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.
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.
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.
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.
I quite like underground transport, the stations can be absolutely stunning.
That might be the higher-than-is-really-safe concentration of fumes doing the stunning...
What fumes?
The toxic fumes created by all of those electric trams and subway trains, duh!
/s
He's making his own.
The London tube is full of soot from the days when they burned coal in there. It's the only subway I've been in where every time I walked out, there would be black tarry shit in my nose.
Also, the brakes for trains throw all kinds of dust into the air in subways
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
Monorail!
Monorail!
The ring came off my pudding can.
While monorails are cool, skytrains are literally just trains and thus insanely hard to beat for cost vs efficiency
Bleh
Would sky trains be as reliable? I assume subways are more reliable partially due to not being exposed to the elements.
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
and unlike trams or buses which are a part of it
Are you sure?
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
Tunnels also don't take away space from people. This nice looking tramway could be a nice promenade for people instead.
Without trees. And with asphalt. Basically another asphalt field.
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?
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.
Yeah, I guess it depende of definition.
For example there is also extra costs with lighting and ventilation for example for subways.
Completely agree, however I think this is decent intermediary between the larger investment into subways, especially depending on geology
Also if you really want you can put trams underground.
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.
True. 45-50 minutes on metro or 35-100 minutes on car.
Totally agreed, but the image looks so nice with the grass, subways don't have that
Grass is kind meh. Trees are better.
But the grass looks so nice to sit on!
You and grass will burn without trees.
Fair. What if I bring sunscreen AND trees? And a small chair? Maybe two?
Agreed, trams look good, but they aren't able to move as many people as a train because of the limitation of the positioning of the doors. This means that for the same traffic you need more carts, and bigger, more expensive stations.
In cities where the density isn't that high, digging a subway isn't ideal, and you'd probably be better off with a tram, but for high density cities, subways are peak.
Generally speaking, the digging has to be done once, so I think it's a good investment for a lot of cities.
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.
Agreed 100%.
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)
Positioning of the doors?
Trams generally gave more doors than trains, resulting in less seating
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?
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).
This but also a lack of experiencing good transit
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.
I think a lack of being in public spaces creates the antisocial "uncomfortable around other people" issues that have been growing. Sprawl kills communities!
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.
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'
For me its mostly the time factor. A 45 min drive takes 2 to 3 hours by transit in my city, or longer one way. And thats if busses show up and make connections. I would love to take transit but can't make it work in a any that would mean I still get to sleep.
That is because your transit is underfunded and under prioritized. Good, viable transit is as fast or faster than cars.
underfunded and under prioritized
Or designed and scheduled by incompetence
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.
This is what headphones are for, fuck cars
This is from someone who feels physical discomfort when someone interacts me unprompted
Agreed, but I can understand the apprehension for those who aren't familiar
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.
Theyāve also had to invest in their car personally and they donāt want to have their investment nullified. Who do they sell the car to if theyāre 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 doesnāt save people time, if it doesnāt allow people to transport goods as easily as vehicles do, theyāre not going to want to give up their car; because at the end of the day it will ultimately complicate things for them.
Itās a huge challenge towards gaining acceptance for public transit.
I mean, you can kind of understand it since you listed one way it's better: It's more convenient for some.
It is only less than half of stroad. You stil have another half to add for people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In truly large urban areas with a budget and needs, yeah.
In small towns?
In best transatlantic accent
The automobile wins the day. Huzzah!
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.
This is at Helsinki, Finland. So all kind of weather is present here.. Well except hot and dry š
On the other hand, there's a billion saunas around the city if you want hot and dry
If your sauna is hot and dry, you're doing something wrong š
Do we actually have a boulevard like in the pic? I recognized the trams but don't know a place like in the pic
Sure, MƤkelƤnkatu at Vallila
Ah. It's part of that spanking new Kalasatama-Pasila line. I was thinking I haven't seen such pics before and that'd explain it.
Off camera, there's a lawn mower driving as fast as it can away from the approaching tram
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?
Maybe they're just taking a piss? Same for the whole train system shutting down due to a single snowflake.
I've been looking into it since I posted that and apparently it makes the rails slippery and the trains have to slow down because of it and trains have to slow down because of it.
So I guess the answer is that these trains have to slow down too.
This looks more like a tram than a train and they don't go fast anyway, so I don't think they'd need to slow down.
Probably true. I didn't realize it was a speed issue until I read up on it.
From what I experience on the subway and tram on rainy days is that starting from a stop is also tricky, since steel wheels on steel tracks have not a lot of grip on rainy days, leaves make it worse, so the wheels spin in place and it feels like a slow, rocky start.
So I figure they also drive a little slower overall not miss the stop.
Huh, I'm riding the tram/subway frequently and never noticed any issue when it's raining.
Maybe your trams have fewer powered axles? I know of a city whose trams solely have powered axles, allowing them to drive on unusually steep gradients in any weather.
My city is pretty flat, so I'd guess that they don't need all powered axles?
In the subways it happens more frequently on the longer trains, that are full, so during peak hours.
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!
Well, more communism for me
Green space being used for vehicles instead of for people, even if it is public transport.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Proof of concept, trees I agree don't do too well with electrified infrastructure
me like tramz
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
"Would"? The picture isn't fake, plenty of tram tracks look like this.
-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.
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.
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.
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.
You havent Been in 196 for long have you?
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.
Well this Kind of post tends to reflect the opinion of most people Here if you want the other side of the coin go to r/shitposting in reddit
Pretty sure they have the same issue, considering blocking them too. Might be thinking of a different one though.
Oh no a single post you don't like, better comment on it and threaten block instead of just scrolling a little
It's so many at this point.
Fuck off
This is a queer socialist community better block it now
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.
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.
make more sense in general
That's a meaningless statement
barely more space efficient
By barely you mean 20 fold?
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.
This post literally has car lanes in the fucking picture so get your strawman out of here
So then are we really saving space if we keep it there or are we just using more to make train tracks?
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
And making train tracks across line distances is also expensive. Why would the government spend money there instead of something like the failing school system or defending the nation or trying to help with the huge issue of homelessness.
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.
But I do like it
I would love it very much
I believe small single seat robo-taxies would allow a lot of the gaps to be closed and resistance removed.
But more than this you need to plan cities to be smaller urban areas with high density that have everything you need in walking distance. Which also means "less efficiency" in the capitalist sense.
Yawn, obviously privately owned monopoly would be bad. I can imagine China doing this well as a public utility.
China is capitalism with beaslty grin.
The fact that it's a private monopoly only addresses, like, half of the problems. Why would China do this better? They have just as much incentive to prioritize the rich as Amazon does. Why would they do anything different?
Why would China do this better?
China is ruled by a single party in an authoritarian regime. They have corruption and politicking but they still have remnants of a planned economy and can still make rational decisions for the benefit of their country. For example they have massive projects to build high speed rail and nuclear power.
The US can only make decisions for the benefit of profit maximization. That's overexaggerated of course but you get the gist.
Imagine a whole city converted to public transport, bicycles/quadricycles and robo-taxies to fill the gaps. They could be single seat the size of a velomobile (podbike is an interesting example) and only weigh 100kg and use like 250-500 watt to drive up to 50kmh. Or maybe two seats face to face so you have space to stretch your legs or put your groceries.
How would central planning solve problems like vandalism? And what benefit would this have over bikes and trains?
Autonomous vehicles seem to be literally an unsolvable problem, as covered in depth in the video. What magic would China bring that would make a problem even humans can't solve somehow solvable by AI?
They are not an unsolvable problem. What is your argument for this? And no I'm not watching the whole video lol
I work in computer security. It's just obvious if you have even the slightest awareness of the industry. Attacks on AI are Wiley Coyote shit like drawing circles around them. In an active environment they're even worse. With mountains of technology everyone who has ever tried it, the most advanced and well funded companies in the world, have all failed utterly and miserably. They've failed even though there's an emesne opportunity for profit. At a certain point, you have to start providing evidence that it's possible and there hasn't been any. It's a scam.
Oh how funny, how clever! It's SELF EVIDENT they are impossible lol. Didn't think of that killer argument.
Obviously you're wrong because they already exist. They are just not yet good enough. I suspect you're some kind of religious nutjob who thinks there is something supernatural about human brains that computers can just never do lol.
I'm an atheist and I understand how LLMs work. I also helped threat model privacy for the NHTSA vehicle to vehicle communication program, so I have some familiarity with the field and challenges related to parallel technologies.
What I'm not is an AI cultists who can't distinguish between technology and magic. Anyone who's familiar with the field, with AI and how it works, and especially anyone who ever thinks at all about AI/ML security (which, I do, since I have both used ML in my work and reviewed projects that use ML models), recognizes the numerous inherent limitations in the technology.
An LLM replicates human errors by the nature of how they're trained. This is inherent to the technology. LLMs themselves were an incredible advancement that allows all kinds of new things, and yet they're just fundamentally incapable of doing the job in this case. So tell me, what technology do you believe would solve just this one problem inherent to LLMs, ignoring all other problems with sensors and computer vision?
Given the MASSIVE unsolved peoblems, massive amount of money and multiple years wasted already, and potentially infinite amount of money that could be spent solving these problems, what exact problems would be solved by robo taxis that wouldn't be solved, with much less investment, by trains and bikes?
Iām not calling for a ban on autonomous vehicles. There are clear advantages to using AI, and it is irresponsible for people to call on a ban, or even a pause, on AI. But we need more government oversight to prevent the taking of unnecessary risks.
That is basically what I'm thinking. In an ideal world we'd run a "Manhattan project" to create a massive and open research project for self driving AI with different approaches that doesn't rely on profit seeking and short sighted corporations. I still see no rational arguments for stopping to develop and improve self driving cars. There is no theoretical or practical hurdle for it to become near flawless with enough work. Potentially eliminating hundreds of thousands of deaths and injury and also saving a lot of energy and resources.
And yeah most transportation should be trains and bicycles and a better concept for velomobiles, something more like the podbike. But self driving small, cheap and low energy robo-taxis would have incredible value. Most of all it can be shared between people to a much higher degree because it can drive itself to the next pickup without requiring a full time driver or space for one. It doesn't need the range because it can park and recharge autonomously while another vehicle in the fleet replaces it. All large metropolis should ban all cars and only allow robo taxis or special vehicles for delivery etc. With regulation and while avoiding a monopoly. The potential is huge.
But I guess the pseudo-religious hive mind is turning on AI.
You keep saying there's value here, but you can't seem to say what it is. You say there's a solution, but you've just proposed dumping a ton of money in to research with no clear value over existing technologies.
I'm not against AI. I literally said I use AI. Before I used AI, I also believed in self-driving cars. Now that AI isn't magic to me, I understand why this is a fucking stupid idea. People are finally listening to experts who have been saying for years that AI isn't magic. People are turning against the grifters mean "magic" when they say "AI" without having any idea what the technology actually does or is capable of doing.
No thanks. I don't want to be at the mercy of some driver who can and will deny people service however and for whatever reason they please.
By law, they can not.
Ohh yes they can, and they do, all the time. Laws can't protect people against their behavior because laws are enforced after the fact. Prevention is key here.
Self-driving future doesn't seem to be that far away, and I imagine it to be even simpler on rails. Either way, the key is to get people off those nasty things they call "cars" and take it from there.
Self driving trains have been around for years
And who cares if they suffer catastrophically as a result?
At this point I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. The picture in the post clearly represents European trams. I have not witnessed one argument with a driver despite using European public transport on a daily basis.
No they don't. I have been taking public transit for decades too, and I've never heard of drivers refusing passengers. They just stop at each stop, like that's their job?
What you have experienced seems to be a local problem, yet you apply it to public transit in general, everywhere.
I think your initial comment is also a strawman, because the meme never suggested banning cars. In fact you can see a car lane on the right. Having trams in a city doesn't make you be at their mercy, you can instead ride a bike or a car if you want.
Man, it's gotta suck being this afraid of everyone.
It sucks being justified in being afraid, yes. And I am very, very justified in my stance, not just by historical standards but through personal experience and experiences of the people I care about. Public transport is the pits and a last resort people are forced to be dependent on for poverty. It CAN'T be the way forward for our people.
You're entitled to your incorrect opinion. I like mass transit for reasons like removing my need to pay attention for every second of a trip, for much reduced cost per mile, and for meeting/looking at interesting people.
Most people seem to agree. You can't move a coffee table on it (though I have, my apologies from a now-wisened teenager), but that's what stuff like car share services can step in on.
Who's denying you service, and why? The driver is way at the front of the train, what are you on about?
Yep, my lifetime of assault and harassment on public transit is just an incorrect opinion. Fuck my lived experiences and those of everyone else, the only perspective that matters is your own because all that matters is you getting what you want.
Ugh. Just ugh.
Alright grumpy, calm down. I'll repeat the question: what happened? That's as much energy as I'm willing to give the weak crying.
Literally 1.7 billion rides on the NYC subway system in 2019, it seems to work great for us. I dress in weird shiny rubber clothes sometimes while going to a party or whatever, I get looks of curiosity or derision from other passengers sometimes, and I don't give a shit. Are you just that sensitive?
Wow, holy shit, your best response is childish name calling and tone policing.
Everyone, this is what abusive people do when they are willing to be immoral to get what they want. When faced with a legitimate grievance they can't refute, they attack the person, in this case in the most blatantly childish way possible.
Basically he knows forcing people to use public transit will cause innocent people to suffer more violence but he doesn't care about that, he only cares about his feelings and he's willing to force you to be beaten, assaulted, even killed to get his way.
Think of your daughters and wives who would be groped, beaten, sexually assaulted, and murdered in the name of appeasing this hopeless retard, and then ignore him.
I don't agree with your conclusion that public transit is responsible for assault and murder.
What you are essentially suggesting is breaking up society and isolating everyone so people can't harm each other. That is an extreme solution to this problem
You also forget about all the people suffering from cars: thousands of deaths each year (compared to how many in subways?) from accidents and pollution.
Bro I'm upvoting this because of how hilariously sad this is š
Anyway, no biggie. Can't answer what happened, a simple question.
Don't come to big cities, we're gonna charge you to drive your lifted dangling nutz grocery getter below 59th st, and laugh our asses off at your limp open carry chicken pistol. Real men and women live here, with and for each other.
Stay in Idaho or whatever, enjoy your "I'm scaewed" life š
Who wouldn't like it ?
That's not a teleportation device.
You mean a suicide and rebirth device?
Tomato tamato
I've lived in cities with trams for the past 10 years and i think buses are less cool but more practical. Installing the rails is expensive and disruptive, they take a lot of room on the street (with the stop included), and if a tram gets stuck the next one can't go around, it just sits there and waits.
Regular railroads periodically place railroad switches for reversive movement(or how it is translated) so if one train stucks, trains behind it can use "wrong" track. Same in subway. Why don't you complain about subways then?
Oh, so all those times i was stuck inside a tramway were just bad dreams i had.
You're off the rails (intentional). I just said that i have personal experience with tramways as public transit, and i get responded with a dubious generality and a passive-agressive meme from fifteen years ago. And for some reason a whataboutism with subways??
Busses get delayed/stuck way more often
Zooms out to show the street
Finally, multi track drifting is available for all
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.
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.
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.
š©
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.
I quite like underground transport, the stations can be absolutely stunning.
That might be the higher-than-is-really-safe concentration of fumes doing the stunning...
What fumes?
The toxic fumes created by all of those electric trams and subway trains, duh! /s
He's making his own.
The London tube is full of soot from the days when they burned coal in there. It's the only subway I've been in where every time I walked out, there would be black tarry shit in my nose.
Also, the brakes for trains throw all kinds of dust into the air in subways
But I like watching things outside the trams.
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
Monorail!
Monorail!
The ring came off my pudding can.
While monorails are cool, skytrains are literally just trains and thus insanely hard to beat for cost vs efficiency
Bleh
Would sky trains be as reliable? I assume subways are more reliable partially due to not being exposed to the elements.
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
Are you sure?
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
Tunnels also don't take away space from people. This nice looking tramway could be a nice promenade for people instead.
Without trees. And with asphalt. Basically another asphalt field.
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?
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.
Yeah, I guess it depende of definition. For example there is also extra costs with lighting and ventilation for example for subways.
Completely agree, however I think this is decent intermediary between the larger investment into subways, especially depending on geology
Also if you really want you can put trams underground.
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.
True. 45-50 minutes on metro or 35-100 minutes on car.
Totally agreed, but the image looks so nice with the grass, subways don't have that
Grass is kind meh. Trees are better.
But the grass looks so nice to sit on!
You and grass will burn without trees.
Fair. What if I bring sunscreen AND trees? And a small chair? Maybe two?
Agreed, trams look good, but they aren't able to move as many people as a train because of the limitation of the positioning of the doors. This means that for the same traffic you need more carts, and bigger, more expensive stations.
In cities where the density isn't that high, digging a subway isn't ideal, and you'd probably be better off with a tram, but for high density cities, subways are peak.
Generally speaking, the digging has to be done once, so I think it's a good investment for a lot of cities.
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.
Agreed 100%.
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)
Positioning of the doors?
Trams generally gave more doors than trains, resulting in less seating
Trams are literal trains
Or shit soil
The problem is moving people to tunnels
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?
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).
This but also a lack of experiencing good transit
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.
I think a lack of being in public spaces creates the antisocial "uncomfortable around other people" issues that have been growing. Sprawl kills communities!
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.
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'
For me its mostly the time factor. A 45 min drive takes 2 to 3 hours by transit in my city, or longer one way. And thats if busses show up and make connections. I would love to take transit but can't make it work in a any that would mean I still get to sleep.
That is because your transit is underfunded and under prioritized. Good, viable transit is as fast or faster than cars.
Or designed and scheduled by incompetence
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.
This is what headphones are for, fuck cars
This is from someone who feels physical discomfort when someone interacts me unprompted
Agreed, but I can understand the apprehension for those who aren't familiar
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.
Theyāve also had to invest in their car personally and they donāt want to have their investment nullified. Who do they sell the car to if theyāre 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 doesnāt save people time, if it doesnāt allow people to transport goods as easily as vehicles do, theyāre not going to want to give up their car; because at the end of the day it will ultimately complicate things for them.
Itās a huge challenge towards gaining acceptance for public transit.
I mean, you can kind of understand it since you listed one way it's better: It's more convenient for some.
It is only less than half of stroad. You stil have another half to add for people.
Just today I saw this list of the largest tram networks in history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems_ever
The largest existing one is Melbourne, at a little over 250 km of tramways. Los Angeles at its peak had over 1700 km of tramways.
Truly insane what we tore up. A crime against humanity.
Didn't know much about this so just looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Why does every problem ever always boil down to capitalism?
I think many of them simply got converted to sub ways and such.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suburban_and_commuter_rail_systems
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In truly large urban areas with a budget and needs, yeah.
In small towns?
In best transatlantic accent The automobile wins the day. Huzzah!
And toonanity.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
And toonanity.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
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.
This is at Helsinki, Finland. So all kind of weather is present here.. Well except hot and dry š
On the other hand, there's a billion saunas around the city if you want hot and dry
If your sauna is hot and dry, you're doing something wrong š
Do we actually have a boulevard like in the pic? I recognized the trams but don't know a place like in the pic
Sure, MƤkelƤnkatu at Vallila
Ah. It's part of that spanking new Kalasatama-Pasila line. I was thinking I haven't seen such pics before and that'd explain it.
Off camera, there's a lawn mower driving as fast as it can away from the approaching tram
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?
It's a big problem for anything using rails. https://youtu.be/ZEuFSw-CMzU?feature=shared
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/ZEuFSw-CMzU?feature=shared
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Maybe they're just taking a piss? Same for the whole train system shutting down due to a single snowflake.
I've been looking into it since I posted that and apparently it makes the rails slippery and the trains have to slow down because of it and trains have to slow down because of it.
https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/leaves-line
So I guess the answer is that these trains have to slow down too.
This looks more like a tram than a train and they don't go fast anyway, so I don't think they'd need to slow down.
Probably true. I didn't realize it was a speed issue until I read up on it.
From what I experience on the subway and tram on rainy days is that starting from a stop is also tricky, since steel wheels on steel tracks have not a lot of grip on rainy days, leaves make it worse, so the wheels spin in place and it feels like a slow, rocky start.
So I figure they also drive a little slower overall not miss the stop.
Huh, I'm riding the tram/subway frequently and never noticed any issue when it's raining.
Maybe your trams have fewer powered axles? I know of a city whose trams solely have powered axles, allowing them to drive on unusually steep gradients in any weather.
My city is pretty flat, so I'd guess that they don't need all powered axles? In the subways it happens more frequently on the longer trains, that are full, so during peak hours.
Sand
What's not to like?
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!
Well, more communism for me
Green space being used for vehicles instead of for people, even if it is public transport.
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!
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.
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.
And overhead lines ... which trees often interfere with.
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.
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.
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.
One small problem. Pantographs and tree lines.
It is beautiful though.
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.
Proof of concept, trees I agree don't do too well with electrified infrastructure
me like tramz
devils advocate:
"Would"? The picture isn't fake, plenty of tram tracks look like this.
-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.
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.
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.
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.
You havent Been in 196 for long have you?
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.
Well this Kind of post tends to reflect the opinion of most people Here if you want the other side of the coin go to r/shitposting in reddit
Pretty sure they have the same issue, considering blocking them too. Might be thinking of a different one though.
Oh no a single post you don't like, better comment on it and threaten block instead of just scrolling a little
It's so many at this point.
Fuck off
This is a queer socialist community better block it now
Wrong and wrong?
Trains are more space-efficient than cars and can therefore solve traffic congestion.
There you go. Not that difficult to grasp.
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.
That's a meaningless statement
By barely you mean 20 fold?
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.
This post literally has car lanes in the fucking picture so get your strawman out of here
So then are we really saving space if we keep it there or are we just using more to make train tracks?
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
And making train tracks across line distances is also expensive. Why would the government spend money there instead of something like the failing school system or defending the nation or trying to help with the huge issue of homelessness.
GIB THAT TRAM
The building in the background on the right is a good point of reference https://maps.app.goo.gl/nzUaXj6BJLrFNfe67
yep roads take twice as much space
Looks like a modified pic from Finland
Looks like average Europe
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.
But I do like it
I would love it very much
I believe small single seat robo-taxies would allow a lot of the gaps to be closed and resistance removed.
But more than this you need to plan cities to be smaller urban areas with high density that have everything you need in walking distance. Which also means "less efficiency" in the capitalist sense.
Yeah, robo taxis are a dumb idea that should stop being proposed forever. https://youtube.com/watch?v=GcKUYbChE3A
I wanted to search for video that talks about megataxis, gigataxis and MetroVagonMash's gigataxies. You did it first. Thanks.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=GcKUYbChE3A
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Yawn, obviously privately owned monopoly would be bad. I can imagine China doing this well as a public utility.
China is capitalism with beaslty grin.
The fact that it's a private monopoly only addresses, like, half of the problems. Why would China do this better? They have just as much incentive to prioritize the rich as Amazon does. Why would they do anything different?
China is ruled by a single party in an authoritarian regime. They have corruption and politicking but they still have remnants of a planned economy and can still make rational decisions for the benefit of their country. For example they have massive projects to build high speed rail and nuclear power.
The US can only make decisions for the benefit of profit maximization. That's overexaggerated of course but you get the gist.
Imagine a whole city converted to public transport, bicycles/quadricycles and robo-taxies to fill the gaps. They could be single seat the size of a velomobile (podbike is an interesting example) and only weigh 100kg and use like 250-500 watt to drive up to 50kmh. Or maybe two seats face to face so you have space to stretch your legs or put your groceries.
How would central planning solve problems like vandalism? And what benefit would this have over bikes and trains?
Autonomous vehicles seem to be literally an unsolvable problem, as covered in depth in the video. What magic would China bring that would make a problem even humans can't solve somehow solvable by AI?
They are not an unsolvable problem. What is your argument for this? And no I'm not watching the whole video lol
I work in computer security. It's just obvious if you have even the slightest awareness of the industry. Attacks on AI are Wiley Coyote shit like drawing circles around them. In an active environment they're even worse. With mountains of technology everyone who has ever tried it, the most advanced and well funded companies in the world, have all failed utterly and miserably. They've failed even though there's an emesne opportunity for profit. At a certain point, you have to start providing evidence that it's possible and there hasn't been any. It's a scam.
But here, I guess I have to do this for you:
https://gprivate.com/69dw4
Oh how funny, how clever! It's SELF EVIDENT they are impossible lol. Didn't think of that killer argument.
Obviously you're wrong because they already exist. They are just not yet good enough. I suspect you're some kind of religious nutjob who thinks there is something supernatural about human brains that computers can just never do lol.
I'm an atheist and I understand how LLMs work. I also helped threat model privacy for the NHTSA vehicle to vehicle communication program, so I have some familiarity with the field and challenges related to parallel technologies.
What I'm not is an AI cultists who can't distinguish between technology and magic. Anyone who's familiar with the field, with AI and how it works, and especially anyone who ever thinks at all about AI/ML security (which, I do, since I have both used ML in my work and reviewed projects that use ML models), recognizes the numerous inherent limitations in the technology.
An LLM replicates human errors by the nature of how they're trained. This is inherent to the technology. LLMs themselves were an incredible advancement that allows all kinds of new things, and yet they're just fundamentally incapable of doing the job in this case. So tell me, what technology do you believe would solve just this one problem inherent to LLMs, ignoring all other problems with sensors and computer vision?
What do you propose?
Or maybe just read something from an industry expert specifically in this field: https://spectrum.ieee.org/self-driving-cars-2662494269
Given the MASSIVE unsolved peoblems, massive amount of money and multiple years wasted already, and potentially infinite amount of money that could be spent solving these problems, what exact problems would be solved by robo taxis that wouldn't be solved, with much less investment, by trains and bikes?
That is basically what I'm thinking. In an ideal world we'd run a "Manhattan project" to create a massive and open research project for self driving AI with different approaches that doesn't rely on profit seeking and short sighted corporations. I still see no rational arguments for stopping to develop and improve self driving cars. There is no theoretical or practical hurdle for it to become near flawless with enough work. Potentially eliminating hundreds of thousands of deaths and injury and also saving a lot of energy and resources.
And yeah most transportation should be trains and bicycles and a better concept for velomobiles, something more like the podbike. But self driving small, cheap and low energy robo-taxis would have incredible value. Most of all it can be shared between people to a much higher degree because it can drive itself to the next pickup without requiring a full time driver or space for one. It doesn't need the range because it can park and recharge autonomously while another vehicle in the fleet replaces it. All large metropolis should ban all cars and only allow robo taxis or special vehicles for delivery etc. With regulation and while avoiding a monopoly. The potential is huge.
But I guess the pseudo-religious hive mind is turning on AI.
You keep saying there's value here, but you can't seem to say what it is. You say there's a solution, but you've just proposed dumping a ton of money in to research with no clear value over existing technologies.
I'm not against AI. I literally said I use AI. Before I used AI, I also believed in self-driving cars. Now that AI isn't magic to me, I understand why this is a fucking stupid idea. People are finally listening to experts who have been saying for years that AI isn't magic. People are turning against the grifters mean "magic" when they say "AI" without having any idea what the technology actually does or is capable of doing.
No thanks. I don't want to be at the mercy of some driver who can and will deny people service however and for whatever reason they please.
By law, they can not.
Ohh yes they can, and they do, all the time. Laws can't protect people against their behavior because laws are enforced after the fact. Prevention is key here.
Self-driving future doesn't seem to be that far away, and I imagine it to be even simpler on rails. Either way, the key is to get people off those nasty things they call "cars" and take it from there.
Self driving trains have been around for years
And who cares if they suffer catastrophically as a result?
At this point I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. The picture in the post clearly represents European trams. I have not witnessed one argument with a driver despite using European public transport on a daily basis.
No they don't. I have been taking public transit for decades too, and I've never heard of drivers refusing passengers. They just stop at each stop, like that's their job?
What you have experienced seems to be a local problem, yet you apply it to public transit in general, everywhere.
I think your initial comment is also a strawman, because the meme never suggested banning cars. In fact you can see a car lane on the right. Having trams in a city doesn't make you be at their mercy, you can instead ride a bike or a car if you want.
Man, it's gotta suck being this afraid of everyone.
It sucks being justified in being afraid, yes. And I am very, very justified in my stance, not just by historical standards but through personal experience and experiences of the people I care about. Public transport is the pits and a last resort people are forced to be dependent on for poverty. It CAN'T be the way forward for our people.
You're entitled to your incorrect opinion. I like mass transit for reasons like removing my need to pay attention for every second of a trip, for much reduced cost per mile, and for meeting/looking at interesting people.
Most people seem to agree. You can't move a coffee table on it (though I have, my apologies from a now-wisened teenager), but that's what stuff like car share services can step in on.
Who's denying you service, and why? The driver is way at the front of the train, what are you on about?
Yep, my lifetime of assault and harassment on public transit is just an incorrect opinion. Fuck my lived experiences and those of everyone else, the only perspective that matters is your own because all that matters is you getting what you want.
Ugh. Just ugh.
Alright grumpy, calm down. I'll repeat the question: what happened? That's as much energy as I'm willing to give the weak crying.
Literally 1.7 billion rides on the NYC subway system in 2019, it seems to work great for us. I dress in weird shiny rubber clothes sometimes while going to a party or whatever, I get looks of curiosity or derision from other passengers sometimes, and I don't give a shit. Are you just that sensitive?
Wow, holy shit, your best response is childish name calling and tone policing.
Everyone, this is what abusive people do when they are willing to be immoral to get what they want. When faced with a legitimate grievance they can't refute, they attack the person, in this case in the most blatantly childish way possible.
Basically he knows forcing people to use public transit will cause innocent people to suffer more violence but he doesn't care about that, he only cares about his feelings and he's willing to force you to be beaten, assaulted, even killed to get his way.
Think of your daughters and wives who would be groped, beaten, sexually assaulted, and murdered in the name of appeasing this hopeless retard, and then ignore him.
I don't agree with your conclusion that public transit is responsible for assault and murder.
What you are essentially suggesting is breaking up society and isolating everyone so people can't harm each other. That is an extreme solution to this problem
You also forget about all the people suffering from cars: thousands of deaths each year (compared to how many in subways?) from accidents and pollution.
Bro I'm upvoting this because of how hilariously sad this is š
Anyway, no biggie. Can't answer what happened, a simple question.
Don't come to big cities, we're gonna charge you to drive your lifted dangling nutz grocery getter below 59th st, and laugh our asses off at your limp open carry chicken pistol. Real men and women live here, with and for each other.
Stay in Idaho or whatever, enjoy your "I'm scaewed" life š
Who wouldn't like it ?
That's not a teleportation device.
You mean a suicide and rebirth device?
Tomato tamato
I've lived in cities with trams for the past 10 years and i think buses are less cool but more practical. Installing the rails is expensive and disruptive, they take a lot of room on the street (with the stop included), and if a tram gets stuck the next one can't go around, it just sits there and waits.
Regular railroads periodically place railroad switches for reversive movement(or how it is translated) so if one train stucks, trains behind it can use "wrong" track. Same in subway. Why don't you complain about subways then?
Oh, so all those times i was stuck inside a tramway were just bad dreams i had.
You're off the rails (intentional). I just said that i have personal experience with tramways as public transit, and i get responded with a dubious generality and a passive-agressive meme from fifteen years ago. And for some reason a whataboutism with subways??
Busses get delayed/stuck way more often
Zooms out to show the street
Finally, multi track drifting is available for all
Czechia?
Helsinki
Let's talk about cities