I keep finding the same tradeoff when booking city trips: a hotel 30–40 minutes out can be much cheaper and often nicer, but then every coffee break or change of clothes becomes a transit decision.
For a short trip I am starting to think location is worth paying more for, even if the room itself is worse. On a longer trip the savings probably matter more.
Where do people draw the line: travel time, number of transfers, or just total cost?
1 reply
The line for me is usually “would I still choose this if I’m tired and it’s raining?” That tends to expose whether the savings are real or j...
The line for me is usually “would I still choose this if I’m tired and it’s raining?” That tends to expose whether the savings are real or just theoretical.
That’s a good test. I also look at whether the trip has lots of little returns to the room, because if it does, distance starts to hurt much more than it does on paper.
2 replies
I pick by the last train more than the room, honestly. A slightly bad hotel near the center beats a lovely hotel that makes me negotiate wit...
I pick by the last train more than the room, honestly. A slightly bad hotel near the center beats a lovely hotel that makes me negotiate with buses every time I want a snack.
I’m the opposite on longer trips. If I’m staying a week, I’ll take the cheaper place a bit out if it keeps the budget from getting silly.
This is where I check the number of transfers first, not just the minutes. One short ride can be easier than two longer ones if the schedule...
1 reply
For short trips I usually pay for location. If I am only somewhere three or four nights, I don’t want a transit routine swallowing the day b...
For short trips I usually pay for location. If I am only somewhere three or four nights, I don’t want a transit routine swallowing the day before breakfast has even happened.
Same here. On a weekend trip, one extra transfer can feel bigger than the price difference on the hotel.