5 ms·

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

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.

seanmcdirmid 14y ago
Tech workers making $200K+/year, if it takes them an hour to get to the caltrain station on MUNI, that's a lot of money just gone. And again, these guys are coming/going to the same place, why not just give them a bus that is almost point-to-point? That is fairly efficient/environmental if that is your bar. But I agree on the last point; but offices should be built where people want to live, not the other way around. Twitter is in SF for a reason. But then people don't all want to live in the same place; some have kids and prefer suburbs, some are younger and prefer the city. Edit: facebook -> twitter. (face plant)
- enf 14y ago
  Twitter, you mean? Facebook is in the middle of nowhere by the Dumbarton Bridge.
- mc32 14y ago
  Twitter remained in sf because the supes and mayor gave them (and workers) a huge tax break -provisionally for workers. Twitter got to stay; the city got to expand its revitalization of mid-market
- rayiner 14y ago
  People don't want to all live in the same place, but you can accommodate them! Just have a high-density commercial business district and sensible long and short range transit. Here in Chicago, within half an hour or so on the El or the Metra, I can live in a downtown high-rise, a condo in a family-friendly in-town neighborhood, a single family home in a family-friendly in-town neighborhood, or a full blown grass and trees suburb, and still never get in a car as part of my commute. The problem in SF isn't that people want to live in different areas. The same is true in NYC or Chicago. The problem is that there isn't proper zoning. To make transit feasible, you need an extremely dense central business district with a ton of office space. You need employers to be mostly in the same core area. Then, you need to zone things and lay out transit stations so they're approachable for pedestrians. Too many systems make transit stations into these isolated intimidating affairs. This is a neighborhood in Chicago with a lot of young families: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Paulina,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.943899,-87.67122&spn=0.00814,0.01826&sll=41.833733,-87.731964&sspn=0.546397,1.168671&oq=paulina+&hnear=Paulina&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.944093,-87.671231&panoid=TIDckfuoFW9xuPLua5EM2Q&cbp=12,16.71,,0,-11.84 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Paulina,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en... Tree lined streets and small yards. Just a couple of minutes walk from the train stations. Just pan around and you can see the train tracks passing right through. Train stations in Chicago are extremely easily accessed from street level. No parking lots, no elaborate station house, just stairs and a platform: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sedgwick,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.91023,-87.639785&spn=0.008527,0.01826&sll=41.943623,-87.670907&sspn=0.008523,0.01826&oq=sed&hnear=Sedgwick&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.910121,-87.639786&panoid=KYijpA2G6ZoPtug1Jm-jjA&cbp=12,37.23,,0,1.69 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sedgwick,+Chicago,+IL&hl=e...
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    Definitely. I actually even prefer to live close enough to work to bike it, where transit is just a nice backup. I used to commute to the city from San Carlos on Caltrain; it was kind of nice actually (helps when your office is next to the caltrain station). Most of Europe (and some of Asia) is beautiful with respect to transit, density, and quality of life. I hope we (as a country) move in this direction, but it really requires a change in our value system.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      I think even our transit-oriented development has messed up value systems. Look at the new Silver Line in DC. Totally pedestrian unfriendly and intimidating. You can't build highly accessible, integrated neighborhood transit around 50' high platforms surrounded by a 3-lane each direction highway.
      - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
        Agreed. You can't do this without buy in from the people, you can't just bolt transit onto sprawl and expect it to magically work.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
capkutay 14y ago
"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.
- underwater 14y ago
  People who work for the big tech companies are spoiled. I've worked for a bunch of companies around the world and none come even close to what Bay Area companies provide. I'd bet that a large percentage of working Americans would love to mix the great job with atmosphere of city living. Unfortunately most workers have to accept the trade offs and settle for the dull suburban life.
- prodigal_erik 14y ago
  This. I live in the city because my favorite club nights and shows are here and I don't need a designated driver to get home. When I lived in Mountain View, going out was such a hassle that I pretty much didn't bother. Even though I have to commute now, I'm sort of glad so many employers are in the 'burbs and giving homebodies good reasons to stay there; it slows down gentrification. I'm sort of amazed the regional transportation system is so dysfunctional that five private busses on the same route with no shared capacity is the solution everyone settled on. But then I remember what a farce MUNI has become; I routinely see busses and trains so overloaded that riders literally can't squeeze into the doors, and sometimes nothing shows up at all.
- vidarh 14y ago
  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.
jrockway 14y ago
I don't really see the problem. Private shuttles are probably more efficient than public transportation because the private shuttles go exactly where its passengers want them to. Public transit is not the alternative to private shuttles, driving is. Private shuttles are not taking commuters off CalTrain, they're taking drivers off the road. (Should people live closer to work? Yes. Give them some incentive other than one train an hour from the middle of nowhere to some other middle of nowhere.) In New York City and its suburbs, nobody needs private shuttles because public transportation actually runs where people live and work. California made the decision many years ago to build roads instead of transit. The current system exists the way it does because of that.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It's the result of layers of dysfunction. In NYC and Chicago, the commuter rail not only runs to where people live, but also the municipalities involved have no problem with high-density residential/commercial development near transit, which makes it easier to justify the expenditures on the commuter rail. The SF Caltrain station is across the interstate from anywhere you might want to go, while Metro North and LIRR in NYC drop you off right in Midtown. My office in NYC is literally on the same block as Grand Central Station. What's on the same block as the Caltrain station in SF? Nothing. If you look towards downtown from the station, you don't see anything: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Francisco+Caltrain,+4th+Street,+San+Francisco,+CA&hl=en&ll=37.776346,-122.39424&spn=0.009125,0.01826&sll=41.833733,-87.731964&sspn=0.546397,1.168671&oq=cal+train+san+f&hq=San+Francisco+Caltrain,+4th+Street,+San+Francisco,+CA&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.776465,-122.394249&panoid=_ypfJiJ36kFxq_UaM-QjYA&cbp=12,319.97,,0,-6.35 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Francisco+Caltrain,+4th+St... This is what it looks like looking towards Chicago's Loop from Ogilvie: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ogilvie+Transportation+Center,+West+Madison+Street,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.881863,-87.640085&spn=0.01719,0.036521&sll=37.776464,-122.39424&sspn=0.009125,0.01826&oq=ogilvie+transp&hq=Ogilvie+Transportation+Center,+West+Madison+Street,+Chicago,+IL&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.881869,-87.640264&panoid=G_LJvMdiVuJhMesE9PzRfg&cbp=12,94.76,,0,-10.05 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ogilvie+Transportation+Center,... This is what it looks like looking towards Midtown from Grand Central: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=grand+central+station,+new+york&hl=en&ll=40.752134,-73.976977&spn=0.008745,0.01826&sll=41.881863,-87.640257&sspn=0.01719,0.036521&hq=grand+central+station,+new+york&radius=15000&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.751993,-73.975632&panoid=ppBnwjlYy2L-dRs3Zivg6A&cbp=12,210.78,,0,-12.37 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=grand+central+station,+new+yor... The same is true for the residential areas. There's almost no high-density development around the Cal Train stations in the Valley. Even in Arlington Heights, IL (a suburb about 25 miles from Chicago) you see substantial high-density development right around the Metra station.
zem 14y ago
why do you see the private bus fleets as a problem? they move thousands of people quickly and efficiently from where they live to where they work, and are way more ecologically sound and cost-effective than everyone driving their own cars, and way more feasible than expecting to influence the shape of public transit.

seanmcdirmid 14y ago

Tech workers making $200K+/year, if it takes them an hour to get to the caltrain station on MUNI, that's a lot of money just gone. And again, these guys are coming/going to the same place, why not just give them a bus that is almost point-to-point? That is fairly efficient/environmental if that is your bar. But I agree on the last point; but offices should be built where people want to live, not the other way around. Twitter is in SF for a reason. But then people don't all want to live in the same place; some have kids and prefer suburbs, some are younger and prefer the city. Edit: facebook -> twitter. (face plant)

enf 14y ago
Twitter, you mean? Facebook is in the middle of nowhere by the Dumbarton Bridge.
mc32 14y ago
Twitter remained in sf because the supes and mayor gave them (and workers) a huge tax break -provisionally for workers. Twitter got to stay; the city got to expand its revitalization of mid-market
rayiner 14y ago
People don't want to all live in the same place, but you can accommodate them! Just have a high-density commercial business district and sensible long and short range transit. Here in Chicago, within half an hour or so on the El or the Metra, I can live in a downtown high-rise, a condo in a family-friendly in-town neighborhood, a single family home in a family-friendly in-town neighborhood, or a full blown grass and trees suburb, and still never get in a car as part of my commute. The problem in SF isn't that people want to live in different areas. The same is true in NYC or Chicago. The problem is that there isn't proper zoning. To make transit feasible, you need an extremely dense central business district with a ton of office space. You need employers to be mostly in the same core area. Then, you need to zone things and lay out transit stations so they're approachable for pedestrians. Too many systems make transit stations into these isolated intimidating affairs. This is a neighborhood in Chicago with a lot of young families: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Paulina,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.943899,-87.67122&spn=0.00814,0.01826&sll=41.833733,-87.731964&sspn=0.546397,1.168671&oq=paulina+&hnear=Paulina&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.944093,-87.671231&panoid=TIDckfuoFW9xuPLua5EM2Q&cbp=12,16.71,,0,-11.84 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Paulina,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en... Tree lined streets and small yards. Just a couple of minutes walk from the train stations. Just pan around and you can see the train tracks passing right through. Train stations in Chicago are extremely easily accessed from street level. No parking lots, no elaborate station house, just stairs and a platform: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sedgwick,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.91023,-87.639785&spn=0.008527,0.01826&sll=41.943623,-87.670907&sspn=0.008523,0.01826&oq=sed&hnear=Sedgwick&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.910121,-87.639786&panoid=KYijpA2G6ZoPtug1Jm-jjA&cbp=12,37.23,,0,1.69 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sedgwick,+Chicago,+IL&hl=e...
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  Definitely. I actually even prefer to live close enough to work to bike it, where transit is just a nice backup. I used to commute to the city from San Carlos on Caltrain; it was kind of nice actually (helps when your office is next to the caltrain station). Most of Europe (and some of Asia) is beautiful with respect to transit, density, and quality of life. I hope we (as a country) move in this direction, but it really requires a change in our value system.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I think even our transit-oriented development has messed up value systems. Look at the new Silver Line in DC. Totally pedestrian unfriendly and intimidating. You can't build highly accessible, integrated neighborhood transit around 50' high platforms surrounded by a 3-lane each direction highway.
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      Agreed. You can't do this without buy in from the people, you can't just bolt transit onto sprawl and expect it to magically work.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

capkutay 14y ago

"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.

underwater 14y ago
People who work for the big tech companies are spoiled. I've worked for a bunch of companies around the world and none come even close to what Bay Area companies provide. I'd bet that a large percentage of working Americans would love to mix the great job with atmosphere of city living. Unfortunately most workers have to accept the trade offs and settle for the dull suburban life.
prodigal_erik 14y ago
This. I live in the city because my favorite club nights and shows are here and I don't need a designated driver to get home. When I lived in Mountain View, going out was such a hassle that I pretty much didn't bother. Even though I have to commute now, I'm sort of glad so many employers are in the 'burbs and giving homebodies good reasons to stay there; it slows down gentrification. I'm sort of amazed the regional transportation system is so dysfunctional that five private busses on the same route with no shared capacity is the solution everyone settled on. But then I remember what a farce MUNI has become; I routinely see busses and trains so overloaded that riders literally can't squeeze into the doors, and sometimes nothing shows up at all.
vidarh 14y ago
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.

jrockway 14y ago

I don't really see the problem. Private shuttles are probably more efficient than public transportation because the private shuttles go exactly where its passengers want them to. Public transit is not the alternative to private shuttles, driving is. Private shuttles are not taking commuters off CalTrain, they're taking drivers off the road. (Should people live closer to work? Yes. Give them some incentive other than one train an hour from the middle of nowhere to some other middle of nowhere.) In New York City and its suburbs, nobody needs private shuttles because public transportation actually runs where people live and work. California made the decision many years ago to build roads instead of transit. The current system exists the way it does because of that.

rayiner 14y ago
It's the result of layers of dysfunction. In NYC and Chicago, the commuter rail not only runs to where people live, but also the municipalities involved have no problem with high-density residential/commercial development near transit, which makes it easier to justify the expenditures on the commuter rail. The SF Caltrain station is across the interstate from anywhere you might want to go, while Metro North and LIRR in NYC drop you off right in Midtown. My office in NYC is literally on the same block as Grand Central Station. What's on the same block as the Caltrain station in SF? Nothing. If you look towards downtown from the station, you don't see anything: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Francisco+Caltrain,+4th+Street,+San+Francisco,+CA&hl=en&ll=37.776346,-122.39424&spn=0.009125,0.01826&sll=41.833733,-87.731964&sspn=0.546397,1.168671&oq=cal+train+san+f&hq=San+Francisco+Caltrain,+4th+Street,+San+Francisco,+CA&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.776465,-122.394249&panoid=_ypfJiJ36kFxq_UaM-QjYA&cbp=12,319.97,,0,-6.35 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Francisco+Caltrain,+4th+St... This is what it looks like looking towards Chicago's Loop from Ogilvie: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ogilvie+Transportation+Center,+West+Madison+Street,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.881863,-87.640085&spn=0.01719,0.036521&sll=37.776464,-122.39424&sspn=0.009125,0.01826&oq=ogilvie+transp&hq=Ogilvie+Transportation+Center,+West+Madison+Street,+Chicago,+IL&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.881869,-87.640264&panoid=G_LJvMdiVuJhMesE9PzRfg&cbp=12,94.76,,0,-10.05 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ogilvie+Transportation+Center,... This is what it looks like looking towards Midtown from Grand Central: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=grand+central+station,+new+york&hl=en&ll=40.752134,-73.976977&spn=0.008745,0.01826&sll=41.881863,-87.640257&sspn=0.01719,0.036521&hq=grand+central+station,+new+york&radius=15000&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.751993,-73.975632&panoid=ppBnwjlYy2L-dRs3Zivg6A&cbp=12,210.78,,0,-12.37 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=grand+central+station,+new+yor... The same is true for the residential areas. There's almost no high-density development around the Cal Train stations in the Valley. Even in Arlington Heights, IL (a suburb about 25 miles from Chicago) you see substantial high-density development right around the Metra station.

zem 14y ago

why do you see the private bus fleets as a problem? they move thousands of people quickly and efficiently from where they live to where they work, and are way more ecologically sound and cost-effective than everyone driving their own cars, and way more feasible than expecting to influence the shape of public transit.