297
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf to c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] federico3@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago
[-] LimitedWard@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

CityNerd posted a really good video on this topic a few months ago. https://youtu.be/H6UD9h3hEdk

His videos are primarily US-focused, but I believe this one applies for pretty much any country.

[-] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 2 points 1 year ago

Sorry it took me so long to watch this. He essentially feels that trams are just glorified buses and identified issues with mixed traffic routes but modern teams and light railway are capable of leaving their tracks to circumvent obstacles.

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

It's not an either/or thing. Buses are great (if they are well funded) and light rail is also great

[-] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The problem with buses is that most of the fleets are still running on fossil fuels. Buses also produce a shocking amount of waste in used tires. 

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] oo1@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

exactly.

you can't assess the merits of an integrated transport system by arguing which one one mode of transport betters all others.

some places /routes (at some times) might work best with one option.
but most places / routes will be better served by several types at least at some times of day.

buses are one of the most flexible public transport options, fill gaps in space between high capacity modes, and fill gaps in timetables, and they sometimes fill gaps in affordability usually being cheaper.

give them bus lanes and priority at junctions, and they're a lot cheaper and more flexible than trams.

i always think that a busy packed bus lane is making the business case for a train, but filling the gap in the meanwhile. and sometimes a train is impractical.

they didn't only get rid of most of the trams in the uk due to cars wanting more roads. it was also because buses were cheaper and provided much better routes that could flex to travelers needs..

[-] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

There is also another alternative: cable car. It's a good way to add public transportation with minimal impact on the existing road layout.

[-] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 2 points 1 year ago

But doesn't have enough stops

[-] lckdscl@whiskers.bim.boats 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Depends on the road layout; if it's a long straight road then light railway makes sense. It's less maintenance, easier to operate, can move unhindered because it doesn't get stuck in traffic (edit: provided they don't share the roads).

For spaghetti road layouts though, I don't see the benefit, but I could be wrong since I'm no expert.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] just_chill@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago

Another problem with light rail would be mountains. Trains don't like those. On the other hand, cable-cars and cog railway exists and seem to be viable solutions. The city of Lyon even has both and since the cog railway starts on a flat terrain, it is able to switch between both.

[-] UFODivebomb@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My pet conspiracy theory is that most bus routes are a false compromise sold to voters.

[-] Athena5898@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

We need a whole host of public transit options that are best suited for each circumstance of a given area. I want public transit so smooth that even if you tried getting lost you end up where you wanted to go with no clue on how it happened. (last bit is an over exaggeration since i don't know how feasible that actually is lol)

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] sab@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was initially conceiving this point as a venn diagram, but I guess it works like this as well.
(fuck cars/fuck bikes)

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] anon6789@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I would think adding railways to places would take a long time, cost a ton of money, and without enough population it doesn't make sense. I don't know what specific area of the world you are thinking, but most of the world is pretty empty outside of major cities, and most of them probably do have rail service.

I have old rail running right behind my house that people always want to start using again. It's in pretty rough shape so the eyes is it's easy to expensive to get it up to spec and the amount of public interest is too low that it become unfeasable.

Buses on the other hand, can get plopped down instantly wherever they will fit on existing infrastructure. They can go where the demands is. You can have a spare one on the lot. I'd think it's easier to become a bus driver than a conductor. And ultimately if you need more buses, just but another, and if you decide to scrap the program, sell the bus and you have no useless remaining infrastructure.

Overall I'd it had the choice to take a bus from A to B or rail, I'd probably choose rail I'd the pickups and drop s were the same, but again, that's also much harder to do with a train. There's room for both, but here I think trains make more sense for longer distances and buses for local.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
297 points (95.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

9887 readers
4 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS