> all it took to change peoples commuting behaviour was the availability of a good alternative to cars. No, I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. The only

> all it took to change peoples commuting behaviour was the availability of a good alternative to cars. No, I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. The only data point you have is that the train is being used. But that can be explained by some combination of: 1. Users who changed jobs and taking the train as their new commute. In other words, they never changed their existing commute to the train. 2. Users who had a commute even worse than the train, like walking or taking bus service. The article is about getting people to change their commute for environmental reasons, which really means getting people to accept a less convenient commute because it's better for the world. As the article shows, it is really really hard to get people to do that. It's not enough to just give them an alternative and wait for the magic happen. Adding train service is good, of course, in large part because it offers a better commute for many people. But if you've already got free parking and are used to driving a single-occupancy vehicle every day, simply having a train become available is not very compelling.