4 ms·

If you have a set route, like a commute from the suburbs into a city, then a train should be the better choice. If it isn’t then your local authority does a po

If you have a set route, like a commute from the suburbs into a city, then a train should be the better choice. If it isn’t then your local authority does a poor job on infrastructure.

2ion 6y ago
A friend is living in the Japanese sticks but on a Shinkansen line. He commutes via Shinkansen directly to Shinagawa station, almost next to his office. Zero changes, a 1hour train ride with reserved seating in a quiet environment. He almost always clocks in for the ride and does quiet work, but it's also a great way to relax. The expensive train fare is essentially what he saves on Tokyo rent in exchange for being able to afford a great house with a large yard.
- smcl 6y ago
  This sounds quite idyllic, your friend is very lucky
ghaff 6y ago
If I'm going into Boston from the ex-urb where I live, I'll take the commuter rail if I go in "9-5" because the commute at rush hour is awful and parking is expensive. But it doesn't work if I'm going in for an evening event, say, because the drive isn't as bad, parking tends to be cheaper, and the schedules outside of rush hour are not frequent. In general, train on the Northeast Corridor is pretty good especially if you're not going the whole route. But I actually would be faster to drive to Manhattan than taking the Acela. However, it's a lousy drive and I hate driving into Manhattan.
fallingknife 6y ago
The problem is that you have to get to the station and then from the other station to your destination. This really only works in 2 situations. Dense urban centers where it makes sense to have stations at walking distance intervals, or cases where the city is so hard to drive/park in that it makes sense to drive to the rail station and then catch a train in (e.g. NY). Other than that it is fairly impossible to match the convenience of a car.
- gpvos 6y ago
  Local infrastructure should optimize for bicycles (and walking too). Then you can have your stations at decent distances both from living districts and from each other.
  - marcusverus 6y ago
    This might work in northern locales, but given the climate it's not practicable here in the American South. Nobody wants to walk or ride a bike through sweltering heat (i.e. ~85-90°F with high humidity) from May through September.
    - gpvos 6y ago
      One wonders how people were capable of living there before the invention of the car.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- pharmakom 6y ago
  > Dense urban centers where it makes sense to have stations at walking distance intervals, or cases where the city is so hard to drive/park in that it makes sense to drive to the rail station and then catch a train Yes! This is exactly what cities should be aiming for.

If you have a set route, like a commute from the suburbs into a city, then a train should be the better choice. If it isn’t then your local authority does a poor job on infrastructure.

2ion 6y ago

A friend is living in the Japanese sticks but on a Shinkansen line. He commutes via Shinkansen directly to Shinagawa station, almost next to his office. Zero changes, a 1hour train ride with reserved seating in a quiet environment. He almost always clocks in for the ride and does quiet work, but it's also a great way to relax. The expensive train fare is essentially what he saves on Tokyo rent in exchange for being able to afford a great house with a large yard.

smcl 6y ago
This sounds quite idyllic, your friend is very lucky

ghaff 6y ago

If I'm going into Boston from the ex-urb where I live, I'll take the commuter rail if I go in "9-5" because the commute at rush hour is awful and parking is expensive. But it doesn't work if I'm going in for an evening event, say, because the drive isn't as bad, parking tends to be cheaper, and the schedules outside of rush hour are not frequent. In general, train on the Northeast Corridor is pretty good especially if you're not going the whole route. But I actually would be faster to drive to Manhattan than taking the Acela. However, it's a lousy drive and I hate driving into Manhattan.

fallingknife 6y ago

The problem is that you have to get to the station and then from the other station to your destination. This really only works in 2 situations. Dense urban centers where it makes sense to have stations at walking distance intervals, or cases where the city is so hard to drive/park in that it makes sense to drive to the rail station and then catch a train in (e.g. NY). Other than that it is fairly impossible to match the convenience of a car.

gpvos 6y ago
Local infrastructure should optimize for bicycles (and walking too). Then you can have your stations at decent distances both from living districts and from each other.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  This might work in northern locales, but given the climate it's not practicable here in the American South. Nobody wants to walk or ride a bike through sweltering heat (i.e. ~85-90°F with high humidity) from May through September.
  - gpvos 6y ago
    One wonders how people were capable of living there before the invention of the car.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
pharmakom 6y ago
> Dense urban centers where it makes sense to have stations at walking distance intervals, or cases where the city is so hard to drive/park in that it makes sense to drive to the rail station and then catch a train Yes! This is exactly what cities should be aiming for.