A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
And people say my city of 100K is too small for a train.
Cherry picked data...
How were the city chosen?
Leipzig mentioned 🇺🇦
Слава Україні!
Not saying the UK/Ireland couldn't benefit from more tram systems but how were the cities picked? Because it seems like you could cherry pick them to say anything. Also strange it ignores heavy rail and doesn't seem to like buses.
In the EU there are currently six cities with a population over 350k, which lack an urban rail system. Bologna is supposed to open a tram system this year, so it is probably five soon. One of those is Sintra, which technically has a tram line, but it is used with historic cars as a museum service, so I count it as lacking one. Also Vilnius, Plovdiv, Bologna and Varna have trolleybuses. The sixth one is Las Palma, which has only buses and due to being on an island not even a train station.
Heavy rail is for transport between municpalities and everybody has a bus system at least in Europe. For a city of a certain size (200k or so) a well designed public transport system is going to have such high ridership, that a tram or other urban rail system is needed. So a lack of one is a pretty bad sign.
Heavy rail is for transport between municpalities and everybody has a bus system at least in Europe.
Well London for example has a lot of suburban heavy rail, it's not on this list of course because of the tube, but conventional rail fills in a lot of gaps that the tube doesn't cover and actually works well. You could sort of say the same for Leeds/Bradford, though probably not as good, it's in an area with a dense rail network which probably explains why light rail never took off there - I'm not from the area so I can't really say how well it works. I'm a big advocate for trams and light rail but there's no one-size-fits-all solution for all cities, cities with different geography, density, etc need different transport. That's why I said about quality in my other post, the overall quality of a city's public transport network should be judged, not just the modes of transport.
Bradford has two railway stations and those are pretty close together. They are also 700m apart and do not have track connecting them. In other words you can not use heavy rail for any reasonable journey within Bradford. Leeds is better, but we are still talking trains coming every 30min and six stations within the city and some massive gaps in the network. Similar story for Belfast.
I’m a big advocate for trams and light rail but there’s no one-size-fits-all solution for all cities, cities with different geography, density, etc need different transport.
British cities do have high enough density for light rail and the geography is mostly pretty flat. It is honestly the most obvious way to improve the public transport in cities like Leeds and Bradford in a big way. To be fair Leeds might want to think about a light automated metro as well.
I'm not disagreeing with you there.
Yeah, why doesn't it include any of the UK cities that actually have tram networks?
I was actually thinking more about how it doesn't include any continental European cities without them. I think I agree with the premise that we could benefit from more of them here in the UK, while we have some we probably do lag behind most of Europe, but presenting it like this it's not even making that point. Also there's nothing that takes in to account the quality of the network, a good bus network, or heavy rail, or both, may be preferable for some cities but would fail here.
Do we hate buses now?
Buses are useful because they can change based upon demand. If s neighborhood grows, more buses can be added. If a neighborhood shrinks, you can remove buses.
In the city where I live, I exclusively use trams. I avoid buses at all costs and only use them as a desperate last resort. Reason is because trams drive way nicer, in my opinion, than buses. Because in a full bus, standing and being whiplashed from wall to wall is unpleasant, especially with a shopping bag or a case or something else in your hand.
For larger cities buses just don't have enough capacity to be a good transit system. They do have their place in smaller cities and as a complement to a tram/metro for connections where the demand isn't as high.
I don't say trams are bad, but it's just dumb that OP seems to demonize busses that are totally fine solutions in some contexts. If you plan a new city SimCity style, sure, go for trains first. But real cities are more difficult and have a history, and it rarely makes sense to throw all of that overboard just to have the most efficient (currently) solution
No, it's just that on a ranking of resource efficiency, railway systems are certainly better than buses.
Sure, if you only consider that one aspect. But I thought we tried to move past such singular economics, rather than just replacing profit with resource efficiency. It's much more complex than that of course.
To consider all expect, just having only a bus network to rely on is also bad. Less options for people to choose from and still more at mercy of traffic conditions than tram networks even assuming the city has dedicated bus lanes.
In terms of pollution, they are also worse since electric buses are still rare and still a lot less convenient than electrified tram networks. All of these disadvantages grow even more when compared to metro trains and subways.
The reason buses are used over tram networks and metros are route flexibility, lower upfront cost and less space required for facilities. At least, that's what I can think of off the top of my head. Maybe you can add more advantages bus networks provide over rail network to support your position better.
I mean, there are so many particularities in each place, it's just too simplistic to discard them. What does the existing infrastructure look like and how can we use it best? How expensive would it be to install a different system, where does the money come from, and what else can the city not afford for that?
Another interesting case would be Kyoto, which relies mostly on buses although there are some train routes. But when they built their subways, there were a lot of construction delays because workers found ancient objects, had to call some archaeologists etc. So the city gave up after only 2 lines. Above-ground trains are also relatively rare although they exist. But you would have the same issue, existing buildings and cultural heritage.
It's just a complex issue. Both can be totally viable solutions, depending on context and implementation. My point is that it's kind of dumb to start raging against buses now as we have different issues.
Who is raging against buses, though? As you said, there are circumstances where its not practical to have both, but that still doesn't make bus only network better than having a mixed network. We're speaking relatively here, not in absolutes. When I say one is better, it doesn't mean the other is bad.
Who is raging against buses, though?
The post/OP did, that's why I commented so you commented so I commented so you commented so I commented so you commented and here I am, commenting
They need another column for the approximate population of twats.
Pretty sure there was a plan for a tram from Portsmouth all the way round the harbour. It got ditched for a few bus lanes instead. I suppose bus lanes do make it easier to spread the cost out but a tram would be better long term.
I can still cycle end to end faster than the bus during rush hour.
Thanks, Beeching.