3 ms·
>For example, a quarter full of high-rises, no way you can get away without expensive high-capacity subterranian trains to handle commuters Aren't trains much,
by msm_ 3y ago
>For example, a quarter full of high-rises, no way you can get away without expensive high-capacity subterranian trains to handle commuters
Aren't trains much, much more efficient than individual transport? Compare the average urban train with everyone driving their own car and it starts to look pretty good.
- mschuster91 3y agoThey are. The problem is they are vastly more expensive (to the tune of billions of euros) than building on-surface light rail/tram due to the cost and difficulty of boring tunnels.
- kkfx 3y ago> Aren't trains much, much more efficient than individual transport? Only if well loaded and running most of the time well loaded. Meaning in practice they can't be more efficient than personal transports. OR you make a service 24/7/365 (untenable, running nearly empty most of the time) or you can't satisfy personal moving needs most of the time. Beside that just look at single stations costs compared to people moving in less dense areas in glorified electric golf carts mostly recharged via local p.v. It's an ancient scam to sell collective transportation as positive, actually it's positive only for the public-funded business owner.