• @thedarkfly@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5221 days ago

      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.

    • The Octonaut
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4321 days ago

      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.

      • KryptonBlur
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1021 days ago

        Yeah clover or some kind of camomile would basically be ideal for beneath a tram

  • @shoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1321 days ago

    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.

    • Tlaloc_Temporal
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3221 days ago

      Better than pavement. Of course some native grasses would be better, but this is still an improvement.

    • Rentlar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2221 days ago

      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.

    • @pegazz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      621 days ago

      I live in Charleroi and agree with the sentiment :D it’s not the same vibe as Liege though, might be even worse…

    • @canatella@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      119 days ago

      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.

      • @Wanpieserino@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        119 days ago

        Nah for my wife it was just all around boring. She’s from Indonesia, far more car centric than here.

        She liked Mechelen, Antwerp, Brussels, Bruges, Aalst, Ghent, …

        She just didn’t like liège. Happens. I liked the river, very massive.

        All these cities in Flanders used to be car centric. Grand place in Brussels used to be a parking spot.

        Your politicians just made different decisions.

        Even though you’re more left wing than flanders.

        Every place has been ex-industry. Wallonia just isn’t inviting to capital. Flanders has right wingers dropping tax on capital while Wallonia has left wingers increasing tax on capital.

        Of course more investments will happen in flanders.

      • @DogWater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        321 days ago

        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.

    • @lunachocken@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      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.

      • @DogWater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        221 days ago

        Seems dubious, but I’m curious if animals genuinely have a comparable hit rate on regular tracks vs grass filled rails.

        • @UnfairUtan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          119 days ago

          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

          • @DogWater@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            119 days ago

            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

            • @UnfairUtan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              118 days ago

              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.