this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
256 points (95.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

9824 readers
6 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Even if you think what you would say is obvious, please add. This is genuinely something I think makes sense regarding local bus routes given the longevity of light rail and how infrequently routes change, but I also suffer from confirmation bias, so I'm hoping for reasons this would be a terrible idea but obviously would prefer reasons it would be an even more amazing idea than I thought.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Light rail/trams are better especially for avenues etc. But busses are more flexible, and you usually need a combination of both for best results

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

This.

I think of buses as the caterpillar to a tram's butterfly.

You can start with a comprehensive bus network, and as a particular route stabilizes and the bus starts struggling to meet throughput needs, that is an indicator that a tram may be worthwhile.

Starting w/ a tram line is a pretty big financial bet that it will be useful/needed, as once you build it, you're locked-in to that specific route.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Buses for longer journeys make sense. We have a bunch of buses in London that run from the city centre out towards the green belt. Buses for those especially long journeys makes sense.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not just build a train for long journies? Cheaper over time, more capacity, and reduces road dependency.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

We need more tube lines to be fair. But also I want to service as many people as possible.

[–] jocanib 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Buses are awful for long journeys. Trams for longer journeys make sense. You need the buses to get you to the tram stop.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Pretty much the point of trams are that they’re in populated areas, are in walking distance, and have many stops. They’re local public transport.

In cities they’re equivalent to buses, and in many countries existing trams where replaced by bus routes starting in the 1960s.

If you need longer and faster transport, metro and light rail are the modes to bring people to and around town.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you actually ever seen the tram network in North Rhine and Westphalia, Germany? Also in many places in the world the replacement of trams by buses has been since seen as a mistake and there are plenty of examples of extensive new trams networks introduced and in planning in cities where they got rid of them in 1960s.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you actually ever seen the tram network in North Rhine and Westphalia, Germany?

Yes, thank you, I was born there. What is it you’re trying to tell me?

Also in many places in the world the replacement of trams by buses has been since seen as a mistake and there are plenty of examples of extensive new trams networks introduced and in planning in cities where they got rid of them in 1960s.

Yes, thank you, I live in Berlin, the city where one part decided to trash it’s tram network, replaced it with buses, and is now struggling to get it back.

Still not sure what you’re trying to tell me, where did I say it was a good idea? I said the two modes are comparable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would argue they're not equal. Bus makes a bad replacement for a tram and tram can't really replace the bus if there are no tracks. The reason why I was asking is because Essen and Mühlheim a.d. Ruhr plus some nearby areas have got sections where trams aren't confined to just the populated areas and do not have many stops and outside the city core they aren't Stadtbahn, but are that and much more outside the urban areas, act part of the way like the good old Strassenbahn but are marked as Stadtbahn. I guess I don't really have a point here, just rambling. But really there's big difference between what you can offer on rails (if you don't make stupid planning decisions and your system isn't falling into disrepair) and by buses. Yes, they're comparable mostly in the way that they're both moving dozens of people per unit. In everything else, how comparable are they?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, like I said, I agree buses aren’t a good replacement, but they’re comparable in the way they’re used in cities: as a short to medium ranged local transport. You wouldn’t want to take the bus from one end of Berlin to the other, you would take the S-Bahn, because that’s what it’s for.

Compare the bus network with the tram network in East Berlin. The buses (usually) run where the trams don’t, but they have a similar amount of stops. Of course there’s overlap between the modes, but the general idea is: tram/bus for short to medium distance, S-Bahn for medium to long distance, and U-Bahn bridging between them.

They’re also comparable in accessibility: with the U- and S-Bahn I have to enter a station. With the tram, I just step out my house, go to the next corner, there it is. Same with buses.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Fair point. Also a way of classification that I completely omitted inside my mind during previous days.

[–] jocanib 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Our tram is called the Metro, which is light rail. It connects a small city to a bigger city, and loops around the bigger city. The residential zone along it is enormous, well beyond walking distance. Many people need buses to make use of it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My mistake, I meant to type suburban rail (S-Bahn) not light rail.

Anyway, light rail is and extremely loose term and can mean a lot of things, up to a „light metro“, but it’s commonly understood to have exclusive tracks separated from roads. A tram (or streetcar) runs on the street.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tram can have both, even on a single line.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

There are many different concepts, but generally a tram shares a space with the road traffic, hence streetcar (German: Straßenbahn). There are other terms, e.g. Stadtbahn, that are used when they are separated from other traffic.

While there are no hard rules and different approaches, I think it’s not helpful to mix up terms. A tram is not a metro. And it’s not helpful to mix modes on the same tracks, since you will run into trouble with scheduling due to vastly differing occupancy rates.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Could a tram do Trafalgar Square to Leyton Bakers Arms? I feel like it would leave a lot of people without public transport options.

[–] jocanib 3 points 1 year ago

I have no idea why you're directing this question at me.

London has the tube. It does not need a tram.

Obviously buses are needed to get people to the tram/tube/train stations.

This thread has precisely fuck all to do with London. London has very good public transport already. It's everywhere else that is expected to do without.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you would demolish all the other options, then it would de facto do just that. But nobody has even suggested the kind of baffoonery.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's literally the title of this post 😵‍💫

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was referring to the numerous options that exist alongside the said rail option in most real world places. But yes, most of the time the bus is the worse option of them two. Less accessible, economical etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Also how swirly is the bus route you'd replace by tram, light rail or whatever?