The previous post explored how commuter rail ridership in Paris is more constant throughout the day than in New York and Boston, where a large majority of trips happen at rush hour. In Sharon, Massachusetts, the MBTA station is surrounded by parking. In those areas, people can live car-free near a train station, do most errands on foot, and take the train downtown for work. Many Parisian suburbs are poor, but Bourg-la-Reine is solidly middle-class, and even in rich suburbs, such as those on Transilien lines L, N, and U, there is high off-peak ridership. The view from Bourg-la-Reine is high-rise housing projects - behind the buildings in this photo there’s a supermarket. In contrast, there is ample development next to suburban train stations in Paris. Nobody except suburban drivers would use such stations, and suburban drivers have no reason to use the stations except for peak-hour travel to Boston. The MBTA is especially bad here, since it sometimes avoids traditional town centers when siting commuter rail stations, preferring locations with more convenient parking. Few middle-class workers would be willing to live car-free near such stations and take the train to the city: They’d need a car to run errands, and the stations themselves are too hostile to walking. There is a second, equally important reason for the discrepancy: land use.Īmerican commuter rail stations are typically surrounded by parking. The intent is for suburban commuters to drive to the park-and-ride and take the train to the central business district. In an earlier post I looked at how Paris achieves this ridership with regional rail service - the RER and Transilien networks - that runs much more frequently than three comparable American systems: the LIRR, Metro-North, and the MBTA Commuter Rail. In Europe it’s common for regional rail systems to get ridership comparable to that of the subway in the central city.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |