this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
1328 points (100.0% liked)

196

16501 readers
2866 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] foyrkopp@lemmy.world 146 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (54 children)

Depending on your definition, this actually is not peak performance.

Subways are.

Obviously, the tunnels are absurdly expensive, but nothing moves as many people as quickly around a city as a subway.

They're also extremely reliable, meaning people are even more likely to actually use them, and their above-ground footprint is essentially zero.

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Agreed, trams look good, but they aren't able to move as many people as a train because of the limitation of the positioning of the doors. This means that for the same traffic you need more carts, and bigger, more expensive stations.

In cities where the density isn't that high, digging a subway isn't ideal, and you'd probably be better off with a tram, but for high density cities, subways are peak.

Generally speaking, the digging has to be done once, so I think it's a good investment for a lot of cities.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] trainden@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 months ago

Trams generally gave more doors than trains, resulting in less seating

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (51 replies)