The Changing Relationship Between Worker and the Workplace

Virginia’s transportation crisis is largely a commuting crisis: traffic congestion encountered along the routes, and during the time of day, that people drive between home and work. This crisis is as much an artifact of late 20th-century social arrangements as it is a shortage of road capacity and dysfunctional land use patterns. As long as Virginia has a service-based economy in which most economic activity takes place in centralized places called “offices” at uniform times of day — usually 8:00 to 5:00 — congestion is inevitable.

Commuting habits arguably have gotten more uniform in recent decades, not less. Back when Virginia had a strong manufacturing sector, factories worked according to different shift schedules than the service sector. I remember living in Martinsville some 25 years ago when the American Furniture Company whistle would blow every 3 p.m. Growing up in Norfolk, I also remember how the streets would fill at 3 p.m. during shift change at the Navy Base. Those off-hour shifts may persist in places, but they are less prevalent than they once were. A large majority of Americans have settled into service-sector hours, crowding the same roads at the same time of day.

That’s why I harp upon the incipient revolution between worker and workplace made possible by cell phones, wireless laptops, virtual private networks and related technology. We’re seeing the early signs of reversal of the lemming-like rush hour migration. Organizations are becoming more flexible about where their employees work and when. I’ve written about this trend in a couple of places, including WORK magazine here in Richmond, as well as an electronic newsletter I produce for AgilQuest Corporation.

AgilQuest produces software and systems that measure office utilization and handles the scheduling for office sharing. Office surveys consistently show that the typical office desk is less than 50 percent utilized at any given time. Increasingly, people are spending their time in collaborative sessions in meeting rooms — or they’re not in the main office at all.

With AgilQuest’s permission, I am republishing three Q&A features I produced for the company’s newsletter, “Network of Space.” The first Q&A featured Mark Dixon, CEO of Regus Corporation, a company that offers hyper-flexible office space, including single cubicles and “hot desks” for people requiring one-man offices for very short periods of time.

This week’s Q&A features Jim Young, CEO of the RealComm conference company and an apostle of change in the real estate sector. Young, who takes people on intelligence-gathering trips to Europe and the Far East, says that the U.S. commercial real estate industry is a global laggard in adopting new technology. He believes that rising energy prices will accelerate the shift to tele-work and hoteling.

The implications of this tectonic societal shift both ominous and hopeful. Much of the office space being constructed today may soon become obsolescent. That’s bad news both for the property owners and the local governments that depend upon revenues generated by those properties for their tax base. But it may be good news for commuters. Not only is technology liberating many knowledge workers from the centralized workplace, but organizations are increasingly flexible about when they need to be in the office. Furthermore, visionary developers are providing entirely new categories of office product that cater to the mobile workforce.

The predictable consequence of these changes is that many people will alter their commuting patterns to avoid peak-period congestion. They have more flexibility than ever before to work at home, at the neighborhood Starbucks, at a client’s office, or in a new-generation tele-work center. Should Virginia ever adopt a regime of congestion pricing, Virginians would have greater flexibility than at any time in their history to alter their commuting behavior.

But public policy in Virginia has largely overlooked these changes. The state has made a nod to telework with some minor pilot programs. But the big money, as demonstrated by the latest GOP legislative compromise, continues to be funneled into massive road- and transit-building projects funded by taxes instead of tolls. There is minimal interest in congestion pricing. Politicians prattle about building a transportation sector for the 21st century but they employ the top-down, tax-and-spend methods of 20th-century socialism.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

25 responses to “The Changing Relationship Between Worker and the Workplace”

  1. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Right on.

  2. E M Risse Avatar

    Jim:

    Commuting IS the problem as noted in our column “The Commuting Problem” of 17 January 2005.

    The Autonomobility Myth deludes citizens into believing that commuting is an acceptable strategy for linking dwelling and employment. It is not.

    The idea that one can live here and work there must be dealt with at the gradeschool level. As Patrick Kane has demonstrated, past the third or fourth grade, students are so overwhelmed with advertising and false assumptions that they fall into the herd mentaltiy.

    As they grow older the start generating excuses for why such travel patterns and the settlement patterns they generate are, in fact, great. “The American Dream” to quote advocates of Business-As-Usual.

    Balanced Communities cut the time, distance and use of energy consumptive vehicles to connect living and working as well as the connection with services (shopping, heath, ecucation, governance, finance, etc.), recreation and amenity.

    Electronic substitutes for consumptive travel are useful to bridge the gap until there are functional settlement patterns. Hovever, any discussion of them as a “solution” only postpones the commitment to Fundamental Change.

    EMR

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget was on C-Span this morning. Non-partisan… reform-oriented .. appear to be fiscally convervative…

    The statement (paraphrased) : “mobility is KEY to the agility and competitiveness of our companies in a world economy”.

    The point made that business needs good talent – and needs to attract good talent quickly if it is to exploit opportunities in fast moving markets…

    This – not only seems to be a very strong statement in favor of mobility but it also seems to argue against the concept of people not being able to pursue personal opportunities that align with entreprenurial entities.

    Let’s be more explicit. Is it reasonable to assume that settlement patterns will evolve in response to mobility needs unless restrained artificially?

    How about this. If we pursue policies to incentivize co-locating places to live near places to work – is a primary obstacle to such efforts – (the proverbial fly in the ointment) – the need for workers to change jobs … but liking where they live and not wanting to move?

    What would need to happen to convince that work NOT to take a new job that requires commuting OR to take the new job but make it easier to move to co-located homes?

    HEY.. I don’t know the answers here.. I thought I’d throw some stuff up in the air and see who shoots….

  4. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    That would NOT be me. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  5. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    So then the idea of building long term stable “communities” and strong “neighborhoods” with residents deeply invested in their neighborhood is now out the window? The new “solution” for “mobility-sake” is to make where we chose to live as transient as our JOBS have become???

    Is that really better for our nation?

    Hey, why not force us all to live in moble homes and then require we move to corporate mobil home “communities” whenever we take a job more than 10 miles from where our mobil home in now located???

    Ta-da!

    problem solved.

    All we goota do not is figure out how to stack the mobile homes on top of each other so as to create the samllest “foot print” of real estate required on the ground.

    – – – Smart Growth – build UP – not out – – –

    Wow, imagine it – towers of mobile home “units”, each plugged into HUGE “infrastructure structures” – plug & play modular “housing”. Wow – that’s the ticket!

    Homes become portable “housing units” – so much more efficient!!!

    Cuts down on the “need” to commute.

    Guys . . .

    If we are now observing family members that are failing to take an interest in “civic duties” now, imagine when how little “civic partitication” will exist if the idea is to relocate close to where we work eveytime we are forced to change jobs.

    Guys … that might help with “mobility” – but is that the future we want to leave to our kids?

  6. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    Typos – errr!

  7. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    The mobile society began when employers quit caring about their employees. The modern workforce joins a company for a specific project, for a specific length of time, with the needed skills to accomplish the project.

    I laugh when I read about Smart Growth, because such illusions fail to take into account the modern working environment. One cannot live in an apartment over their worksite. It’s an impossible pipe dream.

  8. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    How about this. If we pursue policies to incentivize co-locating places to live near places to work – is a primary obstacle to such efforts – (the proverbial fly in the ointment) – the need for workers to change jobs … but liking where they live and not wanting to move?

    Larry you just made the argument for the suburbs. People like the suburbs and see no reason to move ๐Ÿ˜›

    When people decide where to settle being close to work isn’t at the top of the list because of the inevitably of change etc etc.

    For young people its near other young people. For families its schools. For retirees its near other retirees. And for everyone the price of the home has a huge impact

    We’va already discussed that ad nauesuem and that this balanced community might work for 20s and 55+ with homogenous communities.

    Witness Clarendon condo/apartment towers for the 20s something set. Being a 20something myself I can’t think of a 55+ example :-p

    However the 30ish-55 set (the majority of people that commute/work )are the family component currently in the suburbs and clogging up miles and miles of roadway.

    So for this master plan of balanced communities to work we need to climb inside the minds of the 30-55 year old with kids. I already mentioned the importance of schools. There are other reasons for why people choose to live in the subrubs like a yard a “safe” environment etc.

    The whole balanced line of thinking hinges on the fact the the 30-55 family group set will be willing to give up suburbia. The argument being once the true transportation costs and/or energy costs of living in suburbia are fully realized people will move to these close balanced communities.

    But will they???? Will people just fork over an extra 1500 a year to continue business as usual. Are people that motivated by cost to change their settlement patterns. Is that magic number 1500 a year 500 a year 5000 a year???

    Have studies been done to find what the magic number is??

    __________________________________

    I did some basic seraching and found a paper talking about the thorny issue of congestion. It tends to talk more about what won’t work instead of what will but it was interesting none the less

    http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/downs/020319.pdf

    __________________________________-

    And finally in the miscellaneous category. 24 and Prison Break back to back sweet now if 24 could get rid of Cloe (I cant stand her “Acting” it would be perfect)

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    Here are a couple questions for EMR & JW. I struggle with the idea that we can really have balanced communities, at least in mega-metros, such as Washington, given: the size of the metro area, dual income families, and the lack of job stability. However, let’s factor in substantial development in telecommuting and “virtual organizations.” Does that make a difference, & if so, how?

    It strikes me that living in a mixed community might be more attractive if organizations become less “real” and more “virtual.” Maybe I provide the same service to four companies on a more or less dedicated basis, even though I’m not close to any of the four. Businesses and nonprofits will continue to need to find ways to shed costs and operate more efficiently. Hiring expertise on a part-time or as-needed basis can be one of those solutions. Do all companies need a fulltime CFO or general counsel? What about software engineers? Etc.? If this trend accelerates, do the types of communities favored by EMR & JW become more attractive? Alternatively, does this trend mean more people can move further out (sprawl) so that they can have more house/land for the money?

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar

    It is too late to go into it all, but each of you have raised valid questions.

    Kudos to Larry for starting the string. Congratulations on asking some new questions.

    Sometimes, I’m not sure if you put you and I in a ring, if we would go nine rounds, hug, or dance a minuet.

    I’ll just say this. It costs far too much to move. The reasons are taxes, sales costs, uncertainty, schools, and moving all the crap we own. The crap we own, I’ll concede to EMR, is a result of over consumerism.

    —————

    Frankly, i wish I was still working for the company that I moved to Virginia for, and where I spent 18 years. That compasny no longer exists.

    After the right to work law was passed, I watched my quality of life and certainty of future decline, and my commuting increase.

    I don’t claim that is a general result, only that it is my experience.

    I don’t think that (moving?) further out necessarily means more sprawl: it could mean more Blacksburgs. The (moving?) parentheses refer to those in situations simiar to mine. The (moving?) actually refers to the community around me, not to those that live on the farm.

    It could mean more (and closer) opportunities for those that are here.

    I don’t think that using the (absolute) minimum amount of land as in EMR’s hypotheses, or as in stacking mobile homes to the moon, necessarily translates into the best quality of life for all – even if it means conserving the maximum amount of land.

    I agreee that sprawl consists of wasting land. But I also think that using expanses of land wisely is part of the equation. I don’t think that efficiency in an all out pursuit of conservation is a valid answer.

    There is no point in conservation if it means we have to live in trailers stacked to the moon, nd if we have not the transportation system that will allow us to enjoy it.

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Sometimes, I’m not sure if you put you and I in a ring, if we would go nine rounds, hug, or dance a minuet.”

    ๐Ÿ™‚

    It would be both.

    To thine own self – be True.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “The argument being once the true transportation costs and/or energy costs of living in suburbia are fully realized people will move to these close balanced communities.

    But will they???? Will people just fork over an extra 1500 a year to continue business as usual.”

    Willingly? without laws and regs that would essentially “force” them to do so?

    I tend to agree with NMM. Some folks want a Lexus.. and they’re going to have it…..

    Put another way.. more than a few folks are NOT going to have a Corrolla even if it makes the most economic sense.

    I’m all for removing the subsidies and fully allocating the locational costs but I’m not in favor of removing options.

    Just as we talk about providing “more” options for transportation modes – we must be consistent and advocate the same thing with housing options.

    The Reality Check exercise arrives at the conclusion “up” rather than “out” along transportation corridors – as the “right” concept.

    So I’ll ask a question .. maybe two

    When you think of “Smart Growth”, New Urbanism, compact development, mixed-used, et al (sorry EMR)… do you think of:

    1- A town-scape..grid streets, 3-level buidings tops… etc

    2- A 30 story high-rise along I-95

    which of the two will house more people?

    which of the two are more LIKELY to be built near I-95?

    Is our advocacy of town-scapes a
    nostalgic impediment to a Jetson future?

    Is advocacy for townscapes – given the REALITIES of unfettered mobility essentially advocating places like Martinsville where.. their co-located business goes belly-up and what is left behind is a great place to live and no place to work?

  13. Jim Bacon Avatar

    TTM, Interesting questions. Let me answer you from our experience here in Richmond. The most “virtual” industry sector in the region is the advertising/marketing industry. You’ve probably heard of the Martin Agency, one of the hottest ad shops in the country. But Martin sits at the center of a large business eco-system of smaller ad agencies, specialty shops, freelance graphic artists, musicians, writers, video producers, etc. Lots of micro-firms and lots of people working out of their house. Where do these businesses locate? In the city, not the suburbs. Where do the people live? Disproportionate numbers live in the city. Even when you have a “virtual” industry, you still have the need for human interaction. Creative people crave that interaction, which is the source of new ideas and innovation.

    San Francisco is Richmond writ large. You can cite case after case…

    As the “creative” economy increases in size and importance, as the economy becomes more virtual, increasing numbers of people will find themselves drawn to areas — whether revitalized older cities or new communities — that allow them to interact. Suburban offices parks don’t do offer that. Mixed use communities do. Draw your own conclusions.

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    Dear Jim Bacon:

    The state’s economic development programs need to be linked with a
    state planning, regional planning and local planning program to foster
    a climate to encourage new jobs to be located closer to worker’s homes.

    Part of our problem, is Fairfax County, for example, has encouraged major
    office and industrial parks to be build with state encouragement and help,
    but housing for the workers attracted to those projects to as far out as
    the West Virginia panhandle, I-81 beyond Front Royal, Rt. 29 out to
    Culpeper and down I-95 into Caroline County.

    Thus, communities such as the Fredericksburg area has attracted more than
    52,000 commuters who daily roll out of here to jobs up north and elsewhere.
    I have heard estimates 75% of the workers in that region commute.

    Then, Fredericksburg and the surrounding counties encourage large retail
    projects, mostly big box stores and the like, to generate revenue to meet
    their needs for the state tax structure is most favorable to localities for
    that type of development.

    But that development pattern needs a low to moderate income service work force.
    Those workers often live in outlying communities in Orange, Caroline County
    and the Northern Neck for housing costs around Fredericksburg have been driven
    out of their reach because the commuters bring incomes into the area that have
    forced housing prices up, up and up!

    This why we have congestion and sprawl around the Greater Washington DC Area.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Schools in Fairfax may be driving some of this.

    To wit:

    1. – the more housing – the more kids.

    much of the commuting traffic on I-95 from Fredericksurg is Parents – not “singles” (who prefer urban) and not retired (who don’t need to commute).

    These folks are the same that are stressing the local school systems… and why Stafford and Spotsylvania MUST collect proffers from developers if they are to NOT tax existing residents out of their homes.

    Fairfax – essentially “exports” this problem by NOT providing affordable housing.

    2. – Localities get 1% of the sales tax for schools.

    Every new business in Fairfax brings in more money from schools and helps to keep the property tax lower.

    In the Fredericksburg Area – this drives the localities to build more and more commercial on THEIR land so they can “capture” their share of the sales tax.

    This, in turn, causes the counties to bend over backwards when new businesses want to locate along high traffic transportation corridors – the same exact corridors that commuters use.

    There is a way out of this and Rodger has touched on it.

    First distribute the 1% statewide. Everybody gets their share so this would actually let localities decide on the merits of whether or not they want new businesses.

    Second, collect proffers on every house statewide – and allocate according to a formula that rewards jurisdictions that provide affordable and workforce housing.

    THEN it WILL be in the jurisdictions best interests to CHOOSE affordable/workforce housing proposals over high-dollar housing that they need to boost their real estate tax revenue.

    these ideas may be dumb.. they just flipped on the head as I was reading Roger’s post.

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Nova_middle_man provided this link:

    http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/downs/020319.pdf

    for those who think there is a Congestion “Crisis” – this is worth reading.

    thanks, NMM

  17. Anonymous Avatar

    Fairfax fails to provide affordable housing! Larry, How can you sully the BoS’ reputation like that? ๐Ÿ˜‰ Indeed, just last night, the Fairfax BoS granted rezoning of Tysons I, but required the Mall owner (Macerich) to include 124 affordable housing units. Now that’s negotiating!

    Only cynics would suspect that this might not quite house all of the people who will flock to the the additional 3.5 M square feet that was approved for the 78 acre site. Double the density & add 124 affordable housing units. How could Supervisors DuBois and Frey fail to vote “yes” for such a great deal for the community? That should result in no more store clerks, administrative assistants, custodians who work or will work at Tysons needing to drive to and from work!

    There’s more. Gerry Connolly was able to negotiate a potential penalty of $4 M if the traffic reduction plan fails to produce the results being promised. Of course, Fairfax County has no system in place to track compliance with this or any other proffer.

    What’s the most special is that there are more than 20 other proposed changes to add density at Tysons.

    I know that Ray Hyde has a real problem with the Fauquier BoS, but I suspect most residents of Fairfax County would trade supervisors in a minute.

    This may be the proverbial straw.

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: percentage of kids in Fairfax vs other…

    The stats do not really support my earlier contention unless 3% is a significant difference.

    Fairfax has about a million people and about 164,000 kids in school or 16%

    Spotsylvania has about 116,000 people and 22,000 kids for about 19%. Stafford county has similiar data.

    Notice Fairfax has MORE school kids than Spostylvania has total population!

    Also note:

    Spotsylvania DENSITY = 225 people/sq/mi
    Fairfax DENSITY = 2455 “
    Virginia – 179 “

    Fairfax 5 year growth rate = 3.8%
    Spotsylvania 5 year growth rate = 28.9%
    Virginia 6.9%

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    Dear Larry Gross:

    The Outer Suburbs attracts younger families with more
    children seeking more affordable housing not found closer
    in and residential settings more appealing for their life-
    styles.

    Our growth patterns and transportation issues are driven
    by those families making lifestyle decisions that the state
    government and policy wonks will never regulate.

    But what we can and should do is move jobs further out so
    that the employment opportunities in Northern Virginia are
    not concentrated around and inside the Beltway. We might
    benefit from a legislative package designed to do that with
    tax breaks and other inducements.

    I put little stock on your data for a 3.8% growth rate in
    a county with l million residents and little land left for
    residential development should not be compared against a
    28% growth rate in a county with less than a four of that
    population base and a large inventory of land available for
    development.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  20. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “The Autonomobility Myth deludes citizens into believing that commuting is an acceptable strategy for linking dwelling and employment. It is not.”

    EMR would delude us into thinking that only living where we work or working where we live is an acceptable strategy. It is not.

    I don’t like driving the long distance I (presently) do. I am working to fix that. It may take a long time. By the time I do, someone else may have fallen into a similar disfortune. No doubt, he will work to fix the problem, too.

    On average, some people will wind up travelling farther than they like. That doesn’t mean it is wrong.

    I defy EMR to provide a real, workable, present time strategy that is more economically viable than the one I am pursuing.

    I can’t economically sell and move closer, even if my wife would allow it. I can’t economically take a job closer, or I haven’t found it yet.

    End of story.

  21. Ray Hyde Avatar

    TMT:

    I am also a resident of Fairfax county. Yes, I would change BOS in a minute. It would work out better for everyone involved.

    Roger:

    Right on.

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    Rodger – Your point about the need to move jobs (good-paying one) beyond the inner reaches of NoVA is very well taken. It is absurd to think that all of these jobs must be in “inner NoVA” when so many of the workers live outside that area.

    Write Gerry Connolly and tell him to stop taxpayer funding of the Economic Development Authority’s advertising program. A few more higher-paid positions in Stafford, Spotsylvania, etc. would help us all.

  23. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    I LOVE this line of thinking!!!

    I work for a mid-sized defense contractor/high tech firm.

    What is really funny is that in my line of work we have our Corporate HQ in Alexandria VA (to be near the Pentagon) – and regional offices all acrosss the nation.

    We used to physically travel to have meetings up at Corp. HQ – now we use technology to conduct our meetings.

    We use Net-Meeting and – for those offices that have it, Video-teleconferencing. Or … just the phone and emailed agendas.

    These are virtual meetings.

    I can attend by cell phone if I am in my car. I can attend wherever my laptop is pluged in. I can attend when I am on travel for business.

    Now, I often simply attend from home and commute to my local regional office later in the morning – when the traffic has become less congested.

    My local office is located in the heart of the new urban/smart growth Virginia Beach Town Center.

    Of course, once we built a high density, mixed use, high rise, urban center in Virginia beach – the area immediately became a parking lot during some times of the day.

    So, we – in the private sector – found ways to work around the times the roads are too clogged.

    Gosh – if WE can do this – a whole lot of others can do it too.

    Odd – nothing in the bills on the table even comes close to promoting these types of solutions for reducing traffic during peak usage times???

  24. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    Virignia Beach – 440,000 residnets – 76,000 school kids K-12 – plus an unknown number of home schooled kids.

  25. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The long and short of it is that there is NO PROFIT in reducing congestion, improving (investing in) the existing infrastructure much less actually trying to optimize it’s use and operations.

    This is why by far the preferred option is unfettered tax money for unspecified projects to be decided by a political process away from the public eye by unelected people.

    This is more of the same.

    Message to taxpayers: “Refill the money pot and go away”. We don’t want or need your input.

    Who was the guy… Jessup, yes (in a Few Good Men)… ” you want the truth?, you can’t stand the truth”

    Many new roads are really about the private sector sucking on the teat of taxpayers for personal wealth-enriching activities.

    Show me the elected guy who is in favor of roads for economic development and I’ll show you a guy who you should be looking at his Statement of Economic Interests as well as who his circle of business associates are.

    ๐Ÿ™‚

Leave a Reply