30 ms·

Personally I'm all against cars, but I don't see why these unexpected costs don't apply to public transport as well. The noise of trains also reduces the value

• jgoodhcg 3y ago
  Busy roads aren’t as noisy or more dangerous though.
  • stirbot 3y ago
    Trains are more dangerous? One predictable, well mainted vehicle operated by a professional versus many cars?
    • jgoodhcg 3y ago
      I think cars are more dangerous for that exact reason. I was being sarcastic in saying that roads filled with lots of cars aren't as dangerous or noisy.
    • muro 3y ago
      Trains can't break quickly.
• defrost 3y ago
  In Australian cities walking distance to train stations increases property value.
  • mushbino 3y ago
    It does in the US too.
    • crote 3y ago
      A big problem in the US is that many developers still view trains as an extension to driving. The result is that they end up building a huge car park next to the train station, with low-density suburbia around it. Many other countries essentially end up building a suburban core around the commuter train station, with high-density housing, shops, and midrise office buildings.
      • kijin 3y ago
        I live in a country where train stations are often surrounded by high-density developments. What most tourists don't notice is that there are massive multi-level parking lots underneath all that housing and office buildings, not to mention the train station itself. So you can have both high-density development around train stations and car parks for people who need to drive. It's not an XOR situation. The U.S. just tends to be wasteful with its land, because it has so much of it.
  • Gigachad 3y ago
    Kinda interesting to look at the satellite images and see this little hub formed around every station. And the retail strips that form along tram routes.
• airza 3y ago
  Only speaking for the NL here (though I am from the US): Trains are loud when they pass, but they are not a constant stream at certain times like cars are. They are also usually not moving at full speed when passing through urban areas as they are accelerating or decelerating anyway. Someone also mentioned that property values are generally higher here near the train because it's a convenient way to travel. This is also (AFAIK) true in larger cities like Tokyo with more sophisticated commuter rail. Just no contest between trains and cars.
  • generalenvelope 3y ago
    Trains are also vastly more efficient, space-wise, at moving people than cars. As the article mentions, increasing rail infrastructure would logically include regional connections first. It's not like we'd be building a train track everywhere there's a road
  • jacquesm 3y ago
    I've lived near train tracks and near busy roads and highways. I'll take the traintracks any time. You get used to them pretty quickly because they are always the same sound. Whereas the highway is a continuously variable source of noise depending on your current sample of exhaust technology (or lack thereof).
    • AshamedCaptain 3y ago
      Well, I for one concur that the highway is kind of a "continuos source" of noise, but that is precisely the reason I actually prefer it over that of tracks/trains, and I think most people do too... It doesn't really matter which "exhaust" technology is used; at highway speeds that is the most irrelevant part of the noise (the pollution side is another story), with the air/wooshing sounds dominating heavily.
      • jacquesm 3y ago
        Where I live I can hear both trains, a nearby busy road and the highway. The trains are really not a problem, there is a well defined maximum and they gradually ramp up and down in noise level but the road & highway have me sitting up straight at times wondering what on earth is going on. Usually either a truck that uses its air brake or a bunch of motorcycles without damper that suddenly open up. Especially at night that can be enough to wake me up and good luck trying to sleep after that.
• acdha 3y ago
  They certainly should be counted: that noise is why a lot of that land was historically industrial and there’s a century precedent for noise ordinances. We should take noise pollution far more seriously: studies increasingly show it reduces lifespans and health measurably. That said, it’s also very important to remember that things come in different flavors: the noise of a massive freight train pulled by diesel-electric locomotives is usually an order of magnitude greater than a light passenger train pulled by an electric motor, and all of those are generally better than busy car traffic which is less consistent and has outliers (boy racers, vehicles which aren’t or shouldn’t be street legal, etc.). We live near a multipurpose rail corridor and I notice one particular CSX locomotive more than anything else, followed by regular freight trains and automobile traffic. The electric metro trains and newer electric buses are almost unnoticeable.
• epistasis 3y ago
  If you look at costs such as noise, just as monetary costs they will still exist, but be nearly an order of magnitude smaller. Take a single double-track train route. Its capacity will be 3x or more a massive freeway, take up a tenth or less of space. If you were to put traditional freeway-style sound walls around it, it would probably be quieter than the freeway. Tire noise is massive.
• throwawaylinux 3y ago
  I'm all for cars. They're a wonderful tool and give a great freedom that is accessible to even quite poor people. A very good public transport and walking and cycling city is great, but it is no substitute for a car, as the >50% of households in London, massive fleets of cars in Netherlands, etc will attest to.
• crote 3y ago
  As someone who has lived next to both busy streets and railway tracks, I'd take the train 100% of the time. Trains are a low rumble for a couple of seconds every ten minutes ago. Cars are a constant whining noise. It is bad enough that I can't work in my home office with the window open next to a busy street, but trains aren't an issue at all. To be fair, I do live in a country where almost all trains are electric and do not honk at railroad crossings.
• fasquoika 3y ago
  In New Jersey the Midtown Direct line famously paid for itself multiple times over by increasing nearby property values so much the state collected millions more in property taxes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kearny_Connection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kearny_Connection
• rsynnott 3y ago
  I used to live beside a rail bridge that had a train passing about every two minutes at peak times. Most of the time you'd never notice this; it was mostly quieter than the road traffic noise beneath. What you _would_ hear was the track maintenance noise at 2 in the morning from time to time (though it was a 150 year old heavily trafficked bridge that they couldn't shut for long term maintenance without bringing the system to a standstill, so I probably worse for spot maintenance than most). > The noise of trains also reduces the value of the properties next to the tracks. There are probably edge-cases where this is so, but in general being near a train station tends to boost property values. Now, obviously being near the station but far from the line would be ideal, but near station near line is probably better than "no train". (This is assuming commuter service, where if you're near the line you're probably near a station. I suppose long distance lines with no commuter service running through built up areas would be an exception, but that's unusual in most places).
• kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  Commuter trains are much less intrusive than freight. Property values are enhanced if there is a station within walking distance.