Commute times (was one of the sci-fi prediction topics)

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the long winding
route of the sci-fi predicting the future topics it detoured onto
methods of travel and people today often having longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a man in the
UK who travels for three hours to work (and three hours to get home
again) every weekday by car. He travels about 160,000km / 99,419 miles
every year and has to get up at 3:30am to travel from South Wales to
almost London. It costs him about £15,000 / US$24,660 per year, which
includes and £1,600 in toll fees and £900 per month for diesel fuel,
plus the usual car licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it would have
taken weeks if not months.

By Internet he would already be there.

J.

Your Name

2014-01-31 23:23:52 UTC

Post by JRStern

By Internet he would already be there.

Unless he uses Windows, in which case he'd be stuck in a Blue Screen of
Death traffic jam every 10 minutes. ;-)

I don't know exactly what his job is , but it says he the "head of
design at a large-format printing company". It also says he uses the
travel time to "take important conference calls - hands free of
course".

JRStern

2014-02-01 19:28:51 UTC

Post by JRStern

By Internet he would already be there.

Unless he uses Windows, in which case he'd be stuck in a Blue Screen of
Death traffic jam every 10 minutes. ;-)
I don't know exactly what his job is , but it says he the "head of
design at a large-format printing company". It also says he uses the
travel time to "take important conference calls - hands free of
course".

Well I suppose he could equip a tour bus with a nice office, prototype
lab, living quarters for him and a guest, and have a professional
driver keep him moving 24x7.

J.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

2014-01-31 20:58:32 UTC

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the long
winding route of the sci-fi predicting the future topics it
detoured onto methods of travel and people today often having
longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a man
in the UK who travels for three hours to work (and three hours
to get home again) every weekday by car. He travels about
160,000km / 99,419 miles every year and has to get up at 3:30am
to travel from South Wales to almost London. It costs him about
£15,000 / US$24,660 per year, which includes and £1,600 in toll
fees and £900 per month for diesel fuel, plus the usual car
licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it
would have taken weeks if not months.

I would note that this is not an unusual arrangement here in southern
California. I would guess there are thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, with comprable situations. Iti sn't even noteworthy.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Dorothy J Heydt

2014-02-01 01:21:09 UTC

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the long
winding route of the sci-fi predicting the future topics it
detoured onto methods of travel and people today often having
longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a man
in the UK who travels for three hours to work (and three hours
to get home again) every weekday by car. He travels about
160,000km / 99,419 miles every year and has to get up at 3:30am
to travel from South Wales to almost London. It costs him about
£15,000 / US$24,660 per year, which includes and £1,600 in toll
fees and £900 per month for diesel fuel, plus the usual car
licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it
would have taken weeks if not months.

I would note that this is not an unusual arrangement here in southern
California. I would guess there are thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, with comprable situations. Iti sn't even noteworthy.

My husband used to work with a guy who commuted from Fresno to
San Jose; a rough look at Google Maps tells me it was about a
hundred and fifty miles each way. I forget how long it took him.

Nowadays my daughter and son-in-law commute across the Bay from
Vallejo to San Francisco; takes an hour and a half in each
direction.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

Dimensional Traveler

2014-02-01 03:56:55 UTC

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the long
winding route of the sci-fi predicting the future topics it
detoured onto methods of travel and people today often having
longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a man
in the UK who travels for three hours to work (and three hours
to get home again) every weekday by car. He travels about
160,000km / 99,419 miles every year and has to get up at 3:30am
to travel from South Wales to almost London. It costs him about
£15,000 / US$24,660 per year, which includes and £1,600 in toll
fees and £900 per month for diesel fuel, plus the usual car
licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it
would have taken weeks if not months.

I would note that this is not an unusual arrangement here in southern
California. I would guess there are thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, with comprable situations. Iti sn't even noteworthy.

My husband used to work with a guy who commuted from Fresno to
San Jose; a rough look at Google Maps tells me it was about a
hundred and fifty miles each way. I forget how long it took him.
Nowadays my daughter and son-in-law commute across the Bay from
Vallejo to San Francisco; takes an hour and a half in each
direction.

Another version of this is the people who live near Stockton and
Sacramento "commuting" to San Francisco. They stay in small apartments
in SF Monday night thru Thursday night, driving back home Friday evening
for the weekend before heading back to work Monday morning.

--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.

Your Name

2014-02-01 05:21:47 UTC

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the long
winding route of the sci-fi predicting the future topics it
detoured onto methods of travel and people today often having
longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a man
in the UK who travels for three hours to work (and three hours
to get home again) every weekday by car. He travels about
160,000km / 99,419 miles every year and has to get up at 3:30am
to travel from South Wales to almost London. It costs him about
£15,000 / US$24,660 per year, which includes and £1,600 in toll
fees and £900 per month for diesel fuel, plus the usual car
licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it
would have taken weeks if not months.

I would note that this is not an unusual arrangement here in southern
California. I would guess there are thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, with comprable situations. Iti sn't even noteworthy.

My husband used to work with a guy who commuted from Fresno to
San Jose; a rough look at Google Maps tells me it was about a
hundred and fifty miles each way. I forget how long it took him.
Nowadays my daughter and son-in-law commute across the Bay from
Vallejo to San Francisco; takes an hour and a half in each
direction.

That happens, but the man in the article wasn't staying elsewhere. He
was going home every night, meaning travelling six hours EVERY weekday
for his commute between work and home ... he travels for longer than
many people actually work (by the time you subtract breaks, lunch,
gossip, chatting, playing on the Internet, and general time wasting).

Bill Gill

2014-02-01 14:29:11 UTC

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the long
winding route of the sci-fi predicting the future topics it
detoured onto methods of travel and people today often having
longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a man
in the UK who travels for three hours to work (and three hours
to get home again) every weekday by car. He travels about
160,000km / 99,419 miles every year and has to get up at 3:30am
to travel from South Wales to almost London. It costs him about
£15,000 / US$24,660 per year, which includes and £1,600 in toll
fees and £900 per month for diesel fuel, plus the usual car
licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it
would have taken weeks if not months.

I would note that this is not an unusual arrangement here in southern
California. I would guess there are thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, with comprable situations. Iti sn't even noteworthy.

My husband used to work with a guy who commuted from Fresno to
San Jose; a rough look at Google Maps tells me it was about a
hundred and fifty miles each way. I forget how long it took him.
Nowadays my daughter and son-in-law commute across the Bay from
Vallejo to San Francisco; takes an hour and a half in each
direction.

I recall a story from something like 20 years ago, give or take
a decade. Somebody lived on the West Coast and worked on the East
Coast. He flew East Monday morning and West Friday evening.

Bill

David Friedman

2014-02-02 00:01:18 UTC

Post by Bill Gill

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the long
winding route of the sci-fi predicting the future topics it
detoured onto methods of travel and people today often having
longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a man
in the UK who travels for three hours to work (and three hours
to get home again) every weekday by car. He travels about
160,000km / 99,419 miles every year and has to get up at 3:30am
to travel from South Wales to almost London. It costs him about
£15,000 / US$24,660 per year, which includes and £1,600 in toll
fees and £900 per month for diesel fuel, plus the usual car
licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it
would have taken weeks if not months.

I would note that this is not an unusual arrangement here in southern
California. I would guess there are thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, with comprable situations. Iti sn't even noteworthy.

My husband used to work with a guy who commuted from Fresno to
San Jose; a rough look at Google Maps tells me it was about a
hundred and fifty miles each way. I forget how long it took him.
Nowadays my daughter and son-in-law commute across the Bay from
Vallejo to San Francisco; takes an hour and a half in each
direction.

I recall a story from something like 20 years ago, give or take
a decade. Somebody lived on the West Coast and worked on the East
Coast. He flew East Monday morning and West Friday evening.

The version I heard was much older and more extreme. A professor somehow
got committed to teaching MWF one one coast and TTH on the other. It was
long enough ago that there were sleeper flights coast to coast, and he
had a reservation five nights a week.

--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

2014-02-03 20:23:25 UTC

Post by David Friedman

Post by Bill Gill

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the
long winding route of the sci-fi predicting the future
topics it detoured onto methods of travel and people today
often having longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a
man in the UK who travels for three hours to work (and
three hours to get home again) every weekday by car. He
travels about 160,000km / 99,419 miles every year and has
to get up at 3:30am to travel from South Wales to almost
London. It costs him about £15,000 / US$24,660 per year,
which includes and £1,600 in toll fees and £900 per month
for diesel fuel, plus the usual car licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot
it would have taken weeks if not months.

I would note that this is not an unusual arrangement here in
southern California. I would guess there are thousands,
perhaps tens of thousands, with comprable situations. Iti
sn't even noteworthy.

My husband used to work with a guy who commuted from Fresno
to San Jose; a rough look at Google Maps tells me it was
about a hundred and fifty miles each way. I forget how long
it took him.
Nowadays my daughter and son-in-law commute across the Bay
from Vallejo to San Francisco; takes an hour and a half in
each direction.

Another version of this is the people who live near Stockton
and Sacramento "commuting" to San Francisco. They stay in
small apartments in SF Monday night thru Thursday night,
driving back home Friday evening for the weekend before
heading back to work Monday morning.

I recall a story from something like 20 years ago, give or take
a decade. Somebody lived on the West Coast and worked on the
East Coast. He flew East Monday morning and West Friday
evening.

The version I heard was much older and more extreme. A professor
somehow got committed to teaching MWF one one coast and TTH on
the other. It was long enough ago that there were sleeper
flights coast to coast, and he had a reservation five nights a
week.

I'll believe that when I see a credible first hand source.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk

2014-02-02 14:32:54 UTC

Post by Bill Gill
I recall a story from something like 20 years ago, give or take
a decade. Somebody lived on the West Coast and worked on the East
Coast. He flew East Monday morning and West Friday evening.

An unnamed international company employing a friend of mine had a
contract with Lufthansa, and he was sent to work in several German
cities. Obviously, if was more economical for the company to pay the
hotel only from Monday to Friday, pay him a taxi from Bratislava to the
Vienna airport 5:00 Monday morning and back on Friday midnight, with the
flights being provided for free by Lufthansa (only if there were free
seats - he has been treated as a Lufthansa employee in this respect).
He was rather unhappy with the arrangement, and eventually quit.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

Dorothy J Heydt

2014-02-01 16:54:58 UTC

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the long
winding route of the sci-fi predicting the future topics it
detoured onto methods of travel and people today often having
longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a man
in the UK who travels for three hours to work (and three hours
to get home again) every weekday by car. He travels about
160,000km / 99,419 miles every year and has to get up at 3:30am
to travel from South Wales to almost London. It costs him about
£15,000 / US$24,660 per year, which includes and £1,600 in toll
fees and £900 per month for diesel fuel, plus the usual car
licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it
would have taken weeks if not months.

I would note that this is not an unusual arrangement here in southern
California. I would guess there are thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, with comprable situations. Iti sn't even noteworthy.

My husband used to work with a guy who commuted from Fresno to
San Jose; a rough look at Google Maps tells me it was about a
hundred and fifty miles each way. I forget how long it took him.
Nowadays my daughter and son-in-law commute across the Bay from
Vallejo to San Francisco; takes an hour and a half in each
direction.

And Hal did something like that once. He was working for a
contract programming agency (located in San Ramon) that had him
commuting from Albany to places like Sacramento and San Jose.
But he got one contract that had him working in *Los Angeles.*
At least the agency was able to make the client pay for the
apartment he and another programmer lived in during the week, and
their airfare to and from. They came home for the weekends.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

Scott Lurndal

2014-02-03 15:56:21 UTC

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
My husband used to work with a guy who commuted from Fresno to
San Jose; a rough look at Google Maps tells me it was about a
hundred and fifty miles each way. I forget how long it took him.
Nowadays my daughter and son-in-law commute across the Bay from
Vallejo to San Francisco; takes an hour and a half in each
direction.

I had a friend who lived and Aptos, and got an apartment in Sunnyvale
to avoid the daily commute over the Santa Cruz mountains. Finally sold
the Aptos house and bought a likeler in santa clara.

scott

Scott Lurndal

2014-02-03 15:54:40 UTC

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the long
winding route of the sci-fi predicting the future topics it
detoured onto methods of travel and people today often having
longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a man
in the UK who travels for three hours to work (and three hours
to get home again) every weekday by car. He travels about
160,000km / 99,419 miles every year and has to get up at 3:30am
to travel from South Wales to almost London. It costs him about
£15,000 / US$24,660 per year, which includes and £1,600 in toll
fees and £900 per month for diesel fuel, plus the usual car
licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it
would have taken weeks if not months.

I would note that this is not an unusual arrangement here in southern
California. I would guess there are thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, with comprable situations. Iti sn't even noteworthy.

My husband used to work with a guy who commuted from Fresno to
San Jose; a rough look at Google Maps tells me it was about a
hundred and fifty miles each way. I forget how long it took him.

I make this trip regularly. It takes about 2 hours from fresburg to the
south san jose ex-IBM campus (at 70MPH). 2.5 hours to downdown (depending on
time of day) and probably 3 to the mid-peninsula. Before the 156/152
split was fixed up, you could get stuck for an hour just crossing
the pacheco pass, but now it's not too bad.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

2014-02-03 20:21:58 UTC

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the
long winding route of the sci-fi predicting the future topics
it detoured onto methods of travel and people today often
having longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a
man in the UK who travels for three hours to work (and three
hours to get home again) every weekday by car. He travels
about 160,000km / 99,419 miles every year and has to get up at
3:30am to travel from South Wales to almost London. It costs
him about £15,000 / US$24,660 per year, which includes and
£1,600 in toll fees and £900 per month for diesel fuel, plus
the usual car licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it
would have taken weeks if not months.

I would note that this is not an unusual arrangement here in
southern California. I would guess there are thousands, perhaps
tens of thousands, with comprable situations. Iti sn't even
noteworthy.

My husband used to work with a guy who commuted from Fresno to
San Jose; a rough look at Google Maps tells me it was about a
hundred and fifty miles each way. I forget how long it took
him.
Nowadays my daughter and son-in-law commute across the Bay from
Vallejo to San Francisco; takes an hour and a half in each
direction.

3+ hour commutes are not unusual enough to be noteworthy. 1 to 1-
1/2 hour commutes are routine, normall, and quite common. There's a
thriving black market economy among people willing to ride in to LA
in the morning with you, and back at night, so you can use the
carpool lane. Usually young, skipping school, but they work for
enough to goof off for the day, and many consider it worth it.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Bill Gill

2014-02-04 14:56:07 UTC

Post by Your Name
I can't find the original message, but somewhere along the long
winding route of the sci-fi predicting the future topics it
detoured onto methods of travel and people today often having
longer work commutes.
In yesterday's local newspaper there was an article about a man
in the UK who travels for three hours to work (and three hours
to get home again) every weekday by car. He travels about
160,000km / 99,419 miles every year and has to get up at 3:30am
to travel from South Wales to almost London. It costs him about
£15,000 / US$24,660 per year, which includes and £1,600 in toll
fees and £900 per month for diesel fuel, plus the usual car
licensing, etc.
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it
would have taken weeks if not months.

I would note that this is not an unusual arrangement here in southern
California. I would guess there are thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, with comprable situations. Iti sn't even noteworthy.

My husband used to work with a guy who commuted from Fresno to
San Jose; a rough look at Google Maps tells me it was about a
hundred and fifty miles each way. I forget how long it took him.
Nowadays my daughter and son-in-law commute across the Bay from
Vallejo to San Francisco; takes an hour and a half in each
direction.

I recall back in the mid 80s I was considering transferring to a
job in Southern California and was investigating how much housing
would cost. I found some body that said that if you didn't mind how
far you had to drive you could find really good prices on housing.
It just too forever to get to work.

I didn't take the transfer, too expensive and too crowded to live in
California

Bill

Greg Goss

2014-02-04 15:13:01 UTC

Post by Bill Gill
I recall back in the mid 80s I was considering transferring to a
job in Southern California and was investigating how much housing
would cost. I found some body that said that if you didn't mind how
far you had to drive you could find really good prices on housing.
It just too forever to get to work.
I didn't take the transfer, too expensive and too crowded to live in
California

A cousin of mine was once offered a high-profile job in New York. I
think that the new job was double the money of her Toronto job. If I
recall correctly, they were offering USD $128K instead of her current
CAD$63K.

She made the cover of Canada's newsmagazine (Macleans) for saying "It
was a good offer, but I would have to live in New York. Who would want
to live in New York?"

I suspect that California was both cheaper and less crowded than New
York.

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

Dorothy J Heydt

2014-02-04 15:37:27 UTC

A cousin of mine was once offered a high-profile job in New York. I
think that the new job was double the money of her Toronto job. If I
recall correctly, they were offering USD $128K instead of her current
CAD$63K.
She made the cover of Canada's newsmagazine (Macleans) for saying "It
was a good offer, but I would have to live in New York. Who would want
to live in New York?"
I suspect that California was both cheaper and less crowded than New
York.

Depends on what part of California, but generally, yes.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

2014-02-04 16:56:08 UTC

Post by Bill Gill
I recall back in the mid 80s I was considering transferring to
a job in Southern California and was investigating how much
housing would cost. I found some body that said that if you
didn't mind how far you had to drive you could find really good
prices on housing. It just too forever to get to work.
I didn't take the transfer, too expensive and too crowded to
live in California

A cousin of mine was once offered a high-profile job in New
York. I think that the new job was double the money of her
Toronto job. If I recall correctly, they were offering USD
$128K instead of her current CAD$63K.
She made the cover of Canada's newsmagazine (Macleans) for
saying "It was a good offer, but I would have to live in New
York. Who would want to live in New York?"
I suspect that California was both cheaper and less crowded than
New York.

Depends on what part of California, but generally, yes.

But then, at this point, you're comparing New York City to the
entire state of California, which isn't a very good comparison. LA
is less densely populated, I believe, than NYC, but that doesn't
necessarily equate to less crowded. And the most expensive parts of
southern California are in Orange County, and can rival anywhere in
the world for expensive to live in.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Dorothy J Heydt

2014-02-04 19:07:00 UTC

Post by Bill Gill
I recall back in the mid 80s I was considering transferring to
a job in Southern California and was investigating how much
housing would cost. I found some body that said that if you
didn't mind how far you had to drive you could find really good
prices on housing. It just too forever to get to work.
I didn't take the transfer, too expensive and too crowded to
live in California

A cousin of mine was once offered a high-profile job in New
York. I think that the new job was double the money of her
Toronto job. If I recall correctly, they were offering USD
$128K instead of her current CAD$63K.
She made the cover of Canada's newsmagazine (Macleans) for
saying "It was a good offer, but I would have to live in New
York. Who would want to live in New York?"
I suspect that California was both cheaper and less crowded than
New York.

Depends on what part of California, but generally, yes.

For concentration and crowded-ness, not to mention desirability,
one would do better to compare New York to San Francisco ... or
more accurately, Manhattan to San Francisco (both restricted by
natural barriers, chiefly water) and all the boroughs of New York
to the Bay Area.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

Greg Goss

2014-02-04 19:49:02 UTC

Post by Greg Goss
She made the cover of Canada's newsmagazine (Macleans) for
saying "It was a good offer, but I would have to live in New
York. Who would want to live in New York?"
I suspect that California was both cheaper and less crowded than
New York.

I was thinking New York to LA, but SF would also be a valid
comparison. (Either Manhattan to SF city or NYC to Bay Area). My
impression is that NYC still wins, but I'm not as certain as I was
about LA.

Does Bay Area compare to NYC directly, or do we need to throw in large
chunks of New Jersey and Long Island?

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

Dorothy J Heydt

2014-02-04 21:19:31 UTC

I was thinking New York to LA, but SF would also be a valid
comparison. (Either Manhattan to SF city or NYC to Bay Area). My
impression is that NYC still wins, but I'm not as certain as I was
about LA.
Does Bay Area compare to NYC directly, or do we need to throw in large
chunks of New Jersey and Long Island?

I don't know. My total experience of NYC was an afternoon at the
American Museum of Natural History (carved out of an obligatory
visit to Connecticut). The subway struck me as being very like
going through Hell, except that Dante didn't have to go back out
through Hell; he took the shortcut to Purgatory. Nonetheless,
the dinosaurs were cool.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

Your Name

2014-02-05 02:25:10 UTC

I was thinking New York to LA, but SF would also be a valid
comparison. (Either Manhattan to SF city or NYC to Bay Area). My
impression is that NYC still wins, but I'm not as certain as I was
about LA.
Does Bay Area compare to NYC directly, or do we need to throw in large
chunks of New Jersey and Long Island?

They may be old, but I'm not sure the New York railway company would
like you calling their trains "dinosaurs". ;-)

Auckland, New Zealand on the other hand can't handle running the two
lines and couple of trains it currently has, and yet is still in the
process of wasting millions of dollars electrifying it, getting new
trains and carriages, and potentially building a pointless underground
inner city "loop" track. This is the same idiot Mayor who put a tram
service on the outskirts of the central city wharf area, with it going
nowhere useful and a long walk from any useful bus link, and then
wondered why people (other than a few tourists) weren't paying the
over-bloated price to ride on it. :-(

William December Starr

2014-02-10 15:13:06 UTC

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I don't know. My total experience of NYC was an afternoon at
the American Museum of Natural History (carved out of an
obligatory visit to Connecticut). The subway struck me as
being very like going through Hell, except that Dante didn't
have to go back out through Hell; he took the shortcut to
Purgatory. Nonetheless, the dinosaurs were cool.

Back when I worked near City Hall in Boston I had to use the
Government Center (nee Scollay Square) MBTA station during rush
hours. On occasion during the summer I'd compose a letter to the
T using the metaphor of a colonial franchise of Hell on a day
when the owner is expecting a surprise inspection from the home
office.

I don't think the environment there has changed much in the two
decades since then, but at least I don't have to use it during
those times anymore. (I do see that the T has a major overhaul
scheduled:
http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/t_projects/Default.asp?id=1004 )

-- wds

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

2014-02-04 22:31:35 UTC

But then, at this point, you're comparing New York City to the
entire state of California, which isn't a very good comparison.
LA is less densely populated, I believe, than NYC, but that
doesn't necessarily equate to less crowded. And the most
expensive parts of southern California are in Orange County,
and can rival anywhere in the world for expensive to live in.

LA is a big, big place. Most of it, yeah, on average, NYC is
probably more expensive. Some parts of it are a lot higher. But the
really expensive places are all in Orange county. Newport Beach
usually makes the list of the five most expensive cities to live
in.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Dorothy J Heydt

2014-02-05 01:29:34 UTC

But then, at this point, you're comparing New York City to the
entire state of California, which isn't a very good comparison.
LA is less densely populated, I believe, than NYC, but that
doesn't necessarily equate to less crowded. And the most
expensive parts of southern California are in Orange County,
and can rival anywhere in the world for expensive to live in.

Is it, now. I lived in Newport Beach from, let's see, from 1955
to 1960, and it wasn't particularly expensive then. Maybe it was
in the process of getting that way and I just didn't notice, for
there were tales of the children of movie stars living there, who
had more money than taste (which is why the girls had to wear
rather subfusc uniforms). But I never met any of them.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

2014-02-05 18:06:43 UTC

Post by Greg Goss
She made the cover of Canada's newsmagazine (Macleans) for
saying "It was a good offer, but I would have to live in
New York. Who would want to live in New York?"
I suspect that California was both cheaper and less crowded
than New York.

But then, at this point, you're comparing New York City to
the entire state of California, which isn't a very good
comparison. LA is less densely populated, I believe, than
NYC, but that doesn't necessarily equate to less crowded. And
the most expensive parts of southern California are in Orange
County, and can rival anywhere in the world for expensive to
live in.

For concentration and crowded-ness, not to mention
desirability, one would do better to compare New York to San
Francisco ... or more accurately, Manhattan to San Francisco
(both restricted by natural barriers, chiefly water) and all
the boroughs of New York to the Bay Area.

LA is a big, big place. Most of it, yeah, on average, NYC is
probably more expensive. Some parts of it are a lot higher. But
the really expensive places are all in Orange county. Newport
Beach usually makes the list of the five most expensive cities
to live in.

Is it, now. I lived in Newport Beach from, let's see, from 1955
to 1960, and it wasn't particularly expensive then.

There are neighborhoods even today that are more in line with the
rest of OC (still pretty expensive, but not world-class expensive).

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Maybe it
was in the process of getting that way and I just didn't notice,
for there were tales of the children of movie stars living
there, who had more money than taste (which is why the girls had
to wear rather subfusc uniforms). But I never met any of them.

I believe John Wayne was in one of our stores once. I know Reggie
Jackson shopped in one sorta regularly. But the really rich celebs
are mostly up in LA these days. It's the nobody-ever-heard-of rich
people who live OC. Only place in the world where someone looking
like a homeless bum can test drive a Rolls Royce, because come of
the billionairs dress like homeless bums. Hell, I suspect some of
them *are* homeless bums, but villionairs nonetheless.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Brian M. Scott

2014-02-05 20:36:13 UTC

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:06:43 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <***@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:***@69.16.186.7> in
rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc:

[...]

Hell, I suspect some of them *are* homeless bums, but
villionairs nonetheless.

A hybrid of <villain> and <billionaire>? <g>

Brian

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

2014-02-05 22:39:38 UTC

Post by Brian M. Scott
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:06:43 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
[...]

Hell, I suspect some of them *are* homeless bums, but
villionairs nonetheless.

A hybrid of <villain> and <billionaire>? <g>

Most redundant typo I've ever done, eh?

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Dimensional Traveler

2014-02-05 05:46:16 UTC

I was thinking New York to LA, but SF would also be a valid
comparison. (Either Manhattan to SF city or NYC to Bay Area). My
impression is that NYC still wins, but I'm not as certain as I was
about LA.
Does Bay Area compare to NYC directly, or do we need to throw in large
chunks of New Jersey and Long Island?

NYC as a whole is more crowded (and I believe generally more expensive)
than SF by a significant amount.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density
lists NYC as 26,953/sq.mi.; SF as 17,246.4/sq.mi. NYC is also ten
times the population of SF as of 2010 (8.1 million versus 0.8 million).

NYC alone probably beats the entire SF Bay Area for total population.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

2014-02-05 18:08:35 UTC

Post by Greg Goss
She made the cover of Canada's newsmagazine (Macleans) for
saying "It was a good offer, but I would have to live in
New York. Who would want to live in New York?"
I suspect that California was both cheaper and less crowded
than New York.

But then, at this point, you're comparing New York City to
the entire state of California, which isn't a very good
comparison. LA is less densely populated, I believe, than
NYC, but that doesn't necessarily equate to less crowded. And
the most expensive parts of southern California are in Orange
County, and can rival anywhere in the world for expensive to
live in.

For concentration and crowded-ness, not to mention
desirability, one would do better to compare New York to San
Francisco ... or more accurately, Manhattan to San Francisco
(both restricted by natural barriers, chiefly water) and all
the boroughs of New York to the Bay Area.

I was thinking New York to LA, but SF would also be a valid
comparison. (Either Manhattan to SF city or NYC to Bay Area).
My impression is that NYC still wins, but I'm not as certain as
I was about LA.
Does Bay Area compare to NYC directly, or do we need to throw
in large chunks of New Jersey and Long Island?

NYC as a whole is more crowded (and I believe generally more
expensive) than SF by a significant amount.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_popu
lation_density lists NYC as 26,953/sq.mi.; SF as 17,246.4/sq.mi.
NYC is also ten times the population of SF as of 2010 (8.1
million versus 0.8 million).
NYC alone probably beats the entire SF Bay Area for total
population.

NYC became a big city before the automobile, and thus grew up
intead of out. California cities all because big cities after the
automobile.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Dorothy J Heydt

2014-02-05 21:55:12 UTC

Post by Greg Goss
She made the cover of Canada's newsmagazine (Macleans) for
saying "It was a good offer, but I would have to live in
New York. Who would want to live in New York?"
I suspect that California was both cheaper and less crowded
than New York.

But then, at this point, you're comparing New York City to
the entire state of California, which isn't a very good
comparison. LA is less densely populated, I believe, than
NYC, but that doesn't necessarily equate to less crowded. And
the most expensive parts of southern California are in Orange
County, and can rival anywhere in the world for expensive to
live in.

For concentration and crowded-ness, not to mention
desirability, one would do better to compare New York to San
Francisco ... or more accurately, Manhattan to San Francisco
(both restricted by natural barriers, chiefly water) and all
the boroughs of New York to the Bay Area.

I was thinking New York to LA, but SF would also be a valid
comparison. (Either Manhattan to SF city or NYC to Bay Area).
My impression is that NYC still wins, but I'm not as certain as
I was about LA.
Does Bay Area compare to NYC directly, or do we need to throw
in large chunks of New Jersey and Long Island?

NYC as a whole is more crowded (and I believe generally more
expensive) than SF by a significant amount.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_popu
lation_density lists NYC as 26,953/sq.mi.; SF as 17,246.4/sq.mi.
NYC is also ten times the population of SF as of 2010 (8.1
million versus 0.8 million).
NYC alone probably beats the entire SF Bay Area for total
population.

NYC became a big city before the automobile, and thus grew up
intead of out. California cities all because big cities after the
automobile.

True. Being pre- or post-railroad, and pre- or post-automobile,
has effected major major differences between parts of the US.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

2014-02-04 21:51:09 UTC

Post by Bill Gill
I recall back in the mid 80s I was considering transferring
to a job in Southern California and was investigating how
much housing would cost. I found some body that said that if
you didn't mind how far you had to drive you could find
really good prices on housing. It just too forever to get to
work.
I didn't take the transfer, too expensive and too crowded to
live in California

A cousin of mine was once offered a high-profile job in New
York. I think that the new job was double the money of her
Toronto job. If I recall correctly, they were offering USD
$128K instead of her current CAD$63K.
She made the cover of Canada's newsmagazine (Macleans) for
saying "It was a good offer, but I would have to live in New
York. Who would want to live in New York?"
I suspect that California was both cheaper and less crowded
than New York.

Depends on what part of California, but generally, yes.

But then, at this point, you're comparing New York City to the
entire state of California, which isn't a very good comparison.
LA is less densely populated, I believe, than NYC, but that
doesn't necessarily equate to less crowded. And the most
expensive parts of southern California are in Orange County, and
can rival anywhere in the world for expensive to live in.

And both extremely expensive to live in.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Dorothy J Heydt

2014-02-04 23:22:15 UTC

Post by Bill Gill
I recall back in the mid 80s I was considering transferring
to a job in Southern California and was investigating how
much housing would cost. I found some body that said that if
you didn't mind how far you had to drive you could find
really good prices on housing. It just too forever to get to
work.
I didn't take the transfer, too expensive and too crowded to
live in California

A cousin of mine was once offered a high-profile job in New
York. I think that the new job was double the money of her
Toronto job. If I recall correctly, they were offering USD
$128K instead of her current CAD$63K.
She made the cover of Canada's newsmagazine (Macleans) for
saying "It was a good offer, but I would have to live in New
York. Who would want to live in New York?"
I suspect that California was both cheaper and less crowded
than New York.

Depends on what part of California, but generally, yes.

But then, at this point, you're comparing New York City to the
entire state of California, which isn't a very good comparison.
LA is less densely populated, I believe, than NYC, but that
doesn't necessarily equate to less crowded. And the most
expensive parts of southern California are in Orange County, and
can rival anywhere in the world for expensive to live in.

And both extremely expensive to live in.

That is a direct result of desirability.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

2014-02-04 22:32:34 UTC

Post by Bill Gill
I recall back in the mid 80s I was considering transferring
to a job in Southern California and was investigating how
much housing would cost. I found some body that said that
if you didn't mind how far you had to drive you could find
really good prices on housing. It just too forever to get
to work.
I didn't take the transfer, too expensive and too crowded
to live in California

A cousin of mine was once offered a high-profile job in New
York. I think that the new job was double the money of her
Toronto job. If I recall correctly, they were offering USD
$128K instead of her current CAD$63K.
She made the cover of Canada's newsmagazine (Macleans) for
saying "It was a good offer, but I would have to live in New
York. Who would want to live in New York?"
I suspect that California was both cheaper and less crowded
than New York.

Depends on what part of California, but generally, yes.

But then, at this point, you're comparing New York City to the
entire state of California, which isn't a very good
comparison. LA is less densely populated, I believe, than NYC,
but that doesn't necessarily equate to less crowded. And the
most expensive parts of southern California are in Orange
County, and can rival anywhere in the world for expensive to
live in.

For concentration and crowded-ness, not to mention
desirability, one would do better to compare New York to San
Francisco ... or more accurately, Manhattan to San Francisco
(both restricted by natural barriers, chiefly water) and all
the boroughs of New York to the Bay Area.

And both extremely expensive to live in.

That is a direct result of desirability.

I don't know a single person who desires to live in either. It's
more a direct result of the sorts of jobs available, I think.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Leszek Karlik

2014-01-31 22:26:54 UTC

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 22:21:57 +0100, Your Name <***@yourisp.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by Your Name
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it would have
taken weeks if not months.

Ciudad Real, a city 200 km south to Madrid became something of
long-distance suburbs of Madrid, because of the AVE rapid train,
since it makes the commute take less than an hour by train.
(Of course, you have to get to the train station and then
from the train station to work/home, so it's probably a longer
one, but not three hours, which seems somewhat excessive)

As someone who's been working from home for more than 15
years I find all this "commute" stuff a weird form of masochism.

--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
http://leslie.hell.pl/

Your Name

2014-01-31 23:29:55 UTC

Post by Leszek Karlik
[...]

Post by Your Name
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it would have
taken weeks if not months.

I have no idea if there is a train service (he apparently lives in
South Wales for the country life) or even a small air field. Maybe he
should just buy a helicopter. ;-)

Post by Leszek Karlik
As someone who's been working from home for more than 15
years I find all this "commute" stuff a weird form of masochism.

Yep. I work for myself from home and do also have to visit clients',
but I always make the appointments to be 10:00am or later to avoid the
silly "rush hour".

Mike Dworetsky

2014-02-01 09:53:20 UTC

wrote: [...]

Post by Your Name
By horse, that commute would have taken days, and on foot it would
have taken weeks if not months.

I have no idea if there is a train service (he apparently lives in
South Wales for the country life) or even a small air field. Maybe he
should just buy a helicopter. ;-)

There are fast train services from Cardiff (S Wales) to London Paddington,
where he could get the Bakerloo underground service to a station such as
Willesden Junction or Harrow and Wealdstone and change to the overground
service on the same line that would take him to Watford Junction, near his
destination (which stories said was in Watford, north of London). It isn't
clear whether this would take less or more time than the driving for 3
hours. (Bakerloo line ends at Harrow and Wealdstone, which is why he would
have to change).

If he worked in London itself the train would be faster, and probably
cheaper.

I'm not sure where in S Wales he lives, but maybe Cardiff is a long drive
already for him.

I'm not sure if it is just the "country life" as he could save all that
expense and put it towards a country house much closer to London or Watford
itself. Sounds as if he has a strong commitment to where he lives, maybe
for extended family reasons.

As someone who's been working from home for more than 15
years I find all this "commute" stuff a weird form of masochism.

Yep. I work for myself from home and do also have to visit clients',
but I always make the appointments to be 10:00am or later to avoid the
silly "rush hour".

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Your Name

2014-02-01 20:57:07 UTC

Post by Mike Dworetsky