Google Co-Opts Whale-Watching Boat To Ferry Employees

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')."

Comments

Whalewatching

[nospam007]

People in the traffic jams are now able to watch whales getting brought to work by boat.

Re: Whalewatching

[Scowler]

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.

Re: Whalewatching

[ackthpt]

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:Whalewatching

[icebike]

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 simple.

These Google employees bring hundreds of millions of dollars to the communities they live in.
That creates jobs and income for everything from the groceries bagger to the car dealers and the condo builders.
It also drives out crime, because educated affluent people demand better policing and more police.
Oakland, of all cities needs crime reduction, by any means possible, including affluent tax payers.

But crime doesn't like to be driven out. And the gangs start fighting back by stirring up trouble, trying
to build an US vs THEM sentiment in the community. Make no mistake, "Gentrification" is a racist concept.

Re:Whalewatching

[Anonymous Coward]

Buses + Laptops + WiFi = More hours spent working. Google offers many perks, but most of them can be traced back to getting their workers to spend more time working, whether it be free food, onsite dry cleaning or the buses. When your employees cost an average of $100/hr to employ, a perk doesn't have to save much time to be profitable.

Re:Whalewatching

[anagama]

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

If we assume that Triumphant is similar to this sister:

engines: 2 x Caterpillar C32 ACERT
hp: 1081kW(1450bhp) @2300rpm

That is apparently not combined hp but the hp of each engine. Only two Cat engines hit 2300 RPM and one is 1600 hp so it can't be that one -- the other one is a 1450 hp model that burns 77.4 gph -- with twins, that amounts to 154.8 gallons/hr. See pdf page 9: http://marine.cat.com/cda/files/1377726/7/Cat%20C32%20ACERT%20Spec%20Sheet%20-%20Commercial.pdf

So each passenger is probably responsible for 3-4 gallons of diesel per hour to ride this boat. In other words, it would probably be greener to send each employee to work alone in an F150.

Re: Whalewatching

[PenguinOnCowboy]

The real problem is zoning laws in Palo Alto do not allow high density housing. Google wants worker bees, but no one wants them to live in Palo Alto.

Re:Whalewatching

[anagama]

Actual boat specs:
http://www.allamericanmarine.com/project/83-whale-watch-tour-catamaran/

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:Whalewatching

[anagama]

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

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 passenger mpg. If only city driving occurred, the boat would just edge out the hummer's 9 mpg city rating.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2010_Hummer_H3.shtml

So, Google really could just give each employee a hummer and at least break even green-wise.

Citation Needed

[pdbogen]

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

[Workaphobia]

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

[gnick]

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

[pdbogen]

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: Citation Needed

[pdbogen]

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

[AJH16]

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

[ganjadude]

and I hate to sound harsh but.... so? This is how it is in NYC as well, and most major cities, properties are better taken care of, costs rise and eventually you push yourself out if you are not making enough, so you move a little further outside of the city, get 3X the house for 1/3rd the price and usually are happier in the end anyway. Lets face it, not everyone can live where they want to, I sure as hell dont want to be where I am but I cant afford to move where I do, I dont go running around throwing a hissy fit about it like these clowns in SF though

Re:Citation Needed

[pdbogen]

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

[mspohr]

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.

Re:Citation Needed

[MightyYar]

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:Citation Needed

[mi]

The problem is that the cheapest 1brs in SF cost $2800/month.

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?

kids in mission who turn a vibrant ethnic neighborhood into Sharon Green in palo alto.

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:Citation Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

[mjwalshe]

It seems that renters in the USA want all the advantages of owning a property without the downsides

Re:Citation Needed

[Cimexus]

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 before the property market crash, let alone now). SF just happens to be one of the few cities in the US where the property prices approach the 'norm' for large global cities (which let's face it, SF is, being the center of the tech industry). I'm not sure there's much you can do about it as it's all based on supply, demand and the income/salaries of people living in the area.

Re:Citation Needed

[bob_super]

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:Citation Needed

[bitt3n]

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: Citation Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Cimexus]

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:Citation Needed

[MrEricSir]

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:Citation Needed

[noh8rz10]

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:Citation Needed

[Belial6]

Anti-Gentrification? You mean racists.

Re:Citation Needed

[icebike]

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 live in downtown. And as soon as they get married, the first thing they want to do is move their children out of the meat-market and drug cesspool that all those "rich trendy hipsters" you are so fond of invariably turn any place they congregate into.

A city highrise is no place to raise a family.

This limits the value of center-city residential property. However that same property has a higher value as Office complexes. So, being a somewhat free country, builders tend to build office complexes, and old apartment buildings are renovated and made into offices. There is still plenty of downtown housing left, but even the hipsters don't generally want it.

Re:Citation Needed

[bob_super]

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 complain much) near the gentrificating areas.
They should move to Beijing and see their home razed overnight because some politician took the right bribe.

Moronic.

[t0qer]

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.

Transportation is evil

[Workaphobia]

> 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

[pdbogen]

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

[ShanghaiBill]

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:Transportation is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

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. However, this does not preclude people from moving into those remaining 50 homes. But what you will get is people with more money. They will demand higher priced goods and services as they have the cash to buy it with. The original 50 however find they no longer can buy at their local grocer. As the guy running it quickly figured out he could raise prices and sell less items for higher prices as the market will bear it.

Rent control and 'gentrification' go hand in hand. The very people rent control is meant to help it hurts. Short term (usually 1-2 years) everything is good. Long term 10-15 years not so good. In this case a large employer has moved in and is doing what most cities would give their children's eye teeth away for. Bringing in good paying high education jobs. However, long term the employees will realize they are not wanted. They will move on. They may eventually just say 'lets move the *whole* company'. Considering the way google is structured? They could pull that off. I figure they will pick somewhere in nevada or austin tx.

You can not beat the market. You can not manipulate the market on the scale most gov's do and not cause side effects. Gentrification is a side effect of rent control. These people should be getting mad at the gov of San Fransisco and California.

Re:Transportation is evil

[MightyYar]

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:Transportation is evil

[craighansen]

Rent control is already forcing landlords to share profits with the renter. The renter gets below-market rent.

Re: Transportation is evil

[khallow]

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.

i dont get it

[ganjadude]

I really dont get it. While I understand google is not squeeky clean these days, why do people have to turn everything into an anti google issue? Google pays for busses to bring its employees to work? its bad!!!! Google tries something different with a ferry, OH NO now people cant watch the whales!!!! I mean come on already google could say they are going to give everyone in the state a brand new tesla, and someone would be bitching about how they wanted a ford

Re:i dont get it

[Todd Knarr]

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

[pdbogen]

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:i dont get it

[ganjadude]

I dont know how it works in SF, but here where I live, a bus stop is open to any bus, public or private. We cant reasonably expect google to build its own bus stops, Now as for paying to use the existing stops I can see an argument for that route but my argument would be road taxes pay for that public use, therefore anyone can use it, even a private company

Re:i dont get it

[ShanghaiBill]

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

[mythosaz]

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 abandoned buildings was renovated to bring in a lunch destination for downtown workers. Half a dozen new popular "fast fresh" restaurants moved into the corner to provide a lunch Mecca, and the corner across the street follow suit, making it quite a place for the thousands of people who work downtown to consider.

During lunch, Mon-Fri the only time of the day that there's anyone downtown, parking could get bad enough to force people into residential neighborhoods. The neighborhoods responded by getting brand new no-parking signs for 11am to 2pm because they want the businesses to fold up and go back to being check cashing and foreign dentistry. [Apparently.]

Re:i dont get it

[Anonymous Psychopath]

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:i dont get it

[Belial6]

Was it really interfering with regular buses? I highly doubt that. It is also not a reasonable objection. "Arrange all the infrastructure needed themselves" is a "if you want to make an apple pie, first you have to create a universe" type argument.

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. The infrastructure consists of a sign saying "No Parking except buses". The buses Google is operating are being used for the very purpose that those sign were installed for. To reduce traffic congestion.

Google is doing the city and it's residents a favor by operating the buses. The problem is that some people don't want "Those kind of people" moving into their neighborhoods, and there are competing businesses that can use their prejudice to harm their competitors.

Re:i dont get it

[pauljlucas]

It is legal for their buses to use the bus stops.

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.

Co-opted or hired?

[Todd Knarr]

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.

"co-opted" means something else

[Meostro]

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 .

[Anonymous Coward]

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 prostpects, the elite will point fingers and say "Oh Gee! First World Problems!" and other BS - while they continually lobby for more of the folks from countries exporting their poverty.

And I'd like to point out that yes, I do have First World problems. See, my ancestors were smart enough to treat their women as equals and not less than cattle. They were smart enough to implelment a democratically elected governmental system and not fall for the liars who want to create an authortarian control government and economy. And they were smart enough to realize that a government needs to be secular in order to be just.

So, I got lucky - I had wise ancestors who learned from the stupidity of the rest of the World. And I am grateful.

I resent the billionaire class trying to hide their true intentions by calling smart, hard working, decent people inadequate in order to hide their exploitation of Third World labor - like the Indians, Chinese, and other countries who didn't have the benefit of enlighted leaders and ancestors.

Missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

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 meet on the supply side substantially raising rents.
Work for Google, be a total brogrammer, live in hip Disneyland for adults, work in a tech-burbia perpetual college bubble, at the cost of displacing less affluent locals and the destruction of culture.

Re:Not Cool

[JeffOwl]

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:Two Sides

[sconeu]

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.

Is Google the new M$?

[EMG at MU]

Seriously will ./ try to slant anything to make Google look bad? Co-Opt a boat? Did Google storm the boat by force and take it over like nerdy pirates? Or did Google negotiate a contract with a company to use one of their boats? If whale watching is in such crazy demand that Google using a boat for 30 days is ruining the season then it sounds like there is a great business opportunity for someone to start another whale watching tour company.

Why isn't anyone bitching about the owners of the boat letting Google use it? Becuase that wouldn't get ./'s pantys in a knot. Thats why.

Environmental impact?

[HockeyPuck]

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...

Re:Not Cool

[pdbogen]

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.

Not an Aquarium Boat

[tsqr]

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 actually working on developing a policy to more efficiently share the stops with the private shuttles, and it's not going to get a dime for doing it.

Google transportation

[Animats]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Its about the bus stops ...

[Paco103]

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.

It's in beta.

[wcrowe]

...after Google's '30-day trial'...

Good grief. Even their boat chartering is in beta.

Telecommuting?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Its about the bus stops ...

[j-beda]

"City rules forbid the city from collecting more than the cost of providing the service, officials said."

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.

Re:i can understand the anti-google trend

[ganjadude]

such hate from the supposedly friendly bay area...

Re:Its about the bus stops ...

[Whorhay]

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 code.