4 ms·

Where I live, commuter trains are packed, though (Europe). How can that be? The same logic should apply to commuter trains as to cars?

maxerickson 11y ago
I think people are significantly more likely to choose to live near a train than they are to choose to live near someone who works near where they work. Among other things, it's a much more concrete consideration when house hunting.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nkoren 11y ago
It's because Europe doesn't do suburbs and parking lots the same way that America does. Densified development around transit services will result in more people taking those services. Less and/or more costly parking in the city centre will result in fewer people driving. This is how Europe does things. Basically, the mix of vehicles (cars, trains, driverless cars, whatever) is far less deterministic than the urban development patterns. Build suburbs with homogeneous lot sizes and city centres with a lot of free parking, and the mode choice is more or less a foregone conclusion.
- Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
  >This is how Europe does things. This is also how America did things up until about the 1950s. From about that time period onward we didn't just build suburbs, we made them mandatory legally. For instance, in your typical American suburb, you can't legally build a modern equivalent of a rowhouse; it might be too small to fit in the minimum lot size, its floor area ratio might exceed the ludicrously small allowed ratio, and it wouldn't have required side yards. Multistory apartments are mostly banned or, if they aren't, are required to sit on large lots so as to minimize their density. Then we tack on single-use zoning to ensure that nothing is within walking distance. This would be bad, but manageable, if we could still build in our cities. Unfortunately our great cities have decided that their state at X point in time is the best humanity can achieve, so they have made it difficult to build new buildings. Our large cities in some cases have less housing than they used to due to urban freeways, misguided urban renewal, and the fires and riots of the tumultuous Civil Rights era. >Basically, the mix of vehicles (cars, trains, driverless cars, whatever) is far less deterministic than the urban development patterns. Yep. Many people fail to understand this; land use and transportation go hand in hand. Build sprawl, and you'll end up in traffic hell with no possible transit relief. Build dense development and, though congestion may be high, actual trip times can be shorter and alternative modes can flourish. It just so happens to also be vastly better for the environment.
xyzzyz 11y ago
In Europe, the number of people willing to use public transit is much greater than 10%, for one thing. Another thing is that you don't really need to get matched with someone going the same direction as you: people generally value living close to public transit (which is completely opposite to people living in California, who try to avoid it), and public transit generally gets you where you want to be, possibly with one or rarely two transfers.
- akgerber 11y ago
  The prices in the Mission or downtown Palo Alto, for example, don't really reflect your contention that people in California don't want to live near public transit. The real issue is that California isn't building much new transit, and it's essentially impossible to build much new housing or corporate headquarters nearby— so it's mathematically impossible for many people to live near public transit.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    In general, rail projects are considered to increase property values. In fact, I've read the argument that light rail isn't really cost effective vs. dedicated bus lanes but the commitment associated with a rail line makes often makes it preferable for planning purposes. (In that buses, in addition to having a lower-class image, can always have their routes altered so--the argument goes--people won't make property decisions based on bus lines.)
- marssaxman 11y ago
  I believe that people in the USA would be just as willing to use public transit as people in Europe, if we had public transit systems that were actually worth using. Just look at New York, Boston, or Chicago: they have real transit systems, and people use them.
rconti 11y ago
Commuter trains have dedicated tracks so they don't suffer from the same congestion issues as carpools and buses (if we ignore the benefit of commuter lanes on the roadways). Commuter trains take advantage of their dedicated tracks to make many stops without impacting travel speed too hugely. (Imagine if your vanpool exited the freeway and slogged through surface streets for 10-20mins for each passenger it deposited). Commuter trains travel routes that go to where people work, and people choose to live near the train routes as a lifestyle choice. You're not going to know where your carpool buddy might live before you choose a house.
ghaff 11y ago
In addition to the other comments, a lot of people also drive (or get dropped off) at commuter rail stations. And, in many cases, they take transit upon arrival in the city to get to their destination. So commuter rail is really a modified point-to-point for most people in the US. Commuter rail also usually doesn't work for suburban-to-suburban commutes. It's almost entirely a hub and spoke model with the hub being an urban core.

maxerickson 11y ago

I think people are significantly more likely to choose to live near a train than they are to choose to live near someone who works near where they work. Among other things, it's a much more concrete consideration when house hunting.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nkoren 11y ago

It's because Europe doesn't do suburbs and parking lots the same way that America does. Densified development around transit services will result in more people taking those services. Less and/or more costly parking in the city centre will result in fewer people driving. This is how Europe does things. Basically, the mix of vehicles (cars, trains, driverless cars, whatever) is far less deterministic than the urban development patterns. Build suburbs with homogeneous lot sizes and city centres with a lot of free parking, and the mode choice is more or less a foregone conclusion.

Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
>This is how Europe does things. This is also how America did things up until about the 1950s. From about that time period onward we didn't just build suburbs, we made them mandatory legally. For instance, in your typical American suburb, you can't legally build a modern equivalent of a rowhouse; it might be too small to fit in the minimum lot size, its floor area ratio might exceed the ludicrously small allowed ratio, and it wouldn't have required side yards. Multistory apartments are mostly banned or, if they aren't, are required to sit on large lots so as to minimize their density. Then we tack on single-use zoning to ensure that nothing is within walking distance. This would be bad, but manageable, if we could still build in our cities. Unfortunately our great cities have decided that their state at X point in time is the best humanity can achieve, so they have made it difficult to build new buildings. Our large cities in some cases have less housing than they used to due to urban freeways, misguided urban renewal, and the fires and riots of the tumultuous Civil Rights era. >Basically, the mix of vehicles (cars, trains, driverless cars, whatever) is far less deterministic than the urban development patterns. Yep. Many people fail to understand this; land use and transportation go hand in hand. Build sprawl, and you'll end up in traffic hell with no possible transit relief. Build dense development and, though congestion may be high, actual trip times can be shorter and alternative modes can flourish. It just so happens to also be vastly better for the environment.

xyzzyz 11y ago

In Europe, the number of people willing to use public transit is much greater than 10%, for one thing. Another thing is that you don't really need to get matched with someone going the same direction as you: people generally value living close to public transit (which is completely opposite to people living in California, who try to avoid it), and public transit generally gets you where you want to be, possibly with one or rarely two transfers.

akgerber 11y ago
The prices in the Mission or downtown Palo Alto, for example, don't really reflect your contention that people in California don't want to live near public transit. The real issue is that California isn't building much new transit, and it's essentially impossible to build much new housing or corporate headquarters nearby— so it's mathematically impossible for many people to live near public transit.
- ghaff 11y ago
  In general, rail projects are considered to increase property values. In fact, I've read the argument that light rail isn't really cost effective vs. dedicated bus lanes but the commitment associated with a rail line makes often makes it preferable for planning purposes. (In that buses, in addition to having a lower-class image, can always have their routes altered so--the argument goes--people won't make property decisions based on bus lines.)
marssaxman 11y ago
I believe that people in the USA would be just as willing to use public transit as people in Europe, if we had public transit systems that were actually worth using. Just look at New York, Boston, or Chicago: they have real transit systems, and people use them.

rconti 11y ago

Commuter trains have dedicated tracks so they don't suffer from the same congestion issues as carpools and buses (if we ignore the benefit of commuter lanes on the roadways). Commuter trains take advantage of their dedicated tracks to make many stops without impacting travel speed too hugely. (Imagine if your vanpool exited the freeway and slogged through surface streets for 10-20mins for each passenger it deposited). Commuter trains travel routes that go to where people work, and people choose to live near the train routes as a lifestyle choice. You're not going to know where your carpool buddy might live before you choose a house.

ghaff 11y ago

In addition to the other comments, a lot of people also drive (or get dropped off) at commuter rail stations. And, in many cases, they take transit upon arrival in the city to get to their destination. So commuter rail is really a modified point-to-point for most people in the US. Commuter rail also usually doesn't work for suburban-to-suburban commutes. It's almost entirely a hub and spoke model with the hub being an urban core.