Best way to commute from Wriggleyville to Naperville (Chicago, Wheaton: subsidized, living in)

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by stephei2000

My main concern was the surface streets as I live near the border of Rogers Park/Edgewater so my concern would be Lincoln Ave, Peterson or Devon as I would not have to go on Lakeshore Drive so I was hoping for 35 min, but ideally under 30 minutes.

Thanks for your input.

It's a lot more doable than this Wrigleyville to Naperville commute we've been talking about. Get on the Edens at Peterson north of the junction, and just sit on the Edens until you hit Deerfield. I had a couple of friends who used to do this daily from West Rogers Park, and it wasn't great, but they were able to tolerate it for five years. They left early in the morning.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

It's a lot more doable than this Wrigleyville to Naperville commute we've been talking about. Get on the Edens at Peterson north of the junction, and just sit on the Edens until you hit Deerfield. I had a couple of friends who used to do this daily from West Rogers Park, and it wasn't great, but they were able to tolerate it for five years. They left early in the morning.

Yeah, but what's their evening commute like?

The northbound Edens usually moves decently. Even so she's still probably looking at 45 minutes and up depending on the volume and flow of surface traffic getting to the Edens. That alone is pretty well outside her 30-minute hopes. As for her evening commute home? Blargh.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Drover

Yeah, but what's their evening commute like?

Probably something like this:


This could be me stuck in traffic. Or getting my ass kicked in a game. - YouTube

[ToriaT]

My son is facing a similar commute from Logan Square to Plainfield. We are trying to convince him to stay here in Wheaton during the week because he is facing about a two hour commute each way. I wonder what the best routes might be....one such piece of advice says to take Cicero south to the Stevenson but it looks like it goes through some real bad neighborhoods. Another way is to get on the Eisenhower and go west. I usually go west on Fullerton to Harlem then go to the Eisenhower and that is certainly not fast. I am wary of driving south on Western or Pulaski or Cicero through the really bad neighborhoods to link up with the Eisenhower or Stevenson. I usually take Damen to the Ike and that has been okay.

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by chet everett

compare the utter yuckiness of places like Houston with the relative pleasant scale of 95% of our region and you'll understand why I often recommend that folks really try to work as close to work as practical.

I'm sure the OP would be quite happy if his *random technology company* opened an outpost in Lincoln Park, but for some reason many technology companies seem to want to be located in the burbs. As you said, the endless pursuit of shiny new offices, coupled with locating wherever the CEO lives... Even in California, "cool" companies like Facebook and Google are not located IN San Francisco. Why not? What if I have no desire to live in Menlo Park or Mountain View? Should I give up my dream of working for Google?

I know your next response is going to be "OP shouldn't have chosen a career where the companies all locate in the burbs," but they didn't tell us that in college.

[chet everett]

The odds of anything happening to a random motorist moving along a major arterial street like Cicero are vanishingly remote. While I would not recommend living along Cicero Ave, simply driving from Logan Square down to the Stevenson is not a particularly high risk proposition. It probably takes about 25-30 minutes for that portion of the trip. Riding the Stevenson out to Plainfield probably will take about 35-45 minutes. There would be considerably more hassles trying to take the Eisenhower... The drive from Wheaton to Plainfield would probably be about 1/2 the travel time but somehow I doubt that really would make up for living at home vs hanging out in Logan Square.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by ToriaT

My son is facing a similar commute from Logan Square to Plainfield. We are trying to convince him to stay here in Wheaton during the week because he is facing about a two hour commute each way. I wonder what the best routes might be....one such piece of advice says to take Cicero south to the Stevenson but it looks like it goes through some real bad neighborhoods. Another way is to get on the Eisenhower and go west. I usually go west on Fullerton to Harlem then go to the Eisenhower and that is certainly not fast. I am wary of driving south on Western or Pulaski or Cicero through the really bad neighborhoods to link up with the Eisenhower or Stevenson. I usually take Damen to the Ike and that has been okay.

The good news is that the Stevenson actually experiences something close to a traditional "reverse commute" rush hour where traffic moves fairly well in the opposite direction for most of the way. The bad news is that even the reverse side is at the absolute limit of capacity and it takes very little to really mess up the traffic flow. Even a fender bender that's already off to the shoulder can snarl traffic. Not sure what kind of construction projects might be snarling things at the moment.

The drive through Western doesn't go through any amazingly bad neighborhoods between Logan Square and the Stevenson. It's right on the edge of one or two, but it's nothing too scary. It's also the only one of the three that retains four lanes all the way down to the Expressway so it's probably the most free-flowing. And it's also the shortest route to the Stevenson. If he tried to take Cicero all the way to the Stevenson, he'd have a beard before he got there. Sacramento/Marshall/California is another option. But honestly, from Logan Square he might be best off just slogging it out on the Kennedy for a couple miles, at least in the morning, and get on the Stevenson south of the circle. Coming home he may be better off going up California/Marshall/Sacramento.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

I'm sure the OP would be quite happy if his *random technology company* opened an outpost in Lincoln Park, but for some reason many technology companies seem to want to be located in the burbs. As you said, the endless pursuit of shiny new offices, coupled with locating wherever the CEO lives... Even in California, "cool" companies like Facebook and Google are not located IN San Francisco. Why not? What if I have no desire to live in Menlo Park or Mountain View? Should I give up my dream of working for Google?

I know your next response is going to be "OP shouldn't have chosen a career where the companies all locate in the burbs," but they didn't tell us that in college.

Google has a campus in the relative suburban area of Silicon Valley because that is the kind of setting that works not just for their executives but also for the kind of workforce accommodations that they need. I understand they also run a rather extensive network of company shuttles with onboard WiFi and other amenities to make the commute as productive as possible for employees that live in more urban parts of that region and need to get to work.

Currently there is not enough demand for that kind of situation in our region. The offices that Google does have in the region are already in more urban parts of Chicago, probably that reflects some of the relative differences in not just commercial real estate but also the prefences of executives for the firm in this region and the general trends of employee availability. Employers adapt to meet the unique circumstances of each location. So too must employees face the facts that each job involves some trade-offs. It is impossible to find a work situation that meets EVERY employees "dream list". Lots of employees do switch jobs over issues of commute / location, some find that the circumstances at the new situation make them want to return to a worse commute...

Just about every sector that I am aware of has work locations in both the urban core of the Loop as well as similar firms / offices in more suburban locations. Of course some "teams" are located in a particular place for the convenience / productivity of the majority while many employers also acknowledge that some employees can be more productive working from home or a remote location. Good workers can often convince their employers of the value of such flexibility and reasonable management practices often recognize the value of such arrangements to the organization's success.

[marothisu]

Land is cheaper in suburbia, so if you want to build a massive campus and HQ, it'll end up being cheaper there versus in a city (ESPECIALLY a city like SF or NYC).

However, there are many tech companies that have many large offices located within cities themselves even if they aren't the HQ. Google, IBM, Microsoft, and Facebook are just a few companies of many that have office space in the middle of large urban cities around the world (well Facebook not "world" yet) usually in high rises or smaller buildings of their own (10-15 stories). These companies have many location sites, not just their HQ. The current trend is actually of the opposite too. Not necessarily HQ, but it's a growing trend that some companies are moving from suburbia back to the city. Gogo Wireless is the latest for the Chicago area.

[chet everett]

Land costs vary widely, if a company like Allstate or McDonalds wanted to gobble a huge chunk of the former US Steel site in the extreme SE corner of Chicago and resell their lovely suburban campuses in Northbrook or Oak Brook they would likely be millions ahead, though they would have a very angry and dispirited work force that would likely leave the companies in droves...

The overall relationship between what kind of office / setting makes the most sense for different kinds of companies is complex and changes over time -- when Sears was located on the West Side the world and the market it served were very different than when it moved into the humongous office tower that once shared its name, Sears' move to Hoffman Estates was similarly an effort to better align the needs of the company with the kind of workforce needed to keep the company vital. The degree to which the move forestalled the firm addressing other issues is also up for debate as it continues to face enormous challenges.