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.

37 of 588 comments (clear)

  1. And she's one of the lucky ones by computational+super · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Imagine if you had young children you were trying to get to school. I live in north Texas, where it's not nearly as bad (although it's creeping that way), and I have to drop my kids off at school no earlier than 8 AM - which means I hit the freeways at the worst possible time, which means I'm lucky if I'm in by 9 AM.

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:And she's one of the lucky ones by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Funny

      Having children is a choice...

      One that you don't have to wory about.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re: And she's one of the lucky ones by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

      low and behold even using condoms AND the pill she still ends up pregnant.

      Perhaps you should do a paternity test on "your" kids.

    6. 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 /.
    7. Re:And she's one of the lucky ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hopefully future generations are fewer pedantic.

    8. Re:And she's one of the lucky ones by computational+super · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hm - pretty sure my wife skipped over that part.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. Re: And she's one of the lucky ones by computational+super · · Score: 3, Funny

      you loyally accepted that she was pure and honest and it was yours

      Well, not OP, but... I have two kids myself, and have never had paternity tests done. I'm fairly certain I don't need to, though, because if she did cheat on me, she cheated with a guy that looks and acts exactly like me, and made two kids that look and act exactly like me. If anything, she ought to be the one asking for a blood test to make sure those kids are really hers...

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    13. 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.

    14. Re: And she's one of the lucky ones by compro01 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US population continues to grow every year.

      US population growth is entirely due to immigration. It's the same story in the entire developed world. The USA is almost treading water as far as internal population growth with a total fertility rate (births per woman) of about 2 (replacement is about 2.1, as birth rates are skewed slightly male). Canada and the EU sit at about 1.6.

      When people have the option to control their fertility, by and large, they opt to not have children.

      Every year new Americans are born.

      And every year, more Americans die than are born.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    15. 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.
  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 rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      how is this insightful? she specifically states she doesn't want to be rushed in the morning. Some people *enjoy* relaxing before work with some coffee.

      Also note, that when her second alarm goes off she has her commute to the train station mapped down to the fucking minute.

    4. Re: I took the bus once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Squeezing into a shirt the size of a pup tent that's still too small is probably what takes so long.

    5. 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.

    6. 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:How is this "News"?? by jfbriere · · Score: 3, Informative

    I care.

  5. meanwhile in Korea and Japan... by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A friend returned from recent vacation in S. Korea and Japan was amazed by the rail systems and speaking of bay area Caltrains, "It is so 3rd world country."

    I saved this from one of you posters here on slashdot, worth a mention as I was talking with someone who said high speed rail and other such things are guvmint boondoggles. For me I use a car but then I've moved here in the 20th century so I don't have to commute hundreds of miles.

    “give out surveys where people rate the relative importance of things.”

    That’s likely not going to get you anything useful. What it gets you is a survey of what people think is best for them. And they’re not right a lot of the time, because few people are investors and visionaries. Most people are short-term practical people.

    As an example, traffic is getting worse and worse in my little city. Everyone is talking about how we can improve the roads and highways, we’re widening some, improving intersections at others, but nobody is really talking about public transportation. What we need are a couple of light rail lines from the growing suburbs to downtown and the job hubs. That would likely fix a lot of the traffic problems. But that requires people to think longer-term, and rethink how they go about their daily life.

    Instead of spending 25 minutes, now 30, now 35 minutes in the car commuting, they need to think about catching a 5 min bus ride, then sitting and checking email for 20 min before getting off near work. But that’s far harder to wrap your head around than “I wish I could shave 10 minutes off my drive to work.” Survey people, and they want less traffic congestion and a better drive to work. That frankly can’t happen without public transportation, but nobody wants that.

    Hmmm, our featured person already spends a lot of time on the train. Oh wait, this has been debated before but it was about cars! https://www.c-span.org/video/?...

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  6. "Her"? by Black.Shuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What is it with 3rd-person pronouns in clickbait headlines these days?

    - "She totally did a thing, now you totally want to click, right?"
    - "What he did next will make you click!"
    - "Five cocktails and seven martinis get her through brunch!"

    At the risk of sounding ancient; who's "she", the cat's mother?

    I mean, good manners don't cost nuffin' now, do they?

  7. 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.

  8. Pick your solution to this problem: by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are a few solutions to this problem, pick one or more:
    1. Reduce the need for people to show up for work at a physical office
    2. Make transportation, both public and private, hyper-efficient
    3. Pop the housing bubble around Northern California (and other large metros) by popping the Second Dotcom Bubble
    4. Add more housing in the area so people aren't desperately waving sacks of money around saying, "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let me pay $4000 a month for a 1-bedroom apartment!"

    I live near New York City and back before I had kids I used to commute on the train for work; did it for a couple of multi-year stints before I had had enough. I'm about 60 miles away, and it was easily a 1.5 hour train and subway ride each direction when everything was going perfectly. There are plenty of stories like the one in the article, and I remember hearing tales of multi-hour commutes from places like Stockton and Sacramento as the First Dotcom Bubble was about to hit its peak in 1999. I did my crazy commute for financial gain; I was getting paid a New York salary and living a comfortable distance away. Sheila James, being 62 and a government employee, was most likely priced out of the San Francisco market and is trying to hang on a few more years, as federal pensions are calculated based on final average salary and years of service. These days, you'd really have to offer me a crazy amount of money to go back to doing it...even with cutting my day short and working part of it on the train, it's a life-eater. I work at a place that's closer to home, pays less, but lets me be home more which is more important to me lately.

    Housing bubbles suck. Permanently overpriced real estate markets suck more. Metro NY is a perfect example...not nearly as bad as California once you leave the city, but prices are permanently high just because so much wealth is concentrated here. You have everything from "old money" to celebrities to CEOs to hedge-fund Masters of the Universe, and if they're not living in Midtown Manhattan, they want to live right outside of it. It makes it difficult to find good housing a reasonable distance from work.

  9. 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.

  10. 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...

  11. 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
  12. She made a deliberate tradeoff by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 4, Informative

    She chose to move 65 miles further away from San Francisco so she could live in a larger place and save $600 a month in rent (on an income of $81,000, keep in mind). FTFA:

    Ms. James used to live closer, in Alameda, Calif., about 15 miles across San Francisco Bay from her work. But three years ago, after a developer bought her building and evicted Ms. James and her neighbors, she moved to Stockton.

    Stockton has more for the money: Ms. James pays $1,000 a month in rent for her three-bedroom house, compared with $1,600 for the one-bedroom apartment she had in Alameda.

    There are plenty of options a lot closer to San Francisco, for less than what she was paying before, and with more space than she had before. And looking at her old rate of $1600/month (which is still less less than 24% of her income) opens up the possibilities even more.

    So call it what it is: she made a deliberate lifestyle/money/time tradeoff. We all do that sort of thing all the time, and don't get dramatic write-ups in the Times for it.