90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies • Hacker News Board

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#181

Post by conanbatt » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 6:30 PM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #164

conanbatt wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

75%?? source? That sounds like too much.

this source claims 72% is more accurate: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-San-Francisco-apart...

Wow this law is so ridiculous, it basically applies to most the stock.

I don't think most people enjoy this benefit of rent control, it wouldn't make sense to rent out properties. I wonder what is the effective rent control rate (that which has affected price significantly). Maybe a rental turnover rate would hint at a solution.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#182

Post by davidsawyer » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 6:31 PM UTC

conanbatt wrote: post #100

nerfhammer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

75% of SF rental units are rent controlled.

75%?? source? That sounds like too much.

Maybe this is what is being referenced: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-San-Francisco-apart...

Though, I don't think this is "rent control" in the NYC sense of the term where rents are kept way under market rate.

Rather, it seems to be a set of ordinances around what landlords can and can't do, largely pertaining to rent increases: http://sfrb.org/rent-ordinance

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#183

Post by vondur » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 6:32 PM UTC

Living in SoCal, many of us would see that as a normal commute.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#184

Post by readittwice » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 6:34 PM UTC

jacobkg wrote: post #3

I commuted 90 minutes each way for a year (120 miles round trip) in SoCal. The time spent driving wasn't that bad; I spent that time listening to books on Audible. The problem was everything else that had to give because I was spending that time driving. I couldn't cook dinner or spend much time with friends. It was tough to stay after work or develop friendships with coworkers because we were so geographically separ…

European here. After moving I was commuting for about 105 minutes with public transport, about 70 minutes by car. Was using public transport most of the time though, but I couldn't do this more than a few months. There is so much time and money that goes into commuting, it is insane... Going to the doctor/bank/shopping/etc. was always problematic because then I would have to stay in the company late into the night. When you come home you are just tired and want to rest. Pay wasn't even in the near of being good enough to justify that.

Right now I am working from home which (after some months of experience) I enjoy much more. Also got a substantial pay raise when changing jobs and at the same time save money on the commute.

Still glad I was at my old job since it got me into another field of software engineering and I learned a lot. Don't think I would've got my current job without it.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#185

Post by reaperducer » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

lightbyte wrote: post #121

reaperducer wrote: post #101

Amateurs. People in New York have been commuting two or more hours each way since at least the 70's. Some people who work in the city live in Pennsylvania.

>Some people who work in the city live in Pennsylvania. That isn't really saying much. Easton, PA is almost exactly 90 min from NYC (though it has tolls).

If Easton was the only place from which to commute to NYC. And only if you drive yourself, and there's no traffic.

I'm talking about people who commute from Bethlehem - 180 miles away. Or from Oxford, CT - over three hours each way.[0]

Back in the 80's, NJ Transit had some bus routes that took a minimum of two hours (194, 195). I don't know if they're still running, though.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/realestate/extreme-commut...

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#186

Post by usaar333 » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

nathan_long wrote: post #85

guiomie wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much more than other places in the US. I keep seeing this type of comment, do the math, 2-3X salary increase, rent 2X increase, but rent is only ~25% of your salary, cost of things around ~25% higher. You are much better of in Silicon Valley as a techy in general.

Now factor in the fact that you spend 15 hours a week driving - not working, jogging, cooking, singing, or making friends. Factor in the gas and maintenance for your car and the medical costs to you for your sedentary time and to society for your exhaust.

Few programmers are doing that.. you can rent 3 bedroom homes for under $4k within 20 minute driving distance of any job.

The super commuters tend to be lower paid workers.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#187

Post by hindsightRegret » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

abritinthebay wrote: post #99

tmh79 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make ~175k/year cash, and I'm able to put away about 60k/year in savings. If you add in the equity I'm receiving (currently illiquid, but company is one of the mega-corns), I'm able to save an additional 60-100k/year on top of savings from salary. I live a decent life, 2 annual international trips, own a car, lease a ski house with friends in the winter, if you make over 120k, life in the bay area is quite nice.

You're putting $5k away every month when your take home pay is ~$8k a month? I assume you must live a VERY spartan life in the Bay. Basically pay your rent (which must be shared or very cheap for the Bay) and utilities and not do much else... I mean the average Bay area rent is more than the difference between your take home and your savings... edit: I'm using ADP's calculator, don't know why SmartAsset is different…

Take home is closer to $10k. I'm assuming he's including 401k as part of his savings as well

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#188

Post by salmonfamine » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 6:36 PM UTC

hsnewman wrote: post #157

I commute this in Austin daily, but it's a result of poor city planning.

If you don't mind me asking...how? I imagine you would have to be coming from far north to South Austin in order to reach that level of commute.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#189

Post by r_klancer » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 6:36 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #24

This is increasingly common in the Boston area as well. Cambridge/MIT is a massive biotech hub, meanwhile we have huge companies with many large offices in the downtown or in surrounding suburbs. Many workers live in RI, NH, or Central Mass, and getting to work for 9 am consistently will involve leaving at 730 for many, many workers due to congestion, construction, and the god-awful mess that is Boston infrastructure…

Anecdata: I signed the contract yesterday for a small Somerville single-family, near the Cambridge line, for just over $700k. I'm expecting to put $200k+ into it. If a developer got their hands on it, they would expand the square footage to the maximum possible extent, put in the trendiest appliances and finishes, and flip it for > $1m. That seems to be the economically rational thing for them to do in this market.

But I lock in a 20-25 minute bike ride (or 50-minute walk + public transit ride in winter) to work in the Seaport. I saw I-93 at rush hour once, and I shudder at the memory.

At least part of my reasoning was, "What if Amazon does choose Boston? Do I move my family into a second or third floor condo with no yard at all?"

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#190

Post by moultano » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 6:36 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #176

moultano wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building more housing decreases traffic as people move to shorten their commutes. Building offices without housing is what increases traffic, which is what most cities in the bay are currently doing.

Not really. It changes things, but in the location of the new housing things get busier. The major hiways elsewhere see less traffic and the average is probably better, but the local situation needs to be fixed to handle it. Of course ideally the local situation would be everybody works within a couple blocks and so the elevators and sidewalks can handle it. Most zoning boards hate this idea though.

It's a classic prisoner's dilemma. If everywhere built housing, traffic would get better everywhere, but no one individually has an incentive to build it because on its own it makes traffic in the immediate vicinity worse.