4 ms·

Companies can help a lot by locating their offices in places that enable less carbon intensive commuting, lobbying local government, supporting initiatives that

by dkarl 6y ago

Companies can help a lot by locating their offices in places that enable less carbon intensive commuting, lobbying local government, supporting initiatives that promote density, and supporting local transit initiatives (example: [0]). When businesses speak up and say, local business needs workers to be able to commute without a car, our competitiveness will suffer without it and we will fall behind, that speaks to a large number of voters who don't respond to environmental appeals. [0] https://www.kxan.com/news/downtown-austin-business-leaders-say-project-connect-is-a-critical-need/ https://www.kxan.com/news/downtown-austin-business-leaders-s...

globular-toast 6y ago
Or allowing work from home.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Work from home is useful, but there are real advantages to face to face conversation.
  - Qwertious 6y ago
    On the other hand, if people work from home then more people will focus on improving the "work-from-home experience" and making the business more suited for working from home.
syshum 6y ago
>>supporting initiatives that promote density This is not going to help you with "speaks to a large number of voters who don't respond to environmental appeals" There is a MASSIVE over lab in people that do don't respond to (government regulation based) environmental appeals AND have no desire to live in densely populated cities. Speaking as one of those people, the idea of living in an area of high population density is a non-starter for me, my current area is about 2,000 people per square mile that that is FAR FAR too dense for me. living in Seattle or LA with a Population density of 4x time is something nightmares are made of, and NYC at about 13x that is just a total night terror....
- epistasis 6y ago
  That's fine, you keep doing you. Just done stop other people from living the way they want to.
  - syshum 6y ago
    There is one group politically that wants to prevent people from living they way they want, and it is not Rural people
    - epistasis 6y ago
      Not sure what "rural" has to do with this, because nearly all land in the US is rural and it's super easy to find any sort of rural life one wants, in addition to it being super cheap. However, there is a massive undersupply of dense living in the US, because it has been legislated out of existence, not because people don't want it. And I would point out that many "rural" towns have fantastic dense living in their core, that allow people to walk for daily errands, etc. The real enemy of density is not rural vs. urban, because these do not tough each other at all. The people who prevent density are the suburban enclaves that, through heavy and excessive regulation, prevent people from building anything except for single family residential sprawl for miles upon miles, necessitating a car for something as simple as getting a pint of cream. Which is the way that many people want to live, which is great for them, and they should be allowed to do that! But we need to stop letting them say to others: "I don't want to live in density, so you shouldn't have the very option of it because the mere existence threatens me." I've been fighting for smart density in my town for quite a while, and no rural person would ever oppose this, because they are not in town! And I think they realize that the more people in town, the fewer crowding into their rural life.
- dkarl 6y ago
  When people who don't like big cities are voting on transit and density initiative, it's because they live in or on the fringes of a big city. Most likely they are there because the money to be made is more important to them than their dislike of cities. Ergo, when business leaders say transit and density are needed for further economic growth, that message appeals to a strongly held value.
bluGill 6y ago
Most corporate campuses are located such that public transportation cannot serve it well. They tend to be isolated islands surrounded by parking lots and grass land, with no through street that transit could take that would get from on place to another. Thus the only transit ends at their building, this is okay for a zoo or shopping mall where people come and go all day, but offices tend to be everyone arriving at the same time and then no riders, so to make it worth while to serve you all day you have to be on the way to someplace worth serving. If you are not on the way then people with a choice will prefer to drive just for the one time that the kid gets sick and they have to leave early. (note places where traffic is a problem are also places that are on the way to elsewhere)
- dkarl 6y ago
  Yep. Carbon initiatives like the Microsoft one will force them to rethink the wisdom of building corporate campuses. > people with a choice will prefer to drive just for the one time that the kid gets sick and they have to leave early This used to be a major (underestimated, in my opinion) issue, and I used to bring it up all the time as something that needed to be addressed before people who were accustomed to driving would voluntarily leave their cars at home, but I think Uber and Lyft solve it, full stop.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Uber and Lyft are not a good solution. I could every trip on them as worth a weeks worth of driving alone since you don't know where those drivers are driving (or sitting stopped waiting for a call) when you call them. If everyone is normally using transit they are okay - but then there should be all day service to the campus so you don't need them. (I will agree if you say I'm over counting their environmental costs - I do that to make a point that is often ignored)

by dkarl 6y ago

globular-toast 6y ago

Or allowing work from home.

bluGill 6y ago
Work from home is useful, but there are real advantages to face to face conversation.
- Qwertious 6y ago
  On the other hand, if people work from home then more people will focus on improving the "work-from-home experience" and making the business more suited for working from home.

syshum 6y ago

>>supporting initiatives that promote density This is not going to help you with "speaks to a large number of voters who don't respond to environmental appeals" There is a MASSIVE over lab in people that do don't respond to (government regulation based) environmental appeals AND have no desire to live in densely populated cities. Speaking as one of those people, the idea of living in an area of high population density is a non-starter for me, my current area is about 2,000 people per square mile that that is FAR FAR too dense for me. living in Seattle or LA with a Population density of 4x time is something nightmares are made of, and NYC at about 13x that is just a total night terror....

epistasis 6y ago
That's fine, you keep doing you. Just done stop other people from living the way they want to.
- syshum 6y ago
  There is one group politically that wants to prevent people from living they way they want, and it is not Rural people
  - epistasis 6y ago
    Not sure what "rural" has to do with this, because nearly all land in the US is rural and it's super easy to find any sort of rural life one wants, in addition to it being super cheap. However, there is a massive undersupply of dense living in the US, because it has been legislated out of existence, not because people don't want it. And I would point out that many "rural" towns have fantastic dense living in their core, that allow people to walk for daily errands, etc. The real enemy of density is not rural vs. urban, because these do not tough each other at all. The people who prevent density are the suburban enclaves that, through heavy and excessive regulation, prevent people from building anything except for single family residential sprawl for miles upon miles, necessitating a car for something as simple as getting a pint of cream. Which is the way that many people want to live, which is great for them, and they should be allowed to do that! But we need to stop letting them say to others: "I don't want to live in density, so you shouldn't have the very option of it because the mere existence threatens me." I've been fighting for smart density in my town for quite a while, and no rural person would ever oppose this, because they are not in town! And I think they realize that the more people in town, the fewer crowding into their rural life.
dkarl 6y ago
When people who don't like big cities are voting on transit and density initiative, it's because they live in or on the fringes of a big city. Most likely they are there because the money to be made is more important to them than their dislike of cities. Ergo, when business leaders say transit and density are needed for further economic growth, that message appeals to a strongly held value.

bluGill 6y ago

Most corporate campuses are located such that public transportation cannot serve it well. They tend to be isolated islands surrounded by parking lots and grass land, with no through street that transit could take that would get from on place to another. Thus the only transit ends at their building, this is okay for a zoo or shopping mall where people come and go all day, but offices tend to be everyone arriving at the same time and then no riders, so to make it worth while to serve you all day you have to be on the way to someplace worth serving. If you are not on the way then people with a choice will prefer to drive just for the one time that the kid gets sick and they have to leave early. (note places where traffic is a problem are also places that are on the way to elsewhere)

dkarl 6y ago
Yep. Carbon initiatives like the Microsoft one will force them to rethink the wisdom of building corporate campuses. > people with a choice will prefer to drive just for the one time that the kid gets sick and they have to leave early This used to be a major (underestimated, in my opinion) issue, and I used to bring it up all the time as something that needed to be addressed before people who were accustomed to driving would voluntarily leave their cars at home, but I think Uber and Lyft solve it, full stop.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Uber and Lyft are not a good solution. I could every trip on them as worth a weeks worth of driving alone since you don't know where those drivers are driving (or sitting stopped waiting for a call) when you call them. If everyone is normally using transit they are okay - but then there should be all day service to the campus so you don't need them. (I will agree if you say I'm over counting their environmental costs - I do that to make a point that is often ignored)