>>165009803>YesThat article you linked even said "per passenger" which doesn't contradict what I wrote (that the more expensive trams can be offset with high passenger cost). I realize English is not your first language so I forgive your mistake.
>nobody is suggesting servicing your suburban sprawl with tramsMajority of Americans live outside urban cores. Those who live in those urban cores, at least economically well developed urban cores (and many not so well developed ones), have plenty of non-bus options to choose from. Even Pittsburgh has a dumb light rail system.
>the point is that just plastering everything with bus lines is dumb and cities in europe and asia demonstrate thatThey don't? I'm sure that there are bus-free cities in Europe and Asia, but that doesn't demonstrate "busses are dumb".
>seems like almost every urban planner and city council in the US is incapable of conceiving infrastructure projects that take longer than a monthlol spoken like someone who doesn't follow US infrastructure at all. Don't feel bad, I don't follow German infrastructure at all either.
For the record, California has been trying to build its high speed rail project for almost 15 years now, and I have no idea when it will come to any type of fruition. Of course, part of the problem is that it will cross multiple cities so you need to get every single city council on the same page. Not easy.
>>165009812Techbros are comfortable middle or upper middle class white men. Twee is being excessively quaint or sentimental, you'll see a lot of pro-tram people harkening back to the past (America's past) of cute little cable cars running through cobbled streets or whatever til big mean oil tore them all out. And yes, they are cute. And yes I wish big mean oil didn't tear out the rails or whatever. But that isn't what many places need right now. We need more accessibility for everyone, not just the middle class and not just in economically advantaged areas.
