Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't necessarily see how telecommuting will save the suburbs. There's no necessary reason that someone with the flexibility to choose a house without a commute would pick a suburb. More likely, if they work from home they would want to be somewhere less isolated.
I once entertained the idea of getting a three-day telecommute job and buying a little place in the Appalachian foothills 2+ hours from the jobsite. When I talked to others who had done similar, they seemed a little lonely. That, plus the chance of isolation from other employment in the event of a layoff, made me decide it wasn't a great idea for me.
I once entertained the idea of getting a three-day telecommute job and buying a little place in the Appalachian foothills 2+ hours from the jobsite. When I talked to others who had done similar, they seemed a little lonely. That, plus the chance of isolation from other employment in the event of a layoff, made me decide it wasn't a great idea for me.
Yep.
In the end, we are all social animals.
"Productivity at work", comes not only during official work hours, but in those after hours, random interactions that take place... maybe in and around the workplace. Steve Jobs knew that, and you will see that mentioned in his biography.
Yep.
In the end, we are all social animals.
"Productivity at work", comes not only during official work hours, but in those after hours, random interactions that take place... maybe in and around the workplace. Steve Jobs knew that, and you will see that mentioned in his biography.
In other words, choose which 16 hours you want to work! No thanks!
There's no necessary reason that someone with the flexibility to choose a house without a commute would pick a suburb.
True, however the reverse is true as well. Some people are sensitive to the cost of living in an area and the soft costs associated with it as well. Some will find the suburbs more friendly in those regards. Why would I, as a remote employee want to live in the CBD? So I can pay 4 times more for a place to live and 4 times more in taxes? So I can listen to the constant noise of sirens? So I can enjoy the distracting noise of neighbors above, below and next to me while I try to work? In addition my SO doesn't work in the CBD, he works in a suburban business district close to our home. How is it better for him to swap a short commute for a longer one? There's no necessary reason that someone with flexibility to choose a house without a commute would pick an urban area. Some will and some won't depending on their personal circumstances and needs.
Here's another point, I think a great deal about employing this concept in Hong Kong.
I have observed that - for properties of similar quality - property prices drop by
$XX per square foot, for every minute of commuting time away from the CBD.
Thus, a similar 2BR flat might cost: (this is just an illustration)
Commute -- Per Sq. Ft. : Difference- : Saved- : Per min.
05 minutes : HK$18,000 : Baseline -- : - N/A - :
10 minutes : HK$15,000 : HK$03,000 : 05 mins : HK$600 :
20 minutes : HK$11,000 : HK$07,000 : 15 mins : HK$467 :
30 minutes : HK$08,000 : HK$10,000 : 25 mins : HK$400 :
========
This only makes sense. The more time saved, the more people will pay for the property. And people with high salaries will be willing to pay more to save a minute of precious time.
This sort of difference is easy to calculate in HK, because there is one main CBD, with the highest paying jobs (Central.) And commuting by MTR tends to be the quickest way.
The same sort of grid could be worked out for buses, or commuting by car, but the times are more variable, depending on traffic, weather and the time of day.
The same sort of grid could be worked out for buses, or commuting by car, but the times are more variable, depending on traffic, weather and the time of day.
Bit more complicated than that. The Bus is never faster than the car.
Rail can be faster than a car in limited circumstances and not everyone works in the CBD(i.e. One company I worked for had offices downtown and in two locations in the burbs. ).
Also time on what kind of transit system?
1:30 hours worth of transit on the CTA and you can still be in the city. 1:30 hours worth of transit on Metra and you are far in the burbs.
Bit more complicated than that. The Bus is never faster than the car. .
Can be. If it's in a dedicated lane it can sail past congested auto traffic. An express bus I used to take was much faster than sitting in rush hour traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
Rail can be faster than a car in limited circumstances and not everyone works in the CBD(i.e. One company I worked for had offices downtown and in two locations in the burbs. )..
All depends on highway congestion. It's pretty common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
1:30 hours worth of transit on the CTA and you can still be in the city. 1:30 hours worth of transit on Metra and you are far in the burbs.
Huh? From the loop to Oak Park on the CTA green line, right now, is 32 minutes. (worth noting that by car it's 36 minutes right now).
Can be. If it's in a dedicated lane it can sail past congested auto traffic. An express bus I used to take was much faster than sitting in rush hour traffic.
All depends on highway congestion. It's pretty common.
Huh? From the loop to Oak Park on the CTA green line, right now, is 32 minutes. (worth noting that by car it's 36 minutes right now).
Yes but from say my old place on the west side of Chicago to my new place on the south side it would be close to an 1:30. It would be green or blue line to Red line, Red line south to 95th.
Metra to Oak Park would be around 15 minutes but again Metra only runs trains about once an hour outside of rush. If there is no rush hour traffic I could drive to downtown faster than 30 mins from oak park and I would not have to wait an hour.
Chicago has very little space for dedicated express bus lanes and there would be revolt if you installed them in anything but the most busy places in the city and even with dedicated express lanes the bus makes stops the car will not stop till it's destination. The bus's route can not go directly to all desintations(i.e. need to transfer), can can go door to door. The car will always be faster than the bus unless the bus is non stop and a non stop bus is very limited in use.
Yes but from say my old place on the west side of Chicago to my new place on the south side it would be close to an 1:30. It would be green or blue line to Red line, Red line south to 95th. .
OK, so then what you said doesn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
Metra to Oak Park would be around 15 minutes but again Metra only runs trains about once an hour. If there is no rush hour traffic I could drive to downtown faster than 30 mins from oak park and I would not have to wait an hour.
OK, but
1)there is traffic. Traffic happens. There will never not be traffic during peak hours.
2) You said CTA can't get you out of the city under 90 minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
Chicago has very little space for dedicated express bus lanes and there would be revolt if you installed them in anything but the most busy places in the city and even with dedicated express lanes the bus makes stops the car will not stop till it's destination. .
Oh, we were talking only about Chicago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
The bus's route can not go directly to all desintations(i.e. need to transfer), can can go door to door. The car will always be faster than the bus unless the bus is non stop and a non stop bus is very limited in use.
So cars are always faster than buses, except when they aren't. Got it.
Something you did not mention is time taken to park, I'm not sure if Chicago has self-parking cars or something.
OK, but
1)there is traffic. Traffic happens. There will never not be traffic during peak hours.
2) You said CTA can't get you out of the city under 90 minutes.
No, It can get you out faster than 90 mins. It is when you want to move around the city(stay within it's boarders that it can take a long time to get from point to point).
Quote:
So cars are faster than buses, except when they aren't. Got it.
Generally yes.
Quote:
Something you did not mention is time taken to park, I'm not sure if Chicago has self-parking cars or something.
Depends on where you are going. Loop parking is a problem. Lincoln park, lakeview, Gold Coast, somewhat Bucktown parking is a problem. Elsewhere mostly not a problem.
If I lived in lakeview and worked in the loop and rented an apartment then the car could become more trouble than it is worth. Loop expensive parking, Lakeview expensive and lack of on the street parking. Apartments often do not have parking in Chicago. Regulations on street parking that do not favor cars sitting long periods without moving....
If I live where I live now and work downtown, well I have a garage and street parking. I would take public transit because I don't want to pay downtown parking but keeping a car for other uses not so bad. If I worked in Chinatown then the car becomes more attractive the farther away from the cermack street station I go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
