Am I the only one who find it quite sick that these large firms use private buses when they could be getting together to fix/improve what is broken?
It's quite amazing that these companies provide commuter buses, and that's probably the best way every private company can help the community. Each one of those buses probably takes hundreds of cars off the road, easing traffic and reducing pollution. I don't understand why the media is obsessed with viewing private buses as a symbol of privilege, and not as a practical solution to bay area's commute problem.
A problem with many of the initial transit offset arguments was that they didn't take into account that given the presence of the buses how many people chose to live in communities farther way from their work, when absent the buses, they would have moved closer. This and other externalities.
Regarding "the media is obsessed with viewing private buses as a symbol of privilege" is because it is a symbol of privilege -- Unless you want to make the argument that it's a symbol of disadvantage. Someone who has a personal driver is more privileged than someone taking a private bus than someone taking a private car than someone taking a public bus than some poor chap who has to bike or walk everywhere.
The reason why the media and much of the non-tech public has disdain for the buses is that it creates two cities. One set of people has access to travel means A and B and the second set just has access to B. The last time that sort of forced social sorting was prevalent in the United States was in the 1960's when there were White and Colored water fountains. These are the connotations the general public thinks about consciously or subconsciously.
The city of Lima, Peru, has a system of informal buses which go through the city in different routes, and charge an extremely low price.
On the surface, it works well, but it suffers a tremendous problem of lack of coordination which leads to huge systemic inefficiencies.
The government of Lima is fighting back by improving the public transport infrastructure, but it's a project that will take decades.
The cities, counties, and state should already be improving the infrastructure with the revenue they have.
I don't think there is a law that forbids privately owned public transportation. They may need to be licences and follow certain laws but that should not stop someone from "disrupting" a broken system.
Let me put it this way: There were (are?) overpasses that were designed to be too low for city buses to pass underneath them.
Improving public transit requires the cooperation of multiple entities. Hiring private buses does not. We do not know, one way or another, if cooperation was attempted.
Half or more of the problem with all bay area public transport is that lots of the peninsula actively likes not having working public transit. I live in Belmont and I'm an active voter. Mayoral / council campaigns here don't outright say "no public transit ever" but if you read between the lines its there. Lots of people move to the peninsula to have their house in the suburbs (turning nimby the second the deed changes names), and public transit or dense housing is not desired.
Of course, bitching about 101 or 280 doesn't stop just because they actively subvert the only way to fix our transportation fiasco.
I do have a solution, though: it's time to give up on the bay area. I figure I can start a company in Tahoe and draw amazing engineers. Live in Tahoe and get 20 snow-days a year doesn't sell every engineer, but it definitely sells a handful of great ones. That's the idea, anyhow...
[1] http://www.sonic.net/~mly/www.geolith.com/bart/figure1.html
And honestly I don't see why they shouldn't have a private bus. FB employees worked their asses off their whole life in school and learning to code etc.