Poll: What drives you to get good mileage?

[bbgobie]

Am I the only one that thinks its funnie to watch an SUV accelerate from behind you, cut you off and slam on the brakes as the light has been red for 10 seconds and your only 100m away from it?

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by bbgobie

Am I the only one that thinks its funnie to watch an SUV accelerate from behind you, cut you off and slam on the brakes as the light has been red for 10 seconds and your only 100m away from it?

Not any funnier then seeing a Prius do the same thing

[rh77]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

Not any funnier then seeing a Prius do the same thing

That is so very true. Doesn't make me feel so guilty with my "guzzler".

RH77

[cfg83]

theclencher -

Originally Posted by theclencher

Ever been in an airplane flying over a metro area? It seems everybody has made a point of living on the opposite end of the city from where they work, thus ensuring that twice a day, all North/South and East/West arteries are plumb full. What's up with that?

Ha ha ha. That's urban planning gone amok. When the suburbs were created, the idea was to have a home outside of the city. Therefore, city = work, suburbs = home. But, when urban (tooth) decay came along, the businesses ALSO fled the city to the suburbs. Now, we are mostly commuting from one suburb to another. It's also what we can afford. If you can afford to live near your job, then you have a great mini commute. If you can't afford it, then welcome to (and become part of) the problem of commuting.

Remember that a key component of the creation of the suburbs was an assumption of cheap affordable gas (ala 1950's). Those days are gone but we haven't changed.

CarloSW2

[cfg83]

theclencher -

Originally Posted by theclencher

Yet even with such a residential/business mix over the topography, it seems everyone has gone out and made a point of living on one end and working on the other. If everyone would trade jobs or houses, they could walk to work!

From a rational POV, you're right.

I don't think you can trade jobs because skill sets are usually unique (I don't have the strength to be a dock-worker). Housing would be doable if it was an "even-steven 50-50" trade, or if each party deemed the teeny commute benefit to be worth it.

Ooooh, here's another example of why people live where they live. For parents with kids, the quality of the school district may be the deciding factor on where they live. Sometimes this is the *only* criteria for getting a home. This is not a problem for me, but for one of my co-workers, it is the only thing on her mind.

We used to have a family that rented a house on our street *only* so that their kids could go to our school. The moment their last kid graduated from High School, they bugged out.

CarloSW2

[GasSavers_Brock]

I just like being efficient at what ever I do.

[88HF]

Yes, being efficient is good, I moved from a 60 mile commute to the building my boss lives in. Walking outside and being at work beats an hour and a half or more commute each way. I was commuting from what urban area to another, but I'm not average. I'm pretty poor.

[repete86]

Purely environmental reasons here. Shocking, eh?

[96hb]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Yet even with such a residential/business mix over the topography, it seems everyone has gone out and made a point of living on one end and working on the other. If everyone would trade jobs or houses, they could walk to work!

Yeah that's practical. The way jobs are these days, it's here today, gone tomorrow. I am not about to move for a job where you have no security. Right now I'm a government contractor, so it just ain't worth it. I don't mind driving the 30 miles to work. That's what Honda's are for.

[Snax]

While it is true that travel of excess distances simply cannot be avoided in some areas and jobs, I think allot of people in the US have made some poor job and home location choices. People in the LA area strike me as the most irresponsible driving not just into the center of town, but from one outer suburb to another on the opposite side of town. It's just insanity in many cases.

When I purchased our first and current home 6 years ago, commute is one of the primary factors that I considered. There were other areas of town that I had a preference to live in, but I knew that there was no practical reason for it and I don't believe that I made any sacrifice in the monetary value of my location by going against that. So I chose a home in a location that I felt would be centralized to my employment needs - then three years later my employer moved 4 miles to another section of town. My house however is nearly dead in the middle of the old location and the new location, keeping my car commute within 2/10 of a mile longer and equal time of what it was before, and extending my bicycle commute by only a half mile and a minute or two.

Meanwhile, some of my coworkers who opted to purchase homes in the far reaches of the area continue to enjoy a commute that wastes up to an hour of their time and fuel every single day. By my wage scale, that means they are giving up the economic equivalent minimum of $25 per day to driving. At an average 19 working days per month (subtracting for vacation and sick time), that is $475 they are giving up to commuting - without even considering fuel, insurance, and maintenance.

We have the attitude that you live where you work or work where you live. Until we are both retired, there simply remains no reason to treat our residence as a permanent housing solution. If for some reason my employer moves to furthest reaches of our town, we will move to the nearby area. It just makes too much sense to us not to.

I will concede that our area has limited socio-economic disparity from one part to the other, but I also believe that if most people just did a little math on what their commute really costs them, living close to their employer makes allot of sense.