The True Cost of Commuting • Hacker News Board

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#141

Post by djeikyb » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 4:48 AM UTC

oceanician wrote: post #122

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 tried the cycling to work, and found I could make it work for me on a 6 mile or so, 30 minute cycle, twice a week. My bike was slow, and I wasn't particularly fit. Incidentally, I did try the going slower thing, but I don't know if it's Manchester's humidity but it didn't really make much difference! (This could have been that my mountain bike's gear were irrepairably stuck in top gear - least this city is flat!) I…

The bicycle makes a difference. A mountain bike, especially stuck in top gear, takes a lot more effort than a road bike, or even a hybrid.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#142

Post by mahyarm » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 5:01 AM UTC

jquery wrote: post #110

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?

Have developers help you politically, offer gads of cash for their housing. Downtown vancouver quickly became tower land, and housing prices just went up overall.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#143

Post by dasil003 » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 5:28 AM UTC

emu wrote: post #75

dasil003 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Because you find it irritating that he finds it irritating that some people spend more time cutting others down than trying to improve themselves?

The majority of comments on this post are of the form "his analysis is wrong, because it doesn't take into account factors x, y, and z". That's great --- we're having a civil discussion about the merits of his argument. Linking to his blog post in this way is tantamount to implying that the commenters on this thread are "complainypants", which I find quite rude. If that wasn't his intention, then he certainly could h…

The post he was responding too wasn't any kind of civil or even logical discussion. It just said his examples and analysis were borderline garbage with no justification.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#144

Post by waqf » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 5:33 AM UTC

I can't understand why everyone commutes at the same time of day. It would be of HUGE economic benefit if office activities were evenly distributed around the clock (and the calendar). There would never be rush-hour traffic because people came and went at all hours. Your favorite public place or activity wouldn't be crowded Saturday afternoon, because it wouldn't be Saturday for 6/7 of the population.

Yes, there would be some large costs too, but the benefits are staggering.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#145

Post by magamiako » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 5:38 AM UTC

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…

Yeah, he lost me when he said "JUST CHANGE JOBS!" haha.

It's easy when you've been handed everything in life and the best you work for is a measily odd job here or there, but that's not doable when you're in a specialized field with a career path.

Guess it's okay for the free floater, but not so much when you've planned out your path years in advance.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#146

Post by dasil003 » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 5:38 AM UTC

usaar333 wrote: post #118

jowiar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have to disagree here. The limited mass transit system that exists in the South Bay is ridiculously slow.

He's talking about Caltrain. If you can do pure Caltrain + cycle it will be faster than driving during rush hour, often significantly so, except on the one day a month that someone is killed, on those days you're fucked but at least you have a good excuse.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#147

Post by sgift » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 6:13 AM UTC

melling wrote: post #137

Bud wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's false that "no one wants to spend the money to improve it", as proven by the voting for recent ballot initiatives to fund high-speed rail and BART expansions in California, to cite just one example. A LOT of people would MUCH rather have large amounts of public dollars spent to improve transit than to, for instance, fund wars, bail out bankers, etc.

According to Wikipedia, BART is currently 104 miles of rail. That's probably less than half of the NYC subway. While the expansion is great, I think I'm talking about being even more ambitious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_expansio... The HSR is CA was funded in 2008. It looks like the first leg through Fresno might happen in a year or two. China went from no subway to the biggest subway system…

And just for another comparison: The MVV (Munich Transport and Tariff Association / Muenchner Verkehrsverbund) serves 2.6 million people (Munich and the greater Munich Area). The S-Bahn (commuter trains) lines are 442 km, the subway lines 103 km and the tramway is 75 km. There is also the bus with 457 km on 66 lines in the city. (I've ignored buses for the outer regions and the option to use trains to reach the city from suburbs).

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#148

Post by gcb » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 6:24 AM UTC

melling wrote: post #64

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…

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…

rail is a chicken-egg problem.

why would i take the train for longer distances if my destination will not have buses/subway? i will need my car there anyway, so i might just skip the train and drive.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#149

Post by gcb » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 6:28 AM UTC

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'm pretty sure that if you do not sweat after a 20min ride that covers 7.5mi, you should seek a doctor. Urgently.

...or you are luck to live on the top a hill and work in a dried lake bed.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#150

Post by donniefitz2 » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 6:48 AM UTC

First off, I really like this blog. Really well written and entertaining. He has good advice to boot. While I live within 10 miles of my workplace, there's no way I could bike it (a 25 minute ride all in parks). Reason being, I live in Arizona and it's about 105 at 9-10am in the summer. There's no way I'm going to peddle my way to work in that heat let alone ride home in it. I'm sure many people who live in cold climates (no idea what that's like) would object too.