Slashdot Mirror


A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her To Work by 7 AM (nytimes.com)

From a report on The New York Times: Sheila James starts her Monday, and the workweek, at 2:15 a.m. This might be normal for a baker or a morning radio host, but Ms. James is a standard American office worker. She is 62 and makes $81,000 a year as a public health adviser for the United States Department of Health and Human Services in San Francisco. Her early start comes because San Francisco is one of the country's most expensive metropolitan areas. Ms. James lives about 80 miles away in Stockton, which has cheaper homes but requires her to commute on two trains and a bus, leaving at 4 a.m. Plenty of office workers get up at 5 a.m. or a bit before, but 2:15 is highly unusual. "Two-fifteen is early enough that some people are still having their evening," she said on a (very) early morning. But she likes to take her time and have coffee. She keeps the lights low and the house quiet and Zen-like. "I just can't rush like that," she said. When the second alarm goes off at 3:45 -- a reminder to leave for the train in 15 minutes -- her morning shifts from leisure to precision. It is a seven-minute drive to the station, where she catches the Altamont Corridor Express train.

27 of 588 comments (clear)

  1. How is this "News"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lots of people have long commutes to work....Who cares?

  2. I took the bus once by Osgeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The one time I took a city bus, it made a half hour drive into a 3 hour adventure, never even considered public transportation ever again.

    1. Re: I took the bus once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You add to the fact that it takes her an hour and 45 minutes to get ready in the morning and you've got about the least efficient person in the world serving as a political prop about high rent.

    2. Re: I took the bus once by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I get up at 4:30AM to catch the 6AM bus outside of my apartment complex. It takes me 90 minutes to get ready and out the door. Some of us had put our college days behind us and no longer roll out of bed wearing the work clothes from yesterday.

    3. Re: I took the bus once by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You add to the fact that it takes her an hour and 45 minutes to get ready in the morning and you've got about the least efficient person in the world serving as a political prop about high rent.

      Indeed. Her behavior makes no sense. If she is going to be on the train for two hours, why doesn't she use that time to do her prep? Or sleep?

      Also, you don't have to go to Stockton to get away from SF rents. Oakland (20 minutes by BART) is far enough.

      Better headline: Crazy Woman Lives in Stockton.

    4. Re: I took the bus once by Merk42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because "Woman wakes up at 2:15 to go to work" heavily implies she has a much longer commute and/or is coming in very early.

  3. Build more housing by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The solution to the problems is really simple: build more housing. How do you get more housing built? Well, for starts not having some of the most restrictive zoning laws in the country, and having people fight back at any housing that is less than ideal would be a major aspect. Unfortunately, there are people who are advocates for the poor who don't get this and have gone out of their way to block housing that doesn't have affordable housing built into it, which just results in total fewer housing.

    1. Re:Build more housing by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The solution is to stop centralizing things. It can work great for information but not for physical things.

      Make more smaller cities and flee the megapolis mentality.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Build more housing by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think that's really the solution. I agree that SF et al. are BANANA hells and have impeded development and caused prices to explode and all sorts of other distortions but, ultimately, carpeting the land with skyscraper apartment buildings to house all these people would just alleviate one pressure point in a dysfunctional system.

      Sheila James is a bureaucrat. She writes stuff and reads stuff and participates in conference calls. Is there any actual reason Sheila James needs to be in SF proper to operate her email inbox in 2017? Why must all the Sheila James of the world converge on a couple coastal CA cities by the millions? Probably 90% of the people working in SF could just live somewhere else with no noticeable loss of capability.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:Build more housing by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The solution to the problems is really simple: build more housing. How do you get more housing built? Well, for starts not having some of the most restrictive zoning laws in the country, and having people fight back at any housing that is less than ideal would be a major aspect. Unfortunately, there are people who are advocates for the poor who don't get this and have gone out of their way to block housing that doesn't have affordable housing built into it, which just results in total fewer housing.

      Actually, the problem is the US's dreadful public transport network.

      Here in the UK, a train journey of 80 miles is easily accomplished in 1.5 hours, 2 hours at a stretch. That means you can leave Winchester at 5:15 and make a starting time of 07:00 in Central London and I'm including a short tube journey from London Waterloo to somewhere like Bank.

      That being said, a 2 hour journey is still not ideal but the money in central London is often worth it. Much like central San Francisco, no one lives in central London unless they're a multi-millionaire. For popular business hubs, one should be able to live outside it and get in relatively quickly.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Build more housing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The solution is to stop centralizing things.

      Big cities have higher productivity. NYC has 60% higher productivity than the American average. Centralization is good.

      There is no shortage of space in SF. They just need to go vertical. The problem is that the people living there have a vested interest in keeping property prices high, and the people that want to live there but can't afford to don't get to vote.

      How Zoning Laws Exacerbate Inequality.

  4. Re:And she's one of the lucky ones by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having children is a choice, in most circumstances, and rearranging your life accordingly is one of the costs that should be accepted.

  5. aaaand Slashdot is dead by spire3661 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Its been fun, but this social shit is not what this place is for.

    --
    Good-bye
  6. Re:And she's one of the lucky ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On the other hand we wouldn't exist if someone didn't "have" us.

  7. Re:And she's one of the lucky ones by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, having children does benefit the childless as well. Or would you like to live in an area where everyone chose to be childless and now that everyone's retired there's no staff for... well.. anything? No hospital staff, cops, restaurant workers, store workers, etc. Just look at Japan and their oncoming worker-to-retired ratio slow motion train wreck.

    That's one of the reasons that responsible governments understand people having children is vital to society's health and encourage the choice to do so with services and financial incentives. Other governments... not so much.

  8. Re:Not a great story by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Welcome to America! Have you check out our flyer on the American Dream? Your options are expensive, more expensive and really expensive. There is a modest lifestyle option that forsakes the American Dream but everyone will resent you for being happy with less.

  9. Re:And she's one of the lucky ones by uncqual · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Earth has plenty of humans on it. Indeed, perhaps too many and a reduction in population (rather then a continuing increase in population as we are experiencing) would be best in the long term. Of course, the only way to have a reduction in population is either via some "pruning" process (probably politically infeasible) or people just having less kids. Yes, in the short term it causes some economic imbalances, but in the long term it's probably a good thing.

    Few people propose that society move to a situation where the birthrate is 0 (well, perhaps the Shakers do, but that's not working out so well for them).

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  10. Face Time [Re:Build more housing] by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's really weird-like the way computers were supposed to reduce paper waste we shouldn't need to travel to work anymore yet exactly the opposite has happened.

    It worked too well, actually. It made it far easier to outsource work to Timbuktu for $2/hr. The remaining jobs require "face time" in order to be competitive with $2/hr Timbuktuians. It's one of the few advantages a physical office worker has over them.

  11. Choices by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having children is a choice, in most circumstances, and rearranging your life accordingly is one of the costs that should be accepted.

    Being an inconsiderate jerk is a choice, in most circumstances too.

    People have kids and that's a good thing. Refusing to acknowledge that reality is just you being a selfish inconsiderate jerk. Your parents made sacrifices for you just like everyone else's parents. Cut them some slack. Someday it might be your turn. But with an attitude like that hopefully not soon...

  12. This doesn't belong on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This is not news for nerds. This is some crap story that belongs on FB or BuzzF'd

    She is an adult who made her own choices. She sure as shit could cut that travel time down to 1/2 if she wanted to, still living in that area on that salary.

  13. Causes: by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1 - Proposition 13. An anti-tax measure that may have been necessary at the time, but went way too far to the point where Bay Area cities are incentivized to approve more business developments but less housing because of the amount of revenue they bring in. The result is a massive jobs-housing imbalance as cities gain more jobs but not enough housing to keep up, resulting in long commutes from out of town.

    2 - A strong NIMBY lobby. Established residents are vocal in their opposition to more housing in "their" town. Councils feel pressured to resist new developments.

    3 - Induced demand. Caltrans has an unbelievably wasteful policy of widening highways in the hope that it'll alleviate traffic congestion despite a mountain of evidence that this does not work and that more highway lanes just causes more traffic as people move out to cheaper suburbs to get a bigger house for the same price and a (temporarily) reasonable commute time. By the time everyone has the same idea, highways are jammed again.

    4 - Anti-transit sentiment. Roads are less efficient than rails, but it's a lot easier to get funding for them.

    5 - Single-use-zoning. Putting daily needs out of walking distance of each other forces nearly everyone to drive throughout the day. The result is massive car ownership and demands for more facilities to accommodate private cars.

    6 - Fragmented local government. It's very hard to get region-wide transit developments done when each city is only focused on its own interests.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  14. Re:And she's one of the lucky ones by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's basically our problem: We're aging, we're not repopulating at a sustainable rate and our economy does its best to make having kids as impossible as it can be.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Re:And she's one of the lucky ones by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pruning is currently in effect. We send poor white kids down into some countries to gun down poor brown kids. Don't worry, the system works.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. Re:And she's one of the lucky ones by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Earth has plenty of humans on it...

    And we (the United States) want to cap legal immigration at ~50,000/year, so good luck making that argument while avoiding a long slide into depopulation, as currently exists in Japan and Russia.

    Yes, in the short term it causes some economic imbalances, but in the long term it's probably a good thing.

    SOME economic imbalances? Have you actually thought about the social and economic circumstances of depopulating midwestern cities and towns, or is that beyond your attention horizon, living in California as you are? Ah yes, the reason why you favor "less people" is certainly apparent... you want less people where you are. As if people are going to stop migrating there due to a drop in birth rate.

  17. Re:Immigration by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey, we're currently trying that in Europe!

    Tell me: What do you think will happen when you take in a couple million people with zero marketable skill (because goat herding isn't that big an industry in your country) who don't even start to speak the language or write it (or any language for that matter) who make the Southern Baptists look secular, and throw them into a highly industrialized, practically irreligious and open minded society?

    If you wanna know, take a look at Sweden or Germany. Especially around New Year's Eve.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Re: And she's one of the lucky ones by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah it's not like you benefited from an education or anything. Fucking Randroids.

  19. Re:And she's one of the lucky ones by losfromla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is both an idiotic and racist statement.

    Why not help the women who are fertile and having children be better mothers? Provide a strong, effective support system so their children become doctors, engineers, scientists rather than fodder for the industrial prison complex? Optimize them as bearers and nurturers of the future generations.

    Let the working women continue with their careers, let them optimize there since there is no reason they should be burdened with children. They can then provide the highest value where their skillset lies.

    Win-win. No idiotic racist policies required. Awesome-sauce!

    --
    Only I can judge you.