Commuters Ditched Public Transit for Work From Home. Now There’s a Crisis.

[DominusNovus]

Office utilization is almost, will eventually be, and should be, about 65% of 2019 levels.

Seems too high to me.

Though, utilization should be high - the number of offices should decrease.

 

[jklo]

Seems too high to me.

Though, utilization should be high - the number of offices should decrease.

A fair amount are going to the office regularly. But even then, it's been typically 3 days only (and not 5 like it would have been in 2019)

 

[kdmc]

When we talk utilization, are we talking % of offices leased, or % of desks actually being used on the average day? A "fair amount" if people going in 3/5ths of the time we mean well below 65% desk utilization, so I imagine we must that the 65% number references leases, not desks.

When it comes to transit funding, both leases and desk use matters: the former for monthly passholders, the latter for stored-value riders.

 

[DominusNovus]

A fair amount are going to the office regularly. But even then, it's been typically 3 days only (and not 5 like it would have been in 2019)

None (or near enough to none) of them want to be going into the office. But the entire concept of white collar workers all migrating into an office for 8-9 hrs/day is largely a sunk cost financially and culturally. The fact that so many business execs are wedded to it shows that they're not immune to asinine fallacies.

 

[bigpicture7]

There've been a wide array of sources on this with variety in results depending on what's being measured. Utilization as a whole is not in (and may not reach) the 60%s, but I based on my sentiment above on "peak days" of a hybrid configuration because for most companies that do coordinated hybrid, they need to size their offices for peak days. The peak also represents a sort of theoretical max of transit usage (of that specific type of worker). See here as one source with one way of measuring this.

 

[bigpicture7]

None (or near enough to none) of them want to be going into the office. But the entire concept of white collar workers all migrating into an office for 8-9 hrs/day is largely a sunk cost financially and culturally. The fact that so many business execs are wedded to it shows that they're not immune to asinine fallacies.

There is not one type of "white collar" work. Some work doesn't need to be in person; some benefits from it; some requires it. A portion of my colleagues have no obligation to be in the office; how often they come in has correlated at least somewhat with commuting challenges, including T shutdowns and slow zones. In my past life I worked a largely office-type technical managerial position that had strong adjacencies to physical hardware development. I had no obligation to be next to the physical hardware for some target-% of the time; yet, I chose to be because it was freaking cool and so were the people.

Not everyone hates being in the office. Some of us actually really like collegial discussions with our coworkers over a beverage.

I can agree with you that office utilization ought to have a dramatic reduction relative to pre-pandemic without agreeing with you that no white collar workers have any desire to be in/near their office or colleagues. Not everyone hates coming in, dude. I am with you in that it ought to be a choice. My point is simply that it is a different choice depending on how much the commute sucks.

 

[bigpicture7]

When we talk utilization, are we talking % of offices leased, or % of desks actually being used on the average day? A "fair amount" if people going in 3/5ths of the time we mean well below 65% desk utilization, so I imagine we must that the 65% number references leases, not desks.

When it comes to transit funding, both leases and desk use matters: the former for monthly passholders, the latter for stored-value riders.

My thinking was reflecting peak days of a hybrid config (see post above). I agree that average transit use (by those types of individuals) would be less when spread over 5 days.

 

[DBM]

Not everyone hates being in the office. Some of us actually really like collegial discussions with our coworkers over a beverage.

Although the point of an office is of course to pool workers efficiently to maximize productivity so as to increase competitiveness/eventual ROI, a secondary benefit to it is that, IF it's a non-toxic officeplace culture that employees enjoy convening at, then it may help alleviate the loneliness epidemic among lifelong single/unattached employees.

We are the most social species that this planet has ever seen; without socializing, our cognitive functions/mental health declines rapidly, given how it is hardwired into our genetic makeup. Socializing saves lives.

 

[FK4]

I'll also observe that even though transit ridership is still lower than pre-pandemic levels, VMT is back to normal and increasing. People are not going to work as often, but they are going somewhere.

Why are they choosing to drive instead of ride transit? Perhaps it's because their destinations are longer range, and/or less predictible, and/or less radial than the traditional 5day/wk commute to and from the office. Or, perhaps it's because service is worse now. Probably, it's both.

This first hypothesis is something I have not seen discussed, but for me at least a big one I have experienced. Working from home also has created a massive amount of additional flexibility. For example, I might have a zoom meeting at 9 and another a 1, but that means that I might choose to go shopping, buy lunch, or run other errands in the day. I wonder if examining how and when people are running errands would explain a lot of the increase back to normal of VMT. First, a lot of people I know who do, or did, use public transportation for work commutes would rarely use it to run errands. The benefit to choosing to take a much longer time to get to a destination is in large part related to how long you're going to be there. If it takes me twice as long on the T to get work for 8 hours, that problem is outweighed by the hassle of traffic, expense of parking, etc. But if I want to go pick out new furniture or go to an appointment, things that take only an hour, it's much harder sell if that trip takes 15 min by car but 45min by the T. Now, this matters even more if you're trying to cram in a trip to the dentist when you have 2 hours between zoom meetings, for example: I think people are often trying to seize pockets of time they have to go get stuff done while working from home, and when you are already at home, it tends to be both physically easier and also psychologically easier to just hop into the car and go get something done, versus the barriers to doing this if you were at the office in downtown (where even if you might have driven, you have to walk to the car, etc—it's harder). Add in the fact that people traditionally used the weekends to get many errands done. You have a series of errands, and you do them all on Saturday, yes with a car, but it's still only one trip. The allure to get some of these things done in the middle of the day might mean that people are actually making more individual trips in the weekday, rather than clustering trips one a single day. It has certainly seemed to me that there is more auto traffic within Boston and Cambridge during the weekday than there used to be.

In any case, this is going to be a real challenge for which there really aren't easy solutions. We definitely need more investment in public transit and good transit does induce demand, but no amount of investment will change the fact that auto-centric settlement patterns are deeply woven into our way of life. In either truly dense urban environments like medieval European cities, or in very large and reasonably dense cities like in Manhattan, perhaps you can find almost everything you need by walking and transit fairly easily. But in most of the US, it's just not like that. Even if residential density was 5 times what it is, that doesnt change the fact that our shops and small business are flung all across highways (and often, for any niche service interest or shop, it's less and less likely to find that in city given rents, so more likely you're gonna be driving out to 495 or at least 128 to find it). We've unfortunately created a built environment that just doesn't work well with anything other than auto travel, but cant really sustain any more cars on the road, so here we are, at an impasse. It's hard to really see how this changes without any truly society-level restructuring, which has about a zero percent chance of happening.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Although the point of an office is of course to pool workers efficiently to maximize productivity so as to increase competitiveness/eventual ROI, a secondary benefit to it is that, IF it's a non-toxic officeplace culture that employees enjoy convening at, then it may help alleviate the loneliness epidemic among lifelong single/unattached employees.

We are the most social species that this planet has ever seen; without socializing, our cognitive functions/mental health declines rapidly, given how it is hardwired into our genetic makeup. Socializing saves lives.

But the counterpoint to forced socialization at work is that a society is really sick, if work is the only social outlet for individuals. As a society Americas literally live to work -- which is also not healthy.

If WFH allow individuals to better engage in social activities they want to be part of (rather the social activates that are forced upon them -- looking at you HR team building exercises), then WFH can increase the quality of individual social interactions.

 

[bigpicture7]

But the counterpoint to forced socialization at work is that a society is really sick, if work is the only social outlet for individuals. As a society Americas literally live to work -- which is also not healthy.

If WFH allow individuals to better engage in social activities they want to be part of (rather the social activates that are forced upon them -- looking at you HR team building exercises), then WFH can increase the quality of individual social interactions.

You have a point only for cases where the social interaction is forced. Employers providing a positive work culture coupled with a nicely equipped facility for optional/discretionary interacting is a good thing that is not automatically a facet of American-style worker exploitation. Yes, right-sizing such a facility is indeed a challenge and will continue to take some time to figure out. And, btw, having worked for a short while in Europe, it is definitely untrue that people there don't voluntarily socialize with work colleagues; in fact, that probably happens more so there than here (oh, and, their commutes are usually better and transit is better....hmmm).

I've seen both sides of this debate argued passionately. Yes, it is profoundly unhealthy for the only way to put food on the table being to sell your soul to a corporation. On the other hand, let's not demonize actually liking one's work or one's coworkers. God forbid we like hanging out with the people we work with, including making choices about how we spend our time on our careers based on such. I for one have certainly been in both situations (e.g., wanting to vs. very much not wanting to socialize with coworkers).

 

[kdmc]

In either truly dense urban environments like medieval European cities, or in very large and reasonably dense cities like in Manhattan, perhaps you can find almost everything you need by walking and transit fairly easily. But in most of the US, it's just not like that.

For much of the US, sure, but when we zoom in on the Boston urban area, I have to disagree. I accomplish almost all of my errands around Somerville without a car. Groceries, clothes, medical appointments, exercise, hardware needs, even niche things like single-origin spices, they're all a walk or ride away. About once a week I need to actually drive somewhere to get something.

Now, some caveats:

* I'm reasonably fit. But: more ebikes and better busses would make that unneccessary.
* I'm brave enough to ride with traffic. But: better bike infra would make that unneccessary.
* Camberville is especially awesome in terms of having good small businesses everywhere. But: zoning and tax policy can be adjusted to help this be true across more of Greater Boston.
* I don't have kids. But: all the above would make this lifestyle more tractable for people with kids.

In the end, plenty of people survive without cars in Boston because they have no choice. Those of us with cars, well, when we do use them, it's not usually neccessary, it's a choice and a privilege.

I don't buy the "woven into our culture" thing. Culture changes, damn it. Nobody likes sitting in traffic. Less and less kids are getting driver's license each year. Boston is plenty dense to make walking/biking/transit not only a viable, but an attractive choice.

 

[JeffDowntown]

For much of the US, sure, but when we zoom in on the Boston urban area, I have to disagree. I accomplish almost all of my errands around Somerville without a car. Groceries, clothes, medical appointments, exercise, hardware needs, even niche things like single-origin spices, they're all a walk or ride away. About once a week I need to actually drive somewhere to get something.

Now, some caveats:

* I'm reasonably fit. But: more ebikes and better busses would make that unneccessary.
* I'm brave enough to ride with traffic. But: better bike infra would make that unneccessary.
* Camberville is especially awesome in terms of having good small businesses everywhere. But: zoning and tax policy can be adjusted to help this be true across more of Greater Boston.
* I don't have kids. But: all the above would make this lifestyle more tractable for people with kids.

In the end, plenty of people survive without cars in Boston because they have no choice. Those of us with cars, well, when we do use them, it's not usually neccessary, it's a choice and a privilege.

I don't buy the "woven into our culture" thing. Culture changes, damn it. Nobody likes sitting in traffic. Less and less kids are getting driver's license each year. Boston is plenty dense to make walking/biking/transit not only a viable, but an attractive choice.

I understand that cultures can change, but you are describing Somerville as an example, and Somerville is the most densely populated city or town in the Commonwealth, 19th densest in the USA. It is very much an outlier in terms of concentration of neighborhood commercial options to support living.

Walkable density (and even transit friendly density) is in direct contrast to the post-WWII "American Dream" of owning a McMansion on an acre plot surrounded by other acre plots and conservation land. The "American Dream" is a car centric culture.

 

[kdmc]

I understand that cultures can change, but you are describing Somerville as an example, and Somerville is the most densely populated city or town in the Commonwealth, 19th densest in the USA. It is very much an outlier in terms of concentration of neighborhood commercial options to support living.

Walkable density (and even transit friendly density) is in direct contrast to the post-WWII "American Dream" of owning a McMansion on an acre plot surrounded by other acre plots and conservation land. The "American Dream" is a car centric culture.

I am talking about the Boston metro area, particularly the MAPC Inner Core. I'm not deluded to think that rural/suburban America will switch off of cars in the near future (although there is plenty of incremental improvement that can be made to small town centers, as Strong Towns advocates for, but I digress).

Somerville is the densest on paper, but that is at least partially due to the lack of large parks, office parks, or strip malls, keeping the denominator (land area) low. Plenty of other parts of the Inner Core have, or could support, the same level of density as Somerville, including most of Boston proper.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I am talking about the Boston metro area, particularly the MAPC Inner Core. I'm not deluded to think that rural/suburban America will switch off of cars in the near future (although there is plenty of incremental improvement that can be made to small town centers, as Strong Towns advocates for, but I digress).

Somerville is the densest on paper, but that is at least partially due to the lack of large parks, office parks, or strip malls, keeping the denominator (land area) low. Plenty of other parts of the Inner Core have, or could support, the same level of density as Somerville, including most of Boston proper.

I don't question that the Boston inner core should have as a goal car-free living potential. But outside the urban core, few of our towns are designed for that (a few town centers can work). It is part of the reason why we have such a housing crunch -- large lot zoning for single family homes.

 

[RandomWalk]

But the counterpoint to forced socialization at work is that a society is really sick, if work is the only social outlet for individuals. As a society Americas literally live to work -- which is also not healthy.

If WFH allow individuals to better engage in social activities they want to be part of (rather the social activates that are forced upon them -- looking at you HR team building exercises), then WFH can increase the quality of individual social interactions.

There is the joke about an American and a European employee sending OOO emails. The European sends an email announcing a new kid and says they will be unavailable for the next year. The American sends an email announcing they need to have a kidney removed, but they will be available via email, text, etc except when they’re under anesthesia.

 

[jarvismj]

There is the joke about an American and a European employee sending OOO emails. The European sends an email announcing a new kid and says they will be unavailable for the next year. The American sends an email announcing they need to have a kidney removed, but they will be available via email, text, etc except when they’re under anesthesia.

As a former employee of Oracle Deutschland, I can confirm this.

 

[FK4]

For much of the US, sure, but when we zoom in on the Boston urban area, I have to disagree. I accomplish almost all of my errands around Somerville without a car. Groceries, clothes, medical appointments, exercise, hardware needs, even niche things like single-origin spices, they're all a walk or ride away. About once a week I need to actually drive somewhere to get something.

Now, some caveats:

* I'm reasonably fit. But: more ebikes and better busses would make that unneccessary.
* I'm brave enough to ride with traffic. But: better bike infra would make that unneccessary.
* Camberville is especially awesome in terms of having good small businesses everywhere. But: zoning and tax policy can be adjusted to help this be true across more of Greater Boston.
* I don't have kids. But: all the above would make this lifestyle more tractable for people with kids.

In the end, plenty of people survive without cars in Boston because they have no choice. Those of us with cars, well, when we do use them, it's not usually neccessary, it's a choice and a privilege.

I don't buy the "woven into our culture" thing. Culture changes, damn it. Nobody likes sitting in traffic. Less and less kids are getting driver's license each year. Boston is plenty dense to make walking/biking/transit not only a viable, but an attractive choice.

You live in an area that is incredibly privileged with its rich diversity of businesses owing to a nice combination of urban density and economic affluence, and it's all accessible by walking. The same is not true for basically any other suburb outside Boston. Some are dense but dont have the diversity of high quality businesses; others have good business but not density. Also, Cam/Somerville are unaffordable for almost anyone with a family. Yeah, it sure would be nice to have kids there, but few have kids there, for a reason.

Don't buy that cars are "woven into our culture"? The reason Cambridge and Somerville are great is because the settlement pattern was established around the absence of cars. That's not the case with the vast majority of the burbs around here. When you build whole towns, roads, neighborhoods over decades around cars, you get the problems we have. Braintree is never going to be Cambridge unless you have some Maoist degree of revolutionary change. Your particular geographic niche works well because it predates the car, but it's not so simple as just taking cars away in other locales and we all get our pretty Cambridge utopia. Even the best urbanist principles will never come close to that without some serious demolition. The trends of auto misery and people wanting to opt out are only somewhat encouraging to me. Why? Because the only places where "good urbanism" exists are basically impossible to attain without being rich and usually childless. This is only exacerbating deeper cultural and political problems where all the enlightened people live in these Williamsburgs and think everywhere should be like that, and just don't get whey they're not. And for all the smart growth and ToD and what have you, those are tiny details compared to what needs to happen. It would take two more orders of magnitude to actually build something like Cambridge today, regardless of de novo or in Newton. It would be great. Camberville ought to be more or less what we rebuilt toward, if the revolution ever happened. But the degree to which this is unachievable is lost in these debates, and tinkering in details is not getting us much closer to getting people to walk more and live better. This isn't a simple matter of zoning and tax changes. If you rezoned to 6 stories on every main drag, blew of all the cup de sacs, shuttered homes in lower density areas, and herded the population into new village centers, we'd be getting somewhere. But that's literally what it will take, and anything less is really just gonna leave us with some bike lanes, an apartment building here and there, and the same bland and boring SFH streets of the sides. And that is never gonna be a settlement pattern that gets people out of cars. Run a bus lane down Somerville Ave and people take it. Run a bus lane down Lowell St in Newton, why would they?

At any rate, my point isn't what you can do without a car even in Cambridge, but the fact that zoom working leaves small holes in people's schedules where they can accomplish certain errands quickly. I never said any of this was necessary, just observing what is happening.

 

[kdmc]

Some are dense but dont have the diversity of high quality businesses; others have good business but not density.

OK, let's support business growth in these places. Not easy, but not a "Maoist level of revolutionary change" either.

That's not the case with the vast majority of the burbs around here.

The Inner Core contains mostly streetcar suburbs. 1.6 million people, almost a quarter of MA's population.

usually childless

Right, nobody in Camberville has kids, got it.

all the enlightened people live in these Williamsburgs and think everywhere should be like that, and just don't get whey they're not

Just because I want things to be different doesn't mean I don't understand why they are the way they are. When I visit my old friends back in suburbia I don't preach to them about not driving--it's literally not a choice there, I get it. But the Inner Core isn't suburbia.

rezoned to 6 stories on every main drag

This is literally possible. It'll take relentless advocacy and politicians with courage, but it's possible.

blew of all the cup de sacs, shuttered homes in lower density areas

Sorry, what? The average US city is 22% parking by surface area. We could infill like maniacs for decades without needing to touch suburban neighborhoods.

bike lanes, an apartment building here and there, and the same bland and boring SFH streets of the sides.

With this disappointing future on one end, and Maoist Urbanist Revolution Utopia on the other, I think there is something in the middle that is actually achievable in the next couple generations.

 

[DominusNovus]

and the same bland and boring SFH streets of the sides.

Just gonna point out that people *like* bland and boring SFHs.

Right, nobody in Camberville has kids, got it.

There is a *very* strong negative correlation between population density and family size. Which is the cause and which is the effect is less obvious (most likely a feedback loop), but it is there.