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!
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.
rail only needs, well, rails
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.
What’s not to like?
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!
Well, more communism for me
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!
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.
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.
deleted by creator