
90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies - moultano
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/25/nightmare-90-minute-super-commutes-more-common-housing-shortage-intensifies/
======
jacobkg
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.

~~~
eecsninja
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
Oakland offers a relatively short commute into SF, and it's affordable by west
coast standards.

~~~
eecsninja
But not a short commute to the South Bay, which is where I worked.

------
spyspy
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.

~~~
jarjoura
Very few places on the planet are as temperate and offer so many options to
escape into nature as the Bay Area. I agree that something has to change, but
trying to convince people that the only answer is to move away is a non-
starter for the majority of the population, especially those who want to live
here.

~~~
hesdeadjim
If they tried Colorado they’d change their mind quick. I always thought I’d
end up in the valley, but after ten years here and seeing how bad the Bay Area
has gotten, there isn’t enough money to convince me to make the switch.

~~~
d1zzy
It's highly subjective, I personally cannot stand temperatures below 15C or
so, it's "painful" (yes, I'm a wuss).

I haven't lived in Colorado but I did live in Europe and recently looked at
the climate/temperature tables of Boulder to compare to Bay Area. It rather
seems to me that it has weather similar to where I lived in Europe (hot
summers, cold winters) with a large variation of daytime/nighttime temperature
and a bit drier climate (in Boulder at least) because of the nearby mountains.
All in all, lots of days in Boulder where temperature average would be <15C so
not that good.

~~~
noir_lord
I don't like anything over 15C, at 20C I'm uncomfortable, at 25C I'm miserable
and at 30C I just want to crawl into a (cool) dark hole and die.

Funny how different people are.

------
WhompingWindows
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.

~~~
ilamont
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?

~~~
ghaff
A lot of tech (outside of biotech) in MA is still outside Boston. After all,
when Teradyne moved out (in the 90s?), they were at that point pretty much the
last tech company in Boston. A lot of the new tech offices are the west coast
company satellite offices.

My company does have an office in the Seaport but it's in Boston specifically
because it makes more sense to have a customer briefing center there. Most MA
employees are about 45 minutes west.

ADDED: And when biotech started going into Kendall Square that area was pretty
much old warehouses. Of course, now it's some of the most expensive real
estate in the Boston area. I know someone whose company moved out of Kendall
Square to move to the Finance District because it was cheaper.

------
fokinsean
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.

~~~
aphextron
>. 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.

~~~
abritinthebay
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!

~~~
jsweojtj
That's not true for California at least,
[http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265](http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265)

Nor for SF itself, "San Francisco had a 2017 net domestic migration of
-2,332." according to [https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-
francisco/article/Bay-A...](https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-
francisco/article/Bay-Area-outward-migration-exodus-sf-redfin-12563337.php)

~~~
muzz
That's only the domestic component. People are coming to SF from other
countries, resulting a net population increase.

[http://www.sfweekly.com/news/san-francisco-hits-new-all-
time...](http://www.sfweekly.com/news/san-francisco-hits-new-all-time-high-
population-884363/)

------
ProfessorLayton
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-...](http://www.towncharts.com/California/Housing/Alameda-County-CA-
Housing-data.html)

~~~
nerfhammer
75% of SF rental units are rent controlled.

~~~
conanbatt
75%?? source?

That sounds like too much.

~~~
davidsawyer
Maybe this is what is being referenced: [https://www.quora.com/What-
percentage-of-San-Francisco-apart...](https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-
of-San-Francisco-apartments-are-under-rent-control)

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](http://sfrb.org/rent-ordinance)

~~~
pmiller2
In NYC terms, I believe "rent control" in SF is more akin to "rent
stabilization."

------
eqdw
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
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.

------
nathan_long
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.

~~~
jasode
_> Then maybe everyone creating textual output for a living wouldn't have to
transport their physical body to an office._

Remote work hasn't taken off on a large scale because massively successful
multi-billion dollar companies like Google/Facebook/Amazon/Apple/SpaceX _were
not built with remote workers_.

You get (relatively) minor companies touting it such as Automattic and
Basecamp. Those smaller businesses haven't achieved enough success to convince
business leaders on a large scale.

So to riff on your writing... _" if only there were a multi-billion dollar
company built on the competitive advantages of remote work."_

If that happened, we'd then have Harvard Business Review doing endless case
studies on its superiority.

EDIT TO ADD:

There is a _limited_ type of "remote" work that existing successful companies
will allow (and even encourage): it's the offsite remote _team_.

Some examples include IBM's team to build the "personal computer" down in
Miami instead of working in the New York offices. Amazon (Seattle hq) has
Lab126 (Silicon Valley) working on the Kindle. Google wanted a rewritten
Javascript V8 engine and hired Lars Bak from Denmark. From the story I
remember, Lars Bak made it a condition of employment to not relocate to
California and because he already had the reputation, Google agreed. At first,
he worked out of his home in Denmark but then he opened a Google office and
_his programming team then worked in that office._

Those semi-remote scenarios are about as far as you're going to get until
other businesses with full remote employees working from home proves to the
business world that "remote working" is a _competitive advantage_.

Remote office with an onsite team in that remote office -- yes. Remote
telecommuting from home on a large scale? Not yet.

~~~
commandlinefan
> Remote work hasn't taken off on a large scale

Which is fortunate for any US or European citizen who hopes to ever find
employment again.

~~~
raverbashing
I'm not worried with the competition from abroad.

Culture is an issue (both from the contractor and the hiring sides), quality
is another (in some places).

~~~
commandlinefan
> culture is an issue

maybe in theory, but every company I've ever even heard of has been more than
happy to throw together almost any random group of people regardless of
culture (or even language) as long as they had the right credentials and
expect for culture issues to sort themselves out and good quality to appear.
But if consistent culture is the important thing... it's a lot easier to find
a homogeneous culture in Hyderabad, India than it is in San Francisco, CA (of
all places).

------
49bc
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
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
Yes, and that value is commensurate with the number of remote workers.

------
hkarthik
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.

------
jpao79
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-
lenn...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/17/fremont-approves-lennar-
project-in-innovation-district/)

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-
getti...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/10/google-says-its-getting-
closer-to-owning-enough-downtown-san-jose-properties-for-viable-development/)

------
ModernMech
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
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.

------
CM30
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.

------
ChuckMcM
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.

------
eloff
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.

~~~
pp19dd
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
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
My point was trying to lead toward understanding the problem, not the optics
of the problem.

------
nathanaldensr
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.

------
Jldevictoria
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.

------
tlrobinson
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
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
>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
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...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/realestate/extreme-
commuting.html)

------
TheSpiceIsLife
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
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
+1 these commutes reasonably have cost (including time cost) of over $1000 a
month. From a pure economic standpoint, they could afford closer housing.

------
dawnerd
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.

------
synaesthesisx
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
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

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

~~~
RandallBrown
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
If your family doesn't want to live in the city, you end up pretty far pretty
quickly.

------
pm90
Wouldn't this be a prime target for new mass transit options?

~~~
blang
Yes, but I would put housing density above mass transit in efficacy.

~~~
RandallBrown
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.

~~~
bluGill
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.

------
justboxing
> 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/unabo...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm)

------
Rafuino
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.

------
sudouser
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
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
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).

------
replicatorblog
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
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
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
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 :)

~~~
ghaff
<Medford and Malden are gentrifying, the former more quickly than the latter

I'd agree with that. A friend of mine basically gave up on Malden a couple
years back, sold his place, and moved to Winchester.

------
TurplePurtle
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.

------
rhacker
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
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
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
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
> 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.

~~~
aeontech
> They wouldn't be attempting that commute in a car in the first place.

I think that's an unfounded assumption. I know plenty of people who do in fact
drive daily from SF or Oakland down to MV/SJ.

~~~
chrisseaton
> I think that's an unfounded assumption

Well so was the original assumption!

~~~
aeontech
The original assumption is supported by the fact that the buses could only be
introduced because a large enough number of people was _already_ driving. I
doubt any company started an empty shuttle line to use as a recruiting tool.
They must have sufficient number of people with that commute already in the
population for the economics to make any sense.

------
notadoc
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.

------
jlarocco
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.

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

------
maxk42
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
90? I'd give a leg for that. I commute SF to SJ typically 105 mins and more
likely 120 mins. One way.

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

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

~~~
salmonfamine
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.

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

------
allengeorge
Sounds like living in the GTA

------
lanevorockz
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.

------
Analemma_
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-
pr...](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/04/why-should-progressives-
force-big-cities-to-become-even-bigger/)

You may need to either live with this, or get out of the Bay.

~~~
moultano
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
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?

