cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/11743093
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/11742954
The people at nolawns would like to have a word
Well, you do need a flat surface below the tram. A lawn will dampen more sound and re-emit less heat than concrete or asphalt.
Eh. Not sure native shrubbery would be the best choice in this particular situation.
It will probably be 80% dandelions and clover in a few years though.
Yeah clover or some kind of camomile would basically be ideal for beneath a tram
I mean, as long as the trams run, nothing will get tall
@FenrirIII oooh... i love this and have thought of this in the past... I just assumed it was unreasonable...
I'll be the one to say it: that's just stupid.
Lifeless monoculture lawns are as big a waste of resources as car centric infrastructure. Doubly so when it's in a place where humans can't even walk on it. Triply so when it's in a spot where it will gum up and corrode the rails it's trying to hide.
You do realize this exact system has been utilized everywhere in the world for decades without issue? The alternative is completely sealed pavement so what exactly do you propose to improve this? You wanna have the car lanes back?
Saying sealed pavement is the only alternative is a false dichotomy. Off the top of my head, gravel ballast has been used for centuries.
A quick search shows 30x maintenence costs for minimal drainage benefits.
Civil engineering isn't one size fits all and I'm sure there are some climates + layouts where this makes sense. But I'd prefer putting that green space somewhere where people can use it and minimize the cost, focus and footprint of transportation infrastructure as much as possible.
is a false dichotomy
The two options are green or gray and depressing. The cost of maintaining it wont even show up on the chart compared to the operating cost of the tram network so that shouldnt be an issue.
The options are how you spend your money. Improving tree density can have more benefits for the same budget spend. If that's the case, keep my tram gray and let me hear more birds.
Better than pavement. Of course some native grasses would be better, but this is still an improvement.
This type of grass is native to most of Europe, to be fair. But monoculture is still not great.
But how exactly is it better? Nicer to look at maybe, but there are other materials that can provide drainage and temperature control with better durability and less maintenance.
Such as?
I can already hear the thumps from a healthy culture of critters getting splatted by the train running through wild shrubs over the rails.
Seriously, rock ballast has a maintenance cost too. Concrete has higher construction cost but is cheaper to maintain, but creates the heat island effect. Grass can still help with drainage if engineered well, removes the heat island effect, and is not too much more to maintain, since trams are a lower speed and weight class putting less of a load on the rails. Grass is even better than concrete slab for noise dampening. So grass isn't entirely purposeless and make for a pleasant scenery for people to be near.
My wife never wants to go to Wallonia ever again because I showed her liège.
That was a few months ago.
Was gonna show her Charleroi next 🤷🏻♂️
I live in Charleroi and agree with the sentiment :D it's not the same vibe as Liege though, might be even worse...
I like watching YouTube videos explaining the Charleroi metro.
I live in Belgium and don't think I've ever been in Liège or Charleroi
Yup, we're an ex-industrial city trying to modernize. It's hard, so please, be nice and acknowledge the progress instead of dismissing it. I'm not responsible for the choice the older generations did and your post here feels like an insult to me. If you're old enough and have oriented the choices that were made in your city so that it's not car oriented, then congratulations on making the good choice. If you're just lucky to leave in one because your parents made the good choice, then good for you. But please, don't look at others trying to improve their place from your, or your wife's high ground. There are places like the one you showed in every urban suburb of any post industrial city.
Can't wait for all the animals to die on the tracks
Don't feed the embarrassingly low energy troll, folks. Carry on.
Yes, being concerned about putting creature habitat directly where trains run is trolling.
it's about not being stupid. You aren't gaining anything useful putting grass between the rails of a metro besides potential problems.
Someone said it's been done successfully, which is surprising if true, but it's still not really doing anything.
What creatures habitat is flat mown grass? Natural or otherwise.
Things that burrow like rabbits and mice as well as a ton of food for birds like bugs meaning birds will be likely to be there way more than pavement or gravel
Low energy troll.
Lol I'm right so you can't argue anymore. I see you.
Living life by fucking my girlfriend and ordering supplies for my Cinco de mayo party. I don't live on this app.
Get a life, loser 😂
Neat. You're still wrong tho
Low energy troll.
What about the cars prior that are objectively worse in more ways than one. That probably had a much higher kill rate on both people AND animals.
I didn't say there was a problem with the train lol just don't put grass on the tracks
Animals don't understand that road means danger
They definitely dont understand that this grass is dangerous.
What's your point
That there is no reason to believe they'll die at a greater rate on these tracks than on a road.
Yes there is. Some small animals burrow in grass like rabbits and mice like I've already said and insects are food for birds like I've already said.
Tracks like these have been successfully used in a lot of cities already. It's objectively better imo
Seems dubious, but I'm curious if animals genuinely have a comparable hit rate on regular tracks vs grass filled rails.
It's probably marginal.
First of all, these are tramway tracks, and they're usually inside of very urban areas which don't have many animals roaming around.
Secondly, I'm no expert, but I would argue that this sort of low cut grass will mainly attract insects. This might to birds being encouraged to find food there sure. But city birds are used to traffic and will most likely dodge tramways
Only rational argument in this thread. I don't think it would cause a genocide of urban animals, but it's just annoying that a city would put something attractive to them in the path of a literal train
I get that.
I'm really happy that more cities are doing it though. I've lived for years in a city that has those in some sections, and I really appreciated walking / biking near them compared to regular tracks.
Where's the link to the article? Downvoted
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags: