Paul, thanks for this perspective. I want to address one point you make. You write: "Never mind that this 'elite' is environmentally conscious." Here's something most people don't think about and yet is a simple fact. Wealthy people may be *more aware* of environmental problems than poorer people (I don't actually think that's true, but I'll grant you that argument if you want it), but their negative impact on the environment is nonetheless greater than that of poorer people. As a simple example, wealthier people fly far more than poorer people, and airplane passenger-mile environmental impact accumulates about as fast, and in many situations faster, than automobile passenger-mile environmental impact.

To be clear, the reason there is a robust private bus system around here is not because it's better for the environment than individual autos -- though happily it is -- but rather because it lets workers live where they want -- in SF -- rather than near their workplaces, and that helps to attract workers.

"And so San Franciscans who normally support green transportation...are opposing this form of green transportation."

But that green transportation is also driving some demand. If Google did not provide those buses, would all those people still live in San Francisco? Probably not. It may be an unintended consequence of a green transportation program, but making it feasible for more people to live in the city and commute down to the peninsula has had a very real impact on the rental market in San Francisco. Furthermore, creating a private bus system that works for the lucky few tech employees does nothing to fix the very real problems with public transit both in San Francisco and on the Peninsula.

Thank you for the interesting, and I felt very objective, blog. A few thoughts:

1) If the google/facebook/apple/genentech/ebay/etc shuttles were banned, you likely would see some drop in tech workers commuting from SF to Silicon Valley. But less than I'm sure the opponents of bussing would like and it'd have unintended side-effects:

a) Definitely an increase in cars on the streets in SF, even less parking (!!!), and more congestion during commute hours;

b) Caltrain would become even more crowded (which I think is mostly a good thing in the long run, and I know Caltrain is working on improving crowding). However, I guarantee you you'd start hearing people complaining about all the tech workers hogging Caltrain;

c) Rents would go up on the peninsula & south bay;

2) If the techie population in SF did drop enough to stop the large rental increases, that would result in the "relatively affordable" SF being appealing to others who want to move in but couldn't afford it.

3) The people that are complaining about techies displacing other residents likely displaced someone else in the past that couldn't afford SF;

4) Housing costs have been a long-standing issue in the bay area, pre-dating the current and previous tech booms. Prop 13 was passed in the 1970s, and the SF rent-control laws long pre-date the tech booms as well. This is nothing new.

Paul, I'm not sure I understand your analysis: "The Americans most hurt by privatizing and deregulating are, you guessed it, most in favor of privatizing and deregulating." If you're saying that the people who want green transportation are the ones most in favor or privatizing and deregulating you're making a dangerous generalization which assumes that privatizing the bus system is the most effective way to have green transportation.
If public transportation isn't working for their employees, why don't the google/facebook/apple/genentech/ebay/etc corporations do something good for the community as a whole and invest the money they're spending on privately shuttling their elite employees into the PUBLIC transportation system to upgrade it to a standard acceptable to their employees with the routes they need?

One of the significant issues not raised enough in the media reports of these buses is the public safety problem. These buses stop at public bus stops, which means that those using real public transpo have to endanger themselves getting on and off public buses in SF, as the public buses can't stop the right way in the right places.

And of course Menlo is full of the tech elite. Unfortunately, in addition to other negatives, you get the elitist attitudes, as well. Menlo is the new Shallow Alto.

Peninsula Resident - rents have *already* skyrocketed on the Peninsula & in the South Bay.

Hmmm wrote:
> rents have *already* skyrocketed on the Peninsula & in the South Bay.

I agree they've increased significantly over the last 3+ years, though I wouldn't say they've "skyrocketed" to the same degree as The City.

One of the biggest reasons for the increase in rental cost in the City is the shortage in housing. The City has a long-standing resistance to building new housing; the influx of new residents far outstrips new construction. And with the City being roughly 50 sq miles, one of the more effective solutions is to build up. But some residents are resistant to taller buildings.

If the City allows more housing be built, prices will stabilize. It's simple supply & demand.