What is the commute like from River Falls, WI to South St. Paul? (Minneapolis: to rent)

[cindylou77]

We are still looking at housing options. One of them would be to rent in RF and commute to S. St. Paul. Mapquest says it's about 32 min. I'd prefer to hear it from someone who has driven it (or drives it currently). Is it a decent commute, or a no-go?

[WoodburyWoody]

I am guessing that the 32-minute route you found on Google is the northern route using I-94 and I-494 that I found on Google.

If so, I would tack another 10-15 minutes on that if during rush hour during good weather (all bets off when it snows). Interstate 94 between Hudson and downtown St. Paul is very busy, starts to back up in Woodbury and to exit south onto I-494 during morning rush is often a line moving at 5 or 10 mph, sometimes even stop-and-go. Heading in the other direction during afternoon rush hour, same thing.

Off rush hour, that route would fly.

One issue is you only have two ways to cross the Big Muddy, Hudson and Prescott. The other issue is the inferior design of the interstate roads in Minnesota. The I-94/494/694 thing is a particular cluster**** that is simply getting worse due to increased traffic (lots of commuters, lots of big trucks, too few lanes and absurdly stupid design for merging ... and that does not begin to factor in the poor driving/merging habits of those with both Minnesota and Wisconsin plates seem to cling to as if they are on a country drive to the farm).

I commute from east Woodbury into Minneapolis daily and avoid that section of 94 as much as I can to save time.

Maybe someone else can speak to the Prescott route.

[ellysbelly]

Captain obvious here: I have to imagine that there are housing options that are closer and equal in cost (or just a bit more, but worth it to reduce the commute and the additional costs that come along with that commute)-- adding an estimated 90 minute round trip commute has both financial (gas, wear/tear on a vehicle) and non-financial (time, stress, etc) costs that might more than offset any potential housing savings. For me it boils down that while I can always make more money, I can't ever make more time.

It's all about tradeoffs, but I personally wouldn't want to take on a longer commute only to have less time to spend with my family, even if it meant getting a bigger and/or less expensive house. I also hate commuting with the fire of a thousand suns, so that also colors my view-- and, obviously, many people would rather have the cost savings over the time savings.

[cindylou77]

Originally Posted by WoodburyWoody

I am guessing that the 32-minute route you found on Google is the northern route using I-94 and I-494 that I found on Google.

If so, I would tack another 10-15 minutes on that if during rush hour during good weather (all bets off when it snows). Interstate 94 between Hudson and downtown St. Paul is very busy, starts to back up in Woodbury and to exit south onto I-494 during morning rush is often a line moving at 5 or 10 mph, sometimes even stop-and-go. Heading in the other direction during afternoon rush hour, same thing.

Off rush hour, that route would fly.

One issue is you only have two ways to cross the Big Muddy, Hudson and Prescott. The other issue is the inferior design of the interstate roads in Minnesota. The I-94/494/694 thing is a particular cluster**** that is simply getting worse due to increased traffic (lots of commuters, lots of big trucks, too few lanes and absurdly stupid design for merging ... and that does not begin to factor in the poor driving/merging habits of those with both Minnesota and Wisconsin plates seem to cling to as if they are on a country drive to the farm).

I commute from east Woodbury into Minneapolis daily and avoid that section of 94 as much as I can to save time.

Maybe someone else can speak to the Prescott route.

Thanks...those are issues that I didn't know about. I'm glad that I asked!

Originally Posted by ellysbelly

Captain obvious here: I have to imagine that there are housing options that are closer and equal in cost (or just a bit more, but worth it to reduce the commute and the additional costs that come along with that commute)-- adding an estimated 90 minute round trip commute has both financial (gas, wear/tear on a vehicle) and non-financial (time, stress, etc) costs that might more than offset any potential housing savings. For me it boils down that while I can always make more money, I can't ever make more time.

It's all about tradeoffs, but I personally wouldn't want to take on a longer commute only to have less time to spend with my family, even if it meant getting a bigger and/or less expensive house. I also hate commuting with the fire of a thousand suns, so that also colors my view-- and, obviously, many people would rather have the cost savings over the time savings.

Again, thanks for the insight. I had not thought about the commute in those terms. Being from a very rural area has a tendency to put blinders on at times. I view a lot of things with the rural filter. I'm going to have to change!

[Glenfield]

This is not what would be thought of as a normal commute. Your commute time in snowstorms would be very, very long mostly due to freeway congestion in the cities.

Also, if you lost this job the places where you could look for a job without moving would be very restricted. I suggest looking closer to the cities.

(Full disclosure: I also hate commuting.)

[mr roboto]

Don't do that to yourself. There's no need. Although if you rent for year you'll find it out the hard way.

[cindylou77]

Thanks guys. I see what everyone is saying. While the townhome we were considering is very nice, I can see how it might not be worth it. Bummer.

[mnlife]

I would suggest moving closer to the metro area. River Falls is a nice town. I considered going to school there, but can not imagine commuting to the cities from there. River crossings are also a major choke point in commuting around the metro. I used to have a co-worker who was commuting from River Falls to Eden Prairie. He even agreed how crazy that commute was.