The True Cost of Commuting • Hacker News Board

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#171

Post by HeyLaughingBoy » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 8:58 PM UTC

seles wrote: post #91

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I rarely drive into the city and never do so at rush hour, so I've never really noticed what the buses do.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#172

Post by gcb » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 2:12 AM UTC

dlikhten wrote: post #169

gcb wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See the construction plans for a high-speed train from staten island to manhattan (nyc). It should make going from SI -> Manhattan take about 20-30 mintues saving an average commuter about 20-40 minutes per ride. Gets a ton of cars off the road, thus making the other commutes faster, less cost, etc. Commuting in NYC is quite problematic.

it does not matter. well, i don't know NYC. let me talk about west coast. SF is fine for buses/subway. But if i live in SF, and need to go to LA, even if bart install the fastest train there is, it's of no use to me, as i can't even get a taxi in a decent manner in LA. i will have to take my car, or rent one there. or at least commute with some friend.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#173

Post by jarek » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 3:28 AM UTC

bdunbar wrote: post #159

pyoung wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't have any stats to back this up, but driving is probably just as unsafe.

That feels counter intuitive. In a car one has restraints, a lot of armor to absorb impact, airbags. On a bike you've got ... a helmet.

Yes, when a collision does happen, a car is undoubtedly a better place to be, for the same reasons a tank would be better still. However, when it comes to avoiding a collision, in a car one has a whole lot more kinetic energy, and a whole lot less visibility and maneuverability.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#174

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 4:01 AM UTC

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.

Including stop-lights it takes me 20 minutes to walk a mile. I too live about 1.4 miles from work, but I don't have a spare hour each day for walking.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#175

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 4:09 AM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #125

omellet wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, interest deduction is a big subsidy, but also roads, cars etc are highly subsidized. I'm on my BB so I can't provide good sources, but if you google subsidies of driving americans etc you will find a lot. In Europe, they charge very high vehicle and gas tax to make up for the roads and keep people from driving. In the US we allow much less wealthy people to drive. Neither is correct, but we in the US highly subs…

IIRC The US Highway system is cash positive. It is true that the US gas-tax is much lower than just about anywhere else. The easiest way to lose the next election in the US is to propose raising the gas-tax.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#176

Post by Revisor » Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 9:24 AM UTC

sgift wrote: post #147

melling wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Compared to a neighbouring city:

Prague: 1,2 million passengers using 60 km of subway, 550 km of tramway and 1815 km of 150 lines buses.

Too many buses, obviously.

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#177

Post by simoncion » Mon, Oct 17, 2011, 8:40 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #154

usaar333 wrote: post #111

I'm a hater of long commutes (happily with a 1.5 mile one right now), but some of the analysis is flawed: 1) Commuting cost. The $0.17 as a minimum marginal cost per mile is reasonable. The IRS' $0.51 really can't be used as a margnal rate. Simply put, the operating cost of a car is not a linear function of mileage. There are exceptionally high fixed costs, namely depreciation, insurance, (some) maintenance and regis…

Yes, the 6 minutes per mile thing seemed weird to me. I live and work in SF now, but I used to work in Santa Clara, and I would do the drive in about 40 minutes -- just about 1 minute per mile. I drove at non-peak times, and my off-highway time was usually no more than about 10 minutes. Then I started working in San Mateo... half the distance, but usually 25-30 minutes. Off-highway time increased, and on-highway decr…

What bus goes from SF to San Mateo in 20 minutes?

Re: The True Cost of Commuting

#178

Post by checker » Tue, Oct 18, 2011, 1:29 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #174

boredguy8 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Including stop-lights it takes me 20 minutes to walk a mile. I too live about 1.4 miles from work, but I don't have a spare hour each day for walking.

I plan on fixing up my bike over the winter. I walked this morning and it does take a while. It also feels rather dangerous given all the construction going on around here.