If we were talking about long-range travel as an alternative to air travel, trains would make sense. We won't get clean, efficient electric public transit (lovely trains!) funded if people continue to hermit it up at home. I would quite happily walk 10 minutes to work. The distance was too great to walk or cycle at all. I utterly detested taking the train to work.ĭue to lack of available property or unaffordable prices, i could not live less than an hour away (by car or train) from where i worked. Ask anyone who was still doing a mobile job during COVID lockdowns. These users would have a much better experience due to massively reduced congestion. #MASSTRANSIT HANDLING FAULTS DRIVERS#If you take away the reason why people travel to/from a static workplace every day, the only people left travelling are those who do inherently mobile jobs (police, delivery drivers etc) and people making one-off trips (eg attending an appointment). Have as many people as possible work from home, need for commuting massively reduced.įor those who do need to work in a particular place, ensure that they can live within easy walking or cycling distance of their workplace. If you take away the commuting, then you take away the need to have a car at all in many cases.īy far the biggest problem is city design where workplaces are all grouped together with few/no residential properties nearby, and then the residential properties grouped together somewhere else. It is not SPRAWL that is car dependent, it is commuting that is car dependent. In cities with functional public transit systems, the trains tend to be over crowded during the two peak periods of the day (and usually only in one direction, with empty trains coming back), and mostly empty at all other times. business leaders, but also from CEOs in Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan and certain European Union countries and the United Kingdom. Two-thirds (65%) said in-office work was the ideal, while 28% said hybrid would be the way and 7% said it would be fully remote. CEOs across the globe sounded more keen on in-person work. One-third (34%) said the jobs would still be in-office, and 20% said it was fully remote. CEOs (45%) said it would be a hybrid mix of in-person and remote work. When asked how they foresaw their company's working arrangements in three years for jobs traditionally in an office, nearly half of U.S. Another 20% were undecided, and the remaining 20% said it wasn't likely. #MASSTRANSIT HANDLING FAULTS SOFTWARE#It is "likely" and/or "extremely likely" that remote workers will be laid off first, according to a majority (60%) of 3,000 managers polled by beautiful.ai, a presentation software provider. One caveat for people who like working from home: Remote workers may find it in their best interest to show their faces in the office as their job security becomes more uncertain. In America, half of the CEOs (51%) say they're considering workforce reductions during the next six months - and in the global survey overall, eight in ten CEOs say the same. That echoes the foreboding predictions coming from big name Wall Street investors like Stanley Druckenmiller. (91%) believe a recession will arrive in the coming 12 months, while 86% of CEOs globally feel the same way, according to the findings from the international audit, tax and advisory firm. From a report: Nine in ten CEOs in the U.S. Most CEOs across the globe shared the view that a recession is on the horizon and coming sooner than later, according to a Tuesday report from KPMG on business-leader outlooks. Alarm sirens from the C-Suite about a looming recession are gaining volume in America and elsewhere, but calls back to the office for full-time work are a lot softer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |