• leanleft@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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
      4
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • groet@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

  • foyrkopp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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
      5
      ·
      1 year 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
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • Kedly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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

  • 4am@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    One small problem. Pantographs and tree lines.

    It is beautiful though.

    • schnokobaer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year 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
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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!

        • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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
              ·
              1 year 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
                1
                ·
                1 year 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.

        • ECB@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

  • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yawn, obviously privately owned monopoly would be bad. I can imagine China doing this well as a public utility.

        • hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            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. 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.

            • hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                They are not an unsolvable problem. What is your argument for this? And no I’m not watching the whole video lol

                • hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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

  • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • onion@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

        • nolight@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • nolight@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.