Reality check - people do not usually move residences when they change jobs locally. I live in the Washington D.C. area, and traffic is amongst the worst in the nation. And by 2030 the traffic volume here is supposed to double. A big reason for the mess is that people do not live near their workplaces. No surprise there. What is a surprise is the naivete of government officials and developers who think building combined office and residential developments will help solve the problem. It won’t.

The headline in the Washington Business Journal blares “Pilot program aims to help region steer clear of traffic” and touts how the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments is starting a six-month grant program with $250,000 for “planning projects that reduce congestion” and has plans to raise “tens of millions of dollars toward the cause.” Also, the Transportation Planning Board of the Council just adopted a Long Range Transportation Plan for the area.

Logically, one idea funded by such grants is to build employment centers near mass transit stations and encourage use of mass transit. But clustering jobs and housing makes little sense. (Entirely missing in action is the idea of telecommuting. More about that in a moment.)

People these days stay at a job perhaps 3-5 years at most. So it is hard to imagine any but the most mobile of us would pack it all up and move next to our new job when we might not be working there in a few years. The expense alone is a show stopper. I am not an urban planner, but can not imagine that most people who live in these mixed-use developments also work there. People chose where they live based on several factors - the overal quality of living, proximity to friends and relatives, quality of schools, and access to services they need. Many households have two (or more) with jobs - it is not realistic for them all to live near their offices.

Many claim more and wider roads are the answer. Around here and in many other areas, road projects are stalled by environmental concerns and high costs. Plus, the growth will occur faster than roads can open.

The best solution is the one least discussed, at least in these local plans — is geographic. Remove or greatly reduce the distance between to points. More people should work at home or in nearby telecommuting centers. While the traffic alleviation is obvious, studies have shown that there are other benefits for employers including productivity, loyalty, and significant office expense savings. Plus, around here people commute on average two hours a day. That’s a lot of time to give back to an employee and that employee is likely to work part of that found time. Plus the benefits to employees are many.

However, some can’t imagine being out of the office. Some job types require physical presence. But even a day a week at home helps alleviate the traffic and other commuting-related problems. Employers and employees have to cooperate to make it work right, but isn’t that easier and smarter than pouring billions of dollars into adding transportation capacity? According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, “Telecommuting has the potential to provide significant transportation-related public benefits in this decade.” It seems like a no brainer. Why is there so little emphasis?