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!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

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

Something which is becoming increasingly important due to climate change.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

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

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