• foyrkopp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    146
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Depending on your definition, this actually is not peak performance.

    Subways are.

    Obviously, the tunnels are absurdly expensive, but nothing moves as many people as quickly around a city as a subway.

    They’re also extremely reliable, meaning people are even more likely to actually use them, and their above-ground footprint is essentially zero.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      96
      ·
      11 months ago

      Subways are for mobility (moving large numbers of people rapidly); trams are for access (getting you close to your destination). They complement each other and a well-designed city would have both.

      • InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        11 months ago

        STOP I can only get so erect

        You’re going to make me write a cute green-urbania fiction of my self-insert walking around a beautiful city with parks everywhere and using the sub-rails to go far distances and then get on cute retro san francisco style over land trams to make my way to walk-only brick roads and then walk to some book store, the corners piled high with books, with books stacked outside the store under a cloth awning, owned by a wise old man of unclear nationality who spends his days reading the books he sells, who knows me well enough to offer a glass of tea.

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I have to disagree. Accessibility of underground transport is abhorrent. Changing from underground to aboveground buses and trains is also shit. The space use of public transport in comparison to car infrastructure is completely negligible. If anything put all the cars underground as they are ugly and stinky. This picture also give you happy chemical because it is green and is not another dead, sealed asphalt hellscape.

        • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          Its literally underground. Anyone that has a wheelchair, old people, blind people etc are not gonna enjoy using it. Elevators are often out of order and even if not its a hurdle.

          • qwrty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            Ramps, escalators, tiles, and seating. There is nothing inherently not accessible about subways, we just choose not to make them accessible. When I was in Japan, there didn’t seem to be any issue preventing wheelchair users, old people, or blind people from using the train system. Escalators can be used by people in wheel chairs and old people (and presumably blind people too, but I’m not sure.) There were tactile tiles in the floor to guide the blind, and there was plenty of seating specifically dedicated to old people, disabled people, and pregnant people. There were also wheelchair accessible cars on every train. As far as I could tell, it seemed just as accessible and easy to use for them as anyone else. (Also elevators were only usually kept open for the people who needed them)

          • ninpnin@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            You sound like a concern troll. By this logic houses with more than 1 floor are by definition not accessible

            • Draugnoss@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              But… They are literally not. My family never had the ability to move to any house they want because everything needs to be accessible on the ground floor.

              • ninpnin@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                What should I conclude of your personal experience, if it conflicts with what I hear from the disabled people in my life?

                • Draugnoss@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Maybe the fact that the disabled people in your life are lucky enough to be able to enough or be in positions where they can still function well?

                  Fuck, we can’t live in a house with proper door thresholds if we want the person in my life to have any semblance of independence.

                  Please, don’t assume your experiences are universal.

    • Kedly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      Skytrains my dude, similar footprint, same tech, and I assume it costs significantly less, and is able to dip underground when there absolutely ISNT the footprint for it above ground

      • greenskye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Would sky trains be as reliable? I assume subways are more reliable partially due to not being exposed to the elements.

        • coffee_whatever@lemmy.tf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          My guess would be that they are separated from any traffic, just like a subway and unlike trams or buses which are a part of it. No other traffic = less delays and accidents = more reliable transport

        • Kedly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          At the end of the day, they’re still just trains, and while Vancouver’s trains DO seem to be somewhat bafflingly effected by severe weather, for the most part things keep running like normal as it still is only somewhat

    • XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, I guess it depende of definition. For example there is also extra costs with lighting and ventilation for example for subways.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      Tunnels also don’t take away space from people. This nice looking tramway could be a nice promenade for people instead.

        • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Asphalt field? Your comment makes zero sense.

          Have you never seen a promenade with trees, greenery, benches, … ? You know a place where it’s nice for people to spend time instead of space taken up by yet another vehicle?

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      If San Francisco informs, light rail streetcars are a gateway to underground subways. It gets the city in the habit of getting on a railcar to go places while the greater infrastructure (the tunnels) are built.

      MUNI is mixed undeground and street. BART is over and under and being extended to this day.

    • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Living in a big city there’s nothing more reliable than a subway. Driving you might always get stuck in traffic. But if you take the Metro your travel time is guaranteed to be as predicted.

      • Rinn@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Trams are, as you’ve noticed, a different usecase - subways are for getting you from A to B quickly, and trams are for getting you to the subway stop/straight to your destination on a shorter trip. One prioritises speed and throughput, the other - access and ease of use. Both should be used together to form a good transportation network, with buses and trains going to more remote/less dense areas.

        • froh42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          This is all a very abstract discussion. In Munich we have all - light suburban rail, a subway, a tram system and a bus system.

          It’s not either or, but a very specific discussion which system is best for a specific use case given the existing city where you put things in.

          We have parts where the trams sharing space with buses or even cars, that’s where the tram network is just kind of a higher capacity bus.

          Other parts has dedicated spaces for the tram rails, they are connected to traffic signs so trams are nearly as fast as the subway.

          Currently the city seems to build more trams as the subway network is at a capacity limit - and they can’t increase it without huge investments.

          There’s a new subway line planned, as well as construction for a second light rail tunnel crossing the city underway - but those are hugely expensive, long term projects.

          Sometimes they build a tram first, because it’s a lot cheaper to plan and implement and then replace it by aubway 15 years later.

          And yes whe also have a tram line which uses a corridor of a former train line, so it looks like the picture. Whenever I go there I love that place, trams and buses available but no through traffic by cars (You can still go there by cars, but no through traffic as the whole area is a cul de sac)

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Trams are literal trains

        where the density isn’t that high

        Or shit soil

  • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    ·
    11 months ago

    I cannot understand people that argue their 6 lane stroad is better than this in any way. It may feel more convenient for some, but at what cost?

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      66
      ·
      11 months ago

      Probably because public transit requires people to be around other people, and they’d rather get around in their little bubble without interaction (except giving a BMW the finger).

        • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          11 months ago

          True, but I’m just going off of my experience as an American. Too many people are so antisocial that the idea of sharing space with other strangers is foreign, mostly because they’ve lived so long without it. Obviously this isn’t true in places like NYC, but in Los Angeles you’d have a hell of a time convincing people to give up their cars.

          • reev@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            11 months ago

            I think a lack of being in public spaces creates the antisocial “uncomfortable around other people” issues that have been growing. Sprawl kills communities!

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              No it doesn’t. Rampant abuse and bigotry does, and that is the reality most Americans accept that you deny.

              It’s dangerous being around strangers here, especially male ones who will overpower and beat/kill you in public for the slightest offense.

              So people, especially women and trans folk, are safer in cars than they are on public transport.

              And that’s nothing to say of the Jim Crow era, or how public transport was denied during the lockdowns depriving the elderly of freedom of movement.

              No. Getting rid of cars will always be bad. You’ll never have your green utopia and you ought not to have it.

              • reev@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Safer from crimes is an argument that I could get behind depending on what country you’re in but in terms of keeping people alive, especially people outside of cars, cars are so much unsafer for all genders.

                As for green utopia, I’m chillin’

        • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          11 months ago

          That is because your transit is underfunded and under prioritized. Good, viable transit is as fast or faster than cars.

        • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          11 months ago

          Japanese transit it a sight to behold. Experienced it firsthand. In the greater Tokyo area taking a car was literally always just a 3 or 4 minute time save AND this was including the walk from anywhere I was at, to the sub, to my destination. If you accounted for parking time, since I didnt see much easily accesible parking over there, it was probably quicker to take public transit. If I lived over there I legit wouldn’t bother owning a car and I say this as someone who currently has one and really likes it.

          There’s no fucking public sitting areas though so that sucks.

      • gramathy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        This is what headphones are for, fuck cars

        This is from someone who feels physical discomfort when someone interacts me unprompted

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think the key thing is most people don’t like change. They know stroads. They may not love stroads but they work and it’s what they’ve used. I’ve been all over the place in this country and by and large public transportation SUCKS and creates more headaches than anything. Just hopping into a car is 1000x easier. So that’s the view I think most people go into this with. In the cities where public transportation is good, it’s a complete game changer, but they are few and far between so most people don’t have a good reference point. They see people pushing public transportation and think of their own shitty system and say F that.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        They’ve also had to invest in their car personally and they don’t want to have their investment nullified. Who do they sell the car to if they’re no good anymore?

        Of course, there will still be roads and you might still need the car; but if you have the car why not just drive straight to the place you need to go?

        So personal transportation itself is a bit of a problem - you need to make the replacement better than the current status quo. If it doesn’t save people time, if it doesn’t allow people to transport goods as easily as vehicles do, they’re not going to want to give up their car; because at the end of the day it will ultimately complicate things for them.

        It’s a huge challenge towards gaining acceptance for public transit.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It is only less than half of stroad. You stil have another half to add for people.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        A few of them did, but certainly not the majority.

        Atlanta’s streetcar system got entirely torn out, paved over and converted to buses. We didn’t get a subway system (on entirely different right-of-way, and much less of it) until decades later.

        • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Similar with Montreal. A whole grid of streetcar lines just got torn up and replaced with buses. We now have a nice metro now at least, but it certainly wasn’t made from pre-existing tramways.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I’m in a small city (Terre Haute, Indiana) which used to have a bunch of streetcars. Then when streetcars got torn up everywhere in the country, they got rid of them. Did they tear up the tracks too? No, they just paved over them. And now, 100 years later, all of those streets are collapsing and it’s costing a huge amount of money to repave them.

            • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              Wow, even Terre Haute. Almost went there for college (Rose-Hulman), but decided against it in part because the city itself was so small and sprawling. It must’ve been 1000x livelier back in the streetcar days when things were probably more densely built and less obscenely car-centric.

              Also, Trump got elected, so I was like, “Nah, I’m moving to Canada”, which is how I ended up in Montreal instead.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Politics aside, Rose-Hulman is a great school, but if you have any interest in leaving campus, Montreal is a much better bet. Firstly because it’s slightly outside of town and secondly because there’s not all that much to do here.

                • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Yeah, I certainly don’t regret moving to Montreal, as it’s where I met my wife and now where I’m working full-time. But yeah, I got the sense that attending Rose-Hulman would have meant being in a college bubble for 4 years and never doing much outside of that bubble.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        In truly large urban areas with a budget and needs, yeah.

        In small towns?

        In best transatlantic accent The automobile wins the day. Huzzah!

  • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    11 months ago

    The combination of those trees and overhead power lines might be problematic in some climates, but overall, I’m all for getting as much greenery into city centers as possible.

    • MurrMurr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is at Helsinki, Finland. So all kind of weather is present here… Well except hot and dry 😄

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m stuck in stupid America, but my British friends tell me of regular rail delays because of leaves on the rails. I assume that isn’t a problem with these trains, so why is this a problem in the UK?

    • schnokobaer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m looking at unadulterated communism here and I hate it! Remove the green and the tracks and let honest working people park their lifted F 350 to go grocery shopping and bring little Braendin to school!

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It can and should be both whenever possible.

        Unlike roads that need to be completely covered in asphalt, rail only needs, well, rails. The rest can be occupied with greenery, and this is a fantastic example of doing just that.

        It is still visually pleasing, still captures CO2, and as a bonus reduces noise coming from the trams. Everybody wins!

        • ECB@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Don’t forget that green areas such as this massively cool cities as well (compared to asphalt).

          Something which is becoming increasingly important due to climate change.

        • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It can and should be both whenever possible

          Roads or tramlines don’t need greenery. It adds nothing.

          It would be much better if this place was a promenade for people, with some benches, a playground for kids, maybe a place to sit and have lunch, … and the transportation stuffed out of sight underground, aka a subway.

          rail only needs, well, rails

          And overhead lines … which trees often interfere with.

          • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            You can’t have an as extensive of a subway network as you can a tram network. It’s not trivial to just make tunnels everywhere, and can have consequences for the terrain. In addition, putting many stops on the subway removes the speed advantage, and so is always a trade-off. Good public transit has both.

            And green spaces always add something, no matter where they are.

            • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Looking at the way this particular road is constructed, and the age of the trees, I guarantee that this space was a promenade before and the space to build a tramway has been taken from pedestrians (people) not from cars.

              • Allero@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                11 months ago

                My country had green tram lines since Soviet times; trees had more than enough time to grow.

                We need promenades; but there where we lie down transportation (and it’s a necessity, you can’t NOT do this), it better look like this, and not as a giant asphalt road.

  • 4am@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    11 months ago

    One small problem. Pantographs and tree lines.

    It is beautiful though.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      Eh, it’s nothing that actually having enough budget to fund proper maintenance (e.g. tree pruning) can’t solve. Presumably, any city on-the-ball enough to build decent infrastructure like this in the first place has got that covered.

  • leanleft@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    devils advocate:

    • branches would fall in the tracks
    • wild animals might populate and then get harmed.

    • not citing pros
    • both can probably be mostly solved fairly easily i think
    • applewithacape@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      11 months ago

      -concidering it is in the middle of a city there are basialy no wild animals -this isnt more dangerous to the remaining few than any 4 lane Road -there are city maintenance workers who take care of the trees -during realy bad storms there are also branches on the streets

      vs

      1 billion different advantages

      The actuall biggest problem would be leaves on the rails in autumn.

      • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        A small brush system ahead of the actual wheels could take care of some of the tree debris. Even a small to medium sized branch would probably have no effect, the tram is heavy enough to just cleave branches apart. The negative of that is the maintenance teams probably have to clear out stuff that gets stuck under the trams.

      • groet@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        There are plenty wild animals in large cities. Foxes, rabits, racoons … Berlin famously has a large boar population. Having a more human friendly city with green tram lines and less car traffic will surely increase animal populations. However I doubt it would be a problem that isn’t easily solvable or is still preferable to the current situation.

  • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Please go back to the fuck cars subLemmy or whatever the fuck it’s called. I don’t want to also block 196 for being annoying as shit about weird topics that don’t make sense and you can’t back up.

      • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I have. There is a lot of actually good memes and then once in a while some fucker posts here instead of a community that I have blocked like fuck cars or politics.

    • onion@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      don’t make sense and you can’t back up

      Wrong and wrong?

      Trains are more space-efficient than cars and can therefore solve traffic congestion.

      There you go. Not that difficult to grasp.

      • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Trains are barely more space efficient and what would we do with current roads for cars anywhere? If we just leave them there, nothing would be gained. And cars are just easier to travel by and make more sense in general.

        • onion@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          make more sense in general

          That’s a meaningless statement

          barely more space efficient

          By barely you mean 20 fold?

          Passenger_Capacity_of_different_Transport_Modes

          • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            See, this is why I don’t like these posts. You have to keep in mind that the train won’t be at that capacity because it is more limited in where it can go and when. Sure, if you are like going across a country it’s alright, and I don’t disagree, I’ve actually used trains for that. But as soon as it becomes the only source of transportation, we have issues.

            • onion@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              This post literally has car lanes in the fucking picture so get your strawman out of here

              • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                So then are we really saving space if we keep it there or are we just using more to make train tracks?

                • onion@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  The problem with having only car lanes is that they’ll always be congested, no matter how many lanes you add (look up induced demand). Trains have so much more capacity that we don’t run into this issue.

                  Basically, 4 car lanes=traffic jams twice a day vs. 2 car lanes + 2 train tracks= traffic flowing freely.

                  Of course a subway would be even nicer but those aren’t always an option because tunneling is expensive

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s not average even for Helsinki. It’s a brand new line (I thought it was an edited photo) that I had never seen before. Pretty cool but not average in the least.