this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
1294 points (100.0% liked)
196
16504 readers
3495 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's not to like?
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!
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.