this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
1326 points (99.8% liked)

196

16822 readers
580 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

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

[–] spiffy_spaceman@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

The ring came off my pudding can.

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago

and unlike trams or buses which are a part of it

Are you sure?