I just read a blog entry here about the cost of commuting from the suburbs vs. Midtown... It's pretty interesting and a good read, especially if you've thought that paying more to buy a house closer to downtown wouldn't pay off...

How so? The comparison is between two people who both drive to work in otherwise identical automobiles--no public transit is required.

That's why I tried to use common factors. There are obviously other factors at work. The less fuel-efficient car idea does come into play: someone commuting from Elk Grove would get a lot more benefit from, say, a Prius or other fuel-efficient car, but generally you don't see a lot of big SUVs parked in downtown residential areas.

There is stop & go on some of the main drags downtown, during rush hour, but I'll take J Street over, say, Madison or Watt at rush hour anytime. Most of the bad stop & go traffic is found at the freeway choke points, which means if you aren't going towards a freeway, traffic is pretty unimpeded even during rush hour.

There isn't a grocery store on every corner in the suburbs either--but there are three in midtown, plus a couple of discount stores. I'd consider those factors roughly equal. Why would one need to travel outside of downtown for shopping? One might choose to, but it's hardly mandatory--plenty of shopping to be found in midtown.

As to public transit, it's an alternative, rather than the primary argument. It does presuppose that one is okay with public transit, and I find that plenty of people are. Personally I like riding public transit more than living in the suburbs (having done both) but you are right that the bottom line is living closer to work can save a lot of money, regardless of the endpoints of the trip. Downtown becomes the example because so many people work downtown, and not nearly as many people live downtown.

That's okay, you couldn't pay me enough to live and work in the suburbs! Fortunately, there is room for both of us in this town...

I know the idea sounds nice but many times you have to look at several other factors such as generally when you take public transit systems you are spending more time.

For the person who says her drive is worth the same amount as the Salary, that cannot be true. This is something that needs to be looked at before you accept a position not after. You need to understand that you are not losing money by drive times you are choosing to drive that distance. So if you are losing money by having to drive for that amount of time that is all on you.

Take for example, a person who lives in one city and says well I can make more money by traveling 25 miles to the nearest big city. But what they are ignoring is that they will spend more money in gas, more time to drive, among other things. is this worth the little $4-5 dollars an hour more. In most cases it is not.

You are correct in spreading out the daily pay when you consider commuting times along with regular work hours. However, that should be considered before talking a job. For some people living close to where they work is just not a solution.

wburg, did you write that?

Any thought on what the numbers would look like if you factored a commute across the border to/from a state like Oregon or Nevada where the difference in taxes would play a larger role (assuming you lived close enough to the border where the example would be similar to your original)?