11 ms·

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 Pr

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.

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.