Paris vs Tokyo: the two different models for express commuter rail stopping patterns

A commuter at Tokyo's Shinjuku station. Image: Getty.

Many cities have large commuter rail networks, which function as urban rapid transit and extend into the suburbs. They use mainline rail rather than separate subway tracks, but are identical in other respects to conventional metro systems: urban stop spacing, frequency, and fares are all within the range of metro systems.

The biggest systems are in Japan, where Tokyo and Osaka carry the vast majority of their public transport passengers on commuter trains and not metro trains. In Europe, the biggest system is the Paris RER, while in the German-speaking world all major cities have S-Bahn networks.

But while the concepts are all broadly similar – mainline trains serving the suburbs share tracks in the core, so as to provide metro-like frequency – the stopping patterns vary.

First, some regional rail systems run express trains, whereas others are all local. The Munich and Berlin S-Bahns only have local trains. In contrast, the Paris RER and the Tokyo commuter rail network combine local and express trains – sometimes on four tracks, and sometimes on two, using the schedule to avoid conflicts.

Usually, systems that run express trains are bigger than systems that do not, but there are exceptions: Copenhagen's S-Train has express trains on most branches, and the Zurich S-Bahn has express trains on some lines as well.

On systems that are not modernised, express trains are especially common. That’s because the traditional function of commuter rail is to connect the suburbs with city center at rush hour; local services, connecting the suburbs with each other and not just with the city, are less important.

As a result, American commuter lines, even ones with very little ridership by European or Asian standards, generally have express trains: each stopping pattern might only get 1 or 2 trains per hour at rush hour. So do a few European branches, for example some of the outer commuter lines in Paris, not connected to the RER. Since these lines carry few riders, the important distinction is between different local and express patterns on busy lines that run frequently all day.

There isn't much to say about local trains, which (mostly) stop at every station. Express trains are more complex, and there are two ways to run them: one common in Paris, the other common in Tokyo. The Parisian model is to have long central segments with only two tracks, on which every train makes every stop. (In London, Crossrail is planned to follow the same pattern.) Tokyo’s railways have four-track segments, and express trains skip some stops even in the core.

Tokyo-style express trains may skip fewer stops in the centre than in dormitory communities, but they still skip even some central areas. On the eight-track main between Tokyo and Shinagawa Stations on the Tokaido Line, for example, the local Yamanote and Keihin-Tohoku Lines make all four intermediate stops; but the express Tokaido Main Line and Yokosuka Lines only make one intermediate stop, at Shimbashi. Central Tokyo stretches roughly between Tokyo Station and Shimbashi, and there is one station between them, Yurakucho, with transfers to four Tokyo subway lines. But in the judgement of rail planners, it made sense to skip this station, and for express trains to serve just one in every so many stops on the inner part of the line.

In Paris, no such thing service exists: the central tunnels only have two tracks, so it is hard to arrange local and express trains on them. Even on the few segments of the central network that have four tracks, such as part of RER C, there is no stop skipping. The transport authorities judge it best to have every commuter train make every stop within the city proper, which extends about 5 km out of the center.

Conversely, in the suburbs, Paris does mix some local and express trains on two tracks: the RER B runs 12 trains per hour off-peak – just enough room for trains which run non-stop between Gare du Nord and Charles-de-Gaulle Airport, and some express trains in the southern suburbs.

The Parisian approach ensures that the RER can function as high-frequency trunk lines within the city proper. The RER A averages a stop per 2.5 km on the central trunk, and the RER B and C a stop every 1.2-1.3 km (the other two RER lines, the D and E, only make three city stops each). The Metro averages a stop every 500 meters, of course – but nonetheless, 1.2-1.3 km is well within the range for international metro systems, comparable to the spacing of stations on the London Underground. The central Crossrail trunk will average a stop every 1.6 km – wider than the Underground but not much more so.

In Tokyo, of course, the commuter rail frequency in the core is even higher, since the inner lines are all at least four-tracked. But farther out, there are express and local trains mixed on two tracks, with timed overtakes, using the legendary punctuality of Japanese railways to schedule trains to avoid conflicts. The result is that the express routes have quite wide stop spacing, which permits higher speeds, approaching 60 km/h on the Tokaido and Tohoku Main Lines.


A smaller city, with trunk lines not as full to capacity as in Tokyo, Paris, or London, could mix local and express trains even at rush hour. In Tokyo, local and express trains are mixed on some lines on the shoulders of rush hour (but not at rush hour, when trains arrive every 2 minutes); it is unclear what the absolute upper limit of this system would be, but it appears to be in the range of 15-20 trains per hour. In cities without Japanese punctuality, the limit is about 12 trains per hour: a local train and an express train each coming every 10 minutes, with an overtake every 6-8 stations.

Such cities have a choice. The Paris approach works very well for Paris, and the Tokyo approach works very well for Tokyo. There is always a tradeoff in mass transit between narrow stop spacing for service to more places, and wide stop spacing for higher average speed.

The two different approaches for commuter rail express stopping patterns display a related tradeoff, between higher frequency to all stations and higher average speed at express stations. Which of the two approaches is better depends on local factors. These include city size and density (more sprawl encourages the faster Tokyo approach, more density encourages the more frequent Paris approach); punctuality (better punctuality makes mixing local and express trains on two tracks easier); and how important it is that suburban commuters be able to reach every urban station, rather than just a few major stations.

There is no inherent better choice. The tradeoff is not that one option is more beneficial but more expensive, but rather that the two options have different benefit levels, depending on local conditions.

Those conditions can vary widely between cities, even in the same country. A smaller French or British city might find that its home and job distribution makes the Tokyo approach better, and a smaller Japanese city might find that the Paris approach works better for it.

Cities anywhere might even find that the German approach of not having any express trains works best. This means that planners should consider all stopping patterns, and not just default to what is familiar from nearby cities.

Alon Levy blogs at Pedestrian Observations and tweets as @alon_levy.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

Covid-19 is highlighting cities' unequal access to green space

In the UK, Londoners are most likely to rely on their local park for green space, and have the best access to parks. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

As coronavirus lockdowns ease, people are flooding back to parks – but not everyone has easy access to green space in their city.

Statistics from Google show that park attendance in countries across the globe has shot up as people have been allowed to move around their cities again.

This is especially true in urban areas, where densely populated neighbourhoods limit the size of private green space – meaning residents have to go to the park to get in touch with nature. Readers from England can use our interactive tool below to find out how much green space people have access to in their area, and how it compares to the rest of the country.

 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s announcement Monday that people are allowed to mingle in parks and gardens with groups of up to six people was partially following what people were doing already.

Data from mobile phones show people have been returning to parks across the UK, and also across Europe, as weather improves and lockdown eases.

People have been returning to parks across the world

Stay-at-home requirements were eased in Italy on 4 May, which led to a flood of people returning to parks.

France eased restrictions on 1 May, and the UK eased up slightly on 13 May, allowing people to sit down in public places so long as they remain socially distanced.

Other countries have seen park attendance rise without major easing of lockdown – including Canada, Spain, and the US (although states there have individual rules and some have eased restrictions).

In some countries, people never really stopped going to parks.

Authorities in the Netherlands and Germany were not as strict as other countries about their citizens visiting local parks during lockdown, while Sweden has famously been avoiding placing many restrictions on people’s daily lives.


There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that access to green space has major benefits for public health.

A recent study by researchers at the University of Exeter found that spending time in the garden is linked to similar benefits for health and wellbeing as living in wealthy areas.

People with access to a private garden also had higher psychological wellbeing, and those with an outdoor space such as a yard were more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than those without access to outdoor space. 

Separate UK research has found that living with a regular view of a green space provides health benefits worth £300 per person per year.

Access is not shared equally, however, which has important implications for equality under lockdown, and the spread of disease.

Statistics from the UK show that one in eight households has no garden, making access to parks more important.

There is a geographic inequality here. Londoners, who have the least access to private gardens, are most likely to rely on their local park for green space, and have the best access to parks. 

However the high population in the capital means that on the whole, green space per person is lower – an issue for people living in densely populated cities everywhere.

There is also an occupational inequality.

Those on low pay – including in what are statistically classed as “semi-skilled” and “unskilled” manual occupations, casual workers and those who are unemployed – are almost three times as likely as those in managerial, administrative, professional occupations to be without a garden, meaning they rely more heavily on their local park.

Britain’s parks and fields are also at significant risk of development, according to new research by the Fields in Trust charity, which shows the number of people living further than a 10-minute walk from a public park rising by 5% over the next five years. That loss of green spaces is likely to impact disadvantaged communities the most, the researchers say.

This is borne out by looking at the parts of the country that have private gardens.

The least deprived areas have the largest gardens

Though the relationship is not crystal clear, it shows at the top end: Those living in the least deprived areas have the largest private green space.

Although the risk of catching coronavirus is lower outdoors, spending time in parks among other people is undoubtedly more risky when it comes to transmitting or catching the virus than spending time in your own outdoor space. 

Access to green space is therefore another example – along with the ability to work from home and death rates – of how the burden of the pandemic has not been equally shouldered by all.

Michael Goodier is a data reporter at New Statesman Media Group, and Josh Rayman is a graphics and data visualisation developer at New Statesman Media Group.