Yes and no. But if you’re commuting 3 hours a day at an average 65 mph your burning 500 dollars a month in gas. More if you’re going faster.
At that point eating 250 more a month in rent to live closer in isn’t the world’s worst idea.
And you’re still putting other people in a lot of danger just for your convenience. If an accident does happen then survivability drops off sharply after 65-70 mph.
I commute 5 hours a day for work, and have to go in 3 times a week. I take the train now, but still have to drive 25 min to the train station. Taking the train takes exactly the same time as driving to my job. Which by itself is ridiculous. Up until recently, the option of taking the train in was not available. So I spent 5 hours in my car. The price difference between moving closer to work Vs living where I am right now is almost 2.5k a month. I don’t get paid enough to pay 48 to 52k a year in rent. I work in cancer research. The jobs are in the city, not outside. So I don’t have a choice, because every company that does what I do is in the city, and doesn’t do remote work.
I have a feeling you don’t really understand how things work for people sometimes
If you have a train then you’re not the one concerned with the speed of traffic. Unless you’re trying to shave seconds off that drive to the Park and Ride?
At any rate the answer to the housing crisis is not turning our highways into a racetrack. Your edge case in no way justifies that.
I drive with traffic, sometimes 90, sometimes 30, sometimes 70… And no, with 40mpg I spend 200 a month in gas. I can assure you driving 97 North/south, driving the posted speed limit will get you killed.
I’m not sure why I’m even arguing with you about this, you’re West Coast, correct?
Yes and no. But if you’re commuting 3 hours a day at an average 65 mph your burning 500 dollars a month in gas. More if you’re going faster.
At that point eating 250 more a month in rent to live closer in isn’t the world’s worst idea.
And you’re still putting other people in a lot of danger just for your convenience. If an accident does happen then survivability drops off sharply after 65-70 mph.
I commute 5 hours a day for work, and have to go in 3 times a week. I take the train now, but still have to drive 25 min to the train station. Taking the train takes exactly the same time as driving to my job. Which by itself is ridiculous. Up until recently, the option of taking the train in was not available. So I spent 5 hours in my car. The price difference between moving closer to work Vs living where I am right now is almost 2.5k a month. I don’t get paid enough to pay 48 to 52k a year in rent. I work in cancer research. The jobs are in the city, not outside. So I don’t have a choice, because every company that does what I do is in the city, and doesn’t do remote work.
I have a feeling you don’t really understand how things work for people sometimes
If you have a train then you’re not the one concerned with the speed of traffic. Unless you’re trying to shave seconds off that drive to the Park and Ride?
At any rate the answer to the housing crisis is not turning our highways into a racetrack. Your edge case in no way justifies that.
Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suite is it
I drive with traffic, sometimes 90, sometimes 30, sometimes 70… And no, with 40mpg I spend 200 a month in gas. I can assure you driving 97 North/south, driving the posted speed limit will get you killed.
I’m not sure why I’m even arguing with you about this, you’re West Coast, correct?