Think about how much work you can get done in 6 weeks at work. That is what is being lost because I live in a state/city that puts infrastructure projects near the bottom of the priority list.
Think about how much work you can get done in 6 weeks at work. That is what is being lost because I live in a state/city that puts infrastructure projects near the bottom of the priority list.
I'm not belittling your problem or saying that it's your own fault or anything, and it's empirically true that that short commutes contribute significantly to QoL, but more or better infrastructure is not (should not be) the goal. The mantra (which has become the norm in transportation research, to a lesser degree in professional transportation planning circles and only to a small degree in policy circles) is 'we don't need better mobility, we need better accessibility'.
To make this more concrete, you don't need better roads, you need better jobs close to your home. But you'll only get these once this becomes the common sentiment and people start voting with their feet. Because what you're doing now (take better job in exchange for worse commute) only makes the overall situation worse - more people competing for jobs in central locations, and/or people trading bigger houses further away for a longer commute.
A lot of work is being started (in Europe, I know little details of efforts elsewhere but from the current literature it seems this is a global trend) on getting people to change their sentiments on transport and home/work location. It will take a number of years for the first effects to show of course. Just spatial planning policy interventions take 10 years to become active, let alone for their effects to be significant.
European here. Could you point to some ressources on that work being started in Europe ?
Furthermore (and again without having anything concrete at hand), there are regularly articles that cover aspects of this in the usual journals: European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Transportation, Transportation Journal, Transportation Science etc.
The big trends to deal with this now are improving transport (which you argue against), moving people into dense centres (which you seem tacitly against) and remote working (which is a trend in tech but hasn't taken off in any other industry).
There is little to suggest that smaller centres will be the focus of future economic activity, though I'd be interested in your sources. this is my field as an urban deisgner by the way
- I see as the only long-term sustainable trend for much more people to move into smaller, much more densely populated areas - megacities. But there are no (not yet) facts that corroborate this claim, although more people in my field and adjacent fields are at least informally starting to share this idea. Not that it's very relevant what the objective situation is - many people feel cities are Bad and think we need to move away from them. And politics follows popular opinion, on macro topics like this.
- 'Accessibility' is not just 'smaller centres'. Without wanting to get into the debate over which of the 5000 definitions is the 'right' one, what I meant was that thinking of time it takes to get to different places in terms of 'we need to increase rush hour capacity so that I can get to work faster' is (apologies to the GP, not meant personally) stupid. The congestion-decreasing effect of adding a lane on a main artery lasts, give or take a few years, 5 years. After that, people have adapted to the new circumstances - i.e. bought houses further away from where they work, because it's cheaper there (in the first years after the intervention) and thereby made the problem worse.
- I disagree with your assertion that the trend to build more and wider roads and more public transport are a way to deal with concentration of economic activity on less area. Moving people into dense centres is, but 'improving transport' is (imo) a band aid to deal with negative externalities of densification - i.e. rising house prices, lagged upgrades of amenities in areas that increase in density, etc. Said in a less roundabout, academic and cautious way: politician build more roads to deal with constituents bitching about not being able to buy a detached house with 10 ares of lawn for their children to play on in the area where I work, and look there are plenty of houses in that shithole farm town over there, just build a road and I'll vote for you.
I'm not quite sure any more where exactly I'm going with this to be honest, just wanted to say that the solution to transportation issues is not 'build more roads' but 'create an environment in which people will naturally need to travel less'. But building roads is easier, of course.
I agree on roads being a band aid and pushing people further out, which if it continues requires exponential additions to roadways, which is impossible. Metro rail, on the other hand, is a different thing in allowing accessibility across the dense centre. The most effective 'acessibility' I can see is rail stations as the focal points of density.
So why aren't more localities actually innovating around this principle instead of blaming their constituents?
Off the top of my head:
* Encourage telecommuting
* Encourage flexible work schedules
* Encourage new product delivery systems: delivery groceries, delivery laundry, Seamless, Uber, etc.
* Hold employers accountable for commute times, especially in the absence of telecommuting and flexible work schedules
* Make employers accountable for reassigning employees (you're working across town now, but it's still within driving distance, so no relocation benefits)
Better accessibility (and higher density) would also mean a leaner city services staff needed to service it all, so it's understandable a municipal bureaucracy is not going to be the prime advocate of that.
My commute is 1 hour each way and it's wonderful. Having a busy job and 2 kids means I have a lot to do at work and at home, but those 2 hors a day are entirely my own.
Mostly I listen to podcasts and audiobooks, but I also carry an iPad and read on that when I get a seat on the train. It's a great opportunity to listen to novels, history and science podcasts, comedy shows or read material I wouldn't get a chance to otherwise. Podcasts and audiobooks are perfect for car journeys too though.
Why? He listens to podcasts and audiobooks, something which can be done while driving.
There were over 30,000 traffic deaths in 2012. Over 5,000,000 automobile accidents. Yes, listening to audio while driving can be enjoyable, but it is a secondary task to not dying or not killing someone else.
Seriously? You have to spend a lot of time worrying about stuff like that?
If you're stuck in a crawling rush hour commute, your only concern might be to not rear-end the car in front of you. Commutes in general are often described as being boring and routine, not something that you have to have your senses heightened in order to escape from with your life: think about driving along the highway for 15 minutes, straight ahead.
> Yes, listening to audio while driving can be enjoyable, but it is a secondary task to not dying or not killing someone else.
Of course, the usual fearmongering. We're talking about listening to audiobooks, not blasting techno or death metal at obscene volumes so that you can't hear your surroundings. Driving a car is a pretty routine task which, while we should always have respect for the terrible destructive power it has, being constantly worried about everything that might possibly go wrong is just going to sizzle our nerves. Just being alert and present in the moment is sufficient for a lot of routine driving.
And sure, commutes are routine, but you're not driving with the same people every day under the same conditions. I've lost count of the times I had to evade someone doing something stupid.
You haven't tasted freedom, my friend. Commuting hours are enslaved hours. I have the fortune of a 15 minute bike ride to work. The extra hours in my week can be spent in any old direction, not just listening to podcasts. I can go to the bank, sit in a coffee shop, play some guitar, whatever.
Its not lost time, I spend 1h on day on Hacker News and Reddit anyway. I would do the exact same thing at home. Im writting this comment from the train. I also have my personal media collection, a book, a kindle and my laptop.
I agree. My commute used to be 20min each way with car, but now I take the train which means my commute went up to 50min each way. When commuting with the car I somehow couldn't get myself around to reading or learning new things when arriving home, even though I had the 1h/day more time on my hands. I tried different things but none of them seemed to stick, so then I just thought to myself screw it, I'll take the train and the longer commute. Haven't regretted that decision one bit.
Couple of positive things I've noticed after taking the train. I'm more productive in the office as I get things rolling already on my commute (note that I don't do any work stuff on my commute) and if I've had productive day at the office I'm productive on the commute back, which leads I also get things done at home :) Also as the commute time is timeboxed I don't muck about so I'm focused on the task at hand. I usually switch between reading/coding/learning depending on the mood of the day.
People who live close to the office manage to cook nice meals, exercise, spend time with family etc all while I'm commuting.
The most I manage is replying to a few emails and listening to podcasts while standing up on the train with carriage after carriage of commuters.
Isn't it rather because you choose to live 12 miles from work?
Living right by work is optimal, but not always practical, so the runner-up of solid transit is a good alternative.
That's not true at all.
I'm from London, which has a pretty extensive subway system (we call it the tube). The only way you'll do a 12 mile* tube journey in 40 minutes in London is if you (i) live and work on the same subway line, and (ii) have <2 minutes' walk at each end. This is not true for 99% of people.
Sure, you could build more tube stations at great expense, to reduce the walking time, but more stops means more time stopped, which means more time spent in the tube.
I've lived in Beijing and Shanghai, and what I've written above, in reference to London, applies almost equally in those two cities.
*When I say '12 mile' above, I'm talking about the equivalent journey by road, not the 'as the crow flies' distance between two points, nor the distance the tube train travels.
I would have liked going down to ~20 minutes but beyond that it's entering into diminishing returns territory & I'd much rather work fewer hours and/or from home instead.
So you always have to go into a hub (city center in Nottingham, London in England), and then walk & wait around for a new bus/train (or tube from station to station in London).
This significantly increases journey times to anywhere that's not the hub. Also the assholes charge £20 more for having the gall to go through London, even though that's precisely how they set the system up. So now to get to my home town I either have to get 4 trains outside of London, or 2 and a tube through London.
It's more economical and profitable for the bus/train companies, but costs everyone not going to the central hub a lot of time.
I just do shift based on core hours I need to be in the office, as does everyone in the company.