this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
52 points (96.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

9662 readers
90 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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.

Posting Guidelines

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:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Can't think of a better community to ask.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As subways are usually intended for traveling short distances, the passengers have to get in and out fast. Thus, subways usually have doors in shorter distance from each other than e.g. in train trolleys, that are used on lines where the stations are in larger distance from each other than subway stations usually are. The trolleys of double decker trains have stairs close to the doors, thus the trolleys for subways would need to have equivalently more stairs. Subsequently, the space gained for passengers to sit or stand would be much less than e.g. for double decker trains.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You'd have to get up and off the second floor before your stop.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That doesn't address anything he said.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

... You are on the train. The station you want to get off is coming up soon. You stand up. You walk down the stairs. You stand at the doors. So far this is all before the station you want to get off at. When you arrive at the station you want to get off at, you walk off. That solves the getting off quickly problem. You don't need lots and lots and lots of stairs to the point that it takes up more seating capacity than a second floor.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That scenario is assuming it's not packed, and that there is only one person trying to do it.

Which is exactly why you didn't address anything he said, and why this still doesn't.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Being crushingly packed it a valid concern but yes it addresses his point. As does this: don't sit on the top if your station is one of the first 1-2 downtown, where you can't get down to the first floor.

You're very adversarial for some reason so ciao.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

but yes it addresses his point.

No, it doesn't.

His entire point is that subway trains have a lot of doors, leading to a lower seat/door ratio. Your response doesn't at all address that this ratio would change, or the actual repercussions of changing it.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, but you're acting like you do.

You’re very adversarial for some reason so ciao.

I am matter-of-factly telling you that you're not making a relevant point. If that's "adversarial" to you, then you need to get your detector calibrated.