the
cities along the peninsula.

This and the outlandish anti-development bent in SF that potatolicious
describes.

------
ChuckMcM
Oh this is just awesome. I remember looking at the shuttle map inside of
Google and thinking "Wow this is like a real bus company or something."

40% of Caltrain's daily passengers. Makes you wonder what Caltrain could do
with that money (I know, probably not invest it as efficiently as private
companies do) But at what point does it become cost effective to build a
people mover at this scale?

And something joked about but never implemented inside Google was the idea
that the busses in SF load up on a hovercraft ferry in SF and then jet down
the bay to the 'plex. Figured they could come ashore near the Palo Alto
Airport and disgorge busses that would take the Frontage road down to
Charleston.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Chuck, if it's 40% of Caltrain's boardings just from SF to MTV alone, it must
be about on par with Caltrain considering all origins.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Agreed, its a significant fraction. I recall the discussions about how 'slow'
it was to use CalTrain from the city to the Googleplex, the shuttles are
faster of course, and they have WiFi which the train doesn't (still) so I
don't know if Google could pay for a 'bullet' between SF and Mtn view (the 332
train[1] is closest). But the piece I'm missing is how much traffic is into
San Jose to/from the suburbs. Or is that traffic mostly serviced by the VTA
lines.

The 'smart trains' envisioned as the original people movers were a much better
solution (dynamically adapting to traffic they would auto-exit at your chosen
stop and ride on the through traffic center rail while expressing) but
building that even on the existing right of way would be expensive.

(oh and the hovercraft _could_ come up at Crittendon but it would have to go
over the sanctuary and that would cause some resistance to its arrival)

[1] <http://www.caltrain.com/schedules/weekdaytimetable.html>

------
panda_person
Part of the problem is that affluent tech workers want to have their cake and
eat it too-everyone wants to live in cool, trendy neighborhoods in SF, and
commute to their fancy jobs in the Valley. The problem is, its often a pain to
get from those neighborhoods in a time efficient manner to a Caltrain station.
Which...I"m not sure is a problem, since public transit in San Francisco (MUNI
and BART) exists for more than just getting tech workers to a Caltrain
station.

There's also the radical suggestion of people actually living near where they
work, or (horror of horrors) people living near public transit and taking
that, rather than fancy private buses.

~~~
capkutay
"Part of the problem is that affluent tech workers want to have their cake and
eat it too-everyone wants to live in cool, trendy neighborhoods in SF, and
commute to their fancy jobs in the Valley."

It's a little unfair to make it seem like tech workers are spoiled for wanting
to live in areas they'd enjoy living in. I know several people who tried to
live in the south bay (burlingame, san mateo, mountain view) close to where
they worked. It can be nice, but it can also be lonely and depressing. If you
live in the south bay, it's likely all the places you frequently go to will at
least be a 10-18 minute drive away from eachother (work, grocery store, your
friends house, your favorite bar/restaurant).

San Francisco is one of the only places in the Bay Area where everything you
want is in walking distance.

Disclaimer, I've lived in both SF and Palo Alto.

~~~
vidarh
I've stayed in Palo Alto and Menlo Park in hotels a lot, and while I can't
speak for lots of other areas, what I _can_ say is that despite the fact that
I don't even have a drivers license (lived primarily in Oslo and London, so
not really needed one), I had no problems getting around _on foot_.

Was it less convenient than what I'm used to? Yes. It'd have been great with
more buses and trains. But it worked. I could get to the grocery store. I
could get to plenty of shops. I could get to dozens of restaurants - I know
this from making a point out of trying new restaurants every time I was in
town - as well as bars etc. I'd even go in to SF now and again, though
Caltrain's schedule is just atrocious (and for the record: years ago, I did go
out clubbing in SF while staying in Santa Cruz without having a car to get me
back - if you want it bad enough, even that works).

Once I stayed in Atherton, right on the edge near Redwood City, while the
office I was visiting was in downtown Menlo Park, and I walked to/from most
days. That's the only time when I thought things were a bit too inconvenient
for my liking. Not so much the distances - it was only a 30-35 minute walk or
so from what I remember - but due to the large plots in Atherton, the fastest
walking route is along El Camino, and part of that stretch was pretty much
without light or sidewalk or decent shoulder.

Sure, there are plenty of locations you could live in that area which _would_
make managing _on foot_ too inconvenient, and finding somewhere in the middle
of Atherton or similar might not be great if you want to get to lots of stuff
without a car, but there are plenty of parts of the Bay Area outside of SF
which are viable on foot, and far more that are viable with short car journeys
now and again

So, yes: Spoiled. Large parts of the worlds population - including in
developed countries - are living places where getting to stuff they want or
need takes far longer on average.

~~~
magicalist
> I had no problems getting around on foot

sure, when you're only visiting, you don't have kids, etc. Many people aren't
amenable to having a minimum half hour walk to get anywhere, and if your
grocery store is anything but close by, you're in trouble if you don't go
shopping every few days (having a grocery store every few blocks is one of my
favorite things about high density living situations).

> Yes. It'd have been great with more buses and trains

and even where there are a few, it can take you two hours to get to friends
only 10 or 15 miles away (this is more due to the design of their interlinks).
If you want to encourage people to take public transit and walk more, you
can't make cars so convenient for most of the ways they travel around the bay
area.

> I could get to the grocery store. I could get to plenty of shops. I could
> get to dozens of restaurants - I know this from making a point out of trying
> new restaurants every time I was in town - as well as bars etc.

And this shows the real reason behind your post: you were staying in a hotel
on El Camino :) Head up into one of the neighborhoods nearby and suddenly
_nothing_ is nearby. This is less of a problem in a city like Palo Alto, which
is centered around El Camino and has a decent bus service, but for many of the
towns along the 101, a car is pretty much the only way you can live there.

Meanwhile, take a look at the correlation between housing prices with the more
walkable cities (like Palo Alto and Menlo Park that you mentioned). I won't be
buying a house in any dense part of Palo Alto any time soon.

> years ago, I did go out clubbing in SF while staying in Santa Cruz without
> having a car to get me back - if you want it bad enough, even that works

No, it won't work unless you're paying hundreds for a cab, you get a friend to
drive you, or you head home at like 6 in the evening. AFAIK, there's really no
other way to do that (and transit on google maps isn't coming up with anything
short of "wait 6 hours for transfer to bus").

I would say Caltrain having its last train at midnight is an even worst
feature than its operating schedule.

> So, yes: Spoiled. Large parts of the worlds population - including in
> developed countries - are living places where getting to stuff they want or
> need takes far longer on average.

Sure, but that's a pretty useless definition of spoiled; essentially any non-
utilitarian aspect of living would fall under it.

City planning and public transit exist to encourage good behavior and serve
the public. Building walkable neighborhoods is good, building around public
transit to make it accessible is also good. When you haven't done these
things, "well, you should walk more" isn't going to fly when "buy a car" is so
easy, and probably necessary anyways for those few times when the thing you
need isn't accessible by public transit.

You're not going to make living in SF seem less cool or convenient any time
soon, so all the current system is doing is encouraging car use and this
private bus system.

\-- non-car-owner considering moving up to SF because he's sick of using
zipcar so often and commuting all weekend to see friends up in the city

~~~
vidarh
I don't know what you're replying to, really. I was pointing out that when GP
found it unfair for people to be called spoiled for wanting to live in the
centre of SF because the rest of the Bay Area is somehow a desolate wasteland
where you'll need to "endure" the horros of 10-18 minute drives, that was
pretty much demonstrating exactly why some of us thinks people complaining
about that _are_ spoiled.

As such I won't address most of the points of your reply, as I happen to agree
with most of them - they just aren't very relevant to the point of comment.
Again: I'm not arguing it wouldn't be better with more public transport, nor
that Bay Area's public transport is good enough, nor that it's not more
convenient if you have a car. I am arguing, however, that there are _large_
areas of the Bay Area outside of SF that are perfectly liveable _even_ for
someone like me without a drivers license, and that a large part of the reason
why people whine about the cost of living in SF _is_ exactly that they are
spoilt. If it's possible to live in these areas without a car, it is certainly
possible to live very well in these places _with_ one.

> sure, when you're only visiting, you don't have kids, etc. Many people
> aren't amenable to having a minimum half hour walk to get anywhere, and if
> your grocery store is anything but close by, you're in trouble if you don't
> go shopping every few days (having a grocery store every few blocks is one
> of my favorite things about high density living situations).

Some points to this:

While there are certainly parts of the Bay Area where I'd be far more
isolated, I don't live within a short walk of a big grocery store or a train
station or most other amenities. I have 15 minutes to the nearest proper
grocery store, 20 minutes to the nearest train station, though there is a bus
route reasonably nearby that is faster _if_ I hit it on time. This is in one
of the most densely populated parts of England, in a London suburb that is
indeed zoned not all that differently from many Bay Area towns, with huge
areas of single residence houses or terraced houses (so one or two shared
walls, but still one resident per plot of land). There are huge areas of the
Bay Area that are no worse to live in in terms of amenities. Sure, you're more
likely to have to resort to a car for commuting.

In terms of kids, we have a 3 year old son. To pick him up from nursery after
work, it takes me about 2 hours to get home: Two trains + two buses to get to
the nursery, plus two buses to get home. I know how much effort having a kid
adds to any kind of transport situation. We frequently take him to a part
20-25 minutes walk away. On foot, again, meaning when he gets too tired to
walk, we carry him. I might get a drivers license. No so much for my day to
day situation, but to be able to take day trips etc. to places that are a pain
to get to by public transport. But living this way works perfectly fine.

So yes, some people might not be "amenable" to living this way, but unless
they're old or disabled, the are perfectly _able to_ to do so and still have
an enjoyable life. I'm not saying people should opt to live the way I do, but
I am saying that complaining about the cost of living if they instead _choose_
to live somewhere with ridiculous house prices just to avoid having to walk,
cycle or drive a bit longer to get places does make them seem spoiled to me.

> No, it won't work unless you're paying hundreds for a cab, you get a friend
> to drive you, or you head home at like 6 in the evening.

Well, it did work for us, so clearly it does. And no, we did none of those.
Instead we did what I've done in many other cities in the world out of
"necessity" if you want to stay out late: Stay out long enough to have a
reasonably short wait to take the bus home, which is what we did.
(Incidentally, if you don't want that, it's still far cheaper to find a cheap
motel near public transport in SF and sleep it off until things start running
than it is to take a cab to places even much closer than Santa Cruz).

The Greyhound ride to Santa Cruz was obnoxiously unnecessarily long and a
bizarre experience (checking in to a bus?!? and a half hour break in the
middle... wow). It sucked, other than for the novelty. But so does the
alternatives in a lot of other places including many with substantially higher
population density than the Bay Area. Again, the point is that expecting quick
and short transit to everywhere and everything _is_ being spoiled. There are
few places you can do that outside of major world cities like London. Even
London isn't all that great in this respect if you don't live "just right"
(I'm "lucky" - there are hourly night buses to within about 20 minutes walk
from where I live). I grew up outside Oslo, and frequently ended up spending
30-40 minutes to walk to the station followed by 3+ hours in sub-zero
temperatures after clubs closed in Oslo before the first trains started to
run. That was normal, unless you wanted to spend extortionate amounts on a cab
(far higher rates than in the Bay Area for similar distances) which I couldn't
afford then.

> Sure, but that's a pretty useless definition of spoiled; essentially any
> non-utilitarian aspect of living would fall under it.

No, it's a definition of spoiled that compares your expectations with the
expectations of people in similar situations elsewhere, where these kinds of
obstacles are just as common, yet somehow wast amounts of people manage just
fine. When people complain that they pay far too much despite being able to
afford to live somewhere most people can't and opt to do that rather than
moving to somewhere that's still vastly better than what most people can
afford to free up spare cash, then, yes, that's being spoilt.

> And this shows the real reason behind your post: you were staying in a hotel
> on El Camino :) Head up into one of the neighborhoods nearby and suddenly
> nothing is nearby.

I know perfectly well that there are places in the Bay Area where a car is a
perfect necessity. An ex manager of mine lived in the middle of the forest
near Santa Cruz, for example. That there are places that are extremely hard to
live in without a car is entirely besides the point.

I stayed in hotels on El Camino a couple of times, yes. But most of the times
I did not. You might argue that if I just had a bit further to walk to _get
to_ El Camino, I'd change my mind. Maybe I would. But that still leaves a few
million people who live in areas within walking distance from enough stuff.
Even so, walking distance was not the main point, as note above. The main
point was that seemingly considering it a pain to live in these kind of places
_is_ being spoilt.

------
badusername
This is really well done. But it saddens me that out of thousands of companies
in SV, there are only about 5 represented on that graph. And 101 is sitting
still, clogged with one-passenger-cars for the entire peak period. What we
need is some enterprising company, or even a municipal effort, to figure out
how this can be handled as a venture. Every major SV company conglomeration
(say Redwood Shores) will surely have hundreds - thousands of people commuting
everyday, in a fairly set routine. Even at a premium price, I'm sure many of
those people would opt in for a luxury bus service (reliable wifi would be
key). Why aren't there any of those?

~~~
markerdmann
I would easily pay $500 a month for a service like this.

~~~
tazzy531
Check out RidePal: [http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/ridepal-to-
help-b...](http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/ridepal-to-help-bay-
area-residents-commute-like-google-employees/)

_______________ For employers wishing to reserve a certain number of seats on
specific buses at certain times, RidePal plans to sell subscriptions, starting
at $250 a month for companies of up to 50 people. That subscription is
credited toward fares, which start at $8 a seat for trips within a 10-mile
zone and go up to $589 for a monthly pass within the largest travel zone,
which extends up to 75 miles from the pickup location. _______________

------
capkutay
I see big companies run private bus lines from SF to South Bay.

Has anyone considered starting a subscription based private bus line for
employees of start-ups or smaller companies making the same commute? I'd
imagine there'd be significant demand for that.

~~~
Evbn
YC W13, RideWithUs.ly

~~~
w1ntermute
The URL doesn't work.

I know it's probably unrelated, but why do so many startups use a ccTLD of a
country with such an unstable government? It just doesn't make business sense
when there are so many good names out there.

~~~
cshesse
W13 means Winter 2013, so the URL won't work for awhile.

------
ghshephard
This would be the hidden cost of not having Bart-around-the-Bay.

(A somewhat wonkish assessment of what Bard-Down-The-Peninsula would look
like: [http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/05/top-10-reasons-
for-...](http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/05/top-10-reasons-for-
peninsula-bart.html))

~~~
panda_person
Um, that was a sorta counterfactual post-I'm very familiar with that website,
and I'm pretty sure it was merely a hypothetical, and that Clem and most
people there prefer Caltrain. Which is faster. Roomier. Has restrooms. And you
can eat or drink.

~~~
zem
and has one train an hour for much of its day.

------
melling
Buses? Anyone got a 21st century solution? It looks like its about 50 miles
from SF to San Jose. Maybe someday they'll build a train that can turn that
into a 15 minute commute.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train>

Unfortunately, once you reach your destination, you'll spend another 20
minutes on a bus.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
20 or 30 minutes on the subway actually to get to Puxi (basically, downtown
Shanghai). China's middle class is very cab oriented; it doesn't make much
sense to take public transit, especially for 40 or so RMB the maglev costs,
when you can hop into a cab and get where you want much sooner (barring
horrible traffic).

In Beijing, I taxi to work everyday despite living on the subway route to my
office. Taking a taxi is not that expensive while its more comfortable and
(not always) faster. This has no relationship to the American situation, I
guess, which is tripled screwed by low densities, poorly developed public
transit, and high taxi costs.

~~~
snogglethorpe
> _(barring horrible traffic)_

That seems a pretty big caveat... :]

In Tokyo, it's often faster, and always more reliable, to take a train than a
taxi unless you're going someplace way out in the boonies, because although
the travel time is roughly equivalent in the best case, a taxi is frequently
much slower due to traffic. Thank god for cellphones so one can at least known
why one's taxi-using friend is 45min late...!

[The same applies to buses too, of course.]

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Tokyo subway is much better than Beijing's; here you will never get a seat no
matter when you travel (not just rush hour), the transfers are wicked long,
the system is also not very connected. It is very cheap though, only 2 RMB
(~30 cents?), which explains why it is so crowded. With a taxi, I really have
to make sure not to travel when traffic is bad, and it is much more expensive
(50 RMB), but I can use my computer in the cab.

------
samstave
This is fantastic.

Previously livIng in Noe Valley, I'd see these all here time and often
wondered about exactly this.

Note to google if your reading this; tell you damn drivers to stay out of the
left lanes on 101 when it is not a commuter lane - your drivers are HORRIBLE
and I have seen them cause congestion and near accidents on many occasions.

------
pronoiac
Nuts. One of the reasons the stops are kept private, is to keep rents from
going up near the stops.

~~~
potatolicious
Too late, the locations of Apple, FB, and Google shuttle stops are probably
the worst-kept secrets of SF.

------
languagehacker
Those are some really cool maps. I still prefer the Soma tech scene, which is
easily Caltrainable from points south, to the congested slogfest that is rush-
hour 101.

