tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post928131998266485145..comments2023-11-05T04:34:10.303-05:00Comments on The Naked City: Looking at congestion a different wayUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post-10210687420483017712010-10-07T10:59:30.102-04:002010-10-07T10:59:30.102-04:00Consistently throughout history, Americans have gr...Consistently throughout history, Americans have gravitated towards a half-hour commute, be it walking in colonial times, streetcar in the industrial era, or driving now.<br /><br />What happens in bigger cities like Chicago is that employment has followed population desiring a half-hour commute. And the more congested a city becomes, then the shorter the average commute in total distance to retain about a half-hour commute.<br /><br />And the half-hour rule is even mode neutral. Those who prefer not to drive (choice commuters, not transit-dependents) will seek out their residence within a half-hour transit, walking or biking route of work. Just as those who prefer to drive will choose where to live and work so as to achieve about a half-hour commute.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post-14143165603413554752010-10-05T20:26:30.720-04:002010-10-05T20:26:30.720-04:00Mary, I know you've gone on to another blog po...Mary, I know you've gone on to another blog posting but several of us have had questions about this study. Could you please explain in layman's terms how the report came up with the commuting distances for Charlotte versus Chicago? Do you agree with their findings? Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post-11136054088400628762010-10-05T16:27:16.810-04:002010-10-05T16:27:16.810-04:00Is it traffic delays vs. traffic? That is a bit co...Is it traffic delays vs. traffic? That is a bit confusing in the article. It seems as though the Texas study is focused on CONGESTION while this study is focused on DRIVE TIME. I would think CONGESTION is more important. <br /><br />From the article - <br /><br />"The report essentially makes the point that longer commutes are the main cause of time in traffic, not congestion per se."<br /><br />WOW, who would have guessed that longer driving commutes would result in longer times in "traffic."<br /><br />Essentially, the report says that longer commutes causue longer drive-times. That is common sense. The Texas report's goal is to identify CONGESTION. The Texas report puts all cities on a level playing field by specifically excluding factors such as distance traveled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post-11302832635351154712010-10-05T16:07:07.618-04:002010-10-05T16:07:07.618-04:00"Chicago has a TTI of 1.43 (the second highes..."Chicago has a TTI of 1.43 (the second highest overall, behind only Los Angeles), while Charlotte has a TTI of 1.25 (just about equal to the average for all large metropolitan areas). This would appear to indicate that urban travel conditions are far worse in Chicago. But the traffic delays in the two regions are almost identical (40 and 41 hours per year, or about 10 minutes per day). Chicago has average travel distances (for peak hour trips) of 13.5 miles, while Charlotte has average travel distances of 19 miles. Because they travel nearly 50 percent farther then their counterparts in Chicago, Charlotte travelers end up spending a lot more time in traffic, about 48 minutes per day, rather than 33 minutes per day."<br /><br /><br />It says traffic delays are 10 minutes per day in each city at the begining and then 33 and 48 minutes per day later. Which is correct?<br /><br />Because if both cities spend an average of 10 minutes in traffic per day, and Charlotte drivers travel further, then it makes sense that Chicago is worse b/c you have the same congestion in less distance traveled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post-78228175714754523512010-10-05T11:20:53.218-04:002010-10-05T11:20:53.218-04:00Ditto on the telecommuting.
The only congestion p...Ditto on the telecommuting.<br /><br />The only congestion problem I have is stepping over the dog to get to the kitchen for another cup of coffee.... :)Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16724304929284753847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post-21839173711905365072010-10-05T09:16:51.723-04:002010-10-05T09:16:51.723-04:00Good post, 7:55. Lots of people live inside 485.
...Good post, 7:55. Lots of people live inside 485. <br /><br />I also endorse telecommuting. Been doing it for over 2 years and while I miss seeing my colleagues, I have Skype and other tools that keep me connected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post-75054595826783333372010-10-05T08:49:58.193-04:002010-10-05T08:49:58.193-04:00Anonymous at 7:55 again. Are the average travel di...Anonymous at 7:55 again. Are the average travel distances for Charlotte and Chicago one way or round trip? 19 miles round trip for Charlotte would make sense to me; however I would still have a hard time believing the 13.5 miles round trip for Chicago. Of course, there are some variables. In the Chicago area there are lots of business centers outside the loop so many suburbanites might be traveling to places much closer to their homes. We're just beginning to get some of that in the Charlotte area (Ballantyne, University area, Tryon/Arrowood/485). Can you sort it all out for us, Mary?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post-64923475676549313782010-10-05T07:55:42.408-04:002010-10-05T07:55:42.408-04:00I'm a little confused by the Chicago versus Ch...I'm a little confused by the Chicago versus Charlotte data. How do they come up with an average commute in Charlotte of 19 miles? According to Mapquest, Weddington is about 16 miles from uptown via Providence Road and Waxhaw is 23 mile. Huntersville is about 14 miles; Davidson is 21 miles. Mint Hill is a little under 13 miles. Concord is about 20 miles. I know lots of people live in these outlying areas and beyond, but do the vast majority of commuters go to far outlying areas? What about all the people that live within the 485 loop, which I suspect is a greater number of commuters than lives outside the loop (I live close to 485 in the south and we are about 11 miles from uptown)? <br />I've also lived in Chicago and wonder about the average commute of 13.5 miles. In the 70's, when I lived there, the commute to the suburbs was tough and long, and I imagine those suburbs and roads are a lot more crowded now. The distance from downtown Chicago to the suburb of Libertyville is over 34 miles, Palatine 29 miles, Hoffman Estates 27 miles. These are all popular places to live and there are many more huge suburban towns like them and just as far out, if not farther. <br />Could you explain how you or they came up with average commuting distance? Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post-58620492369741156072010-10-04T18:09:35.090-04:002010-10-04T18:09:35.090-04:00Another vote for telecommuting, when possible. If...Another vote for telecommuting, when possible. If we'd just get these old school gray hair managers and execs to understand that white collar work is about the amount and quality of the work produced, and not the number of hours your butt is at your desk chair, we could lose enough traffic in key areas to relieve congestion seriously, and the people who live in outlying areas (identified as the keys in the new thinking in this piece) wouldn't have that long commute at all. Heck, even the environmental impact would likely be significant. And bosses wouldn't need as much office space on a day to day bases. Telecommuting...it's a win-win-win-win-win.HokieTThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16070016138448139911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post-88545618860261373992010-10-04T15:58:18.974-04:002010-10-04T15:58:18.974-04:00All the links are working for me. Which one is giv...All the links are working for me. Which one is giving you trouble?Mary Newsomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12202416766614180007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19601020.post-71757431899831571002010-10-04T15:55:00.610-04:002010-10-04T15:55:00.610-04:00Better fix that link quick, Mary.Better fix that link quick, Mary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com