8 ms·

It shouldn't take me an hour and 30 minutes in congested, underbuilt roads to drive 20 miles into the office. Cities and their wealthy politically-connected co

It shouldn't take me an hour and 30 minutes in congested, underbuilt roads to drive 20 miles into the office. Cities and their wealthy politically-connected commercial office building owners have had decades to fix this problem. No sympathy.

andrepd 2y ago
>drive There is your problem. Personal automobiles aren't a feasible method of transportation past a certain population density.
- nemomarx 2y ago
  I think they're right to complain that cities should be fixing that by building the public transportation more?
  - gedy 2y ago
    Or, heaven forbid, make living near office affordable.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      ironically enough, if living near the office was affordable then there wouldn't be so many RTO mandates. Real estate are on their death throes trying to recover their tax deals over this
  - ryukafalz 2y ago
    But that doesn't seem like what they're suggesting: > congested, underbuilt roads
- whatever1 2y ago
  Buses also are useless. Thry routinely waste you hours due to their slowness and inconsistency. The choices really are two: subway (or any dedicated rail thing) or car.
  - moffkalast 2y ago
    Or get this, a bike (in case you live under ~10 km away). Just rolls the gym hours into the commute for double efficiency, and you can be always on time since traffic can't really affect you.
    - htrp 2y ago
      And bring a change of clothes and find a shower at the office for when you show up all sweaty.
      - moffkalast 2y ago
        People seriously overestimate how sweaty you get if you use a tiny bit of antiperspirant and don't drive like a maniac.
        machomaster 2y ago
        You are seriously underestimating the amount of sweating a normal, healthy man does if he trained consistently for some time and his body learned to quickly adapt to minimal physical stress (heck, I sweat profusely even if I merely slowly walk). Let alone if there are any kinds of hills.
        moffkalast 2y ago
        TIL, I've looked it up and apparently you're right. The more fit someone is, the more they sweat. That's so counterintuitive tbh, I would've thought that it would be the opposite since you don't need to strain as much, but I guess there must be some baseline energy use and more muscle mass equals more heating, plus a faster learned cooling response. Ironically that makes cycling a much better choice for people who aren't fit. Finally something where being lazy gives you an advantage.
        machomaster 2y ago
        The better performance of a fit person is partly explained by more muscles (incl. heart), but a significant part of performance boost is the fact that body autoregulates (e.g. by sweating and keeping the temperature perfect for activity, instead of letting body overheat, which results in a performance drop) itself so much better. Raising the heart rate much faster is also part of a better self-regulation of a fit person.
- RiverCrochet 2y ago
  I'm not picky about the solution and of course it's a complex issue. - If a safe, reliable bus or train went to and from close to my house to close to the office, I'd take it. Key is safe and reliable. - If the roads were designed with enough capacity and planning in mind such that groups of vehicles are not stuck driving 15 MPH on a 70 MPH speed limit stretch of highway for 30 minutes or longer every day, that'd be fine. - If zoning laws/tax laws/whatever were such that it would be easier to build away from yet close to city centers and have smaller or additional offices closer to where people live, that'd work for me. - If city apartments were in reach costwise or even somehow subsidized by my employer in an equitable way (don't really know how that would look), and crime was not an issue, I would consider moving within walking distance of my workplace.
  - jspash 2y ago
    I'm just curious, what about your local bus and/or train is not safe? Do you mean it could crash at any moment? Or it is usually full of unsavoury characters?
    - burnished 2y ago
      Probably the latter. There doesn't tend to be good enforcement of social norms and etiquette on public transit.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Homeless people in my area (LA). I don't blame them individually at all, it's a societal issue that some at best got kicked out of their living spaces when rent doubled in the last 5 years. Or at worst were fed fentanyl and had their lives ruined just to line the pockets of some skeevy "medical company" (thank goodness they are having the books thrown at them). But regardless of fault, they aren't mostly just some people down on luck that at best ask for some change like in my childhood. enough are dangerous, unpredictable, and mentally unwell that public transportation is a non-trivial risk here.
    - RiverCrochet 2y ago
      I don't have a local bus or train, what I provided were examples. > Do you mean it could crash at any moment? Or it is usually full of unsavoury characters? Both. Buses/trains should be secure places and properly maintained at all times.
jimt1234 2y ago
This! ^^^ The powers-that-be have watched commuter times and experiences go to shit and real estate costs skyrocket (forcing people to live further and further from offices) in the last 25 years. Best case, they've done nothing, completely ignoring people's concerns. Worst case, they've actively enabled this situation in order to support the local commercial and residential real estate markets.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Yep, when COVID hit, my commute was 2.5 hours each way, totaling an average of 5 hours in the car every day. Once I got a taste of WFH I decided I'm never going back to that hell. I'd love to be able to afford to live close to the office, but I'm not rich enough to have a similar home in that location, and am not willing to move my family into a shoebox-sized townhome just for a short commute.
laweijfmvo 2y ago
Weird thing is, you'd think Google+Meta would have enough pull to fix this in areas like SF Bay because they could literally build their own city and wreck the entire Bay Area economy...
- odo1242 2y ago
  They actually did try (Facebook has shuttles everywhere, and tried to rebuild the decommissioned passenger railway near US-84), but economic concerns like layoffs, etc. ended up taking priority. The main issue is it takes like 10-20 years of concerted effort in the US to approve/build a bridge, and nobody except the government is willing to wait that long. This is mostly a political problem.
  - giobox 2y ago
    Ignoring the shuttles which I don't think conclusively illustrate your point; Google has for years threatened to develop land into homes in San Jose so workers can choose to live closer, with the idea of doing exactly what OP suggests, but like so many Google projects, never seems to pan out: > https://www.fastcompany.com/90978855/googles-plan-to-build-15000-new-homes-in-silicon-valley-just-got-more-complicated https://www.fastcompany.com/90978855/googles-plan-to-build-1...
    - jmathai 2y ago
      When we bought our home in the Bay Area in 2017, the San Jose offices Google planned on building were on all of the brochures. I was convinced that if the city is giving the incentives and Google is buying up so much property that it must be just a matter of time. I learned it’s not that simple.
asah 2y ago
RTO failed in NYC as well.
BenFranklin100 2y ago
That almost entirely due to current zoning that separates commercial and residential into separate districts, and severely restricts density of residential housing in favor of sprawling single family homes.
com2kid 2y ago
The problem is your office is 20 miles from your workplace. 20 miles is more than the entire length of Seattle. Heck it is more than the entire width of the Seattle Metro area (western most tip of Seattle heading straight east until it turns into farmland). There should be sufficient housing stock such that people don't need to drive 20 miles to work!
- synicalx 2y ago
  You can only fit so many real houses in a given area, after which you're building high density housing and a lot of (I'd even argue most) people don't want to live in. Public transport is key, especially trains that can bypass traffic at high speeds. In my city in Australia I live about 25km out from the CBD, but I can get there in under 30 minutes via train if I ever need to - it works very well and I don't have to live in a tiny shoebox on top of 100 other people.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  And the lack of housing is entirely self-inflicted by locals in most US cities. There's no shadowy conspiracy; people have just spent decades opposing even the most basic new construction.
  - bunderbunder 2y ago
    It's not quite so simple. Another thing that's happened is that all the good jobs in many industries have hyper-concentrated into a small number of locations. There's plenty of space to live available in many "main street" towns, but not necessarily anywhere nearby to work if you do choose to live there. My own city (Chicago) does have new construction, but it can't possibly keep up with demand from people moving into the city, because all the land is already full of lower-density housing, and you can't replace half a city block's worth of two- and three-flat dwellings with a modern high rise without first getting all the people who already live there to move out. Which, best case scenario, takes time. So instead most the new construction consists of replacing 130 year old 2- and 3-flat residences with luxury single-family homes, because nimbyism or now, reducing housing density is just more economically feasible. All it takes is one wealthy family buying one lot of land, and there area lot more individual lots up for sale than there are contiguous blocks of eight.

andrepd 2y ago

>drive There is your problem. Personal automobiles aren't a feasible method of transportation past a certain population density.

nemomarx 2y ago
I think they're right to complain that cities should be fixing that by building the public transportation more?
- gedy 2y ago
  Or, heaven forbid, make living near office affordable.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    ironically enough, if living near the office was affordable then there wouldn't be so many RTO mandates. Real estate are on their death throes trying to recover their tax deals over this
- ryukafalz 2y ago
  But that doesn't seem like what they're suggesting: > congested, underbuilt roads
whatever1 2y ago
Buses also are useless. Thry routinely waste you hours due to their slowness and inconsistency. The choices really are two: subway (or any dedicated rail thing) or car.
- moffkalast 2y ago
  Or get this, a bike (in case you live under ~10 km away). Just rolls the gym hours into the commute for double efficiency, and you can be always on time since traffic can't really affect you.
  - htrp 2y ago
    And bring a change of clothes and find a shower at the office for when you show up all sweaty.
    - moffkalast 2y ago
      People seriously overestimate how sweaty you get if you use a tiny bit of antiperspirant and don't drive like a maniac.
      - machomaster 2y ago
        You are seriously underestimating the amount of sweating a normal, healthy man does if he trained consistently for some time and his body learned to quickly adapt to minimal physical stress (heck, I sweat profusely even if I merely slowly walk). Let alone if there are any kinds of hills.
        moffkalast 2y ago
        TIL, I've looked it up and apparently you're right. The more fit someone is, the more they sweat. That's so counterintuitive tbh, I would've thought that it would be the opposite since you don't need to strain as much, but I guess there must be some baseline energy use and more muscle mass equals more heating, plus a faster learned cooling response. Ironically that makes cycling a much better choice for people who aren't fit. Finally something where being lazy gives you an advantage.
        machomaster 2y ago
        The better performance of a fit person is partly explained by more muscles (incl. heart), but a significant part of performance boost is the fact that body autoregulates (e.g. by sweating and keeping the temperature perfect for activity, instead of letting body overheat, which results in a performance drop) itself so much better. Raising the heart rate much faster is also part of a better self-regulation of a fit person.
RiverCrochet 2y ago
I'm not picky about the solution and of course it's a complex issue. - If a safe, reliable bus or train went to and from close to my house to close to the office, I'd take it. Key is safe and reliable. - If the roads were designed with enough capacity and planning in mind such that groups of vehicles are not stuck driving 15 MPH on a 70 MPH speed limit stretch of highway for 30 minutes or longer every day, that'd be fine. - If zoning laws/tax laws/whatever were such that it would be easier to build away from yet close to city centers and have smaller or additional offices closer to where people live, that'd work for me. - If city apartments were in reach costwise or even somehow subsidized by my employer in an equitable way (don't really know how that would look), and crime was not an issue, I would consider moving within walking distance of my workplace.
- jspash 2y ago
  I'm just curious, what about your local bus and/or train is not safe? Do you mean it could crash at any moment? Or it is usually full of unsavoury characters?
  - burnished 2y ago
    Probably the latter. There doesn't tend to be good enforcement of social norms and etiquette on public transit.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Homeless people in my area (LA). I don't blame them individually at all, it's a societal issue that some at best got kicked out of their living spaces when rent doubled in the last 5 years. Or at worst were fed fentanyl and had their lives ruined just to line the pockets of some skeevy "medical company" (thank goodness they are having the books thrown at them). But regardless of fault, they aren't mostly just some people down on luck that at best ask for some change like in my childhood. enough are dangerous, unpredictable, and mentally unwell that public transportation is a non-trivial risk here.
  - RiverCrochet 2y ago
    I don't have a local bus or train, what I provided were examples. > Do you mean it could crash at any moment? Or it is usually full of unsavoury characters? Both. Buses/trains should be secure places and properly maintained at all times.

jimt1234 2y ago

This! ^^^ The powers-that-be have watched commuter times and experiences go to shit and real estate costs skyrocket (forcing people to live further and further from offices) in the last 25 years. Best case, they've done nothing, completely ignoring people's concerns. Worst case, they've actively enabled this situation in order to support the local commercial and residential real estate markets.

ryandrake 2y ago
Yep, when COVID hit, my commute was 2.5 hours each way, totaling an average of 5 hours in the car every day. Once I got a taste of WFH I decided I'm never going back to that hell. I'd love to be able to afford to live close to the office, but I'm not rich enough to have a similar home in that location, and am not willing to move my family into a shoebox-sized townhome just for a short commute.

laweijfmvo 2y ago

Weird thing is, you'd think Google+Meta would have enough pull to fix this in areas like SF Bay because they could literally build their own city and wreck the entire Bay Area economy...

odo1242 2y ago
They actually did try (Facebook has shuttles everywhere, and tried to rebuild the decommissioned passenger railway near US-84), but economic concerns like layoffs, etc. ended up taking priority. The main issue is it takes like 10-20 years of concerted effort in the US to approve/build a bridge, and nobody except the government is willing to wait that long. This is mostly a political problem.
- giobox 2y ago
  Ignoring the shuttles which I don't think conclusively illustrate your point; Google has for years threatened to develop land into homes in San Jose so workers can choose to live closer, with the idea of doing exactly what OP suggests, but like so many Google projects, never seems to pan out: > https://www.fastcompany.com/90978855/googles-plan-to-build-15000-new-homes-in-silicon-valley-just-got-more-complicated https://www.fastcompany.com/90978855/googles-plan-to-build-1...
  - jmathai 2y ago
    When we bought our home in the Bay Area in 2017, the San Jose offices Google planned on building were on all of the brochures. I was convinced that if the city is giving the incentives and Google is buying up so much property that it must be just a matter of time. I learned it’s not that simple.

asah 2y ago

RTO failed in NYC as well.

BenFranklin100 2y ago

That almost entirely due to current zoning that separates commercial and residential into separate districts, and severely restricts density of residential housing in favor of sprawling single family homes.

com2kid 2y ago

The problem is your office is 20 miles from your workplace. 20 miles is more than the entire length of Seattle. Heck it is more than the entire width of the Seattle Metro area (western most tip of Seattle heading straight east until it turns into farmland). There should be sufficient housing stock such that people don't need to drive 20 miles to work!

synicalx 2y ago
You can only fit so many real houses in a given area, after which you're building high density housing and a lot of (I'd even argue most) people don't want to live in. Public transport is key, especially trains that can bypass traffic at high speeds. In my city in Australia I live about 25km out from the CBD, but I can get there in under 30 minutes via train if I ever need to - it works very well and I don't have to live in a tiny shoebox on top of 100 other people.
crooked-v 2y ago
And the lack of housing is entirely self-inflicted by locals in most US cities. There's no shadowy conspiracy; people have just spent decades opposing even the most basic new construction.
- bunderbunder 2y ago
  It's not quite so simple. Another thing that's happened is that all the good jobs in many industries have hyper-concentrated into a small number of locations. There's plenty of space to live available in many "main street" towns, but not necessarily anywhere nearby to work if you do choose to live there. My own city (Chicago) does have new construction, but it can't possibly keep up with demand from people moving into the city, because all the land is already full of lower-density housing, and you can't replace half a city block's worth of two- and three-flat dwellings with a modern high rise without first getting all the people who already live there to move out. Which, best case scenario, takes time. So instead most the new construction consists of replacing 130 year old 2- and 3-flat residences with luxury single-family homes, because nimbyism or now, reducing housing density is just more economically feasible. All it takes is one wealthy family buying one lot of land, and there area lot more individual lots up for sale than there are contiguous blocks of eight.