12 ms·

Commuters prefer origin to destination transfers

158 points by _delirium 3y ago

Aardwolf 3y ago
English is not my first language but I think I'm ok at it, however I still can't figure out WHICH type of ride the article says travelers prefer. "Commuters Prefer Origin to Destination Transfers" would mean they prefer home->destination over destination->home? Does origin mean home? "much more likely to make the trip if it’s near their home than near their destination" would mean they prefer the trip if the station is close to home, but it's ok for the other station to be far from destination? "reluctant to take the train if they have any transfer at the city center end" would mean the exact opposite, they prefer station close to the destination? Which one is it now? home->destination, station close to home, or station close to destination preferred?
- rahimnathwani 3y ago
  station close to destination preferred Yes, this one. Imagine if you can drive 3 miles, park your car, and get on a train that goes all the way to your office. You'd probably do it. Now imagine instead that you live right near a station but, once you get to the other end, it's 3 miles to your office. You probably wouldn't take the train at all. Part of the issue is that, once you get to the other end, you don't have a private vehicle, so you're subject to a bus schedule or whatever.
  - afterburner 3y ago
    Very odd to count the private vehicle to public transit as a transfer on the same level as public transit to public transit transfer. Once this is pointed out the observation is almost banal.
    - 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
      I think this is why the article is confusing. The interpretation with the least friction is so banal that it seems unlikely to be the intended meaning.
      - itronitron 3y ago
        The artistry is to take the banal and illuminate it in a new way.
    - samtho 3y ago
      I agree, if I’m driving my car for a single leg of the journey, then my “origin” is where my private vehicle is parked.
      - starkparker 3y ago
        This comment, maybe unintentionally(?), encapsulates the cultural angle of the article pretty well. Suburban Americans, with exceptions, consider the "origin" of a trip on public transit not where they originate from, but where they get out of their car, because the sparse urban transit systems and job locations are oriented around extending car capabilities. It is easier and less stressful for an American to drive part of a commute and ride one train than to drive none of it and risk missing an infrequently operating transfer that strands them far from home. Suburban Europeans, with exceptions, do not do this, because their denser urban transit systems and job locations are built around foot or transit access. It is easier and less stressful for a European to ride the train all the way because, even if a transfer is required, it is more likely to occur closer to home and with a more frequently operating service. So, transit proposals in the United States that propose solutions based on European models without recognizing this American trait – often deeply rooted in experiences over years of bad transfer experiences in places that have transit, and operating against a cultural car-friendly bias in places that don't – are less likely to succeed. Or, as the article puts it: > To the extent that this relates to American commuter rail reforms, it’s about coverage within the city: multiple city stations, good (free, frequent) connections to local urban rail, high frequency all day to encourage urban travel (a train within the city that runs every half an hour might as well not run).
        afterburner 3y ago
        It's not about American or European. Where Americans can reliably take public transit the whole way, their thinking would be the same as the Europeans you describe. It's just about how a car leg compares to a train leg or a bus leg. Of course the car-to-train transfer will seem relatively frictionless compared to the other options. It's the easiest of them. That the car leg is first when leaving in the morning is more about the circumstances of suburban commuting than the transfer point's distance from home/dest. Of course the car leg is closer to home, your car is at home. If you already lived in the city with better train access you wouldn't even be using a car. On top of that, usually the whole idea of using a car is to make it a car+train commute, rather than a bus+train commute. Usually these distant car+train commuters aren't taking a bus as the last step, because then they would probably just drive the whole way (instead of bus+train+bus just do car). And they wouldn't take a bus as the first step because that was the whole point of using the car, and the only place than can use the car as part of a multi-mode commute anyways. It really weakens the claim that it's about the transfer being closer to home that determines the decision.
    - SllX 3y ago
      Bus to the station would have the same effect. If you live near the station but need some other mode of transit to get there in a timely fashion, that’s easier to justify. If everything else fails, you can just go home. If there’s a failure on the other end, you’re not exactly near work, and you’re much further away from your home now. Part of dealing with public transit on a regular basis is dealing with it failing: bus came 5 minutes early and you missed it and the next one is 25 minutes away; bus gets taken out of service; bus is too crowded to take new passengers; somebody jumps in front of a train. Whatever it is, you’re now subject to depending on a system that has failed you. There’s some psychological comfort in being able to just go home. And unlike with the office, there’s less pressure to get home on time at a time when you would normally be out anyway. You just call in and make the walk back if you have to, or maybe get on the bus back if one is available.
    - slaymaker1907 3y ago
      Even if the two legs of the journey are on transit, the unsaid aspect of all this is that buses are an order of magnitude less reliable than a train. The train conductor won’t skip stops because they didn’t notice anybody at the station and has to deal with little to no traffic (traffic only existing for light rail/streetcars). I’d much rather have the risky part near home because if something goes wrong, it’s much easier to find an alternative like biking, car pooling, rescheduling, walking, etc. Honestly, if we could make routes served by buses more reliable, this would all be much less of an issue.
      - ajmurmann 3y ago
        I wonder if the bus think it's US specific. I've had that problem in SF, but never in Germany or Shanghai.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - teaearlgraycold 3y ago
    > Part of the issue is that, once you get to the other end, you don't have a private vehicle You can bring a bike onto many trains
    - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
      Not universally; in the Netherlands, country of bicycles, it's not actually allowed to bring your bike with you during rush hour. Folding bikes at best. But even a folding bike is a bit of a ballache. The legal alternative: last-mile bike rental, there's a scheme from the railways where you can rent a bike for the day, it was about €6 for the day. Another alternative is to buy a cheap bike and just leave it at the train station overnight. That's allowed as long as the bike isn't abandoned for a month or so, after which it'll be removed.
      - rahimnathwani 3y ago
        The last couple of years I lived in Beijing, there were many competing bike rental companies. IIRC the two most popular charged something like 1 RMB (about 0.15 USD) for up to 20 mins. It was great to be able to ride at both ends of a subway journey, at almost zero cost.
      - starkparker 3y ago
        Also worth noting to an American audience that transit-related bike parking in the Netherlands operates at a large enough scale that it's difficult to fathom. Utrecht's Central Station bike garage alone has more bike parking spaces (13-20k) than the entirety of most American cities' transit systems.
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      Awkward in a city center like Chicago (which has good public transit for a US city), where the train platforms are either underground or elevated. So you'll be hauling your bicycle up and down flights of stairs.
    - baud147258 3y ago
      it depends on how packed it is...
  - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
    Yeah the last mile issue :). In Holland foldable bikes were the main way to solve that for a long time. Last years on-demand ov-fiets (public transport bike) were created to solve that. Around 4,8 euros for 24 hours. Really impressive and great system and most larger station have enough to serve most people. However I think at least in Holland the electric scooter (step) will transform this market. Beyond easy to take. Only 200-300 euros. Goes 25 km per hour. Main issue is Dutch law got strict after few incidents with new vehicles. But e-scooters are amazing vehicles for this. Although bikes are better for health. New e scooters are coming to the marketing and I think will transform the way we transport.
    - genman 3y ago
      Is this electric bike for 4.8? If not, it's way too expensive.
      - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
        4 euros a day is great for for once or twice a week. They are in every city and you can use them whole day. Saving on taxi and public transport. Commercial rentals bikes are 10+ euro and not so fast and not located well If you are a long term commute, it’s cheaper to buy a second hand bike for 100-200 and a good lock for 40. Will take around 10 weeks to get it back.
      - nobody9999 3y ago
        >Is this electric bike for 4.8? If not, it's way too expensive. I don't know about that. Where I live[0] it's US$4 for 30 minutes. As such, I think 4.8 for a whole day is pretty good. I don't use them, as I have my own bicycle, but people seem to really like them. From the Citibike website[0]: $17.08/mo ($205 billed annually) Access to 1000s of bikes in NYC, Jersey City, and Hoboken $0 unlocks ($4.49 value) Unlimited 45-min rides on classic bikes $0.17/min ebike rides ($0.26/min value) 3 free guest passes per year Eligibility for our Bike Angels rewards program Single ride - $4.49/ride -- 30 minutes on a classic bike. $0.23/min thereafter. [0] https://citibikenyc.com/ https://citibikenyc.com/ Edit: Fixed formatting.
    - 3y ago
  - Scarblac 3y ago
    Dutch train stations have cheap parking for bicycles to solve that problem. Works great. I've had four different jobs over the years where I commuted by train (to four different stations) and used my bicycle on the office side for the last bit. There are also rental bicycles for 4 euro / day to use on stations where you don't have your own stored. (They parking buildings become really massive, but still much smaller than the same for cars would be: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/finally-fully-open-utrechts-huge-bicycle-parking-garage/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/finally-fully-... ).
    - kuchenbecker 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - mjevans 3y ago
      Offhand, I can't think of any 'park and ride' style Car <> Transit (train or not) interface in the USA that _does_ charge anything to park there. Finding a spot might be an issue, but there's no cost as that's sort of built into getting someone to take the transit system at all. As someone else pointed out, any additional friction (multiple transfers, etc) results in a direct all car route. Most people are somewhat emotionally rational, but the models for calculating the emotional cost (friction) get everything wrong. Delays past about 5-10 min increase the emotional cost exponentially. Stacking delays (multiple not-user controlled) legs grow even faster. Any uncertainty in the route also massively increases the emotional cost, more so if there's nothing the commuter can do. Contrast Japan's famously well run trains that will even issue an apology the commuter can take to the office of someone else being at fault (I remember this offhand, don't have proof offhand). Also, the car is more than just getting the person there; it takes their stuff. Abandoning that car leaves behind the potential to move larger items or stacks of things. Plus the car might be critical for visiting friends, stores, etc after work. All of that factors into the commuter cost.
      - zten 3y ago
        > Offhand, I can't think of any 'park and ride' style Car <> Transit (train or not) interface in the USA that _does_ charge anything to park there. Finding a spot might be an issue, but there's no cost as that's sort of built into getting someone to take the transit system at all. Almost every MBTA garage/lot in Massachusetts charges something. BART parking in the Bay Area also does. It's a pittance, though.
  - crote 3y ago
    > Imagine if you can drive 3 miles, park your car, and get on a train I'm afraid you just lost all the Europeans. Why would you take the car for a 3 mile ride? Just hop on your bike! As to the other end: public transport near train stations is usually dense enough that there will be a bus line - of course with a schedule matching train arrivals. Or just store your second bike there, of course.
    - rahimnathwani 3y ago
      Sorry I should have been clear: I wasn't expressing my own opinion... I was just trying to illustrate the point in the original article.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  Funny! I read through it and remarked to myself that it was like reading something from a foreign language...
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  English is my first language and I have exactly the same confusion as you. It is not well expressed.
  - sltkr 3y ago
    No kidding. If the author is on Hacker News: your spelling and grammar are impeccable, but you really need to lay out your ideas more clearly (which really is the most important part of a blog post!) Just from the start: > Garrett Wollman is giving an example, in the context of the Agricultural Branch, a low-usage freight line linking to the Boston-Worcester commuter line that could be used for local passenger rail service. Imagine, just for fun, that a reader might not know who the famous Garrett Wollman is, what the Agricultural Branch is, or where the Boston-Worcester commuter line is? (Isn't Worcester in England and Boston in North America? Is there a transatlantic train service I'm ignorant about?) What do you think the above paragraph communicates to the reader? > The more typical example of residential sprawl involves isotropic single-family density in a suburban region Ah yes, isotropic density, that perennial scourge! The word isotropic of course means: “exhibiting properties (such as velocity of light transmission) with the same values when measured along axes in all directions”, which I didn't need to look up in a dictionary because it's such a common English word, and the meaning in the above sentence is self-explanatory, really. Anyway, I think you get the point. This article is written in a way that's inscrutable to a general audience. That's fine if the blog is targeted at traffic nerds who talk about the isotropic density of the Agricultural Branch on the daily, but then why post it on Hacker News?
    - j1elo 3y ago
      > What do you think the above paragraph communicates to the reader? Nothing, really. I read the whole article and was constantly having the feeling that they were only a random sequence of overly technical words which after the fact hadn't conveyed any information. What an obtuse way of structuring ideas. I was thinking my English comprehension was nonexistent (which might be the case), until reading these comments here kind of confirmed me that "it's not me, it's them".
  - twobitshifter 3y ago
- travisjungroth 3y ago
  It's more confusing because you're quoting parts of sentences. "It’s an empirical observation that rail riders who are faced with a transfer are much more likely to make the trip if it’s near their home than near their destination." Rewritten and removed the introduction part: "Rail riders who need to do a transfer are much more likely to make the trip if the transfer is near their home than if the transfer is near their destination. Of the two options below, first one is more liked. Home -> 3 minute train -> station -> 15 minute train -> destination Home -> 15 minute train -> station -> 3 minute train -> destination
- Symbiote 3y ago
  I think they mean that a short transfer near home, like taking a bus or driving to a nearby station, is preferred to a short transfer at the end of the journey -- like taking a bus a few stops within the city centre, or a different railway line a few stops out.
- jeffchien 3y ago
  I think it's just missing a word, and it should be "Commuters prefer origin transfers to destination transfers". Perhaps it's immediately clear to his intended audience.
version_five 3y ago
Speaking for Canada (well part of it), Toronto and Montreal do a decent job of bringing people into the city from outside on commuter trains. While Ottawa is a joke. There is no commuter specific rail (like GO and EXO) only a few miscellaneous busses from outlying areas. And, related to the article, the Ottawa train station is at the dumbest spot possible in the east end of the city, near nothing. Since they built the "o-train" (Ottawa's subway line) it's actually much easier to get into town from the station, but it's still an annoying extra destination transfer. I live in Montreal and I do take the train to Ottawa sometimes but often driving makes more sense because the train doesn't get me anywhere useful. I'm sure lots of other people are making the same decision.
Fiahil 3y ago
I think it’s a cultural thing. The study was made with North-American commuters, it’s not ever a thing in dense metro areas with good subways, like Paris or London. Edit: The article does mentions that’s it’s different over here :)
- xyzzyz 3y ago
  Most European commuters don’t live in metros with good subways, and so they drive. In France, for example, something like 4 times as many people commute by car than by public transit. Even in Paris, something like a third of all commuters drive a personal car. Whenever we have a public transit thread on HN, I observe people having totally unrealistic image of Europe, probably based on hearsay or being a tourist in some of the top metros. Thus, let’s make a few facts about commutes in Europe very clear: * European mostly commute by car, not by public transit, and the disparity is big, with something like 3-5 times as many people driving than riding public transit, depending on a country. * Out of those who ride public transit, many if not most would prefer to drive, they just can’t afford it (regular Europeans are much poorer than regular Americans, most Americans have no idea how poor average European is, and vice versa) * Most people don’t live in transit-heavy places like London or Paris. Most Europeans have little to no practical public transit around where they live. * By far, biggest user of public transit are students and retirees. * Finally, average European commute is much longer than average American commute, and in transit-heavy places like Paris or London, average commute is very long, something like 45-55 minutes one way.
  - Fiahil 3y ago
    Yes, that's true outside of big cities. Commuting in and out of Rennes takes about 40 minutes (by car), double that during rush hour.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bedobi 3y ago
    I've lived in multiple countries in Europe, and in Japan, and in Canada, Australia and the US so I feel compelled to reply :P > European mostly commute by car... In France ~4 times as many people commute by car Yeah, because there's effall transit outside major cities? This is kind of a pointless statistic because overwhelmingly when we talk about this it's in the context of major cities. And the fact that smaller cities don't have transit isn't something desirable, it's a sad failure that those cities are trying to address. > Even in Paris, something like a third of all commuters drive a personal car Now we're talking - in major cities, the overwhelming majority of people do not commute by car. It would literally by physically impossible for everyone to commute by car. > many if not most would prefer to drive, they just can’t afford it > biggest user of public transit are students and retirees this is pure bs
zabzonk 3y ago
i found this completely incomprehensible, and i have been a commuter in london for over 30 years. can somebody else explain?
- _delirium 3y ago
  I believe one piece of missing context is that this is part of a debate in the U.S. about how/whether transit planners should serve commuters to non-downtown jobs, which are a large and growing percentage in some areas. U.S. commuter rail is traditionally entirely oriented towards bringing people from suburbs downtown, but some American cities are getting less downtown-centric in their employment patterns, with various secondary job centers in the suburbs. Some cities' transit planners are trying to find ways to serve those commute patterns. A few European cities are able to do that successfully, and the article looks at whether their approaches are applicable to the U.S. The answer is mostly no, due to the American suburban jobs being more sprawling rather than built on top of / near train stations. People are willing to drive from their house to a park-and-ride for a train to downtown, but doing that in reverse is inconvenient and unpopular. But it might work in a few cases where the suburban job centers are in a compact cluster, like a few examples the article gives in the Boston area. To the extent the article has a take-away recommendation, it's basically, "planners should focus on better serving existing compact suburban job centers like those". One problem mentioned is that even where new transit-oriented development is built in the U.S., there is usually more economic demand for it to be residential rather than commercial, so it generally doesn't make economic sense to put offices on top of suburban train stations.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  You might live in Luton, take the train to London, then use the Underground to get to a job at Canary Wharf. Americans and Canadians apparently don't do this, since the 'new' just-out-of-the-centre development has residential buildings near the station, unlike Canary Wharf where the nearest buildings to the station are offices. The suburban trains also run frequently and all day, so Brixton to Wembley is a reasonable journey by train. This would not be the case in the USA.
danielfoster 3y ago
I stopped reading halfway through because the author does not get to the point.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
  I tried to skim the whole thing and I still haven't seen whether the article actually answers the question ("why"). Also, what does "destination" mean in the context of the commute? The workplace, or does it mean home in the evening? Is he talking about people living in the city and working outside or the other way around?
Misdicorl 3y ago
People seem confused, but this seems very reasonable to me. Consider flying to some far away location. Would you rather A) A short flight from your local airport to a nearby hub and then transfer to a long haul flight to the far away location B) A long flight from your local airport to a far away hub and then transfer to a short flight to get to your final destination. If something goes wrong, its likely to happen at the transfer point. If something goes wrong, you want to be in a place where you have the most resources available to you. Usually being close to home affords you the most resources/options. Stakes are much lower for commuter train travel, but it still rings true for me.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  I would rather muster the effort at the beginning as well. After a long flight i want to be done.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    Does that matter, given you'll do the trip in reverse on your return?
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      With airplanes in particulart , that's not a given. Even when it is, returning home is less stressful than leaving for a foreign place, so the effect is not cancelled out. Almost anyone would prefer being stranded in a different city in their home country than being stranded on anther continent.
- progbits 3y ago
  Transfer can also be exhausting. I would rather have it done early so when I get out of the long haul flight I can directly go to the hotel. For all my EU->US (and back) flights, if I have to transfer I always do it in Frankfurt/Zurich/Heathrow, rather than US. The fact the airports and lounges are nicer helps.
  - 3y ago
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
Rail has a decent value proposition against single occupancy ice cars for commuting, especially American monstrosities. But the EV revolution isn't "just cars, but electric". EVs are much more flexible as a platform because the batteries are already manufactured in a highly scalable flexible form factor: the cell. Ultimately an ebike, escooter, e kei car, are going to be cheaper, faster, more convenient, environmentally better, and less infrastructure intensive. So the article seems to reflect an old battle mindset: ice cars vs rail. Imo both are obsolete already, pending scale up of high density sodium ion and lfp cells. And if sulfur gets commercialized at 2x the density? This doesn't even account for convergent infrastructure and self driving tech which has the ability to utilize transportation infrastructure to a higher degree than is possible now.
- nimbleplum40 3y ago
  Trains are obsolete because of EVs? Lots of trains are already electric (and many have been for 100+ years). And there’s not really a better option for moving a huge amount of people short-medium distances.
  - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
    A bike path filled with ebikes and scooters is better than rail, cheaper, more resilient, more easily repaired, more flexible, always in service. Small e vehicles can do 30mph, which is likely effectively the same speed as a train when you consider lack of waiting, fare payment, intermediate stops, delays, transportation to/from the station. EVs are much more flexible for modes and platforms than ices because all the motor form favors exist, they are simple (motor battery brakes) modular (removable batteries) and don't involve smelly gas and oil.
    - nimbleplum40 3y ago
      I’m very pro ebike, so I’d love more paths for the them. But they aren’t a complete replacement for trains. Trains still have a greater capacity (see the Lexington Avenue line in NYC - 1.3 million riders per day, pre covid). They’re also way better in bad weather, more accessible for people with disabilities, better for families, allow you to do other things while commuting, and way better for long distances. But e-bikes > cars. 100%
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hgsgm 3y ago
Poorly written blog post is hard to understand. > American and Canadian commuter rail riders drive long distances just to get to a cheaper or faster park-and-ride stations, but are reluctant to take the train if they have any transfer at the city center end. Are they saying that people prefer 2 long legs over 3 shorter legs? That's very different than the headline!
stevebmark 3y ago
> It’s an empirical observation that rail riders who are faced with a transfer are much more likely to make the trip if it’s near their home than near their destination. Sorry, but what a nightmare of an opening sentence! What is "the trip"? What is "it" in "it's near"?
- jamilton 3y ago
  "It" is the transfer.
- bedobi 3y ago
  You're not alone, others have already pointed out how confusing it is and I'm confused by it too. I think what they're trying to say is, if a commute by transit involves a transfer, people prefer and are more likely to make the trip by transit if the transfer happens closer to home vs closer to the destination.
fatnoah 3y ago
I've actually done the city center to suburb commute where a shuttle bus was the final leg of the journey. I walked 10 minutes to the train station, rode the train for 20 minutes, and then the shuttle for about 15 minutes. The shuttle waited for the train to arrive. In the evening, I did the reverse. Interestingly, there was a core of about 10 other riders who started their journey in a different suburb. They drove to a train station, rode it downtown, switched trains, and then rode out to the suburb. The key for them was that it was time competitive with driving and the transfer didn't add nuch time. The conductor for the outbound train would hold it if the inbound was late. It worked well for everyone, at least until the suburub stopped funding the bus. I was able to find a less convenient transit alternative, but it was slower and added a 1 mile walk on the end though a not quite pedestrian friendly environment. Everyone else ended up switching to their cars.
- ryukoposting 3y ago
  Did a similar commute myself (out of Minneapolis to an edge suburb, via a train, then a bus, then a smaller shuttle bus). Likewise, there was a core group of about 10 of us who had almost the exact same commute. In that scenario, though, we were living in a much smaller city than those discussed in the article. We commuted that way for a combination of reasons- folks either couldn't afford a car, couldn't drive for medical reasons, etc. I bought a cheap car and cut my commute time in half, since I could take a much more efficient route to work than the bus could. The rail portion of my commute had been great. The shuttle worked well too, since all the jobs in that area were concentrated in a couple industrial parks. The only problem was the bus that took me out of the city, and to the shuttle. I'm left with many "what ifs" about commuter rail in small cities.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Makes sense from a chaoticness standpoint as well. I have a transfer in my neighborhood and one downtown, where four rail lines and dozens of busses meet. The downtown transfer is an absolute zoo. Near stampedes on the stairs between the rail platforms. Absolute chaos with the dozens of bus lines on the streets above, easy to get turned around exiting the underground station taking the wrong stair out because the station is symmetrical. A lot more trash, noise, bad smells, and evidently crime from the level of police presence at this central station. I imagine most central transit hubs in places with more transit use are even more chaotic than my American example.
calderwoodra 3y ago
> He points out that American and Canadian commuter rail riders drive long distances just to get to a cheaper or faster park-and-ride stations, but are reluctant to take the train if they have any transfer at the city center end. To me, it's more about the number of transfers instead of where the transfer is. If I'm traveling from mountain view to the mission, I have 3 options: drive whole way, drive short distance to Caltrain then switch to BART in Millbrae, drive long distance to Milpitas BART. Transferring at Millbrae seems like the worst option just because I have to pay attention at intermittent intervals which feels more stressful.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  > Transferring at Millbrae seems like the worst option just because I have to pay attention at intermittent intervals which feels more stressful. It's not just the shorter intervals, but the fact that there's 50% more points of possible failure with one additional transfer. For example, maybe there are no parking spots available, or the Caltrain is delayed.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    You shouldn't have to pay attention to transfers like that. If you miss the transfer for whatever reason just get the next one. That the above is not reasonable is something to fix. (Either that or get the Swiss to plan your transfers so you can't possibly miss them)
Solvency 3y ago
I yes, origin to destination transfers! Yes I greatly prefer those to origin to origin transfers. Or worse yet, destination to destination transfers! But nothing is worse than destination to origin transfers! After all, you've only just arrived! Or...had you just transferred? Jesus. Who wrote this?
- chad_oliver 3y ago
  This was written by Alon Levy, who is deep in the weeds of transport infrastructure and was writing for a technical audience. The habitual readers of their blog will easily interpret this as "Why commuters prefer transfers at the origin rather than transfers at the destination". This is the same conclusion that will be reached by readers who have never read Alon's blog before but do in fact read the first sentence of the post. Clearly, Alon's title uses wonkish terminology and would have benefited from a title that was more easily understood by people unfamiliar with the field. I think it's fair to say that you're not the target audience.
  - lolpython 3y ago
    I read Alton‘a blog all the time and just didn’t understand the linked blog post at all. I think it was just poorly written.
    - magic_hamster 3y ago
      If you read Alon's blog all the time you could have noticed his name isn't Alton.
      - lolpython 3y ago
        It’s an autocorrect typo, and if we are ruling on Alon trivia, Alon doesn’t go by “him” last I checked.
  - jaclaz 3y ago
    Allow me to comment how it is not technically accurate to "tag" the the Berlin S-Bahn or the Paris RER as "Europe". I would say that those (together with very few other largish cities) are the exception and not the rule in Europe.
rsynnott 3y ago
> How does this work, besides timetables and other operating practices that American reformers recognize as superior to what’s available in the US and Canada? This feels like a huge "besides"; I'm not sure they've _really_ demonstrated their thesis that customers _universally_ prefer origin to destination transfers. How well the system works makes a huge difference; if either (a) you're virtually guaranteed that it'll be on time or (b) frequency is high enough that it doesn't really matter, this sort of journey becomes much less fraught. Anecdotally, in Dublin, a few years back, I'd rarely make a journey involving connections unless there was no choice, and I'd usually be willing to walk up to about 40 minutes to avoid it. This was because it never worked (unless it was train-to-train, though even that was optimistic); the bus timetables were just too unreliable and the buses too frequent. However I'd think nothing of making a journey involving multiple connections in, say, London or a German city, because there was a high probability it would more or less work. Due to improvements in the Dublin bus system (Dublin City Council seems to have taken the opportunity to put in bus lanes everywhere during the pandemic while no-one was looking; it's really improved a lot), I'm now way more willing to make connections in Dublin, because _it is more likely to work_. EDIT: Another big factor in making this more attractive was the simplification of the fare system. Today, you tap your card, you're charged 2 eur, and provided the last leg of your journey is started within 90 minutes of the first, you don't pay anything more. A few years back, for buses in particular you had to deal with arcane staging-based pricing.
talkingtab 3y ago
It is just the car, right? In SF once I had to commute with Bart to the south bay. I stashed my car at the parking lot in the south bay. It was the only way to make the commute feasible. It is like the bay area built a BART to nowhere. You can get there, but then what do you do? It seems to me that a transportation system must either allow you to control it - a car - or be utterly predictable and efficient once you enter the system. In Europe it is the last case. You can get on a train, then take a tram. They run. They don't sit there making you wait. Once you get to the train you know you are going to get to your destination X time later. I wonder if you put electric scooters that could be checked out for a day at BART stations what would happen to ridership? Or something like that.

158 points by _delirium 3y ago

English is not my first language but I think I'm ok at it, however I still can't figure out WHICH type of ride the article says travelers prefer. "Commuters Prefer Origin to Destination Transfers" would mean they prefer home->destination over destination->home? Does origin mean home? "much more likely to make the trip if it’s near their home than near their destination" would mean they prefer the trip if the station is close to home, but it's ok for the other station to be far from destination? "reluctant to take the train if they have any transfer at the city center end" would mean the exact opposite, they prefer station close to the destination? Which one is it now? home->destination, station close to home, or station close to destination preferred?

rahimnathwani 3y ago
station close to destination preferred Yes, this one. Imagine if you can drive 3 miles, park your car, and get on a train that goes all the way to your office. You'd probably do it. Now imagine instead that you live right near a station but, once you get to the other end, it's 3 miles to your office. You probably wouldn't take the train at all. Part of the issue is that, once you get to the other end, you don't have a private vehicle, so you're subject to a bus schedule or whatever.
- afterburner 3y ago
  Very odd to count the private vehicle to public transit as a transfer on the same level as public transit to public transit transfer. Once this is pointed out the observation is almost banal.
  - 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
    I think this is why the article is confusing. The interpretation with the least friction is so banal that it seems unlikely to be the intended meaning.
    - itronitron 3y ago
      The artistry is to take the banal and illuminate it in a new way.
  - samtho 3y ago
    I agree, if I’m driving my car for a single leg of the journey, then my “origin” is where my private vehicle is parked.
    - starkparker 3y ago
      This comment, maybe unintentionally(?), encapsulates the cultural angle of the article pretty well. Suburban Americans, with exceptions, consider the "origin" of a trip on public transit not where they originate from, but where they get out of their car, because the sparse urban transit systems and job locations are oriented around extending car capabilities. It is easier and less stressful for an American to drive part of a commute and ride one train than to drive none of it and risk missing an infrequently operating transfer that strands them far from home. Suburban Europeans, with exceptions, do not do this, because their denser urban transit systems and job locations are built around foot or transit access. It is easier and less stressful for a European to ride the train all the way because, even if a transfer is required, it is more likely to occur closer to home and with a more frequently operating service. So, transit proposals in the United States that propose solutions based on European models without recognizing this American trait – often deeply rooted in experiences over years of bad transfer experiences in places that have transit, and operating against a cultural car-friendly bias in places that don't – are less likely to succeed. Or, as the article puts it: > To the extent that this relates to American commuter rail reforms, it’s about coverage within the city: multiple city stations, good (free, frequent) connections to local urban rail, high frequency all day to encourage urban travel (a train within the city that runs every half an hour might as well not run).
      - afterburner 3y ago
        It's not about American or European. Where Americans can reliably take public transit the whole way, their thinking would be the same as the Europeans you describe. It's just about how a car leg compares to a train leg or a bus leg. Of course the car-to-train transfer will seem relatively frictionless compared to the other options. It's the easiest of them. That the car leg is first when leaving in the morning is more about the circumstances of suburban commuting than the transfer point's distance from home/dest. Of course the car leg is closer to home, your car is at home. If you already lived in the city with better train access you wouldn't even be using a car. On top of that, usually the whole idea of using a car is to make it a car+train commute, rather than a bus+train commute. Usually these distant car+train commuters aren't taking a bus as the last step, because then they would probably just drive the whole way (instead of bus+train+bus just do car). And they wouldn't take a bus as the first step because that was the whole point of using the car, and the only place than can use the car as part of a multi-mode commute anyways. It really weakens the claim that it's about the transfer being closer to home that determines the decision.
  - SllX 3y ago
    Bus to the station would have the same effect. If you live near the station but need some other mode of transit to get there in a timely fashion, that’s easier to justify. If everything else fails, you can just go home. If there’s a failure on the other end, you’re not exactly near work, and you’re much further away from your home now. Part of dealing with public transit on a regular basis is dealing with it failing: bus came 5 minutes early and you missed it and the next one is 25 minutes away; bus gets taken out of service; bus is too crowded to take new passengers; somebody jumps in front of a train. Whatever it is, you’re now subject to depending on a system that has failed you. There’s some psychological comfort in being able to just go home. And unlike with the office, there’s less pressure to get home on time at a time when you would normally be out anyway. You just call in and make the walk back if you have to, or maybe get on the bus back if one is available.
  - slaymaker1907 3y ago
    Even if the two legs of the journey are on transit, the unsaid aspect of all this is that buses are an order of magnitude less reliable than a train. The train conductor won’t skip stops because they didn’t notice anybody at the station and has to deal with little to no traffic (traffic only existing for light rail/streetcars). I’d much rather have the risky part near home because if something goes wrong, it’s much easier to find an alternative like biking, car pooling, rescheduling, walking, etc. Honestly, if we could make routes served by buses more reliable, this would all be much less of an issue.
    - ajmurmann 3y ago
      I wonder if the bus think it's US specific. I've had that problem in SF, but never in Germany or Shanghai.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  > Part of the issue is that, once you get to the other end, you don't have a private vehicle You can bring a bike onto many trains
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    Not universally; in the Netherlands, country of bicycles, it's not actually allowed to bring your bike with you during rush hour. Folding bikes at best. But even a folding bike is a bit of a ballache. The legal alternative: last-mile bike rental, there's a scheme from the railways where you can rent a bike for the day, it was about €6 for the day. Another alternative is to buy a cheap bike and just leave it at the train station overnight. That's allowed as long as the bike isn't abandoned for a month or so, after which it'll be removed.
    - rahimnathwani 3y ago
      The last couple of years I lived in Beijing, there were many competing bike rental companies. IIRC the two most popular charged something like 1 RMB (about 0.15 USD) for up to 20 mins. It was great to be able to ride at both ends of a subway journey, at almost zero cost.
    - starkparker 3y ago
      Also worth noting to an American audience that transit-related bike parking in the Netherlands operates at a large enough scale that it's difficult to fathom. Utrecht's Central Station bike garage alone has more bike parking spaces (13-20k) than the entirety of most American cities' transit systems.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    Awkward in a city center like Chicago (which has good public transit for a US city), where the train platforms are either underground or elevated. So you'll be hauling your bicycle up and down flights of stairs.
  - baud147258 3y ago
    it depends on how packed it is...
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  Yeah the last mile issue :). In Holland foldable bikes were the main way to solve that for a long time. Last years on-demand ov-fiets (public transport bike) were created to solve that. Around 4,8 euros for 24 hours. Really impressive and great system and most larger station have enough to serve most people. However I think at least in Holland the electric scooter (step) will transform this market. Beyond easy to take. Only 200-300 euros. Goes 25 km per hour. Main issue is Dutch law got strict after few incidents with new vehicles. But e-scooters are amazing vehicles for this. Although bikes are better for health. New e scooters are coming to the marketing and I think will transform the way we transport.
  - genman 3y ago
    Is this electric bike for 4.8? If not, it's way too expensive.
    - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
      4 euros a day is great for for once or twice a week. They are in every city and you can use them whole day. Saving on taxi and public transport. Commercial rentals bikes are 10+ euro and not so fast and not located well If you are a long term commute, it’s cheaper to buy a second hand bike for 100-200 and a good lock for 40. Will take around 10 weeks to get it back.
    - nobody9999 3y ago
      >Is this electric bike for 4.8? If not, it's way too expensive. I don't know about that. Where I live[0] it's US$4 for 30 minutes. As such, I think 4.8 for a whole day is pretty good. I don't use them, as I have my own bicycle, but people seem to really like them. From the Citibike website[0]: $17.08/mo ($205 billed annually) Access to 1000s of bikes in NYC, Jersey City, and Hoboken $0 unlocks ($4.49 value) Unlimited 45-min rides on classic bikes $0.17/min ebike rides ($0.26/min value) 3 free guest passes per year Eligibility for our Bike Angels rewards program Single ride - $4.49/ride -- 30 minutes on a classic bike. $0.23/min thereafter. [0] https://citibikenyc.com/ https://citibikenyc.com/ Edit: Fixed formatting.
  - 3y ago
- Scarblac 3y ago
  Dutch train stations have cheap parking for bicycles to solve that problem. Works great. I've had four different jobs over the years where I commuted by train (to four different stations) and used my bicycle on the office side for the last bit. There are also rental bicycles for 4 euro / day to use on stations where you don't have your own stored. (They parking buildings become really massive, but still much smaller than the same for cars would be: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/finally-fully-open-utrechts-huge-bicycle-parking-garage/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/finally-fully-... ).
  - kuchenbecker 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - mjevans 3y ago
    Offhand, I can't think of any 'park and ride' style Car <> Transit (train or not) interface in the USA that _does_ charge anything to park there. Finding a spot might be an issue, but there's no cost as that's sort of built into getting someone to take the transit system at all. As someone else pointed out, any additional friction (multiple transfers, etc) results in a direct all car route. Most people are somewhat emotionally rational, but the models for calculating the emotional cost (friction) get everything wrong. Delays past about 5-10 min increase the emotional cost exponentially. Stacking delays (multiple not-user controlled) legs grow even faster. Any uncertainty in the route also massively increases the emotional cost, more so if there's nothing the commuter can do. Contrast Japan's famously well run trains that will even issue an apology the commuter can take to the office of someone else being at fault (I remember this offhand, don't have proof offhand). Also, the car is more than just getting the person there; it takes their stuff. Abandoning that car leaves behind the potential to move larger items or stacks of things. Plus the car might be critical for visiting friends, stores, etc after work. All of that factors into the commuter cost.
    - zten 3y ago
      > Offhand, I can't think of any 'park and ride' style Car <> Transit (train or not) interface in the USA that _does_ charge anything to park there. Finding a spot might be an issue, but there's no cost as that's sort of built into getting someone to take the transit system at all. Almost every MBTA garage/lot in Massachusetts charges something. BART parking in the Bay Area also does. It's a pittance, though.
- crote 3y ago
  > Imagine if you can drive 3 miles, park your car, and get on a train I'm afraid you just lost all the Europeans. Why would you take the car for a 3 mile ride? Just hop on your bike! As to the other end: public transport near train stations is usually dense enough that there will be a bus line - of course with a schedule matching train arrivals. Or just store your second bike there, of course.
  - rahimnathwani 3y ago
    Sorry I should have been clear: I wasn't expressing my own opinion... I was just trying to illustrate the point in the original article.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
readthenotes1 3y ago
Funny! I read through it and remarked to myself that it was like reading something from a foreign language...
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
English is my first language and I have exactly the same confusion as you. It is not well expressed.
- sltkr 3y ago
  No kidding. If the author is on Hacker News: your spelling and grammar are impeccable, but you really need to lay out your ideas more clearly (which really is the most important part of a blog post!) Just from the start: > Garrett Wollman is giving an example, in the context of the Agricultural Branch, a low-usage freight line linking to the Boston-Worcester commuter line that could be used for local passenger rail service. Imagine, just for fun, that a reader might not know who the famous Garrett Wollman is, what the Agricultural Branch is, or where the Boston-Worcester commuter line is? (Isn't Worcester in England and Boston in North America? Is there a transatlantic train service I'm ignorant about?) What do you think the above paragraph communicates to the reader? > The more typical example of residential sprawl involves isotropic single-family density in a suburban region Ah yes, isotropic density, that perennial scourge! The word isotropic of course means: “exhibiting properties (such as velocity of light transmission) with the same values when measured along axes in all directions”, which I didn't need to look up in a dictionary because it's such a common English word, and the meaning in the above sentence is self-explanatory, really. Anyway, I think you get the point. This article is written in a way that's inscrutable to a general audience. That's fine if the blog is targeted at traffic nerds who talk about the isotropic density of the Agricultural Branch on the daily, but then why post it on Hacker News?
  - j1elo 3y ago
    > What do you think the above paragraph communicates to the reader? Nothing, really. I read the whole article and was constantly having the feeling that they were only a random sequence of overly technical words which after the fact hadn't conveyed any information. What an obtuse way of structuring ideas. I was thinking my English comprehension was nonexistent (which might be the case), until reading these comments here kind of confirmed me that "it's not me, it's them".
- twobitshifter 3y ago
travisjungroth 3y ago
It's more confusing because you're quoting parts of sentences. "It’s an empirical observation that rail riders who are faced with a transfer are much more likely to make the trip if it’s near their home than near their destination." Rewritten and removed the introduction part: "Rail riders who need to do a transfer are much more likely to make the trip if the transfer is near their home than if the transfer is near their destination. Of the two options below, first one is more liked. Home -> 3 minute train -> station -> 15 minute train -> destination Home -> 15 minute train -> station -> 3 minute train -> destination
Symbiote 3y ago
I think they mean that a short transfer near home, like taking a bus or driving to a nearby station, is preferred to a short transfer at the end of the journey -- like taking a bus a few stops within the city centre, or a different railway line a few stops out.
jeffchien 3y ago
I think it's just missing a word, and it should be "Commuters prefer origin transfers to destination transfers". Perhaps it's immediately clear to his intended audience.

version_five 3y ago

Speaking for Canada (well part of it), Toronto and Montreal do a decent job of bringing people into the city from outside on commuter trains. While Ottawa is a joke. There is no commuter specific rail (like GO and EXO) only a few miscellaneous busses from outlying areas. And, related to the article, the Ottawa train station is at the dumbest spot possible in the east end of the city, near nothing. Since they built the "o-train" (Ottawa's subway line) it's actually much easier to get into town from the station, but it's still an annoying extra destination transfer. I live in Montreal and I do take the train to Ottawa sometimes but often driving makes more sense because the train doesn't get me anywhere useful. I'm sure lots of other people are making the same decision.

Fiahil 3y ago

I think it’s a cultural thing. The study was made with North-American commuters, it’s not ever a thing in dense metro areas with good subways, like Paris or London. Edit: The article does mentions that’s it’s different over here :)

xyzzyz 3y ago
Most European commuters don’t live in metros with good subways, and so they drive. In France, for example, something like 4 times as many people commute by car than by public transit. Even in Paris, something like a third of all commuters drive a personal car. Whenever we have a public transit thread on HN, I observe people having totally unrealistic image of Europe, probably based on hearsay or being a tourist in some of the top metros. Thus, let’s make a few facts about commutes in Europe very clear: * European mostly commute by car, not by public transit, and the disparity is big, with something like 3-5 times as many people driving than riding public transit, depending on a country. * Out of those who ride public transit, many if not most would prefer to drive, they just can’t afford it (regular Europeans are much poorer than regular Americans, most Americans have no idea how poor average European is, and vice versa) * Most people don’t live in transit-heavy places like London or Paris. Most Europeans have little to no practical public transit around where they live. * By far, biggest user of public transit are students and retirees. * Finally, average European commute is much longer than average American commute, and in transit-heavy places like Paris or London, average commute is very long, something like 45-55 minutes one way.
- Fiahil 3y ago
  Yes, that's true outside of big cities. Commuting in and out of Rennes takes about 40 minutes (by car), double that during rush hour.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bedobi 3y ago
  I've lived in multiple countries in Europe, and in Japan, and in Canada, Australia and the US so I feel compelled to reply :P > European mostly commute by car... In France ~4 times as many people commute by car Yeah, because there's effall transit outside major cities? This is kind of a pointless statistic because overwhelmingly when we talk about this it's in the context of major cities. And the fact that smaller cities don't have transit isn't something desirable, it's a sad failure that those cities are trying to address. > Even in Paris, something like a third of all commuters drive a personal car Now we're talking - in major cities, the overwhelming majority of people do not commute by car. It would literally by physically impossible for everyone to commute by car. > many if not most would prefer to drive, they just can’t afford it > biggest user of public transit are students and retirees this is pure bs

zabzonk 3y ago

i found this completely incomprehensible, and i have been a commuter in london for over 30 years. can somebody else explain?

_delirium 3y ago
I believe one piece of missing context is that this is part of a debate in the U.S. about how/whether transit planners should serve commuters to non-downtown jobs, which are a large and growing percentage in some areas. U.S. commuter rail is traditionally entirely oriented towards bringing people from suburbs downtown, but some American cities are getting less downtown-centric in their employment patterns, with various secondary job centers in the suburbs. Some cities' transit planners are trying to find ways to serve those commute patterns. A few European cities are able to do that successfully, and the article looks at whether their approaches are applicable to the U.S. The answer is mostly no, due to the American suburban jobs being more sprawling rather than built on top of / near train stations. People are willing to drive from their house to a park-and-ride for a train to downtown, but doing that in reverse is inconvenient and unpopular. But it might work in a few cases where the suburban job centers are in a compact cluster, like a few examples the article gives in the Boston area. To the extent the article has a take-away recommendation, it's basically, "planners should focus on better serving existing compact suburban job centers like those". One problem mentioned is that even where new transit-oriented development is built in the U.S., there is usually more economic demand for it to be residential rather than commercial, so it generally doesn't make economic sense to put offices on top of suburban train stations.
Symbiote 3y ago
You might live in Luton, take the train to London, then use the Underground to get to a job at Canary Wharf. Americans and Canadians apparently don't do this, since the 'new' just-out-of-the-centre development has residential buildings near the station, unlike Canary Wharf where the nearest buildings to the station are offices. The suburban trains also run frequently and all day, so Brixton to Wembley is a reasonable journey by train. This would not be the case in the USA.

danielfoster 3y ago

I stopped reading halfway through because the author does not get to the point.

tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
I tried to skim the whole thing and I still haven't seen whether the article actually answers the question ("why"). Also, what does "destination" mean in the context of the commute? The workplace, or does it mean home in the evening? Is he talking about people living in the city and working outside or the other way around?

Misdicorl 3y ago

People seem confused, but this seems very reasonable to me. Consider flying to some far away location. Would you rather A) A short flight from your local airport to a nearby hub and then transfer to a long haul flight to the far away location B) A long flight from your local airport to a far away hub and then transfer to a short flight to get to your final destination. If something goes wrong, its likely to happen at the transfer point. If something goes wrong, you want to be in a place where you have the most resources available to you. Usually being close to home affords you the most resources/options. Stakes are much lower for commuter train travel, but it still rings true for me.

nonethewiser 3y ago
I would rather muster the effort at the beginning as well. After a long flight i want to be done.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  Does that matter, given you'll do the trip in reverse on your return?
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    With airplanes in particulart , that's not a given. Even when it is, returning home is less stressful than leaving for a foreign place, so the effect is not cancelled out. Almost anyone would prefer being stranded in a different city in their home country than being stranded on anther continent.
progbits 3y ago
Transfer can also be exhausting. I would rather have it done early so when I get out of the long haul flight I can directly go to the hotel. For all my EU->US (and back) flights, if I have to transfer I always do it in Frankfurt/Zurich/Heathrow, rather than US. The fact the airports and lounges are nicer helps.
- 3y ago

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

Rail has a decent value proposition against single occupancy ice cars for commuting, especially American monstrosities. But the EV revolution isn't "just cars, but electric". EVs are much more flexible as a platform because the batteries are already manufactured in a highly scalable flexible form factor: the cell. Ultimately an ebike, escooter, e kei car, are going to be cheaper, faster, more convenient, environmentally better, and less infrastructure intensive. So the article seems to reflect an old battle mindset: ice cars vs rail. Imo both are obsolete already, pending scale up of high density sodium ion and lfp cells. And if sulfur gets commercialized at 2x the density? This doesn't even account for convergent infrastructure and self driving tech which has the ability to utilize transportation infrastructure to a higher degree than is possible now.

nimbleplum40 3y ago
Trains are obsolete because of EVs? Lots of trains are already electric (and many have been for 100+ years). And there’s not really a better option for moving a huge amount of people short-medium distances.
- AtlasBarfed 3y ago
  A bike path filled with ebikes and scooters is better than rail, cheaper, more resilient, more easily repaired, more flexible, always in service. Small e vehicles can do 30mph, which is likely effectively the same speed as a train when you consider lack of waiting, fare payment, intermediate stops, delays, transportation to/from the station. EVs are much more flexible for modes and platforms than ices because all the motor form favors exist, they are simple (motor battery brakes) modular (removable batteries) and don't involve smelly gas and oil.
  - nimbleplum40 3y ago
    I’m very pro ebike, so I’d love more paths for the them. But they aren’t a complete replacement for trains. Trains still have a greater capacity (see the Lexington Avenue line in NYC - 1.3 million riders per day, pre covid). They’re also way better in bad weather, more accessible for people with disabilities, better for families, allow you to do other things while commuting, and way better for long distances. But e-bikes > cars. 100%

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hgsgm 3y ago

Poorly written blog post is hard to understand. > American and Canadian commuter rail riders drive long distances just to get to a cheaper or faster park-and-ride stations, but are reluctant to take the train if they have any transfer at the city center end. Are they saying that people prefer 2 long legs over 3 shorter legs? That's very different than the headline!

stevebmark 3y ago

> It’s an empirical observation that rail riders who are faced with a transfer are much more likely to make the trip if it’s near their home than near their destination. Sorry, but what a nightmare of an opening sentence! What is "the trip"? What is "it" in "it's near"?

jamilton 3y ago
"It" is the transfer.
bedobi 3y ago
You're not alone, others have already pointed out how confusing it is and I'm confused by it too. I think what they're trying to say is, if a commute by transit involves a transfer, people prefer and are more likely to make the trip by transit if the transfer happens closer to home vs closer to the destination.

fatnoah 3y ago

I've actually done the city center to suburb commute where a shuttle bus was the final leg of the journey. I walked 10 minutes to the train station, rode the train for 20 minutes, and then the shuttle for about 15 minutes. The shuttle waited for the train to arrive. In the evening, I did the reverse. Interestingly, there was a core of about 10 other riders who started their journey in a different suburb. They drove to a train station, rode it downtown, switched trains, and then rode out to the suburb. The key for them was that it was time competitive with driving and the transfer didn't add nuch time. The conductor for the outbound train would hold it if the inbound was late. It worked well for everyone, at least until the suburub stopped funding the bus. I was able to find a less convenient transit alternative, but it was slower and added a 1 mile walk on the end though a not quite pedestrian friendly environment. Everyone else ended up switching to their cars.

ryukoposting 3y ago
Did a similar commute myself (out of Minneapolis to an edge suburb, via a train, then a bus, then a smaller shuttle bus). Likewise, there was a core group of about 10 of us who had almost the exact same commute. In that scenario, though, we were living in a much smaller city than those discussed in the article. We commuted that way for a combination of reasons- folks either couldn't afford a car, couldn't drive for medical reasons, etc. I bought a cheap car and cut my commute time in half, since I could take a much more efficient route to work than the bus could. The rail portion of my commute had been great. The shuttle worked well too, since all the jobs in that area were concentrated in a couple industrial parks. The only problem was the bus that took me out of the city, and to the shuttle. I'm left with many "what ifs" about commuter rail in small cities.

kjkjadksj 3y ago

Makes sense from a chaoticness standpoint as well. I have a transfer in my neighborhood and one downtown, where four rail lines and dozens of busses meet. The downtown transfer is an absolute zoo. Near stampedes on the stairs between the rail platforms. Absolute chaos with the dozens of bus lines on the streets above, easy to get turned around exiting the underground station taking the wrong stair out because the station is symmetrical. A lot more trash, noise, bad smells, and evidently crime from the level of police presence at this central station. I imagine most central transit hubs in places with more transit use are even more chaotic than my American example.

calderwoodra 3y ago

> He points out that American and Canadian commuter rail riders drive long distances just to get to a cheaper or faster park-and-ride stations, but are reluctant to take the train if they have any transfer at the city center end. To me, it's more about the number of transfers instead of where the transfer is. If I'm traveling from mountain view to the mission, I have 3 options: drive whole way, drive short distance to Caltrain then switch to BART in Millbrae, drive long distance to Milpitas BART. Transferring at Millbrae seems like the worst option just because I have to pay attention at intermittent intervals which feels more stressful.

gnicholas 3y ago
> Transferring at Millbrae seems like the worst option just because I have to pay attention at intermittent intervals which feels more stressful. It's not just the shorter intervals, but the fact that there's 50% more points of possible failure with one additional transfer. For example, maybe there are no parking spots available, or the Caltrain is delayed.
- bluGill 3y ago
  You shouldn't have to pay attention to transfers like that. If you miss the transfer for whatever reason just get the next one. That the above is not reasonable is something to fix. (Either that or get the Swiss to plan your transfers so you can't possibly miss them)

Solvency 3y ago

I yes, origin to destination transfers! Yes I greatly prefer those to origin to origin transfers. Or worse yet, destination to destination transfers! But nothing is worse than destination to origin transfers! After all, you've only just arrived! Or...had you just transferred? Jesus. Who wrote this?

chad_oliver 3y ago
This was written by Alon Levy, who is deep in the weeds of transport infrastructure and was writing for a technical audience. The habitual readers of their blog will easily interpret this as "Why commuters prefer transfers at the origin rather than transfers at the destination". This is the same conclusion that will be reached by readers who have never read Alon's blog before but do in fact read the first sentence of the post. Clearly, Alon's title uses wonkish terminology and would have benefited from a title that was more easily understood by people unfamiliar with the field. I think it's fair to say that you're not the target audience.
- lolpython 3y ago
  I read Alton‘a blog all the time and just didn’t understand the linked blog post at all. I think it was just poorly written.
  - magic_hamster 3y ago
    If you read Alon's blog all the time you could have noticed his name isn't Alton.
    - lolpython 3y ago
      It’s an autocorrect typo, and if we are ruling on Alon trivia, Alon doesn’t go by “him” last I checked.
- jaclaz 3y ago
  Allow me to comment how it is not technically accurate to "tag" the the Berlin S-Bahn or the Paris RER as "Europe". I would say that those (together with very few other largish cities) are the exception and not the rule in Europe.

rsynnott 3y ago

> How does this work, besides timetables and other operating practices that American reformers recognize as superior to what’s available in the US and Canada? This feels like a huge "besides"; I'm not sure they've _really_ demonstrated their thesis that customers _universally_ prefer origin to destination transfers. How well the system works makes a huge difference; if either (a) you're virtually guaranteed that it'll be on time or (b) frequency is high enough that it doesn't really matter, this sort of journey becomes much less fraught. Anecdotally, in Dublin, a few years back, I'd rarely make a journey involving connections unless there was no choice, and I'd usually be willing to walk up to about 40 minutes to avoid it. This was because it never worked (unless it was train-to-train, though even that was optimistic); the bus timetables were just too unreliable and the buses too frequent. However I'd think nothing of making a journey involving multiple connections in, say, London or a German city, because there was a high probability it would more or less work. Due to improvements in the Dublin bus system (Dublin City Council seems to have taken the opportunity to put in bus lanes everywhere during the pandemic while no-one was looking; it's really improved a lot), I'm now way more willing to make connections in Dublin, because _it is more likely to work_. EDIT: Another big factor in making this more attractive was the simplification of the fare system. Today, you tap your card, you're charged 2 eur, and provided the last leg of your journey is started within 90 minutes of the first, you don't pay anything more. A few years back, for buses in particular you had to deal with arcane staging-based pricing.

talkingtab 3y ago

It is just the car, right? In SF once I had to commute with Bart to the south bay. I stashed my car at the parking lot in the south bay. It was the only way to make the commute feasible. It is like the bay area built a BART to nowhere. You can get there, but then what do you do? It seems to me that a transportation system must either allow you to control it - a car - or be utterly predictable and efficient once you enter the system. In Europe it is the last case. You can get on a train, then take a tram. They run. They don't sit there making you wait. Once you get to the train you know you are going to get to your destination X time later. I wonder if you put electric scooters that could be checked out for a day at BART stations what would happen to ridership? Or something like that.