• biofaust@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are a lot of assumptions there.

    First of all, I am sure that is part of something much larger and it is a real neighborhood, not something hypothetical.

    Second, I don’t see people giving up their car brains just because you put a tram. I myself would still be using a car if it wasn’t made completely superfluous and fatiguing where I live and work.

    • Atemu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are a lot of assumptions there.

      Absolutely.

      I am sure that is part of something much larger and it is a real neighborhood, not something hypothetical.

      I’d agree but I don’t see how that makes a difference. My point was that the visible part could be served by even just one tram station. If there are more such parts, you’d obviously need tram stops for those aswell. (More tram stops would realistically be necessary anyways.)

      I don’t see people giving up their car brains just because you put a tram.

      Me neither. Point was that it’d be possible for those people to reasonably get where they need to go without any cars involved with as little infrastructure as a single tram stop.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The former streetcars aren’t an “assumption;” they’re historical fact. Here’s the damn map!

      • biofaust@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That was not the assumption. Also, that map is either 20something years too early or too late to be proof of much of what was going on in the 1950s.