1326

Tr(rule)am (midwest.social)

submitted 7 months ago by mossy_capivara@midwest.social to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

190 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] foyrkopp@lemmy.world 146 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] Kedly@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago

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

[-] greenskye@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

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

[-] coffee_whatever@lemmy.tf 1 points 7 months ago

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