Option A: Spend $1200/yr in transportation to make $40k/yr.
Option B: Spend $1356/yr in transportation to make $48k/yr.
I know you've already made the decision, but I'd recommend reading
Your Money or Your Life (YMYL) for some ideas on how you might better quantify decisions like this. One of the biggest takeaways from this book, for me, was the concept of your "true" wage. The idea is that your salary or advertised pay is at best a rough approximation of what you
really make per hour. You have to factor in the whole "job ecosystem" of costs: commute (public transportation ticket, gas, car maintenance, parking, whatever), uniform, supplies, and any other non-reimbursable expenses that are a direct result of the position you hold. In other words, ask yourself, "Would I incur this cost if I didn't have this job?" Also, don't forget to subtract out taxes.
Then you have to divide by the total number of hours you spend on the job: not just time at work, but commute time as well (and obviously unpaid overtime). Consider two jobs that are otherwise equal, but one is literally right next door to where you live, and the other is an hour drive away. Your "true" wage is significantly lower with the latter job because it costs you an extra two hours per day (bigger denominator when you do the division).
This is why bike commuting is so spectacularly efficient: maintenance costs are virtually zero. Also, you could argue that you don't have to discount that time when computing your true wage if you consider it exercise that you'd do either way.
At the end of the day, this isn't a perfect guide for which job you should pick; but it is a useful tool. It comes with that familiar disclaimer,
all things being equal---and they rarely are. If the environment of one position is just miserable, it's not worth any amount of extra pay to take the job. But those are soft/qualitative factors, that are pretty much impossible to put into a framework like this.