[M II A II R II K]

Would $12,000 Convince You To Move Closer To Work?


May 5, 2011

By Ariel Schwartz

Read More: http://www.fastcompany.com/1751629/would-a-12000-check-convince-you-to-move-closer-to-work

Live Near Your Work grants are reinvigorating East Baltimore neighborhoods: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/dome/0808/headliners1.cfm

Bribing People To Live Near Transit? http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/bribing-people-to-live-near-transit/


How much cash would it take to get you to move closer to your work? For the purposes of this exercise, imagine that your work is in one of the more, shall we say, unsavory parts of Washington, D.C. and you live in a nice, quaint suburb in Virginia. Would you accept $12,000? Washington, D.C.'s Office Of Planning (OP) thinks you might--so the organization is launching a pilot program that will match employer contributions of up to $6,000 to convince people to move closer to their work or public transit.

The initiative, appropriately dubbed the Live Near Your Work program, has a total of $200,000 to hand out to people who are willing to move within two miles of their work, within a half mile of a Metro station, or within a quarter mile of a "high-quality" bus corridor. The OP's reasoning seems simple enough--people who live closer to their work spend less money and time commuting, employers get the benefit of reduced parking costs and "better on time and work performance", and the city gets revitalized neighborhoods and a wider tax base. And theoretically, the region sees less traffic congestion and air pollution.

But there are some problems. Sneaky people could easily take advantage of it by scooping up the cash when they were planning on moving anyway. And the $200,000 pilot anticipates helping up to just 60 employees; D.C. would have to spend tens of millions of dollars to truly shake up the demographic and commuting patterns of the city.

.....

 

[Mapleson]

It's a great intention, but I fail to see how this will have a sustained impact. There would have to be some sort of commitment to live in such a location for a minimum period of, say, 5 years. Even then, if people change jobs their new 'home close to work' is not so close anymore. Finally, in modern society couples often work in different parts of a city, thereby making the scheme improve the commute for one while lengthening the other.

 

[TOareaFan]

It's a great intention, but I fail to see how this will have a sustained impact. There would have to be some sort of commitment to live in such a location for a minimum period of, say, 5 years. Even then, if people change jobs their new 'home close to work' is not so close anymore. Finally, in modern society couples often work in different parts of a city, thereby making the scheme improve the commute for one while lengthening the other.

This is a response that I have been giving to the "why don't people live close to work" crowd for years. The answer is not to wonder why people commute, the answer is to create a full network of bi-directional transit options.

 

[ssiguy2]

I can't stand these "planners" who keep telling us that we should live near where we work..................................I think most of us could figure this out on our own. Who the hell wants to sit in traffic for an hour if they can walk 5 minutes to work? It's shocking that people actually get paid to tell us things any grade2 student could tell you.
I would more than happy to live hwre I work but there is this little thing called money that keeps getting in the way.
The City of Vancouver keep reinforcing this but City Hall is on Vancouver Westside where the average price of a home has reached $1.8 million. Somehow I just don't see the City giving everyone an 500% raise so they can enjoy this option.
Also it truly makes me wonder what decade these people are living in. Hate to break it to these "experts" but it's not 1955. Where one person in the house use to work there are now two. Even if you can afford to live closer to one job could at the same time make the other person in the house have to therefore commute twice as long. If a family lives in Miss. and mom works in Oakville and dad downtown then moving to Oakville for mom only makes dad travel twice as far or vice versa. Also people change jobs far more frequently than they did even 30 years. This "job for life" era is long gone whether that be due to choice or economic realities.

 

[Eug]

$12000? No.

$120000? Maybe.

I wonder how much money this is going to waste though. This should not be publicly funded.

 

[Hipster Duck]

One of the best things about living in Canada versus the United States is that in the US, governments get into the nasty habit of offering perverse subsidies to opposite sides of an issue. On one hand, living in an exurban, auto-oriented community is totally subsidized by driving down free, government-funded highways and by operating urban-style services even in places that are semi-rural in density. What is the solution? Give free money to people who want to live near transit! No wonder so many Americans think government and paying taxes is a waste; in many cases I can't even say that they're wrong!

Canada is a far more "efficient society" to paraphrase Joseph Heath. We wouldn't nearly subsidize sprawl to the same extent and, as a result, we don't have to offer incentives for urban living or dump as much money into transit systems that run mostly empty buses. Part of this has to do with the fact that Canadian policy tends to involve sticks and American policy tends to involve carrots. At the end of the day, the stick route is far more effective.