
Google's new bus is for the people - sbilstein
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27291456/googles-new-bus-is-people?source=infinite
======
hnriot
Isn't this the city's job? I actually think it's kind of creepy that
Corporations are taking the role of the City. The general idea is the City
collects taxes and uses those to provide services like buses.

~~~
cmelbye
In my anecdotal experience, it seems like at least a few Bay Area cities have
a hard time doing that properly. Public transit is terrible here. I'm excited
at the prospect of a private company giving it a try as a free service to the
public. Of course, it's not pure altruism, there are PR motivations. But
that's not necessarily a bad thing.

~~~
driverdan
> Public transit is terrible here

It sounds like you've never traveled outside the bay area. Muni + BART +
Caltrain is far more than most cities have. What other cities have a system
like Caltrain?

I'm not saying it's perfect, far from that. There are plenty of issues,
especially with Muni. But it's not terrible.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It sounds like you've never traveled outside the bay area.

It seems to me that many urban areas in the US have better public transit than
the Bay Area, and, even moreso, places in the developed world outside of the
US tend to be better than the US.

Its true that the Bay Area's public transit is better than pretty much
anywhere else _in California_ , but that seems to be setting the bar low
enough that you can trip over it.

~~~
ecspike
Agreed. Many cities on the East Coast have a Caltrain like system in the
Amtrak Acela trains. DC, ATL, NYC, Baltimore all crush the system here.

Muni is terrible. Full stop.

------
peatmoss
I'd be pretty disappointed in El Goog, if they weren't taking this opportunity
to learn something about providing public transit service--with an eye toward
making public transit better.

In transportation planning, we sometimes differentiate between "fixed route"
(a.k.a. the busses and trains you're accustomed to) and other specialty forms
of public transit that often serve some particular demographic in a more
flexible manner. Now, think about Google's self-driving cars for a minute
here. What are the big challenges? Well, it appears Google needs to have a LOT
of data about the rights-of-way that they drive. New and novel driving
environments are handled by way of "pull over and stop."

Could Google perchance see some value in pursuing the "fixed route transit"
market? Oh my yes. It's a perfect use-case for their technology more or less
as it exists today.

Further, let's think about the economics. It is a fact that labor costs are
typically the greatest single cost when providing public transit in the
developed world. Busses are relatively cheap compared to the drivers. See
where this is going?

Transit typically doesn't manage farebox cost recovery by quite a wide margin
(cars don't internalize nearly all their costs either, but that's another
story). A lot--enough to have an enormous impact on policy--of transit funding
in the US comes from the federal government. Transportation is the second
largest appropriations package Congress passes after military, and there is
typically a big fight over how much will be allocated to public transit. This
tends to break down along party lines as you'd expect: godless, commie pinko
scum want public transit; fascist plutocratic narcissists don't.

I can just imagine the appropriations discussions now: Google announces self-
driving bus and all of a sudden Republicans have a means by which they can
support public transit--provided in large part by private industry--and that
hurts a big segment of organized labor in the process (bonus?). And, of course
if there is an upset in Congress, selling improved public transit to democrats
isn't hard either.

I like that there are good paying jobs for bus drivers currently, but I like
good public transit more. So I'm pretty bullish about Google getting into this
game... assuming they're getting into the game, which they should be.

Google, if you're getting into this game and looking for transportation
planners to shower with money and hot lunches, this humble PhD student
bicycles past your Seattle offices daily. Just sayin' ;-)

~~~
dllthomas
_" It is a fact that labor costs are typically the greatest single cost when
providing public transit in the developed world."_

Labor costs include maintenance and administration. It's possible that _"
Busses are relatively cheap compared to the drivers"_ still holds but I hope
you have considered it specifically rather than inferring it from the content
of your preceding sentence.

~~~
peatmoss
> Labor costs include maintenance and administration.

Yes.

> It's possible that "Busses are relatively cheap compared to the drivers"
> still holds

Yes. Indeed it does; drivers don't come cheap.

> I hope you have considered it specifically rather than inferring it from the
> content of your preceding sentence.

Fear not; I have!

------
Kalium
I fully expect to see this dismissed as a stunt that abuses public transit and
hurts the poor sometime in the next hour.

~~~
sbilstein
The reason I'm personally excited by this is because SV corporations often
seem to wash their hands about any significant civic output (other than
occasional donations to non-profits) because it should be the responsibility
of the government. In the world we inhabit, where companies in some ways can
exert much greater power locally (in some specific ways) than a local
government can, they should step up and use some of that power to help the
general good.

Companies like Google can at the drop of hat move tens of thousands of works
into a municipality; if they're choosing to exercise that right they should
think about other ways they can make that change responsibly.

~~~
brandonmenc
> corporations often seem to wash their hands about any significant civic
> output because it should be the responsibility of the government

Public transit _is_ the responsibility of the government. If you want these
companies to contribute more, raise taxes.

~~~
sp332
Raising taxes is inefficient and indirect. By providing buses, Google (et al.)
can quickly address a need in the community. And they don't need to use other
people's money to do it.

~~~
username223
> Google (et al.) can quickly address a need in the community.

And therein lies the problem. Who are "et al." and "the community"? How much
does each of them pay? Where do the buses go? Who's allowed to use them, and
how do you keep people who aren't from doing so anyways?

It's almost like you need to create a decision-making body with the ability to
raise and spend money, and make and enforce rules. An Alþing? Folkmoot? I'm
sure we have a word for this.

~~~
sp332
The buses are already regulated by the city. The city doesn't need to own
them.

------
driverdan
> "They're [Google] responsible for a lot of the pain the area is feeling,"
> said newly inaugurated City Councilman Ken Rosenberg

Can anyone explain this? What "pain" in the area is Google responsible for?

~~~
jpatokal
Primarily ludicrous housing prices, I presume. Although the city (and its
residents) are IMHO equally responsible for approving every office development
in sight while doing all they can to resist building new residential
properties.

------
jpatokal
The news hidden away at the end, about a bunch of SV companies getting
together to operate a shared shuttle service, is arguably much more
interesting. It's a huge waste to have each company operate buses for their
own employees only: sharing there costs and making them open to all makes a
lot more sense. Now if only they'd start doing this for SFO-MTV as well...

[http://www.mvgo.org/maps-and-schedule.html](http://www.mvgo.org/maps-and-
schedule.html)

~~~
Cookingboy
One thing that can make this difficult is a lot of company shuttles have
corporate wifi on them and sometimes people even take meetings during the
ride. Obviously this wouldn't work due to security/NDA reasons if you have
employees from multiple companies on the same bus.

~~~
deepsun
From Google shuttles you still need VPN, just the same as you need from a
Starbucks. And a secure corporate laptop, of course.

It's considered very bad to talk in Google shuttles anyway, meetings or not,
folks hate that.

~~~
thesnider
Apple prohibits most employees from working on their shuttles, interestingly
enough -- too much risk that a fellow employee would see something they're not
cleared for.

