the plant would never pay for a shuttle bus because that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. It's easier to hire people that don't require it.

Maybe lobby the local government to change the route of local buses to be there could be easier, but that might be difficult. When I went to high school, the local transit company suddenly changed the timetable to start the bus 5 mins before the end of classes, with the next one after 45 mins. Everyone complained, but they didn't budge, that bus couldn't start 5 minutes later because reasons. The solution was that everyone bought a gas-powered scooter and went to school with that, because waiting 45 minutes after school for the bus is unacceptable for any teenager

• Reduced expenditure on constructing and maintaining parking lots. Include the costs of security / cameras.

• Company has better control over when employees come and go.

• Employees can start working while on the bus (reading mails, catching up with co-workers, etc.).

• PR department can highlight this as a new green policy. They might even be able to convince the local government to bear a part of the costs, or give some other monetary reward.

Now excuse me while I go wash my hands.

Oaf. For a very vocal sub, it sure goes quiet when people start asking for constructive solutions instead of criticisms/rants. 😆

I really do hope I'm mistaken, and the responses will start pouring in as this post gets more visibility.

Saving money/space on building the parking and increased pool of potential workers seem like the two arguments that are written in the language that corporations speak. Not sure how effective they will be, but they're the most likely to work out of the ones you posted. Good luck!

Could I pitch it as a money save vs building the parking?

Given how much underground parking costs to construct, that's the argument with the most leverage I think.

I somehow doubt that a few shuttle buses a day are more expensive than underground construction amortised over a decades or two. Especially not if that company intends to grow. (Go ask them how much growth they want to see in the company and how many more underground parking garages they plan to build to match.)

Or that you’d open up opportunities for more worker applications?

They'd likely not care. There's likely a "If you don't want to earn it, you don't deserve it." mindset at the decision level here; if you don't want to drive your car 2h every day to get here, you don't deserve to work here.

Or that it would help traffic jams?

Given you said that they don't GAF about the health of the community, I doubt they'd care about the community's traffic jams.

Take advantage of regulatory loopholes to affect the design of parking garage such that the parking garage can be almost instantly retrofitted into additional manufacturing space.

Bathrooms on every floor, cargo elevators (for cars, but can be repurposed for forklifts), the ramp is just a spiral on the side and not integrated into the structure, the height of each floor is consistent with the rest of the building, level floors, Include provisions for additional electrical, plumbing, compressed air, nitrogen, dry air, vacuum, and HVAC systems, etc.

That way, when cars drop in popularity in a few years, they can retrofit the parking garage into additional manufacturing floor relatively easily.

Disclaimer: I am not really interested in this sub, but it was in my feed so I feel I could at least contribute.

You could argue till you're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that there are building code minimum parking requirements. Depending on country / state, those may vary but still required.The underground parking is most likely a design necessity