Skytrains my dude, similar footprint, same tech, and I assume it costs significantly less, and is able to dip underground when there absolutely ISNT the footprint for it above ground

[–] maxxxxpower@lemmy.ca 16 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Monorail!

[–] spiffy_spaceman@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Monorail!

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

The ring came off my pudding can.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago

While monorails are cool, skytrains are literally just trains and thus insanely hard to beat for cost vs efficiency

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Bleh

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Would sky trains be as reliable? I assume subways are more reliable partially due to not being exposed to the elements.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

At the end of the day, they're still just trains, and while Vancouver's trains DO seem to be somewhat bafflingly effected by severe weather, for the most part things keep running like normal as it still is only somewhat

[–] coffee_whatever@lemmy.tf 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My guess would be that they are separated from any traffic, just like a subway and unlike trams or buses which are a part of it. No other traffic = less delays and accidents = more reliable transport

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

and unlike trams or buses which are a part of it

Are you sure?