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

101–110 of 178 posts

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#101

Post by mseebach »

jmspring wrote: post #92
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 (ign…

> It doesn't all revolve around home ownership.

Agreed. I live in a flat in semi-central London and I cycle to work in a little more than half an hour. Life is good, but during weekends it really rubs me that I have at least an hours worth of travelling to do before I can get to some uninterrupted countryside.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#102

Post by ahi »

omellet wrote: post #39
FrojoS wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be interested in the history of that. Homeownership seems very American to me, but subsidizes not so much [1]. And books or links, that you can recommend? [1] I'm aware there are many subsidizes in the US, for instance in agriculture. Still, it seems to be less than in Europe. There are subsidizes for homeownership in Germany but more people live in rented accommodation.

The single biggest subsidy for homeownership in the US is the mortgage interest tax deduction, where you can deduct interest payments on the first $1,000,000 of debt on your first or second home.

I imagine the homestead exemptions (terminology?) are a close second. Most places you get a property tax break on property you live in. Landlords, and therefor renters get to make up the difference.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#103

Post by mahyarm »

barrkel wrote: post #52
mahyarm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you worried about the higher likelihood of death (4x) and injury (6x) on motorcycles?

Not really, no; for several reasons. You need to pick apart those statistics and look at risk factors (e.g. breaking limits, laws, alcohol) and also weigh up how much fun it is. Skydiving is dangerous but fun - I did it for a year, but ultimately it wasn't for me. Climbing mountains is dangerous, but there's a huge sense of accomplishment involved. Riding a motorbike is similar: there's less risk than the previous, b…

You can say the same about reducing car driving fatality and injury statistics by not doing stupid things like driving drunk too. The relative risk profiles would be the same.

What increases the risk profile with motorcycles is other cars hitting you directly while moving. Inattentive elderly people, young people, people in a hurry, whatever, it's something you don't have control over or an obvious indicator such as bad weather.

I too rode a scooter w/ armor for a year during my student days in a Seattle climate. It is somewhat fun, but there are more fun physical activities out there with less of a risk profile and non-regular occurrence. There were many times I wish I could be driving a car instead.

To me, it doesn't pass the 'Would I regret doing this if a somewhat uncommon screwup happened' test? Especially if I had to do it repeatedly. It's like having casual sex without a condom. It feels better, but your going to regret it majorly if you got a girl pregnant who doesn't want an abortion. Your going to fucking want to kick your past self and tell him to wear a condom. I would feel the same if I got into a major motorcycle accident.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#104

Post by dasil003 »

wccrawford wrote: post #69
dasil003 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of problems with driving too: parking, traffic jams, cost, etc, but you are conditioned to take those for granted. As a full-time bicycle commuter I have to say that your complaints are more minor inconveniences than serious problems. Do I have to shower after biking 9 miles to work? No, a change of clothes is sufficient. Am I limited to where I can go to lunch? Not compared to my colleagues who mostl…

Then it works for you. Congrats! I really enjoyed it whenever it worked for me. But most of the time it did not. And no, I'm not too conditioned to take the driving problems for granted. I really, really, really hate them. I go to great lengths to avoid them. But my solution to them wasn't a bike: It was living somewhere that didn't have them. There's no traffic to or from work. There no problem parking, as everywher…

I wasn't trying to "prove" you wrong, I was just irritated with the picture you painted of bike commuting being a major pain in the ass.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#105

Post by dredmorbius »

boredguy8 wrote: post #84
checker wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I commuted 27 miles (straight line) via commuter rail and it took me 1.5 hours each way. Rent was free (I lived at my parents) but it was tough. I was surprised by how long it took, and by the number of service interruptions that made the trip even longer! I am now happily working 1.2 miles from home.

I live 1.4 miles from home, and walking to and from work is one of the best choices I ever made for my physical and mental well-being. If you don't walk to work and can, I highly recommend trying it.

You should move closer to home.

;-)

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#106

Post by mseebach »

herge wrote: post #74
briancurtin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the biggest part was having a place to change. I commuted rain/snow/shine for almost 2 years straight in Chicago, but I was only able to make it happen because I had a gym membership in the building. Some places around here are (supposedly, so I hear) getting better about having more of a locker room style bathroom to allow for people who ride to work and not be a sweaty mess when they get there.

What did you do to protect your bike against the water and salt in the winter?

I've never done anything in particular to my bike in Denmark, except to keep it indoors at night. Haven't had any problems.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#107

Post by dredmorbius »

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…

Sweating: speak for yourself.

I'm in very good shape.

I'll sweat, particularly in humid weather, even if it's nominally cool out.

San Francisco, not commonly considered sultry, runs ~85% RH in the morning, year round.

Even a transit commute (warm busses/subways, and some hill walking) can leave someone pretty schvitzy. Taking 5-10 minutes to cool down, outside, can help.

That said: I agree that commute costs and time are best avoided.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#108

Post by thmcmahon »

robryan wrote: post #99

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 lack of parking in Melbourne's city is a good thing. It acts as a cost on the negative externalities of driving into one of Australia's biggest cities.

It encourages you to catch the train, which is better for everyone around you, because you don't have to drive.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#109

Post by gensym »

tomkarlo wrote: post #76

All of this assumes that a 30-something professional couple with two earners can actually both find (and keep) jobs within biking distance of a home they can reasonable afford. My experience, along with my fiancee, having lived and worked in 3 different major US cities in the past 5 years, is that assumption just isn't reasonable. It's hard enough to find two good jobs in a household in the same _CITY_ right now, muc…

Chicago. It's cheap and dense. It's difficult to go car-free with children, though. Some do, however: http://onelessminivan.tumblr.com/ is about living car-free with kids in the city.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#110

Post by jquery »

tomkarlo wrote: post #76

All of this assumes that a 30-something professional couple with two earners can actually both find (and keep) jobs within biking distance of a home they can reasonable afford. My experience, along with my fiancee, having lived and worked in 3 different major US cities in the past 5 years, is that assumption just isn't reasonable. It's hard enough to find two good jobs in a household in the same _CITY_ right now, muc…

> The only way you can have both high job density and moderate housing prices close together is to allow enough vertical construction to reduce competition for housing to reasonable levels.

I think this is a pipe dream, unfortunately. How could you sell such an idea to the existing homeowner who comprise the voting base?

Post reply on HN