3 ms·

At even moderate traffic levels car speeds fall dramatically and often below speeds offered by trains. Trains have much higher capacities and so don’t fall vict

At even moderate traffic levels car speeds fall dramatically and often below speeds offered by trains. Trains have much higher capacities and so don’t fall victim to congestion as easily. And even commuter trains have higher speeds than cars.

toast0 4y ago
> Trains have much higher capacities and so don’t fall victim to congestion as easily. All it takes is one stopped train to cause a big mess on most commuter rail lines. Commuter rail does better than cars on-peak, usually, especially with limited stop service. But off-peak, cars with no stops and point to point routing and no wait for the next take much less time.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  You could say the same thing about car accidents, which are much more frequent, so I don’t know that it’s a disadvantage.
  - toast0 4y ago
    It's usually easier to route around an accident in a car than than in a train. A blocked lane can be passed on the shoulder, but trains have a hard time doing that.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      At extremely low capacity and low speeds in any sort of meaningful traffic numbers, due to the reduced number of lanes and all the rubbernecking. And plenty of accidents close highways in one direction.
jjoonathan 4y ago
You have to walk to the train station, wait to get on the train (plus buffer for unreliable/full trains), wait at every stop in between, and walk to your final destination. You're right about congestion, though, and rush hour probably does dominate the equation for commuters. Still, in the city you pay a lot more for real estate and get a lot less. It is very important for models to include that aspect: do the benefits of density accrue to you, or to your landlord?
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Finding parking alone in a major downtown like Manhattan is time-consuming. Metro-North from Connecticut to NYC has a speed of 80MPH, and combined with pretty good acceleration from electric propulsion, is often traveling faster than cars. --- You get a lot less real estate but you do get a lot more in terms of amenity. * a lot of amenities found in major cities are there because the major city provides critical mass for niches. (If you don't have enough gay people you won't have gay bars, if you don't have enough Chinese people you are not going to have grocers with Chinese produce, you need a big enough population awake late nights to support diverse late-night food options, you need enough arts patrons to support a museum, etc.) * switching jobs is easier in big cities, particularly for people with specialist jobs. Remote work is more of a thing post-COVID, but realistically speaking a lot of companies will limit that to areas where they are already set up (since even in the US tax, employment benefit, health insurance etc. regulation varies significantly by state), and major cities are better covered in terms of companies already being tax compliant. Big cities aren't for everyone, but also suburbs are not for everyone, and small towns are not for everyone, and we are seeing that there is more demand for big city than is currently being satisfied.

toast0 4y ago

> Trains have much higher capacities and so don’t fall victim to congestion as easily. All it takes is one stopped train to cause a big mess on most commuter rail lines. Commuter rail does better than cars on-peak, usually, especially with limited stop service. But off-peak, cars with no stops and point to point routing and no wait for the next take much less time.

bobthepanda 4y ago
You could say the same thing about car accidents, which are much more frequent, so I don’t know that it’s a disadvantage.
- toast0 4y ago
  It's usually easier to route around an accident in a car than than in a train. A blocked lane can be passed on the shoulder, but trains have a hard time doing that.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    At extremely low capacity and low speeds in any sort of meaningful traffic numbers, due to the reduced number of lanes and all the rubbernecking. And plenty of accidents close highways in one direction.

jjoonathan 4y ago

You have to walk to the train station, wait to get on the train (plus buffer for unreliable/full trains), wait at every stop in between, and walk to your final destination. You're right about congestion, though, and rush hour probably does dominate the equation for commuters. Still, in the city you pay a lot more for real estate and get a lot less. It is very important for models to include that aspect: do the benefits of density accrue to you, or to your landlord?

bobthepanda 4y ago
Finding parking alone in a major downtown like Manhattan is time-consuming. Metro-North from Connecticut to NYC has a speed of 80MPH, and combined with pretty good acceleration from electric propulsion, is often traveling faster than cars. --- You get a lot less real estate but you do get a lot more in terms of amenity. * a lot of amenities found in major cities are there because the major city provides critical mass for niches. (If you don't have enough gay people you won't have gay bars, if you don't have enough Chinese people you are not going to have grocers with Chinese produce, you need a big enough population awake late nights to support diverse late-night food options, you need enough arts patrons to support a museum, etc.) * switching jobs is easier in big cities, particularly for people with specialist jobs. Remote work is more of a thing post-COVID, but realistically speaking a lot of companies will limit that to areas where they are already set up (since even in the US tax, employment benefit, health insurance etc. regulation varies significantly by state), and major cities are better covered in terms of companies already being tax compliant. Big cities aren't for everyone, but also suburbs are not for everyone, and small towns are not for everyone, and we are seeing that there is more demand for big city than is currently being satisfied.