15 ms·

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

127 points by moultano 8y ago

incomplete 8y ago
90 minutes is now a "super commute"? hahaha.... HAHAHAHA... bwaaaaahahahahahahahahaha gasp haaaaahahahahahahahahaha. a few years back, when i was working in palo alto and living in SJ/milpitas it regularly took me 90 minutes to make the 20 mile commute home. needless to say, i quit that job, moved to the alameda county and found a job a mile from my house. now i actually have a SUPER commute, which means i can take the bus, ride my bike or walk depending on my mood. :)
lallysingh 8y ago
90 minutes is common if you work in NYC and have a suburban home.
- overcast 8y ago
  That doesn't make it any better. As someone who drives home for lunch five minutes away, that sounds like hell.
- biohax2015 8y ago
  Yep. 1:40 here. It sucks.
- RandallBrown 8y ago
  I live in Poughkeepsie and work in Manhattan. It takes me about 2 hours and 10 minutes from the door of my apartment to the door of my office. I live a 10 minute walk from the train station in PK and work a 10 minute walk away from Grand Central. There are probably a few hundred people at the train station every morning, from much farther away than I am, who probably have to take another subway to their job once they get to Grand Central. It's bananas and the only reason I'm doing it is because my fiancee is in school in Poughkeepsie. I always wonder what the other people's reasons are.
  - lallysingh 8y ago
    If your family doesn't want to live in the city, you end up pretty far pretty quickly.
- free652 8y ago
  An hour commute is normal within NYC. My commute on average was 50 minutes for the last 20years, door to door. 10 mins walk to a train or a bus, 30 mins ride, 10mins walk to the desk. Now I have a house in Staten Island and it’s still 50 minutes - though I can cheat a bit by driving to the bus. It’s actually a 15 mins walk, but I don’t mind it.
- stolson 8y ago
  My commute ranges anywhere from 35 minutes to 90 minutes. It used to be pretty consistently under an hour to mostly anywhere in Manhattan south of Central Park, but the past few years have been pretty terrible (thanks MTA).
allengeorge 8y ago
Sounds like living in the GTA
hsnewman 8y ago
I commute this in Austin daily, but it's a result of poor city planning.
- salmonfamine 8y ago
  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.
WhompingWindows 8y ago
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. For those who aren't aware, many of Boston's intersections and squares are terrible intersections, remnants of the crossings due to actual cow-paths. There's also a massive amount of old housing property and relatively little new housing stock. There are high density apartment or condo buildings sprouting up here and there, but by large, you're going to be paying over 1 million for a small/old house in/around Boston, possibly 2 million depending on the location. If you're willing to commute 1.5 hours, you can get a fixer upper in a semi-rural area for around 300-400k. If Amazon came to Boston, it would be compound this problem exponentially, though whoever owns property currently would definitely make a good return.
- tjridesbikes 8y ago
  This is the exact reason I don't commute by car. I live in Jamaica Plain and work in Kendall Square. Driving takes 45 minutes to go 4 miles. Taking the T takes 40 minutes. I ride my bike and my commute is 17 minutes each way, no matter the hour, traffic, or weather.
  - WhompingWindows 8y ago
    Ah, nice! I lived in Arlington and my commute to Cambridge was literally 2X faster on a bike than any other possible method. It's crazy to ZOOM down the bike lane at 15 mph while the cars are idling at 0mph waiting for the very slow traffic cycles to progress.
- ilamont 8y ago
  What I find amazing is companies insisting on being located near Kendall or the Seaport District (and paying massive amounts of money for the privilege) to be "innovative." Why aren't more companies in New England going to where the commercial real estate and housing are cheaper?
synaesthesisx 8y ago
A lot of companies have been moving to LA/SD recently for this reason. There are plenty of cities that offer more than the Bay Area without the NIMBY attitude toward building new housing.
- bllguo 8y ago
  unfortunately, I can assure you that NIMBYism is alive and well in LA too. Maybe not as bad as SF (I don't know how to compare), but even if that's true, unless regulation occurs this is just kicking the can down the road
- jonas21 8y ago
  Which companies are these?
- mateo411 8y ago
  NIMBYism isn't restricted to the Bay Area.
hkarthik 8y ago
The picture in the article is from the I-580 exit in Dublin/Pleasanton about 5 minutes from my house. The real estate here is booming as many people have settled here due to BART proximity and the fact that it's one of the few communities building lots of new housing. All the FANG companies are also sending their shuttles here. It's also a way better commute for more lower income folks coming from Stockton, Modesto, etc since it's on the way to San Jose so you can actually have a labor force to staff restaurants, hotels, hospitals, schools, etc. However, there has been a recent wave of NIMBYism coming through as the development has been unchecked and they haven't built enough public services (like schools) to support the housing growth. Many locals also do not like the efficient land use through zero-lot-lines and multi-story townhomes that the developers are flattening hills to build. I hear a lot of jeers calling my neighborhood "an eyesore" full of "cookie cutter homes". My hope that this all gets resolved in the next few years as people come to their senses but it's clear that Californians really have no idea how to plan urban development to match their growth.
ProfessorLayton 8y ago
Part of me is still trying to understand why the housing shortage in the Bay Area is so severe. I understand NIMBYism from the homeowner's perspective, but there are a lot of renters in the SF Bay. SF is 63% renters, and should be able to outnumber NIMBY homeowners easily to have a lot more dense housing built. Alameda County is in 2nd place at 47% renters [1], so only a small percentage of homeowners need convincing that this housing shortage is bad for everyone in the long term. [1] http://www.towncharts.com/California/Housing/Alameda-County-CA-Housing-data.html http://www.towncharts.com/California/Housing/Alameda-County-...
- nerfhammer 8y ago
  75% of SF rental units are rent controlled.
  - ProfessorLayton 8y ago
    Its still difficult to understand, even if one is under rent control, it is still beneficial to push for more housing units. Additionally, single family homes do not fall under rent control in Alameda County, where nearly half of the housing units are rentals.
    - erehweb 8y ago
      Problem is that if there's more development, you may end up being forced out of your rent-controlled place to make way for a bigger building.
    - nerfhammer 8y ago
      How is it beneficial? It removes the vast majority of the benefit at the very least
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    75%?? source? That sounds like too much.
    - 8y ago
Analemma_ 8y ago
It's time to start acknowledging that this is never going to be fixed. SB 827 died when homeowners protested fiercely, and it doesn't look like any proposed replacements are going to get traction either. People just have too much of their equity tied up in their homes. I hate it, but I can also see where they're coming from: if you had a savings account that accounted for most of your net wealth and was appreciating at double-digits per year, and someone wanted to cut it by a significant percentage, you'd fight them to your last breath too. And there's always going to be a supply of readymade arguments for why this is actually the good, progressive thing to do: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/04/why-should-progressives-force-big-cities-to-become-even-bigger/ https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/04/why-should-pr... You may need to either live with this, or get out of the Bay.
- moultano 8y ago
  If they permitted their land to be upzoned, the value of it would rise even faster than it already is, so I don't think financial incentives are the crux of the political opposition. Old home owners in the valley don't want anything to change and resent the change that has already happened.
  - several 8y ago
    You are 100% correct that homeowners stand to make much more money if their land was upzoned, but I think most don't realize this. Perhaps a way out of this NIMBY induced housing crisis is make more of them aware of this fact?
- chrischen 8y ago
  When did it die? I thoughti t is being brought to vote later this year.
  - moultano 8y ago
    It didn't make it out of its first committee.
- 8y ago
jacobkg 8y ago
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 separated. I would not want to do this long term. Now I work from home. I still listen to audiobooks whenever driving which is still amazing.
- frankc 8y ago
  I find longer commutes more tolerable if it's by mass transit, so long as you know you will have a seat. There are a lot of ways to be productive or enjoy your time, where as with a car, you are pretty much limited to audio. I see where you are coming from with the interpersonal stuff but at least you still have the weekend.
- eecsninja 8y ago
  This was why I never got that much value out of being in Silicon Valley beyond my day job. So much of the hot new startup activity was in SF. I lived and worked in the South Bay. While I'd have liked to attend some tech talks in SF, it was not practical for me to leave work early to get there on time, and then figure out how to get back.
  - notadoc 8y ago
    Oakland offers a relatively short commute into SF, and it's affordable by west coast standards.
    - eecsninja 8y ago
      But not a short commute to the South Bay, which is where I worked.
- readittwice 8y ago
  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.
sudouser 8y ago
traffic sucks, people leave their office at 3:30 just to avoid traffic, but _everyone_ is doing it , so they still get stuck in traffic...
- sizzzzlerz 8y ago
  I live in Milpitas and work in Sunnyvale, commuting the 10 miles to my workplace on the infamous Highway 237. Having done this commute for 34 years, I can track the state of the economy by the time it takes to get home in the afternoon. During the recession, it was a breeze, 20 minute average. Today, even leaving around 3, 30-40 minute commutes are typical. Trying the same commute an hour or two later can add another half hour. I truly feel for people who have those longer commutes beyond Milpitas on 880, 680, and 580. Those are truly nasty.
  - d1zzy 8y ago
    Depending of where in Milpitas and Sunnyvale there are some nice bike routes. 10 miles isn't a big deal to bike, especially if you go for an e-bike (and with this latter option it should be less than the time it takes to drive and you don't get your anger worked up for being stuck in bumper to bumper traffic).
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
I realise new buildings are carbon intensive, but does anyone have the knowledge to do a back-of-the-envelope comparison of carbon emissions if these super-commuters were to move in to high-density housing that enabled them to walk or cycle to their jobs.
- djrogers 8y ago
  That presumes they'd want to live in high-density housing, doesn't it? There is high density housing available with shorter commute times already at costs similar to low dessnity housing further out. Granted, it's not zero commute, but I' not sure how much difference that would make. Some people choose a lifestyle for their families that differs from what might be optimally efficient, for reasons that other's don't prioritize as highly.
  - usaar333 8y ago
    +1 these commutes reasonably have cost (including time cost) of over $1000 a month. From a pure economic standpoint, they could afford closer housing.
- chrischen 8y ago
  New buildings sequester carbon, especially if it doesn’t use recylced wood. Additionally high density housing and cities are vastly more energy efficient than sprawling suburbs based on at least one simple factor: cars.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    In what sense do large high density housing projects sequester carbon? They’re typically made from a lot of steel and concrete, both of which are carbon intensive. No one will be building high density housing from recycled timber any time soon.
    - chrischen 8y ago
      Totally possible: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscrapers-timber-trend-catching-fire-duplicate-2/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscrapers-timber-... Large housing projects require less material and construction than low density housing. Why? Because low density housing is essentially doing a relatively giant housing project per person, spread over way more physical distance. People have to live somewhere, so if high density housing isn't made then they have to live in energy and resource wasting low-density housing. That being said, living in high density will always be more energy efficient as less energy is wasted on locomotion for people, less energy is needed to service garbage pickup/disposal, less electricity is needed for heating/cooling, less material to construct a habitable unit, less energy is wasted transporting people to their work, less energy is wasted getting food to people (one grocery store to serve a whole high density area rather than a large distributed network of grocery stores), less energy wasted on food delivery (delivery driver can just go to one building versus driving the car around the suburbs)... and the list goes on.
replicatorblog 8y ago
FWIW, this is also true in Boston. I commute from southern NH to Harvard Sq. every day. Unless you have two substantial incomes, or are ok with sub-par schools and a tiny space, it's hard to live close to most economically dynamic cities.
- seibelj 8y ago
  No, this is because you chose to live extremely far away! There are plenty of places in Massachusetts that are closer and affordable, with decent schools. Every employee I've had who commuted from NH to Boston wound up pretty miserable because of the commute.
  - ducster696 8y ago
    There aren't that many places left out there between NH and Boston that are on the affordable scale. Do you have a couple towns in mind that are fairly affordable still? I have been looking in the suburbs of Boston and when I switched it up to look at Southern NH it was crazy the changes in prices as well as how long the houses have been on the market.
    - replicatorblog 8y ago
      Depends a lot on your definition of affordable. Assuming a budget of $500K, a desire for 3-bedroom+, a commute to Boston/Cambridge, and access to a strong school system, these are the towns I'd consider: + Acton: there are a couple dozen 1,500 sqft. split levels that come on the market per year. Good commuter rail access to the red line. Top 20 state school system. + Andover/Burlington/Frankling are all top 50 school districts, have a limited selction of affordable, though mostly much older houses. You're still looking at an hour to boston, but if you want to work at Oracle, iRobot, Philips, etc. you'll be right there. + Westford: You'll find a decent stock of older 1,000-1,500 sqft. places. Top 20 state school system. Horrible commute into Boston proper, but not bad if you work on the 95/128 belt. Medford and Malden are gentrifying, the former more quickly than the latter, but you're making a pretty big trade-off in terms of school quality. If your office is walking distance to South Station, or North Station, there are some farther flung suburbs with commuter rail access that would be workable. E.g. Newburyport has a cool seaside vibe and a commuter train into the heart of the city, though you're looking at an over an hour of travel time. Southern NH is iffy. Windham is the main town for families, has reasonable prices and houses go very quickly in terms of sales. Salem, Hampstead, Pelham, Derry, Londonderry, not so much. You could theoretically commute from Nashua, but that seems insane to me. If you can afford something in the $750K range you'll find ok townhouses in hip cities like Somerville and Arlington. That sum will get your foot in the door of a fixer-upper in tonier towns like Winchester and Lexington. As you might be able to guess, I'm in the market as well, so if you've got any advice on hidden gems of towns, I'm all ears :)
pm90 8y ago
Wouldn't this be a prime target for new mass transit options?
- blang 8y ago
  Yes, but I would put housing density above mass transit in efficacy.
  - RandallBrown 8y ago
    I think many of the people making these huge commutes don't want dense housing, they want a big house with a yard and a garage.
    - sampo 8y ago
      Might feel a bit counterintuitive, but allowing dense cores, at least all the people desiring urban, walkable, lifestyle would get to live near the core. And thus these people would not compete for the suburban homes so the suburban homes might stay a bit cheaper. The denser the core, the more there is room for suburbia nearer the core, too.
    - bluGill 8y ago
      Everybody wants the best of all worlds. I want 100 acres so that I can have fresh milk from my cows every morning (never mind that I wouldn't want to spend the time required to care cows every day). I want my kids to go to school next door. I want it on the ocean for swimming and fishing. I want my job to be 3 blocks away. I want to look out all my windows and now see any signs of other humans. I want ... (you should be able to add at least 20 mutually exclusive desires to this list that are all thing you would actually want in a dream house/location). Now that we have established you can't have it all, what compromise are you willing to live with? I know people who love their horses enough that they give up everything else to get the room for their horses. I know people who like night life enough that they give up horses so they can get that. When thinking about compromise, remember that adding density can change the personal calculation. Right now density is expensive - my horse friends pay less for their housing - including the barn - than a much smaller living space in New York would cost. (care for the horses costs more than the night life in NYC) If you can bring the cost of density down it is fair to wonder who would give up the horse lifestyle for the things you could get with density.
fokinsean 8y ago
I recently had an opportunity to move out to the Bay Area with my current job (I am currently at a satellite office). The commute time combined with CoL and a few other factors made the decision easy to not go. I currently have a 3 minute commute and I would honestly lose my mind if I had to commute 90 mins one way. I have also been seeing a general rise of articles mentioning how many people are leaving, how insane the commutes are becoming, and general unpleasantness of living there if you aren't in the top 10%. Don't get me wrong, I fully enjoy the area when I visit but unless there are significant changes I don't see myself ever being able to move there.
- octorian 8y ago
  If people were actually leaving, then these problems would be getting better... not worse. If you can live somewhere that public transit (by rail) is feasible, then its quite tolerable. Of course this is the US, where that's less common than it should be.
- aphextron 8y ago
  >. I have also been seeing a general rise of articles mentioning how many people are leaving, how insane the commutes are becoming, and general unpleasantness of living there if you aren't in the top 10%. But if you are in the top 10%, life is amazing here. It's an absolute paradise. Every single time I'm sitting in traffic hating my life, I try to do a pro/con on getting the hell out of here. Every single time I just can't justify it. The weather, the scenery, the ocean, the food, the people, the tech. There is literally nowhere else in the US even remotely on par. LA is pretty close, but the bay is much more "livable" IMO. People may be leaving in droves, but it's only because they have to, not really because they want to.
  - bllguo 8y ago
    LA has similar problems as well, so you're stuck either way. Price of paradise I suppose.
  - abritinthebay 8y ago
    And missing in the (usually propaganda) discussion of the "leaving in droves" is that CA and the Bay have a net increase in population. So while many are leaving it's not like they aren't being replaced!
ModernMech 8y ago
My old neighbor in SF and commutes to Cupertino for work. So many people in the company do it, that the company has set up a hotel where employees can sleep if they don't want to head back to SF. His girlfriend is not happy about that arrangement. Actually when I lived in SF, it took me over an hour to get to work in SOMA. We joke and call the outer Richmond the SF suburbs, because it takes as long to get to downtown from there as from the actual suburbs of most cities.
- minimaxir 8y ago
  I live in SF and worked at Apple. The commute was one of the reasons I left, and would be hesitant to work at another South Bay company.
rhacker 8y ago
So like if you go into a building there are signs that say "Max capacity..." So this is only happening because there is no such department rule that applies to entire cities/counties.
tabeth 8y ago
Is it not possible to do hub-and-spoke with buses? That would cut the commute drastically without any infrastructure required. Buy the buses, find the optimum routes and go.
- wil421 8y ago
  Aren’t busses going to contribute to the problem? A city close to mine wants to extended the light rail a few miles to do hub and spoke. I would think a tunnel or railway alongside a highway would reduce traffic.
  - tabeth 8y ago
    How would buses contribute to the problem? Assuming every person who takes the bus would otherwise drive, a single bus would wipe out dozens of cars on the roads.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      > Assuming every person who takes the bus would otherwise drive This assumption is where the problem is. For example, Google employees live in central San Francisco but commute to work in Mountain View because a bus service was added. They wouldn't be attempting that commute in a car in the first place. These busses have added to traffic, not reduced it.
      - tabeth 8y ago
        Sure, but how would they get to work if there were no buses? A fraction of them would drive, no? Buses are a net positive.
        chrisseaton 8y ago
        Maybe they would live in Mountain View and walk, so not creating any new traffic at all? Or live somewhere on the train line and take a train? If none of those people would drive instead, or even if only a couple of them would, then the massive bus is a negative.
spyspy 8y ago
The sad fact is that long as people are willing to put up with this nothing is going to change. The crazy rents and terrible commutes sound insane to anyone living elsewhere but people are continuously more than happy to continue doing them to work at companies that haven't been priced out yet either. It's not an issue of social mobility either, since people living in the bay area are some of the most socially mobile workforce there is. Housing regulations may not be efficient given the circumstances but it'll only stop when everyone says enough is enough and leaves.
- gresrun 8y ago
  I know I chose to move out here because it was the best career move I could make. Having a FANG company on my resume plus the ridiculous salary and equity while I'm here would be foolish to pass up.
  - thirduncle 8y ago
    the ridiculous salary and equity while I'm here would be foolish to pass up So - how much of the "ridiculous" salary is left after subtracting living costs and taxes, actually?
    - guiomie 8y ago
      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.
      - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Besides rent, are other things really 25% higher in the Bay Area? Taxes are a bit higher, but cars, computers are about the same, groceries can even be cheaper. A plane ticket to Tokyo is probably even cheaper than most places.
nathan_long 8y ago
Oh, tech companies. If only there were a way to have conversations about, create, and transmit computer programs using some kind of long-distance network. Maybe we could break the data up into "packets". Just thinking out loud here. Then maybe everyone creating textual output for a living wouldn't have to transport their physical body to an office. We can dream.
- blktiger 8y ago
  There are companies out there that are fully remote (like my current employer https://www.sonatype.com/ https://www.sonatype.com/). Though I suppose many of them don't like to hire fresh graduates so you could be in a bit of a chicken/egg problem.
  - nathan_long 8y ago
    I've been a fully remote developer for 4 1/2 years. My employer has no physical office. I live in a pleasant medium-sized town, I bought a house for less than a Bay-area toolshed, and I can commute myself downstairs to make a sandwich. If every worker were remote, can you even imagine how hard you'd have to work to justify a physical office to the CFO and potential hires?
    - briffle 8y ago
      I have a similar setup, but I also live 2 time zones from my employer. to make things easier, I work 6am-3pm. I often go run errands after work before traffic start getting bad, but sometimes, I end up caught in 'rush hour' traffic and I just feel sorry for all of them. (and I live in a small town of 150k people)
      - masklinn 8y ago
        > I live in a small town of 150k people Even to the US's outsized standards, 150k is a mid-size city, not a small town.
    - rubicon33 8y ago
Jldevictoria 8y ago
I grew up in a suburb on the outer edges of the bay area where my father commuted over an hour every day. I also had two jobs that required me to commute over one hour. These experiences led me to vow that I would never take a job where I had to commute longer than 30 minutes. I'm sitting at ~20 minutes now and looking to shorten it, and it has made my life so much better.
jpao79 8y ago
I think the key that legislatures should focus on is up-zoning industrial lots near transit with large state tax incentives (i.e. capital gains tax exemption) for owners of 100 acre industrial lots near transit if multiple land owners sell at the same time to make room for high density schools, etc. The Fremont Warm Springs project had few complaints from neighbors about overcrowded schools, etc. because they Lennar is building a new school. https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/17/fremont-approves-lennar-project-in-innovation-district/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/17/fremont-approves-lenn... The Google San Jose will be transformative as up until now all of the FANG offices have been planted in suburban office parks with horrible access to transit. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/10/google-says-its-getting-closer-to-owning-enough-downtown-san-jose-properties-for-viable-development/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/10/google-says-its-getti...
WhiteOwlLion 8y ago
LOL, 90 minute 'super commutes'. Come to Los Angeles and try 2-3 hour super duper commute.
tlrobinson 8y ago
It will be interesting to see the effect fully autonomous vehicles (eventually) have on traffic/commuting. If you can just nap or get work done while commuting you might not mind a 90-minute commute as much. On the other hand, if you can’t afford an autonomous car and have to commute it will be even more hellish...
reaperducer 8y ago
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.
- lightbyte 8y ago
  >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).
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    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-commuting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/realestate/extreme-commut...
- misiti3780 8y ago
  yes, but by train, where you can actually accomplish a lot of things you cannot accomplish while driving.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    >yes, but by train, where you can actually accomplish a lot of things you cannot accomplish while driving. Most of the road warriors drive. Only a lucky minority live near where the trains run.
    - misiti3780 8y ago
      granted im working with a small sample size, but i live in NYC and everyone know that commutes in, and i mean everyone, drives to a train station and takes a train it, parking in midtown as high as 600/month, it makes no sense to actually compute it.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
This article points out the challenge of asymmetric wages on communities. Engineers, managers, and executives living close to work and wait staff, support services, teachers, etc commuting in from far afield. It isn't sustainable, and it will crash back to earth. One of the houses near me recently sold for way more than expected, and I pointed out that the development it was in had been build during the dot.com boom, what was more nearly all of the houses in that development had fallen out of escrow (the buyers walked away) when the crash hit because their source of wealth (stock in technology companies) essentially evaporated over 6 months.
lanevorockz 8y ago
This is because California has neglected any planning. There is a science called Urbanism that if applied on city planning, it can make the whole city sustainable and better for everyone.
eloff 8y ago
If you're doing this, your almost certainly choosing a suboptimal career path. I think most of the times you could optimize your job and location and come out ahead economically. That's not the only consideration, but it's tough to imagine the 90 minute commute winning on quality of life factors.
- sushisource 8y ago
  Yeah, that's one of the pieces that's never made sense to me. Like the woman in the article. There really isn't a closer Red Lobster or similar restaurant you could work at?
  - eloff 8y ago
    It amazes me how people get comfortable in a rut and just stay there. I think we're averse to change by nature, but that attitude does us no favors.
- pp19dd 8y ago
  Very rational thinking for an individual, one I happen to share. However, in a large system, there have to be some practical limits to consider in order to apply this stratagem to a large number of people. Bottlenecks. Like both this traffic jam and number of available positions in the entry / exit funnel of an occupation. All I have is questions, but, could you imagine what % of workers can possibly achieve the optimal career path without noticeably impeding others? At what point does it become unreasonably competitive to align housing, work and family situations for everyone?
  - eloff 8y ago
    You don't have to worry about everyone unless you're the government. You definitely should work on optimizing your own career path. Two separate problems for different groups of people.
    - pp19dd 8y ago
      My point was trying to lead toward understanding the problem, not the optics of the problem.
49bc 8y ago
Let’s just get a few things straight regarding remote work: * Your job is not to “write code” no matter how much you wish it was that simple. Your job is to provide value for your company. * You provide much more value for your company when you’re available in-person than when you’re remote. You provide value to your coworkers who can communicate to you easily, effectively, and timely. * it’s much easier for your manager to gauge that value in person than remotely, so you create less work for those that are responsible for you’re performance (and your job). If you over-simplify your role, then it’s easy to wonder why remote work isn’t more successful. When you become responsible for the health of the business, then it becomes much more clear.
- jupiter90000 8y ago
  Let's get another thing straight: remote workers can add enough value that a company will want to hire them, and it happens all the time.
  - 49bc 8y ago
    Yes, and that value is commensurate with the number of remote workers.
dawnerd 8y ago
I got my start in tech by driving over an hour each way into LA. Sucked with lower salary but now Im happily working remote and rarely driving. Last two years I've barely got 10k miles - most of those from driving from Portland to LA a couple times.
subpixel 8y ago
In NYC, 2hr+ commutes from New Jersey that involve a car, a bus, and some trains are not uncommon.
jlarocco 8y ago
I feel bad for people who have to do this. I'm sure they can justify it to themselves and explain it away as not a big deal, but I've done it, and know that it's terrible. There are so many better ways to spend that time than sitting in a vehicle. If I can't reasonably ride my bike to work then I'm not interested. It's just not worth the decrease in quality of life.
Rafuino 8y ago
I'm in this boat right now. I'm lucky to have a very short commute today, but for personal reasons I may need to move where I'll have a 90-120 minute commute. It's to the point I may need to switch jobs or companies to make it work.
vondur 8y ago
Living in SoCal, many of us would see that as a normal commute.
nathanaldensr 8y ago
Spending three hours of every day stuck in a car. Ugh. I don't care if I have to take a huge pay-cut; I'm never opting in to that kind of lifestyle.
CM30 8y ago
How does this compare to other popular cities? Because it seems like it's about as common to have 90+ minute commutes over here in London too. I know people who came from Cambridge to London (and back) every day. People coming in from all over the country is pretty damn common here, and a large percentage of jobs I've had in software engineering have involved commutes of this length. See also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38026625 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38026625 Seems like an unfortunate side effect of a city with far more people than available/affordable housing, and one I'm not sure about the answer to.
notadoc 8y ago
It's not just LA anymore, 90+ minute commutes are common in Seattle and Portland as well, often for surprisingly short distances in terms of mileage. The traffic and congestion in the trendy west coast cities is terrible. Many of these cities are still using infrastructure from 60+ years ago that may have been sufficient back then, but now are woefully inadequate with populations many multiples larger.
justboxing 8y ago
> Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabo...
TurplePurtle 8y ago
I'd like to believe that in a future where VR is affordable enough for most people, we'll have virtual reality offices that allow us to communicate with co-workers and have meetings as if we were actually there.
eqdw 8y ago
My bay area commutes: 2012-2013, live in SF work in San Mateo 25 minute walk to caltrain + 45 minute caltrain ride + 5 minute walk from caltrain ====> 75 minute door to door 2013-2014, live in SF (Potrero Ave in the Mission) work in SF (Financial District) On bus, due to surface traffic + busses not coming, anywhere from 20 - 80 minute commute On foot, ~75 minute commute (3.5 miles walk) ===> 75 minute door to door 2014-2015, live in Berkeley, Work in SF 20 minute walk to BART + 30 minute BART ride + 15 minute walk from BART ===> 65 minute door to doo 2015-2017, live in Oakland work in SF 20 minute walk to Transbay bus + 20 - 60 minute bus ride + 15 minute walk from BART ===> on average 90 minute commute I absolutely agree that 90 minute commutes are absurd and unacceptable. I moved out of the bay area and now my door to door commute is 15-20 minutes. It has dramatically changed my life for the better. But every time I read an article that complains about the commutes in the bay area _getting bad_, it confuses me. My commutes in the bay area have _always_ been that bad. Who are all these people with relatively reasonable commutes and how do they do it?
- d1zzy 8y ago
  Depends on how far back you go for "always", the source/destination of your commutes and the manner (walking, biking, transit, driving). 10 years ago I'd commute (driving) further for around 20 minutes, now it takes me 40 minutes for 75% of the same distance. And luckily I don't even have to take 85 or 880 anymore and can bike most of the days so I don't really care but I have noticed large commute times differences over the past 10 years. And it's only going to get worse.
maxk42 8y ago
If your company is trying to be environmentally-conscious and they don't allow telecommuting, then they are failing to do the one thing that would have the biggest impact on carbon emissions for most tech companies.
smb06 8y ago
90? I'd give a leg for that. I commute SF to SJ typically 105 mins and more likely 120 mins. One way.

127 points by moultano 8y ago

90 minutes is now a "super commute"? hahaha.... HAHAHAHA... bwaaaaahahahahahahahahaha gasp haaaaahahahahahahahahaha. a few years back, when i was working in palo alto and living in SJ/milpitas it regularly took me 90 minutes to make the 20 mile commute home. needless to say, i quit that job, moved to the alameda county and found a job a mile from my house. now i actually have a SUPER commute, which means i can take the bus, ride my bike or walk depending on my mood. :)

lallysingh 8y ago

90 minutes is common if you work in NYC and have a suburban home.

overcast 8y ago
That doesn't make it any better. As someone who drives home for lunch five minutes away, that sounds like hell.
biohax2015 8y ago
Yep. 1:40 here. It sucks.
RandallBrown 8y ago
I live in Poughkeepsie and work in Manhattan. It takes me about 2 hours and 10 minutes from the door of my apartment to the door of my office. I live a 10 minute walk from the train station in PK and work a 10 minute walk away from Grand Central. There are probably a few hundred people at the train station every morning, from much farther away than I am, who probably have to take another subway to their job once they get to Grand Central. It's bananas and the only reason I'm doing it is because my fiancee is in school in Poughkeepsie. I always wonder what the other people's reasons are.
- lallysingh 8y ago
  If your family doesn't want to live in the city, you end up pretty far pretty quickly.
free652 8y ago
An hour commute is normal within NYC. My commute on average was 50 minutes for the last 20years, door to door. 10 mins walk to a train or a bus, 30 mins ride, 10mins walk to the desk. Now I have a house in Staten Island and it’s still 50 minutes - though I can cheat a bit by driving to the bus. It’s actually a 15 mins walk, but I don’t mind it.
stolson 8y ago
My commute ranges anywhere from 35 minutes to 90 minutes. It used to be pretty consistently under an hour to mostly anywhere in Manhattan south of Central Park, but the past few years have been pretty terrible (thanks MTA).

allengeorge 8y ago

Sounds like living in the GTA

hsnewman 8y ago

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

salmonfamine 8y ago
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.

WhompingWindows 8y ago

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. For those who aren't aware, many of Boston's intersections and squares are terrible intersections, remnants of the crossings due to actual cow-paths. There's also a massive amount of old housing property and relatively little new housing stock. There are high density apartment or condo buildings sprouting up here and there, but by large, you're going to be paying over 1 million for a small/old house in/around Boston, possibly 2 million depending on the location. If you're willing to commute 1.5 hours, you can get a fixer upper in a semi-rural area for around 300-400k. If Amazon came to Boston, it would be compound this problem exponentially, though whoever owns property currently would definitely make a good return.

tjridesbikes 8y ago
This is the exact reason I don't commute by car. I live in Jamaica Plain and work in Kendall Square. Driving takes 45 minutes to go 4 miles. Taking the T takes 40 minutes. I ride my bike and my commute is 17 minutes each way, no matter the hour, traffic, or weather.
- WhompingWindows 8y ago
  Ah, nice! I lived in Arlington and my commute to Cambridge was literally 2X faster on a bike than any other possible method. It's crazy to ZOOM down the bike lane at 15 mph while the cars are idling at 0mph waiting for the very slow traffic cycles to progress.
ilamont 8y ago
What I find amazing is companies insisting on being located near Kendall or the Seaport District (and paying massive amounts of money for the privilege) to be "innovative." Why aren't more companies in New England going to where the commercial real estate and housing are cheaper?

synaesthesisx 8y ago

A lot of companies have been moving to LA/SD recently for this reason. There are plenty of cities that offer more than the Bay Area without the NIMBY attitude toward building new housing.

bllguo 8y ago
unfortunately, I can assure you that NIMBYism is alive and well in LA too. Maybe not as bad as SF (I don't know how to compare), but even if that's true, unless regulation occurs this is just kicking the can down the road
jonas21 8y ago
Which companies are these?
mateo411 8y ago
NIMBYism isn't restricted to the Bay Area.

hkarthik 8y ago

The picture in the article is from the I-580 exit in Dublin/Pleasanton about 5 minutes from my house. The real estate here is booming as many people have settled here due to BART proximity and the fact that it's one of the few communities building lots of new housing. All the FANG companies are also sending their shuttles here. It's also a way better commute for more lower income folks coming from Stockton, Modesto, etc since it's on the way to San Jose so you can actually have a labor force to staff restaurants, hotels, hospitals, schools, etc. However, there has been a recent wave of NIMBYism coming through as the development has been unchecked and they haven't built enough public services (like schools) to support the housing growth. Many locals also do not like the efficient land use through zero-lot-lines and multi-story townhomes that the developers are flattening hills to build. I hear a lot of jeers calling my neighborhood "an eyesore" full of "cookie cutter homes". My hope that this all gets resolved in the next few years as people come to their senses but it's clear that Californians really have no idea how to plan urban development to match their growth.

ProfessorLayton 8y ago

Part of me is still trying to understand why the housing shortage in the Bay Area is so severe. I understand NIMBYism from the homeowner's perspective, but there are a lot of renters in the SF Bay. SF is 63% renters, and should be able to outnumber NIMBY homeowners easily to have a lot more dense housing built. Alameda County is in 2nd place at 47% renters [1], so only a small percentage of homeowners need convincing that this housing shortage is bad for everyone in the long term. [1] http://www.towncharts.com/California/Housing/Alameda-County-CA-Housing-data.html http://www.towncharts.com/California/Housing/Alameda-County-...

nerfhammer 8y ago
75% of SF rental units are rent controlled.
- ProfessorLayton 8y ago
  Its still difficult to understand, even if one is under rent control, it is still beneficial to push for more housing units. Additionally, single family homes do not fall under rent control in Alameda County, where nearly half of the housing units are rentals.
  - erehweb 8y ago
    Problem is that if there's more development, you may end up being forced out of your rent-controlled place to make way for a bigger building.
  - nerfhammer 8y ago
    How is it beneficial? It removes the vast majority of the benefit at the very least
- conanbatt 8y ago
  75%?? source? That sounds like too much.
  - 8y ago

Analemma_ 8y ago

It's time to start acknowledging that this is never going to be fixed. SB 827 died when homeowners protested fiercely, and it doesn't look like any proposed replacements are going to get traction either. People just have too much of their equity tied up in their homes. I hate it, but I can also see where they're coming from: if you had a savings account that accounted for most of your net wealth and was appreciating at double-digits per year, and someone wanted to cut it by a significant percentage, you'd fight them to your last breath too. And there's always going to be a supply of readymade arguments for why this is actually the good, progressive thing to do: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/04/why-should-progressives-force-big-cities-to-become-even-bigger/ https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/04/why-should-pr... You may need to either live with this, or get out of the Bay.

moultano 8y ago
If they permitted their land to be upzoned, the value of it would rise even faster than it already is, so I don't think financial incentives are the crux of the political opposition. Old home owners in the valley don't want anything to change and resent the change that has already happened.
- several 8y ago
  You are 100% correct that homeowners stand to make much more money if their land was upzoned, but I think most don't realize this. Perhaps a way out of this NIMBY induced housing crisis is make more of them aware of this fact?
chrischen 8y ago
When did it die? I thoughti t is being brought to vote later this year.
- moultano 8y ago
  It didn't make it out of its first committee.
8y ago

jacobkg 8y ago

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 separated. I would not want to do this long term. Now I work from home. I still listen to audiobooks whenever driving which is still amazing.

frankc 8y ago
I find longer commutes more tolerable if it's by mass transit, so long as you know you will have a seat. There are a lot of ways to be productive or enjoy your time, where as with a car, you are pretty much limited to audio. I see where you are coming from with the interpersonal stuff but at least you still have the weekend.
eecsninja 8y ago
This was why I never got that much value out of being in Silicon Valley beyond my day job. So much of the hot new startup activity was in SF. I lived and worked in the South Bay. While I'd have liked to attend some tech talks in SF, it was not practical for me to leave work early to get there on time, and then figure out how to get back.
- notadoc 8y ago
  Oakland offers a relatively short commute into SF, and it's affordable by west coast standards.
  - eecsninja 8y ago
    But not a short commute to the South Bay, which is where I worked.
readittwice 8y ago
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.

sudouser 8y ago

traffic sucks, people leave their office at 3:30 just to avoid traffic, but _everyone_ is doing it , so they still get stuck in traffic...

sizzzzlerz 8y ago
I live in Milpitas and work in Sunnyvale, commuting the 10 miles to my workplace on the infamous Highway 237. Having done this commute for 34 years, I can track the state of the economy by the time it takes to get home in the afternoon. During the recession, it was a breeze, 20 minute average. Today, even leaving around 3, 30-40 minute commutes are typical. Trying the same commute an hour or two later can add another half hour. I truly feel for people who have those longer commutes beyond Milpitas on 880, 680, and 580. Those are truly nasty.
- d1zzy 8y ago
  Depending of where in Milpitas and Sunnyvale there are some nice bike routes. 10 miles isn't a big deal to bike, especially if you go for an e-bike (and with this latter option it should be less than the time it takes to drive and you don't get your anger worked up for being stuck in bumper to bumper traffic).

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

I realise new buildings are carbon intensive, but does anyone have the knowledge to do a back-of-the-envelope comparison of carbon emissions if these super-commuters were to move in to high-density housing that enabled them to walk or cycle to their jobs.

djrogers 8y ago
That presumes they'd want to live in high-density housing, doesn't it? There is high density housing available with shorter commute times already at costs similar to low dessnity housing further out. Granted, it's not zero commute, but I' not sure how much difference that would make. Some people choose a lifestyle for their families that differs from what might be optimally efficient, for reasons that other's don't prioritize as highly.
- usaar333 8y ago
  +1 these commutes reasonably have cost (including time cost) of over $1000 a month. From a pure economic standpoint, they could afford closer housing.
chrischen 8y ago
New buildings sequester carbon, especially if it doesn’t use recylced wood. Additionally high density housing and cities are vastly more energy efficient than sprawling suburbs based on at least one simple factor: cars.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  In what sense do large high density housing projects sequester carbon? They’re typically made from a lot of steel and concrete, both of which are carbon intensive. No one will be building high density housing from recycled timber any time soon.
  - chrischen 8y ago
    Totally possible: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscrapers-timber-trend-catching-fire-duplicate-2/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscrapers-timber-... Large housing projects require less material and construction than low density housing. Why? Because low density housing is essentially doing a relatively giant housing project per person, spread over way more physical distance. People have to live somewhere, so if high density housing isn't made then they have to live in energy and resource wasting low-density housing. That being said, living in high density will always be more energy efficient as less energy is wasted on locomotion for people, less energy is needed to service garbage pickup/disposal, less electricity is needed for heating/cooling, less material to construct a habitable unit, less energy is wasted transporting people to their work, less energy is wasted getting food to people (one grocery store to serve a whole high density area rather than a large distributed network of grocery stores), less energy wasted on food delivery (delivery driver can just go to one building versus driving the car around the suburbs)... and the list goes on.

replicatorblog 8y ago

FWIW, this is also true in Boston. I commute from southern NH to Harvard Sq. every day. Unless you have two substantial incomes, or are ok with sub-par schools and a tiny space, it's hard to live close to most economically dynamic cities.

seibelj 8y ago
No, this is because you chose to live extremely far away! There are plenty of places in Massachusetts that are closer and affordable, with decent schools. Every employee I've had who commuted from NH to Boston wound up pretty miserable because of the commute.
- ducster696 8y ago
  There aren't that many places left out there between NH and Boston that are on the affordable scale. Do you have a couple towns in mind that are fairly affordable still? I have been looking in the suburbs of Boston and when I switched it up to look at Southern NH it was crazy the changes in prices as well as how long the houses have been on the market.
  - replicatorblog 8y ago
    Depends a lot on your definition of affordable. Assuming a budget of $500K, a desire for 3-bedroom+, a commute to Boston/Cambridge, and access to a strong school system, these are the towns I'd consider: + Acton: there are a couple dozen 1,500 sqft. split levels that come on the market per year. Good commuter rail access to the red line. Top 20 state school system. + Andover/Burlington/Frankling are all top 50 school districts, have a limited selction of affordable, though mostly much older houses. You're still looking at an hour to boston, but if you want to work at Oracle, iRobot, Philips, etc. you'll be right there. + Westford: You'll find a decent stock of older 1,000-1,500 sqft. places. Top 20 state school system. Horrible commute into Boston proper, but not bad if you work on the 95/128 belt. Medford and Malden are gentrifying, the former more quickly than the latter, but you're making a pretty big trade-off in terms of school quality. If your office is walking distance to South Station, or North Station, there are some farther flung suburbs with commuter rail access that would be workable. E.g. Newburyport has a cool seaside vibe and a commuter train into the heart of the city, though you're looking at an over an hour of travel time. Southern NH is iffy. Windham is the main town for families, has reasonable prices and houses go very quickly in terms of sales. Salem, Hampstead, Pelham, Derry, Londonderry, not so much. You could theoretically commute from Nashua, but that seems insane to me. If you can afford something in the $750K range you'll find ok townhouses in hip cities like Somerville and Arlington. That sum will get your foot in the door of a fixer-upper in tonier towns like Winchester and Lexington. As you might be able to guess, I'm in the market as well, so if you've got any advice on hidden gems of towns, I'm all ears :)

pm90 8y ago

Wouldn't this be a prime target for new mass transit options?

blang 8y ago
Yes, but I would put housing density above mass transit in efficacy.
- RandallBrown 8y ago
  I think many of the people making these huge commutes don't want dense housing, they want a big house with a yard and a garage.
  - sampo 8y ago
    Might feel a bit counterintuitive, but allowing dense cores, at least all the people desiring urban, walkable, lifestyle would get to live near the core. And thus these people would not compete for the suburban homes so the suburban homes might stay a bit cheaper. The denser the core, the more there is room for suburbia nearer the core, too.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    Everybody wants the best of all worlds. I want 100 acres so that I can have fresh milk from my cows every morning (never mind that I wouldn't want to spend the time required to care cows every day). I want my kids to go to school next door. I want it on the ocean for swimming and fishing. I want my job to be 3 blocks away. I want to look out all my windows and now see any signs of other humans. I want ... (you should be able to add at least 20 mutually exclusive desires to this list that are all thing you would actually want in a dream house/location). Now that we have established you can't have it all, what compromise are you willing to live with? I know people who love their horses enough that they give up everything else to get the room for their horses. I know people who like night life enough that they give up horses so they can get that. When thinking about compromise, remember that adding density can change the personal calculation. Right now density is expensive - my horse friends pay less for their housing - including the barn - than a much smaller living space in New York would cost. (care for the horses costs more than the night life in NYC) If you can bring the cost of density down it is fair to wonder who would give up the horse lifestyle for the things you could get with density.

fokinsean 8y ago

I recently had an opportunity to move out to the Bay Area with my current job (I am currently at a satellite office). The commute time combined with CoL and a few other factors made the decision easy to not go. I currently have a 3 minute commute and I would honestly lose my mind if I had to commute 90 mins one way. I have also been seeing a general rise of articles mentioning how many people are leaving, how insane the commutes are becoming, and general unpleasantness of living there if you aren't in the top 10%. Don't get me wrong, I fully enjoy the area when I visit but unless there are significant changes I don't see myself ever being able to move there.

octorian 8y ago
If people were actually leaving, then these problems would be getting better... not worse. If you can live somewhere that public transit (by rail) is feasible, then its quite tolerable. Of course this is the US, where that's less common than it should be.
aphextron 8y ago
>. I have also been seeing a general rise of articles mentioning how many people are leaving, how insane the commutes are becoming, and general unpleasantness of living there if you aren't in the top 10%. But if you are in the top 10%, life is amazing here. It's an absolute paradise. Every single time I'm sitting in traffic hating my life, I try to do a pro/con on getting the hell out of here. Every single time I just can't justify it. The weather, the scenery, the ocean, the food, the people, the tech. There is literally nowhere else in the US even remotely on par. LA is pretty close, but the bay is much more "livable" IMO. People may be leaving in droves, but it's only because they have to, not really because they want to.
- bllguo 8y ago
  LA has similar problems as well, so you're stuck either way. Price of paradise I suppose.
- abritinthebay 8y ago
  And missing in the (usually propaganda) discussion of the "leaving in droves" is that CA and the Bay have a net increase in population. So while many are leaving it's not like they aren't being replaced!

ModernMech 8y ago

My old neighbor in SF and commutes to Cupertino for work. So many people in the company do it, that the company has set up a hotel where employees can sleep if they don't want to head back to SF. His girlfriend is not happy about that arrangement. Actually when I lived in SF, it took me over an hour to get to work in SOMA. We joke and call the outer Richmond the SF suburbs, because it takes as long to get to downtown from there as from the actual suburbs of most cities.

minimaxir 8y ago
I live in SF and worked at Apple. The commute was one of the reasons I left, and would be hesitant to work at another South Bay company.

rhacker 8y ago

So like if you go into a building there are signs that say "Max capacity..." So this is only happening because there is no such department rule that applies to entire cities/counties.

tabeth 8y ago

Is it not possible to do hub-and-spoke with buses? That would cut the commute drastically without any infrastructure required. Buy the buses, find the optimum routes and go.

wil421 8y ago
Aren’t busses going to contribute to the problem? A city close to mine wants to extended the light rail a few miles to do hub and spoke. I would think a tunnel or railway alongside a highway would reduce traffic.
- tabeth 8y ago
  How would buses contribute to the problem? Assuming every person who takes the bus would otherwise drive, a single bus would wipe out dozens of cars on the roads.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > Assuming every person who takes the bus would otherwise drive This assumption is where the problem is. For example, Google employees live in central San Francisco but commute to work in Mountain View because a bus service was added. They wouldn't be attempting that commute in a car in the first place. These busses have added to traffic, not reduced it.
    - tabeth 8y ago
      Sure, but how would they get to work if there were no buses? A fraction of them would drive, no? Buses are a net positive.
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        Maybe they would live in Mountain View and walk, so not creating any new traffic at all? Or live somewhere on the train line and take a train? If none of those people would drive instead, or even if only a couple of them would, then the massive bus is a negative.

spyspy 8y ago

The sad fact is that long as people are willing to put up with this nothing is going to change. The crazy rents and terrible commutes sound insane to anyone living elsewhere but people are continuously more than happy to continue doing them to work at companies that haven't been priced out yet either. It's not an issue of social mobility either, since people living in the bay area are some of the most socially mobile workforce there is. Housing regulations may not be efficient given the circumstances but it'll only stop when everyone says enough is enough and leaves.

gresrun 8y ago
I know I chose to move out here because it was the best career move I could make. Having a FANG company on my resume plus the ridiculous salary and equity while I'm here would be foolish to pass up.
- thirduncle 8y ago
  the ridiculous salary and equity while I'm here would be foolish to pass up So - how much of the "ridiculous" salary is left after subtracting living costs and taxes, actually?
  - guiomie 8y ago
    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.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      Besides rent, are other things really 25% higher in the Bay Area? Taxes are a bit higher, but cars, computers are about the same, groceries can even be cheaper. A plane ticket to Tokyo is probably even cheaper than most places.

nathan_long 8y ago

Oh, tech companies. If only there were a way to have conversations about, create, and transmit computer programs using some kind of long-distance network. Maybe we could break the data up into "packets". Just thinking out loud here. Then maybe everyone creating textual output for a living wouldn't have to transport their physical body to an office. We can dream.

blktiger 8y ago
There are companies out there that are fully remote (like my current employer https://www.sonatype.com/ https://www.sonatype.com/). Though I suppose many of them don't like to hire fresh graduates so you could be in a bit of a chicken/egg problem.
- nathan_long 8y ago
  I've been a fully remote developer for 4 1/2 years. My employer has no physical office. I live in a pleasant medium-sized town, I bought a house for less than a Bay-area toolshed, and I can commute myself downstairs to make a sandwich. If every worker were remote, can you even imagine how hard you'd have to work to justify a physical office to the CFO and potential hires?
  - briffle 8y ago
    I have a similar setup, but I also live 2 time zones from my employer. to make things easier, I work 6am-3pm. I often go run errands after work before traffic start getting bad, but sometimes, I end up caught in 'rush hour' traffic and I just feel sorry for all of them. (and I live in a small town of 150k people)
    - masklinn 8y ago
      > I live in a small town of 150k people Even to the US's outsized standards, 150k is a mid-size city, not a small town.
  - rubicon33 8y ago

Jldevictoria 8y ago

I grew up in a suburb on the outer edges of the bay area where my father commuted over an hour every day. I also had two jobs that required me to commute over one hour. These experiences led me to vow that I would never take a job where I had to commute longer than 30 minutes. I'm sitting at ~20 minutes now and looking to shorten it, and it has made my life so much better.

jpao79 8y ago

I think the key that legislatures should focus on is up-zoning industrial lots near transit with large state tax incentives (i.e. capital gains tax exemption) for owners of 100 acre industrial lots near transit if multiple land owners sell at the same time to make room for high density schools, etc. The Fremont Warm Springs project had few complaints from neighbors about overcrowded schools, etc. because they Lennar is building a new school. https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/17/fremont-approves-lennar-project-in-innovation-district/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/17/fremont-approves-lenn... The Google San Jose will be transformative as up until now all of the FANG offices have been planted in suburban office parks with horrible access to transit. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/10/google-says-its-getting-closer-to-owning-enough-downtown-san-jose-properties-for-viable-development/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/10/google-says-its-getti...

WhiteOwlLion 8y ago

LOL, 90 minute 'super commutes'. Come to Los Angeles and try 2-3 hour super duper commute.

tlrobinson 8y ago

It will be interesting to see the effect fully autonomous vehicles (eventually) have on traffic/commuting. If you can just nap or get work done while commuting you might not mind a 90-minute commute as much. On the other hand, if you can’t afford an autonomous car and have to commute it will be even more hellish...

reaperducer 8y ago

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.

lightbyte 8y ago
>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).
- reaperducer 8y ago
  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-commuting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/realestate/extreme-commut...
misiti3780 8y ago
yes, but by train, where you can actually accomplish a lot of things you cannot accomplish while driving.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  >yes, but by train, where you can actually accomplish a lot of things you cannot accomplish while driving. Most of the road warriors drive. Only a lucky minority live near where the trains run.
  - misiti3780 8y ago
    granted im working with a small sample size, but i live in NYC and everyone know that commutes in, and i mean everyone, drives to a train station and takes a train it, parking in midtown as high as 600/month, it makes no sense to actually compute it.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

This article points out the challenge of asymmetric wages on communities. Engineers, managers, and executives living close to work and wait staff, support services, teachers, etc commuting in from far afield. It isn't sustainable, and it will crash back to earth. One of the houses near me recently sold for way more than expected, and I pointed out that the development it was in had been build during the dot.com boom, what was more nearly all of the houses in that development had fallen out of escrow (the buyers walked away) when the crash hit because their source of wealth (stock in technology companies) essentially evaporated over 6 months.

lanevorockz 8y ago

This is because California has neglected any planning. There is a science called Urbanism that if applied on city planning, it can make the whole city sustainable and better for everyone.

eloff 8y ago

If you're doing this, your almost certainly choosing a suboptimal career path. I think most of the times you could optimize your job and location and come out ahead economically. That's not the only consideration, but it's tough to imagine the 90 minute commute winning on quality of life factors.

sushisource 8y ago
Yeah, that's one of the pieces that's never made sense to me. Like the woman in the article. There really isn't a closer Red Lobster or similar restaurant you could work at?
- eloff 8y ago
  It amazes me how people get comfortable in a rut and just stay there. I think we're averse to change by nature, but that attitude does us no favors.
pp19dd 8y ago
Very rational thinking for an individual, one I happen to share. However, in a large system, there have to be some practical limits to consider in order to apply this stratagem to a large number of people. Bottlenecks. Like both this traffic jam and number of available positions in the entry / exit funnel of an occupation. All I have is questions, but, could you imagine what % of workers can possibly achieve the optimal career path without noticeably impeding others? At what point does it become unreasonably competitive to align housing, work and family situations for everyone?
- eloff 8y ago
  You don't have to worry about everyone unless you're the government. You definitely should work on optimizing your own career path. Two separate problems for different groups of people.
  - pp19dd 8y ago
    My point was trying to lead toward understanding the problem, not the optics of the problem.

49bc 8y ago

Let’s just get a few things straight regarding remote work: * Your job is not to “write code” no matter how much you wish it was that simple. Your job is to provide value for your company. * You provide much more value for your company when you’re available in-person than when you’re remote. You provide value to your coworkers who can communicate to you easily, effectively, and timely. * it’s much easier for your manager to gauge that value in person than remotely, so you create less work for those that are responsible for you’re performance (and your job). If you over-simplify your role, then it’s easy to wonder why remote work isn’t more successful. When you become responsible for the health of the business, then it becomes much more clear.

jupiter90000 8y ago
Let's get another thing straight: remote workers can add enough value that a company will want to hire them, and it happens all the time.
- 49bc 8y ago
  Yes, and that value is commensurate with the number of remote workers.

dawnerd 8y ago

I got my start in tech by driving over an hour each way into LA. Sucked with lower salary but now Im happily working remote and rarely driving. Last two years I've barely got 10k miles - most of those from driving from Portland to LA a couple times.

subpixel 8y ago

In NYC, 2hr+ commutes from New Jersey that involve a car, a bus, and some trains are not uncommon.

jlarocco 8y ago

I feel bad for people who have to do this. I'm sure they can justify it to themselves and explain it away as not a big deal, but I've done it, and know that it's terrible. There are so many better ways to spend that time than sitting in a vehicle. If I can't reasonably ride my bike to work then I'm not interested. It's just not worth the decrease in quality of life.

Rafuino 8y ago

I'm in this boat right now. I'm lucky to have a very short commute today, but for personal reasons I may need to move where I'll have a 90-120 minute commute. It's to the point I may need to switch jobs or companies to make it work.

vondur 8y ago

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

nathanaldensr 8y ago

Spending three hours of every day stuck in a car. Ugh. I don't care if I have to take a huge pay-cut; I'm never opting in to that kind of lifestyle.

CM30 8y ago

How does this compare to other popular cities? Because it seems like it's about as common to have 90+ minute commutes over here in London too. I know people who came from Cambridge to London (and back) every day. People coming in from all over the country is pretty damn common here, and a large percentage of jobs I've had in software engineering have involved commutes of this length. See also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38026625 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38026625 Seems like an unfortunate side effect of a city with far more people than available/affordable housing, and one I'm not sure about the answer to.

notadoc 8y ago

It's not just LA anymore, 90+ minute commutes are common in Seattle and Portland as well, often for surprisingly short distances in terms of mileage. The traffic and congestion in the trendy west coast cities is terrible. Many of these cities are still using infrastructure from 60+ years ago that may have been sufficient back then, but now are woefully inadequate with populations many multiples larger.

justboxing 8y ago

> Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabo...

TurplePurtle 8y ago

I'd like to believe that in a future where VR is affordable enough for most people, we'll have virtual reality offices that allow us to communicate with co-workers and have meetings as if we were actually there.

eqdw 8y ago

My bay area commutes: 2012-2013, live in SF work in San Mateo 25 minute walk to caltrain + 45 minute caltrain ride + 5 minute walk from caltrain ====> 75 minute door to door 2013-2014, live in SF (Potrero Ave in the Mission) work in SF (Financial District) On bus, due to surface traffic + busses not coming, anywhere from 20 - 80 minute commute On foot, ~75 minute commute (3.5 miles walk) ===> 75 minute door to door 2014-2015, live in Berkeley, Work in SF 20 minute walk to BART + 30 minute BART ride + 15 minute walk from BART ===> 65 minute door to doo 2015-2017, live in Oakland work in SF 20 minute walk to Transbay bus + 20 - 60 minute bus ride + 15 minute walk from BART ===> on average 90 minute commute I absolutely agree that 90 minute commutes are absurd and unacceptable. I moved out of the bay area and now my door to door commute is 15-20 minutes. It has dramatically changed my life for the better. But every time I read an article that complains about the commutes in the bay area _getting bad_, it confuses me. My commutes in the bay area have _always_ been that bad. Who are all these people with relatively reasonable commutes and how do they do it?

d1zzy 8y ago
Depends on how far back you go for "always", the source/destination of your commutes and the manner (walking, biking, transit, driving). 10 years ago I'd commute (driving) further for around 20 minutes, now it takes me 40 minutes for 75% of the same distance. And luckily I don't even have to take 85 or 880 anymore and can bike most of the days so I don't really care but I have noticed large commute times differences over the past 10 years. And it's only going to get worse.

maxk42 8y ago

If your company is trying to be environmentally-conscious and they don't allow telecommuting, then they are failing to do the one thing that would have the biggest impact on carbon emissions for most tech companies.

smb06 8y ago

90? I'd give a leg for that. I commute SF to SJ typically 105 mins and more likely 120 mins. One way.