[qq66]

Also, the MUNI buses are authorized to stop in the bus stops. I'm not opposed to private buses, but they should have to pay for the right to use public streets to transact their business, just as businesses operating in Central Park have to pay for their locations.

[calbear81]

I don't get how shuttle buses haven't already paid for their right to use public streets the same way a business can deliver something w/o paying an additional fee. Using this logic, FedEx and UPS should be paying even more fees for flashing hazards and double parking all over the city. The city should either bake in the fees into shuttle licensing or just recoup it by having a traffic officer ticket the Google shuttles at every Muni stop and generating a nice revenue stream. The other option is for Google to rent a space at their stops either inside a private lot (it's temp anyways) and not have these problems.

[qq66]

Double parking for commercial delivery is already authorized by SF city ordinance. If the city decided that enabling Peninsula tech workers to live in the city is a good thing (and there are many reasons in favor and against doing so), then they could similarly authorize private buses. Until they do so, these buses are breaking the law and should be fined.

[SavvyGuard]

http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/12/09/protesters-block-goog...

There's a pilot program that's set to start next summer that charges the corporate buses. It's halfway down the article.

[dnautics]

"but they should have to pay for the right to use public streets"... Do you suppose there are no regulatory costs to operating a bus?