Did you know that the continued boom in Silicon Valley is predicted to add more than 100,000 jobs over the next three years? Some predictions go as high as 150,000. How do we meet the increased traffic demand? Here is my idea, inspired by a Metropolitan Transportation Commission study.
In 2014, the MTC published a study called the Columbus Day Effect, which states that 5 percent less vehicles on Columbus Day, yields 70 percent less congestion. Drivers experience the same effect during the spring and summer school break. So, how do we make every day a holiday?
The secret lies in recreating our work week. We need to focus on changing our work culture. This is what the Pentagon did in 1941, when it opened. There were no freeways to accommodate the 23,000 employees. Management redistributed the workforce to 24/7.
My solution would require that a minimum of 5 percent of Silicon Valley workforce be switched to weekend, evening or night assignments, for all major companies. We need to change the standard workweek from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday to 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
An alternate work week might be Friday through Tuesday. Alternative work hours could be noon to 9 p.m. This option would provide overlap with conventional work hours. The alternatives are endless. By scheduling weekend and night options, traffic would be minimized during peak hours. That is the ultimate goal. Simply put, we need a minimum of 5 percent of our workforce to work nights and weekends. What company could not accommodate 5 percent? Potentially, some companies would be responsive to more than 5 percent. The more, the better. This is not flex time. This new schedule must be structured and measurable.
Businesses will be modeling their work patterns after our police, fire and many other respected institutions that consider the 24/7 work environment standard practice. Employees are looking for alternative work hours, rather then suffer through daily two- to three-hour nonproductive commutes. Many employees pay their dues for a few years, then search for jobs elsewhere, seeking more affordable locations and a better quality of life.
Recommended for you
Picture all those empty lighted buildings when driving at night. This new concept would be a better use of existing facilities, parking and resources. Desks could be managed like hotel spaces. For most, everything they need is in their laptop. The necessity to invest in additional buildings could be re-evaluated, based on optimum use of existing structures.
Land resources limit our ability to add more traffic lanes. Redistributing the work force is the only solution left. In addition, everyone is aware of the housing shortage. Efforts to address this shortage are met with resistance, due to our inability to solve the traffic crisis.
Every measure on the ballot, every traffic survey and every new idea under discussion requires that taxpayers carry the financial burden. The best part of my idea is taxpayers would not have to open their wallets.
Driverless cars, additional bridges and Elon Musk’s Hyperloop System are 10 years away, or more. We need a solution that will carry us through this decade. There is no silver bullet to solving our traffic crisis. Non-traditional solutions, in concert with many other conventional measures, are the key to success.
The continued growth and retention of economic prosperity for California effectively hinges on our ability to solve this transportation dilemma.
I welcome your comments on how to perfect this idea.
Anna Kuhre is the president emerita of the San Mateo United Homeowners Association and a former member of the San Mateo Public Works Commission.
I like the idea but am not optimistic about any of the large employers in our area adopting it as they seemingly have no motivation to change. Perhaps this idea rolled into a "head tax" might give some of they enterprises a reason to conduct business differently.
Seasoned Observer, Thank you for your comments. Silicon Valley must be part of the solution. Sen Jerry Hill has accepted my idea, and it is under consideration for legislation. I am hoping that the MTC will help make this a reality. Anna Kuhre
Would suggest you start not with the tech companies, but with the Cupertino City Council, the San Mateo City Council, the Brisbane City Council, and the South San Francisco City Council, all of whom had no problems approving a ton of new office space for rich new employees to work in, but balked at building the housing for those employees, forcing them (and the Peninsula's service workers) to commute long distances to get to work.
I'd also encourage you to look at what your city's budget, in particular its ability to cover pension obligations, would look like if those large tech companies you enjoy complaining about no longer contribute to their bottom line. If longtime homeowners are going to continue to enjoy rock-bottom tax rates thanks to Prop 13, and we're going to strip even more money from city governments with statewide Prop 13 transfer this fall, that shortfall has to be made up somewhere.
Solution is simple, companies need to move or open satellite offices near their employee base, expand to eastbay, huge talent pool there. Open near public transit. Changing the work hours or work week will appeal to some but most employees with families will have issue. Also, this creates difficulty in scheduling meetings, etc.
I feel this is not an optimal solution. Employees need to collaborate and meet. The flex schedule will have too many issues, not to mention upset workers. Might employers open offices where the employees live, such as east bay. I say east bay because of the top schools, public transit, and less expensive housing. Instead the companies continue to cluster in Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto, where housing is so high and roads are congested. More options to work from home would also help.
We need a solution today, not in ten years. Several types of solutions working in concert is how to solve this traffic crisis. There is no silver bulletproof. We need more ferries, more car pool lanes, more car pooling incentives, and to redesign the work week etc etc rtc
How do you expect to implement this today? As employers today continue expanding in the dense areas, it is creating issues once the offices open in a few months. Housing and traffic problems are getting worse with the pipeline of expansion. We need to encourage expansion across a broader area or near public transit. The modified work week will not help employers attract top talent, it will hurt this, combined with the high cost of housing and in many areas, low performing schools.
If we continue to expand in congested areas, this further sets us back, causing more housing and traffic issues. Companies already find it difficult to attract and retain talent, adding not ideal hours will only make this harder. You say those starting out work the less than ideal hours, they will go elsewhere to find ideal hours, less expensive housing better schools, and less traffic congestion. It is a good idea in theory, but in practice I see many issues.
We need to continue to expand and grow in a smart way that will be conducive to atracting and retaining residents and make Silicin Valley and the Bay Area desireable and affordable. Only way to do that is spread employment across a greater geographic area. Non conventional schedule is one more struck against Silicon Valley, in my opinion.
Large tech companies throw a few million dollars at the issue and hire hundreds more employees, this is no help. At 1M a house, 18M only helps 18 families, and they hire, for example 100 more people this year alone. It is not hard to see we need to expand the geographic footprint now, and concentrate on developing work areas near public transit now. Changing work hours will drive people away.
Mandating that employers and new developments reduce vehicle trips is a great direction. Some leading employers and cities are already doing this - for example Mountain View mandates no more than 45% driving share in North Bayshore, and Menlo Park placed a limit on the amount of parking that Facebook can offer. But this specific proposal is much too prescriptive. Flexible work hours is only one potential feature of a vehicle trip reduction program that could have a variety of features - discounted transit passes, carpool programs, shuttles to/from transit - and not least, charging for parking. But the same features won't work for every location and business. It would be much better to mandate a car trip limit for an area, and allow that business/location to figure out the best mix of strategies to hit the limit.
Funding and equity are both important aspects. A policy could set a trip limit, and then funding could be provided from sources including a "head tax" and parking revenues. Regarding equity - today, in our area, high-income workers at big corporations typically get good benefits to provide them with options to drive less. But contractors at those business don't get those benefits. Neither do low-wage workers at small businesses such as restaurants and retailers. A good policy would provide funding to help provide low-wage workers benefits to reduce driving, similar to those benefits offered by big companies to their full-time employees.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(10) comments
I like the idea but am not optimistic about any of the large employers in our area adopting it as they seemingly have no motivation to change. Perhaps this idea rolled into a "head tax" might give some of they enterprises a reason to conduct business differently.
Seasoned Observer, Thank you for your comments. Silicon Valley must be part of the solution. Sen Jerry Hill has accepted my idea, and it is under consideration for legislation. I am hoping that the MTC will help make this a reality. Anna Kuhre
Would suggest you start not with the tech companies, but with the Cupertino City Council, the San Mateo City Council, the Brisbane City Council, and the South San Francisco City Council, all of whom had no problems approving a ton of new office space for rich new employees to work in, but balked at building the housing for those employees, forcing them (and the Peninsula's service workers) to commute long distances to get to work.
I'd also encourage you to look at what your city's budget, in particular its ability to cover pension obligations, would look like if those large tech companies you enjoy complaining about no longer contribute to their bottom line. If longtime homeowners are going to continue to enjoy rock-bottom tax rates thanks to Prop 13, and we're going to strip even more money from city governments with statewide Prop 13 transfer this fall, that shortfall has to be made up somewhere.
Solution is simple, companies need to move or open satellite offices near their employee base, expand to eastbay, huge talent pool there. Open near public transit. Changing the work hours or work week will appeal to some but most employees with families will have issue. Also, this creates difficulty in scheduling meetings, etc.
I feel this is not an optimal solution. Employees need to collaborate and meet. The flex schedule will have too many issues, not to mention upset workers. Might employers open offices where the employees live, such as east bay. I say east bay because of the top schools, public transit, and less expensive housing. Instead the companies continue to cluster in Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto, where housing is so high and roads are congested. More options to work from home would also help.
We need a solution today, not in ten years. Several types of solutions working in concert is how to solve this traffic crisis. There is no silver bulletproof. We need more ferries, more car pool lanes, more car pooling incentives, and to redesign the work week etc etc rtc
How do you expect to implement this today? As employers today continue expanding in the dense areas, it is creating issues once the offices open in a few months. Housing and traffic problems are getting worse with the pipeline of expansion. We need to encourage expansion across a broader area or near public transit. The modified work week will not help employers attract top talent, it will hurt this, combined with the high cost of housing and in many areas, low performing schools.
If we continue to expand in congested areas, this further sets us back, causing more housing and traffic issues. Companies already find it difficult to attract and retain talent, adding not ideal hours will only make this harder. You say those starting out work the less than ideal hours, they will go elsewhere to find ideal hours, less expensive housing better schools, and less traffic congestion. It is a good idea in theory, but in practice I see many issues.
We need to continue to expand and grow in a smart way that will be conducive to atracting and retaining residents and make Silicin Valley and the Bay Area desireable and affordable. Only way to do that is spread employment across a greater geographic area. Non conventional schedule is one more struck against Silicon Valley, in my opinion.
Large tech companies throw a few million dollars at the issue and hire hundreds more employees, this is no help. At 1M a house, 18M only helps 18 families, and they hire, for example 100 more people this year alone. It is not hard to see we need to expand the geographic footprint now, and concentrate on developing work areas near public transit now. Changing work hours will drive people away.
Mandating that employers and new developments reduce vehicle trips is a great direction. Some leading employers and cities are already doing this - for example Mountain View mandates no more than 45% driving share in North Bayshore, and Menlo Park placed a limit on the amount of parking that Facebook can offer. But this specific proposal is much too prescriptive. Flexible work hours is only one potential feature of a vehicle trip reduction program that could have a variety of features - discounted transit passes, carpool programs, shuttles to/from transit - and not least, charging for parking. But the same features won't work for every location and business. It would be much better to mandate a car trip limit for an area, and allow that business/location to figure out the best mix of strategies to hit the limit.
Funding and equity are both important aspects. A policy could set a trip limit, and then funding could be provided from sources including a "head tax" and parking revenues. Regarding equity - today, in our area, high-income workers at big corporations typically get good benefits to provide them with options to drive less. But contractors at those business don't get those benefits. Neither do low-wage workers at small businesses such as restaurants and retailers. A good policy would provide funding to help provide low-wage workers benefits to reduce driving, similar to those benefits offered by big companies to their full-time employees.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.