3 ms·

I would go further, and say that public transport improves quality of life far more than sound absorbers for public transport do. It's nice that these things ex

I would go further, and say that public transport improves quality of life far more than sound absorbers for public transport do. It's nice that these things exist, but we should be spending money on more public transport, not necessarily on making public transport more palatable to people. I realise that's an unfortunate necessity, but it's clear that people pushing back on public transport just haven't seen its benefits enough.

Maxion 2y ago
I think you're missing the point. Many public transport projects are dependant on the community around allowing them to be built, mitigating the impact of said projects allows more public transport to be built. E.g. a tram doesn't go very fast and is also pretty quiet. A train usually runs a lot faster, and causes more noise pollution. If you can mitigate the noise, then you'll probably be able to build the railway instead of the tram. Allowing more capacity, higher speeds, and a better public transport solution.
- danhor 2y ago
  I don't think that is really true. In principle, a slower train is quieter, but a tram usually has very tight curves in lots of places, resulting in screeching, as opposed to a (modern) mainline railway which has much wider curves. A tram also needs to run closer to the homes, to still be attractive despite the lower speeds, increasing noise levels at the homes and also requiring more road space near people. Meanwhile a mainline train is much faster, thus can run farther away from home as the access penalty is offset by higher speeds. Low-floor trams also often feature more screeching due to the inability to use conventional bogies. Anecdotally, in germany, projects to (re-)build trams in cities often fail over local protests, while rail reactivations don't usually succumb to that. HSR does get a lot of local protests, but (IMHO) not really because of the noise and fails less often compared to trams.
callalex 2y ago
There is a balance to be struck though. For example where I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, there are millions of people whose commutes are objectively faster and cheaper on the BART train, but the vast majority of commuters still choose to drive a personal vehicle over a congested and expensive toll bridge. The primary reason for this is that the train is just so damn unpleasant for a multitude of reasons (including noise) that most people find the extra wasted hour worth it to them to have a more pleasant commute. Whenever the agency that runs the train proposes spending more money on things like human excrement abatement, noise abatement, etc. people complain and protest about mismanagement and money wasting, so nothing ever gets better and the infrastructure continues to be underutilized.

Maxion 2y ago

I think you're missing the point. Many public transport projects are dependant on the community around allowing them to be built, mitigating the impact of said projects allows more public transport to be built. E.g. a tram doesn't go very fast and is also pretty quiet. A train usually runs a lot faster, and causes more noise pollution. If you can mitigate the noise, then you'll probably be able to build the railway instead of the tram. Allowing more capacity, higher speeds, and a better public transport solution.

danhor 2y ago
I don't think that is really true. In principle, a slower train is quieter, but a tram usually has very tight curves in lots of places, resulting in screeching, as opposed to a (modern) mainline railway which has much wider curves. A tram also needs to run closer to the homes, to still be attractive despite the lower speeds, increasing noise levels at the homes and also requiring more road space near people. Meanwhile a mainline train is much faster, thus can run farther away from home as the access penalty is offset by higher speeds. Low-floor trams also often feature more screeching due to the inability to use conventional bogies. Anecdotally, in germany, projects to (re-)build trams in cities often fail over local protests, while rail reactivations don't usually succumb to that. HSR does get a lot of local protests, but (IMHO) not really because of the noise and fails less often compared to trams.

callalex 2y ago

There is a balance to be struck though. For example where I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, there are millions of people whose commutes are objectively faster and cheaper on the BART train, but the vast majority of commuters still choose to drive a personal vehicle over a congested and expensive toll bridge. The primary reason for this is that the train is just so damn unpleasant for a multitude of reasons (including noise) that most people find the extra wasted hour worth it to them to have a more pleasant commute. Whenever the agency that runs the train proposes spending more money on things like human excrement abatement, noise abatement, etc. people complain and protest about mismanagement and money wasting, so nothing ever gets better and the infrastructure continues to be underutilized.