3 ms·

I would second this. In Paris, but I find it to be true in most European city, the area surrounding train station is usually not very nice. It is usually surrou

by maeln 2y ago

I would second this. In Paris, but I find it to be true in most European city, the area surrounding train station is usually not very nice. It is usually surrounded by cheap hotel for 1-night traveler, overpriced fast food (hence the initial theory) and social housing / cheap building (a lot of people don't want to live next to a train station due to the nuisance, so poor people often get stuck there). On the other hand, metro station are pretty much anywhere, and they tend to have the opposite effect. Having a metro station close by is very practical and doesn't generate as much nuisance since it is underground and pretty well hidden. I am almost sure the data will look very different if you only look for train station.

yard2010 2y ago
This is such a dystopian phenomenon, I'm far from an expert but I guess it's a matter of city planning?
- lqet 2y ago
  It's very hard to avoid this. It's mostly a combination of railway noise, throughput of a large number of people who are only travelling through, opportunities for pickpockets and beggars, and historically of soot and air pollution by steam engines, which makes these areas unattractive to live in. And it is not for lack of trying. City planners since at least the 1850ies have been trying to improve the areas surrounding large train stations.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    It's also a very large building or roofed space, where it's more difficult than elsewhere to accuse homeless etc of loitering.
- Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
  It is difficult to avoid, as metro passengers are mainly residents or workers in nearby premises. Station halls are also much bigger and attract the marginalised who want to shelter from the elements.
Symbiote 2y ago
You would need to further filter for the largest railway stations, perhaps by number of platforms ≥ 6 or 8, otherwise you will include many urban and suburban stations that serve essentially the same purpose as metro stations.
- sebastiennight 2y ago
  There are not a lot of stations that a Parisian dweller would consider to be a "railway station" AND "inside Paris". I'd say mostly Montparnasse, Gare de Lyon, Gare de l'Est, Gare du Nord, and Austerlitz. RER, Transilien, Metro and Tramway stations would not count as "train stations" in the eyes of a Parisian/French person, and places outside of the Périphérique (the ring road that follows the old defensive "Thier walls" of the city) would not count as "Paris" for this kind of conversation.
  - Timshel 2y ago
    For those wondering the original image was speaking of "Gare" which are well-defined: https://www.sncf-connect.com/gares/paris https://www.sncf-connect.com/gares/paris
  - ElFitz 2y ago
    And Saint-Lazare, the third busiest train station in France based on the number of daily travellers, and the oldest in Paris.
    - sebastiennight 2y ago
      Ah you're right! I don't know why I forgot Saint-Lazare. I checked the link in the sibling comment[0] and just found out that "Gare Paris Bercy Bourgogne - Pays d'Auvergne" is a thing that exists. Never heard of it before. So all in all, from a Frenchperson's perspective there are 7 "gares" (train stations) in Paris. [0] https://www.sncf-connect.com/gares/paris https://www.sncf-connect.com/gares/paris
  - dhosek 2y ago
    I’d go with if it isn’t Gare «something» then it doesn’t count.
numpad0 2y ago
As a non-Parisian: the hard distinction between "metro" and "train" can be non-obvious, even perplexing, depending on which train systems one is accustomed with. Some systems just don't have it, in manners that if said in Paris terms it might be train to Lyon arriving next to Line 6 Westbound.
- eloisant 2y ago
  There is usually a difference between a "local network" to travel within a metropolitan area and "intercity" train to go from one big city to another. That is what matters here.
- account42 2y ago
  It doesn't need to be a hard distinction. I'm sure everyone can see the difference of a building with multiple platforms and usually shops and other things targetting non-locally-resident travellers and your average metro stop with has two platforms (one for each direction) and not much more than an entrance and exit. Where exactly you draw the line doesn't really matter.
  - numpad0 2y ago
    That. That kind of distinction isn't universal. Some places just have a fused metro-plus-train system, in which you can slip in a $1 metro ticket, ride along changing metro trains for over a day across >1500km/1000mi, and pay outstanding fee at the exit, like on Japanese JR networks and metro trains interoperating with it. I'm not saying which modes of thinking are more rational or superior or anything of that sort, just that the seemingly instinctive distinction you have described is not necessarily so to everybody.
- the_clarence 2y ago
  Train has a train station (with paid toilets now unfortunately in France) and connects to other parts of the country. Metro is a subway and is within city boundaries
- leptons 2y ago
  >As a non-Parisian: the hard distinction between "metro" and "train" can be non-obvious Do you know the difference between "train" and "subway", because "the metro" is just a subway, just like in NYC or commonly found elsewhere in almost any large city.

by maeln 2y ago

yard2010 2y ago

This is such a dystopian phenomenon, I'm far from an expert but I guess it's a matter of city planning?

lqet 2y ago
It's very hard to avoid this. It's mostly a combination of railway noise, throughput of a large number of people who are only travelling through, opportunities for pickpockets and beggars, and historically of soot and air pollution by steam engines, which makes these areas unattractive to live in. And it is not for lack of trying. City planners since at least the 1850ies have been trying to improve the areas surrounding large train stations.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  It's also a very large building or roofed space, where it's more difficult than elsewhere to accuse homeless etc of loitering.
Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
It is difficult to avoid, as metro passengers are mainly residents or workers in nearby premises. Station halls are also much bigger and attract the marginalised who want to shelter from the elements.

Symbiote 2y ago

You would need to further filter for the largest railway stations, perhaps by number of platforms ≥ 6 or 8, otherwise you will include many urban and suburban stations that serve essentially the same purpose as metro stations.

sebastiennight 2y ago
There are not a lot of stations that a Parisian dweller would consider to be a "railway station" AND "inside Paris". I'd say mostly Montparnasse, Gare de Lyon, Gare de l'Est, Gare du Nord, and Austerlitz. RER, Transilien, Metro and Tramway stations would not count as "train stations" in the eyes of a Parisian/French person, and places outside of the Périphérique (the ring road that follows the old defensive "Thier walls" of the city) would not count as "Paris" for this kind of conversation.
- Timshel 2y ago
  For those wondering the original image was speaking of "Gare" which are well-defined: https://www.sncf-connect.com/gares/paris https://www.sncf-connect.com/gares/paris
- ElFitz 2y ago
  And Saint-Lazare, the third busiest train station in France based on the number of daily travellers, and the oldest in Paris.
  - sebastiennight 2y ago
    Ah you're right! I don't know why I forgot Saint-Lazare. I checked the link in the sibling comment[0] and just found out that "Gare Paris Bercy Bourgogne - Pays d'Auvergne" is a thing that exists. Never heard of it before. So all in all, from a Frenchperson's perspective there are 7 "gares" (train stations) in Paris. [0] https://www.sncf-connect.com/gares/paris https://www.sncf-connect.com/gares/paris
- dhosek 2y ago
  I’d go with if it isn’t Gare «something» then it doesn’t count.

numpad0 2y ago

As a non-Parisian: the hard distinction between "metro" and "train" can be non-obvious, even perplexing, depending on which train systems one is accustomed with. Some systems just don't have it, in manners that if said in Paris terms it might be train to Lyon arriving next to Line 6 Westbound.

eloisant 2y ago
There is usually a difference between a "local network" to travel within a metropolitan area and "intercity" train to go from one big city to another. That is what matters here.
account42 2y ago
It doesn't need to be a hard distinction. I'm sure everyone can see the difference of a building with multiple platforms and usually shops and other things targetting non-locally-resident travellers and your average metro stop with has two platforms (one for each direction) and not much more than an entrance and exit. Where exactly you draw the line doesn't really matter.
- numpad0 2y ago
  That. That kind of distinction isn't universal. Some places just have a fused metro-plus-train system, in which you can slip in a $1 metro ticket, ride along changing metro trains for over a day across >1500km/1000mi, and pay outstanding fee at the exit, like on Japanese JR networks and metro trains interoperating with it. I'm not saying which modes of thinking are more rational or superior or anything of that sort, just that the seemingly instinctive distinction you have described is not necessarily so to everybody.
the_clarence 2y ago
Train has a train station (with paid toilets now unfortunately in France) and connects to other parts of the country. Metro is a subway and is within city boundaries
leptons 2y ago
>As a non-Parisian: the hard distinction between "metro" and "train" can be non-obvious Do you know the difference between "train" and "subway", because "the metro" is just a subway, just like in NYC or commonly found elsewhere in almost any large city.