Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The True Cost of Commuting

mrmoneymustache.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 178 posts

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#91

Post by seles »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #71
melling wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a couple of places in the US where there is enough population density to make mass transit work. Unfortunately no one wants to spend the money to improve it. Train and bus travel is painfully slow. Commuter rail travel, for example, averages about 30-40 mph, at best. If that doubled, people could commute from "great distances", or simply live 40 miles from a major city and have a 30 minute commute. Is the p…

We need to both change the way we think about what "mass transit" is and spend more $$$ advertising it. I live in a rural area about 40 miles from Minneapolis, the largest city around here, pop. about 400k. Normally it would take me well over an hour to get there during rush hour, but I recently discovered that there is a bus that can do it in 22 minutes if the schedule is to be believed. The buses can drive on the s…

Wouldn't seeing a bus drive on the shoulder or fly by you in the HOV lane be a kind of advertisement? I never see buses do that where I live.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#92

Post by jmspring »

cletus wrote: post #27

The problems with long commutes all revolve around home ownership. People want big houses on big yards. Most can't afford that close to work, which means they make the economic choice to trade the commute time for that "dream". That's fine but the problem is that government subsidizes that dream to a ridiculous degree. Urban sprawl has a huge cost in infrastructure, largely borne by the taxpayer. Low-density urban sp…

It doesn't all revolve around home ownership. There are a number of people who make decisions on where to live based on their lifestyle interests. Reed Hastings happens to live in Santa Cruz and was quoted in a chat about making a conscious choice about living in Santa Cruz County and having that separation "line" dividing work and the personal. Many people who live in Santa Cruz and do the commute feel the same (ignoring the fact that there is little to no tech industry here anymore).

Big houses and big yards? I've got a bungalow that is smaller than any house I lived in growing up (probably by a factor of two).

Urban sprawl may have a huge cost in infrastructure, but the lack of planning to put in commute alternatives (like trains) are just as damning. In Germany, there are friends that live 30-40min outside of Munich and happily take the train daily. They don't necessarily want to live in the city. Which goes to your argument of "Low-density urban sprawl largely also makes public transport uneconomic" -- in general, sure, but again infrastructure planning can offset this.

This country, unfortunately, doesn't believe in planning for infrastructure. Trains? Unprofitable boondoggles! (or so some think)

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#93

Post by keithpeter »

vacri wrote: post #87

His numbers are absolute nonsense - $125k over 10 years is only possible if you were spending your wage commuting - it's far more than just the $19/day travel costs he cites. If you go from a 60 minute commute to a 0 minute commute, you don't suddenly get 2 hours of extra pay per day. It's like saying "You don't get paid for that hour of chores you do every day - which means if you stop doing chores, you'll get more…

I'm glad you said that, I was having problems with that bit of the arithmetic myself. My time is precious to me, but only earns me money when someone wants to pay me for it.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#95

Post by wnight »

vsl2 wrote: post #14

I couldn't finish reading the whole thing, and I'm usually thinking about maximizing everything all the time. He completely lost me when he said people could change jobs to reduce the commute. Isn't there usually a reason that people are working where they are? Things such as chosen field and salary? We're not talking about teenagers working fungible minimum wage jobs here... Everyone tries to minimize their commute…

> He completely lost me when he said people could change jobs to reduce the commute. Isn't there usually a reason that people are working where they are?

Sure, but that reason would probably evaporate for a large enough raise. Which not having to commute is, if you look at it rationally.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#96

Post by johngalt »

And I commute via air once a week. According to his math; if I could simultaneously live in five cities at the same time, I'd be a millionaire.

Mobility matters. I'd rather take the highest paying work within 500miles vs. the highest paying work within 10miles. Also moving is not as trivial as he would make it seem.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#97

Post by [deleted] »

stouset wrote: post #68

It's amazing how many excuses people manage to come up with for how it's impossible for them to follow this kind of advice. Turns out, it's impossible up until the point that you just shut up and start doing it. Sweating is only a problem for most of you because you're unhealthy and overweight. You're overweight because you get no exercise. It's okay: I was too. Then I started cycling to work and lost 50lb. Now sweat…

[deleted]

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#98

Post by jowiar »

Periodic wrote: post #47
pchristensen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets even more complicated if you have a spouse/partner that also works. Lots of 2-professional families will never leave a huge metro, even if one of both of them could find better work in a different (but not the same different) city.

This is a frustration for me currently. My work is taking me closer to Palo Alto and San Francisco, her work is taking her closer to South San Jose. Our most recent change is that she is working on finishing a project in Los Gatos, while I just found some great work in Palo Alto. We have compromised by living in the middle, but we both need to commute for about 30-40 minutes to our respective work places. I view this…

The thing about commuting by bike/transit in the Bay Area is that it is doable, largely because there is critical mass with regards to enough people doing it that the facilities exist. In many cities, you cannot bring a bike onto a rush hour train. Here? 2 bike cars per train, packed to capacity. This summer, I was commuting from SF to Stanford. 10-minute bike ride on one end, 5-minute bike ride on the other end, 37 minute train ride in the middle. Got plenty of reading/homework done and a bit of exercise.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#99

Post by robryan »

Parking is a big part of this not really mentioned, if there was reliable free parking in the city (Melbourne, Australia) then the commute wouldn't be nearly as bad. As it you either need to skirt the law in regards to time limits, be lucky to find that parking at all, pay high daily amounts or get an expensive permanent park.

I don't think I would drive anyway (usually take the train) but on the off chance I want to the stress of finding/paying for a park puts me off.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#100

Post by Goladus »

stouset wrote: post #68

It's amazing how many excuses people manage to come up with for how it's impossible for them to follow this kind of advice. Turns out, it's impossible up until the point that you just shut up and start doing it. Sweating is only a problem for most of you because you're unhealthy and overweight. You're overweight because you get no exercise. It's okay: I was too. Then I started cycling to work and lost 50lb. Now sweat…

I live within 1.3 miles of my apartment, but I think there are a lot of good points being made. It's bad to make tradeoffs you don't understand, but they really are just tradeoffs. You really can't always prioritize a short commute. It took me 10 years to reach the situation I have now, and I've known I hated commuting since before I went to college.

At one point, I made a conscious trade-off to live in the city, even though I was working in the burbs, because it was closer to my friends and things to do (and I am a single man). I had a 30-35 minute per day commute through annoying Boston traffic but it was totally worth it.

As for the sweat issue, I have been cycle-commuting for well over a year and often it doesn't matter how slow I go, I will still sweat during most of the seasons around here. Genetically, I'm a moderate sweater. In the colder months, it's really hard to balance against biting cold and sweating. In the hot, humid months it just doesn't matter. After 5 minutes I'll be sweating, backpack or no. Luckily, I don't really care and am fine sitting at my desk in an undershirt while I cool off. I keep a change of clothes in my desk for meetings. Not everyone has that luxury, though.

I went through a phase of 9-mile cycle-commuting and there's absolutely no way I would have been able to show up without stopping by the gym to take a shower first. There is no pace slow enough that I would not sweat through at least one layer of clothes. Believe me, I tried.

Incidentally, being in shape or not has nothing to do with it. I've been active my whole life and have always sweat-- and know people who sweat much worse than me.

Post reply on HN