SUBMITTED: A Streetcar Named Light Rail

[Australian rePublic]

[title] A Street Car Named Light Rail
desc] A commission into @@NAME@@’s infrastructure has suggested that the nation's urban population is expected to skyrocket in the coming decades, and that the roads will be unable to keep up with demand, causing many mayors across the nation to request funding for light rail projects
[validity] Must Allow Cars- co-authors Radical Islamic Buddhism

[option] "Ding ding!" enthusiastically sings @@RANDOMNAME@@, a mayor of a city which once had a large tram network. "Last week, when I traveled to @@ANIMAL@@ City, I rode in one of their trams and it was awesome! The trams were long - much longer than any of the buses, and the single segment trams were coupled together. And @@ANIMAL@@ City has an 1800s system. What's worse is that we had a great tram system, until someone paved over it. We can bring it back, however, with light rail. With modern light rail, all LRVs will either be in separate road lanes or operate off-road, and all LRVs will be multiple-segments long. Light rail is the way of the future!"
[effect] the government thinks that the best way to prevent traffic jams is to force ccas stop in the middle of the road

[option] "Trams suck!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a prominent opposition leader in the same city. "Trams are slow, hog the outside lane and, because they stop in the middle of the road, they require all traffic to stop. There's a damned good reason why we got rid of our trams, and we don't need them back! What we need is Bus Rapid Transit. A bus system is a good way of moving lots of people quickly and are much less inconvenient then those stupid LRVs! We should just use buses for transport."
[effect] the government is trying to convince the public that a bus has the same capacity as a train

[option] "@@HE@@’s right you know!" suggests @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the CEO of @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@’s Tires Inc. "But we shouldn't waste available road space on bus only lanes. The cities of the future will need as much driving space as possible. We need to build more roads and more lanes. And if you widen the roads, there might be a little kickback in it for you!"
[option validity] must allow private industry
[effect] street trees have been replaced by more lanes

[option] "Why are we paying for this?" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Treasurer, showing you charts with red lines on them. "If these cities want public transport, they can pay for it themselves!"
[effect] nobody is sure who's responsible for funding intercity transport projects
[new flag] devolution

[option] "Cars and trams can't get along!" reminds environmentalist @@RANDOMNAME@@, driving @@HIS@@ luxury sports automobile. "Trams would be free to move on the road if the damned cars weren't hindering them! Mother nature hates cars too! Get rid of the bloody things! Except for mine, I worked hard for it! And it's not like one car's gonna make much of a difference." @@HE@@ exits your office performs donuts in the carpark.
[effect] delivery drivers are required to travel upwards of 40 kilometres in the rain whilst riding a pushbike

desc] A commission into @@NAME@@’s infrastructure has suggested that the nation's urban population is expected to skyrocket in the coming decades,and that the roads will be unable to keep up with demand, causing many mayors across the nation to request funding for light rail projects
[validity] Must Allow Cars- co-authors Radical Islamic Buddhism

[option] "Ding ding!" enthusiastically sings @@RANDOMNAME@@, a mayor of a city which once had a large tram network. "Last week, when I traveled to @@ANIMAL@@ City, I rode in one of their trams and it was awesome! The trams were long - much longer than any of the buses, and the single segment trams were coupled together. And @@ANIMAL@@ City has an 1800s system. What's worse is that we had a great tram system, until someone paved over it. We can bring it back, however, with light rail. With modern light rail, all LRVs will either be in separate road lanes or operate off-road, and all LRVs will be multiple-segments long. Light rail is the way of the future!"
[effect] the government thinks that the best way to prevent traffic jams is to force ccas stop in the middle of the road

[option] "Trams suck!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a prominent opposition leader in the same city. "Trams are slow, hog the outside lane and, because they stop in the middle of the road, they require all traffic to stop. There's a damned good reason why we got rid of our trams, and we don't need them back! What we need is Bus Rapid Transit. A bus system is a good way of moving lots of people quickly and are much less inconvenient then those stupid LRVs! We should just use buses for transport."
[effect] the government is trying to convince the public that a bus has the same capacity as a train

[option] "Why are we paying for this?" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Treasurer, showing you charts with red lines on them. "If these cities want public transport, they can pay for it themselves!"
[effect] nobody is sure who's responsible for funding intercity transport projects
[new flag] devolution

[option] “Cars and trams can't get along!” reminds environmentalist @@RANDOMNAME@@, driving @@HIS@@ luxury sports automobile. “Trams would be free to move on the road if the damned cars weren't hindering them! Mother nature hates cars too! Get rid of the bloody things! Except for mine, I worked hard for it! And it's not like one car's gonna make much of a difference.” @@HE@@ exits your office performs donuts in the carpark.
[effect] delivery drivers are required to travel upwards of 40 kilometres in the rain whilst riding a pushbike

tle] A Streetcar Named Light Rail

[desc] Whilst some cities across @@NAME@@ retaining their 19th Century tram networks, other cities removed their systems midway through the 20th Century. With @@ANIMAL@@ City celebrating a major milestone anniversary of their tram network, nostalgic mayors across @@NAME@@ are aski]ng you to fund light rail projects so that their cities can get their trams back.

[validity] must allow cars

[option] "Ding ding!" enthusiastically sings @@RANDOMNAME@@, a mayor of a city which once had a large tram network. "Last week, when I travelled to @@ANIMAL@@ City, I rode in one of their trams and it was awesome! The trams were long-longer than any of the buses, and the single segment trams were coupled together. And @@ANIMAL@@ City has an 1800s system. With modern light rail, all light rail vehicles (LRVs) will either be in separate road lanes or operate off-road, and all LRVs will be multiple-segments long. Light rail is the way of the future!"
[effect] the government thinks that the best way to prevent traffic jams for vehicles to stop in the middle of the road

[option] "Trams suck!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, the opposition mayor of the same city. "Trams are slow, block hog the outside lane and, because they stop in the middle of the road, they require all traffic to stop. And don't claim that separate lanes will solve the issue. Half of @@ANIMAL@@ City's trams are in separate lanes, and the cars, buses and trucks still has to stop with the trams. Not only that, but they can't change lanes if something is blocking them. Buses are better because they stop on the side of the street, without blocking traffic. There's a reason why we got rid of those damned trams, and we don't need them back!"
[effect] the government is rumoured to have an irrational fear of hook turns

[option] "Buses are the best!" boasts bus driver @@RANDOMNAME@@, wearing a t-shirt with a double decker print. "We're just not using them properly! What we need is bus rapid transits. BRTs are a good way of moving lots of people quickly, can use the buses we already have, and cost nearly 1 tenth the price of light rail! We should build BRTs, @@LEADER@@!"
[effect] the government is trying to convince the public that a bus has the same capacity as a train

[option] "Why are we paying for this?" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, your treasurer showing you charts with red lines on them. "If these cities want public transport, they can pay for it themselves!"
[effect] nobody is sure who's responsible for funding intercity transport projects
[new flag] devolution

itle] A Streetcar Named Light Rail

[desc] The once great tram networks of @@NAME@@ were torn-out in several cities across @@NAME@@. However, a many cities wish to bring back the mode of transportation in the form of light rail, and are asking for @@CAPITAL@@ to fund the projects.

[validity] must allow cars

[option] "Ding ding!" enthusiastically sings @@RANDOMNAME@@, a mayor of a city which once had a large tram network. "Last week, when I travelled to @@ANIMAL@@ City, I rode in one of their trams and it was awesome! The trams were long-longer than any of the buses, and the single segment trams were coupled together. And @@ANIMAL@@ City has an early 20th Century tram system. With modern light rail, all light rail vehicles (LRVs) will either be in separate road lanes or operate off-road, and all LRVs will be multiple-segments long. Light rail is the way of the future!"
[effect] the government thinks that the best way to prevent traffic jams for vehicles to stop in the middle of the road

[option] "Trams suck!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, the opposition mayor of the same city. "Trams are slow, block hog the outside lane and, because they stop in the middle of the road, they require all traffic to stop. And don't claim that separate lanes will solve the issue. Half of @@ANIMAL@@ City's trams are in separate lanes and the cars, buses and trucks still has to stop with the trams. Not only that, but they can't change lanes if something is blocking them. Buses are better because they stop on the side of the street, without blocking traffic. There's a reason why we got rid of those damned trams, and we don't need them back!"
[effect] the government is rumoured to have an irrational fear of hook turns

[option] "Buses are the best!" boasts bus driver @@RANDOMNAME@@, wearing a t-shirt with a double decker print. "We're just not using them properly! What we need is bus rapid transits. BRTs are a good way of moving lots of people quickly, can use the buses we already have, and cost nearly 1 tenth the price of light rail! We should build BRTs, @@LEADER@@!"
[effect] the government is trying to convince the public that a bus has the same capacity as a train

[option] "Why are we paying for this?" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, your treasurer showing you charts with red lines on them. "If these cities want public transport, they can pay for it themselves!"
[effect] nobody is sure who's responsible for funding intercity transport projects
[new flag] devolution

[Candlewhisper Archive]

[desc] The once great tram networks of @@NAME@@ were torn-out in several cities across @@NAME@@. However, a many cities wish to bring back the mode of transportation in the form of light rail, and are asking for @@CAPITAL@@ to fund the projects.

Give the premise some immediacy. Why is this an issue at this exact moment in time?

[Australian rePublic]

[desc] The once great tram networks of @@NAME@@ were torn-out in several cities across @@NAME@@. However, a many cities wish to bring back the mode of transportation in the form of light rail, and are asking for @@CAPITAL@@ to fund the projects.

Give the premise some immediacy. Why is this an issue at this exact moment in time?

Cheers.

Hmmm...

How about an estimated increase by 150% in urban population in the next 20 years which will lead to worse traffic jams?

[Vdara]

This better be a reference to “A Streetcat Named Bob”.

[Australian rePublic]

This better be a reference to “A Streetcat Named Bob”.

Whatever floats your boat...

[Vdara]

This better be a reference to “A Streetcat Named Bob”.

Whatever floats your boat...

Aw, damn, wrong reference.

Well, time to retire back to what I was doing.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Give the premise some immediacy. Why is this an issue at this exact moment in time?

Cheers.

Hmmm...

How about an estimated increase by 150% in urban population in the next 20 years which will lead to worse traffic jams?

Sure, though as I said, give it immediacy. Maybe a study has just been released, or something.

Having said that, it also needs a premise that makes it specifically about why trams are sought, not just public transport in general. Pretty much any mass transit system is going to serve a growing population.

Right now, we've got no narrative framework for the proposition to bring trams back.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'd note that one issue that does this in a fairly clever way is #714 Milky Ways, where a netflix series triggers a wave of nostalgia. That's a nice bit of narrative framing that helps us ask the question "what happened to milk floats, eh?"

Basically you're looking at a similar sort of issue here ("what happened to trams, eh?") but you haven't got the nice bit of framing.

You can't just reuse #714's framing, of course. You need to create a new angle into this.

[Australian rePublic]

I'd note that one issue that does this in a fairly clever way is #714 Milky Ways, where a netflix series triggers a wave of nostalgia. That's a nice bit of narrative framing that helps us ask the question "what happened to milk floats, eh?"

Basically you're looking at a similar sort of issue here ("what happened to trams, eh?") but you haven't got the nice bit of framing.

You can't just reuse #714's framing, of course. You need to create a new angle into this.

Many cities which closed their tram networks paved over the tracks. How about a significant chunk of track unearthed during road works?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

There's also the inherent assumption that trams are a thing of the past.

While that's more or less true in most UK and Australian cities, I'd note that Melbourne has an extensive tram service, and many nations use them much more widely.

[Australian rePublic]

There's also the inherent assumption that trams are a thing of the past.

While that's more or less true in most UK and Australian cities, I'd note that Melbourne has an extensive tram service, and many nations use them much more widely.

I'm well aware of that. Many European cities kept their tram networks, but not all of them. Many North American cities removed their tram networks, but not all of them. And of those who kept their trams, many stripped back their extensive networks, maintaining only one or two lines (Adelaide, Athens, etc.).

In fact, Sydney would have kept her tram network had the Liberals won the state election, but we'd have no Opera House.

Overall, I think it's pretty safe to assume that some cities kept their trams, and some tore them out. I'll need to make that clearer in the description though. What do you think?

[Australian rePublic]

Second draft is up. I changed the description a little bit. Thanks for your imput, CWA!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

[desc] Whilst some cities across @@NAME@@ retaining their 19th Century tram networks, other cities removed their systems midway through the 20th Century. With @@ANIMAL@@ City celebrating a major milestone anniversary of their tram network, nostalgic mayors across @@NAME@@ are asking you to fund light rail projects so that their cities can get their trams back.

Good. It's narratively sounder, but I think you need more story to give the issue immediacy.

Also, as I said, there ought to be a different reason than nostalgia, as we've already walked that path on Milky Ways.

[Australian rePublic]

[desc] Whilst some cities across @@NAME@@ retaining their 19th Century tram networks, other cities removed their systems midway through the 20th Century. With @@ANIMAL@@ City celebrating a major milestone anniversary of their tram network, nostalgic mayors across @@NAME@@ are asking you to fund light rail projects so that their cities can get their trams back.

Good. It's narratively sounder, but I think you need more story to give the issue immediacy.

Also, as I said, there ought to be a different reason than nostalgia, as we've already walked that path on Milky Ways.

Okay, thanks

[Australian rePublic]

[desc] Whilst some cities across @@NAME@@ retaining their 19th Century tram networks, other cities removed their systems midway through the 20th Century. With @@ANIMAL@@ City celebrating a major milestone anniversary of their tram network, nostalgic mayors across @@NAME@@ are asking you to fund light rail projects so that their cities can get their trams back.

Good. It's narratively sounder, but I think you need more story to give the issue immediacy.

Also, as I said, there ought to be a different reason than nostalgia, as we've already walked that path on Milky Ways.

Okay, I'm only gonna change the description. Would this work?


Whilst some cities across @@NAME@@ retained their 19th Century tram networks, other cities removed their systems midway through the 20th Century. Last week, @@ANIMAL@@ City celebrated a major milestone anniversary of their tram network. This, combined with the fact that @@NAME@@’s urban population is expected to reach 150% in the next decade, has prompted mayors across nation, desperate for improvements to their public transport systems, to request that @@CAPITAL@@ to fund light rail projects, so that their cities can get their trams back.


Thanks for your feedback

[Newmanistan]

t
[desc] Whilst some cities across @@NAME@@ retaining their 19th Century tram networks, other cities removed their systems midway through the 20th Century. With @@ANIMAL@@ City celebrating a major milestone anniversary of their tram network, nostalgic mayors across @@NAME@@ are asking you to fund light rail projects so that their cities can get their trams back.

Forces a timeline on a nation that a 19th Century and a 20th Century have occurred, and are relatively "current" as past centuries, meaning the current century would be the 21st, or similar.

Not all nations match up RL like this.

References to "1800's" also force a timeline.

[Australian rePublic]

t
[desc] Whilst some cities across @@NAME@@ retaining their 19th Century tram networks, other cities removed their systems midway through the 20th Century. With @@ANIMAL@@ City celebrating a major milestone anniversary of their tram network, nostalgic mayors across @@NAME@@ are asking you to fund light rail projects so that their cities can get their trams back.

Forces a timeline on a nation that a 19th Century and a 20th Century have occurred, and are relatively "current" as past centuries, meaning the current century would be the 21st, or similar.

Not all nations match up RL like this.

References to "1800's" also force a timeline.

Yep. NS issues assume Modern Technology

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Maybe an environmental angle with less specifics? Something like "with growing city populations leading to an increased demand for public transport, some have proposed that installing more trams may represent an ecofriendly solution."

[Australian rePublic]

Maybe an environmental angle with less specifics? Something like "with growing city populations leading to an increased demand for public transport, some have proposed that installing more trams may represent an ecofriendly solution."

The problem eith the environmental angle is that it assumes that @@NAME@@'s electricity isn't generated by coal

[Radical Islamic Buddhism]

Yay you got me to research light rail systems vs buses and made me learn something.

[title] A Streetcar Named Light Rail

[desc] Many cities across @@NAME@@ have let their light rail vehicle (LRV) networks fall into disrepair, and some cities have even demolished theirs. Political thinkers from all over @@NAME@@ have gathered with you for a meeting on public transit.

[validity] must allow cars, must allow trains (Idk if there are issues that ban them), must have public transit

[option] "Ding ding!" enthusiastically sings @@RANDOMNAME@@, a mayor of a city which once had a large tram network. "Last week, when I traveled to @@ANIMAL@@ City, I rode in one of their trams and it was awesome! The trams were long - much longer than any of the buses, and the single segment trams were coupled together. And @@ANIMAL@@ City has an 1800s system. With modern light rail, all LRVs will either be in separate road lanes or operate off-road, and all LRVs will be multiple-segments long. Light rail is the way of the future!"
[effect] the government thinks that the best way to prevent traffic jams is to stop in the middle of the road

[option] "Trams suck!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a prominent opposition leader in the same city. "Trams are slow, block hog the outside lane and, because they stop in the middle of the road, they require all traffic to stop. What we need is Bus Rapid Transit. A bus system is a good way of moving lots of people quickly and are much less inconvenient then those stupid LRVs! We should just use buses for transport."
[effect] the government is trying to convince the public that a bus has the same capacity as a train

[option] "Let's all calm down, folks," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, the Minister of Moderation, who happens to be from the same city, in a soothing voice. "LRVs and buses both have pros and cons. Buses are cheaper and more convenient in less crowded neighborhoods while LRVs are cheaper in crowded neighborhoods because they transport lots of people very efficiently and have lower maintenance costs than buses. Also, LRVs run cleanly in crowded cities, minimizing pollution, and buses have more flexible routes, which are useful in rural and suburban areas. We should invest in both buses and LRVs and use each where it's optimal. It'll cost a bit more money, but the economic and environmental gains will revitalize our cities!"
[effect] travelers have to transfer from the tram to the bus when going from the city into the suburbs

[option] "Why are we paying for this?" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Treasurer, showing you charts with red lines on them. "If these cities want public transport, they can pay for it themselves!"
[effect] nobody is sure who's responsible for funding intercity transport projects
[new flag] devolution

[option] Maybe add one about banning cars...

[Australian rePublic]

Thanks, I like having you as a co-author

Yay you got me to research light rail systems vs buses and made me learn something.

[title] A Streetcar Named Light Rail

[desc] Many cities across @@NAME@@ have let their light rail vehicle (LRV) networks fall into disrepair, and some cities have even demolished theirs. Political thinkers from all over @@NAME@@ have gathered with you for a meeting on public transit.

Firstly, cities don't let public transport fall into despair. They either shut it down, or maintain it. Okay, they may not maintain it, but that's a different issue. As trams take up space on the road, if they shut down a tram network, they tend to either tear it up or pave over it (or in the case of my home city, Sydney, set the tram on fire). Then you have other cases where cities have retained one or two single tram lines when they had extensive networks in the past

Secondly, TRAMS. Trams, NOT light rail.

Oh oh, you summoned one of my lectures.

Sorry, I'm a train-buff and have to get this right in one of my issues

**Shuts all doors and seals all exists**

Trams and light rail are not the same thing. Trams (or street cars, as they're called in North America) are old cities dating back to the 1800s/early 1900s, whilst light rails were constructed in recent decades, and many are still under construction. Most Light rail systems were recently constructed, and, as such, would not be torn out. So what's the difference?

A tram (or streetcar, as it's called in North America) is a vehicle which is either one segment or multiple segments long. Trams (or streetcars, as their known in North America) can either run independently or run coupled together with two or more coupled sets. Trams (or streetcars, as their known in North America) can either run on the road sharing their lanes with other vehicles, run on the road in separate lanes or off-road.

Light rail vehicles are multiple segments long and can either run independently or coupled together with no more than 2 vehicles. They either run on road in separate road lanes or off-road

So light rail is a type of tram? Well sort of. Trams have shorter lines with closer stops, whilst light rail runs for a longer distance with stops further apart.

[validity] must allow cars, must allow trains (Idk if there are issues that ban them),

A tram is NOT a train.

must have public transit

I'm pretty sure that every notable city in the world has some form of public transport, and that includes Pyongyang

[option] "Ding ding!" enthusiastically sings @@RANDOMNAME@@, a mayor of a city which once had a large tram network. "Last week, when I traveled to @@ANIMAL@@ City, I rode in one of their trams and it was awesome! The trams were long - much longer than any of the buses, and the single segment trams were coupled together. And @@ANIMAL@@ City has an 1800s system. With modern light rail, all LRVs will either be in separate road lanes or operate off-road, and all LRVs will be multiple-segments long. Light rail is the way of the future!"
[effect] the government thinks that the best way to prevent traffic jams is to stop in the middle of the road
[/quote]
Some tram lines are off road, and some trams are in separate lanes. And some trams are multiple-segments long. That's the nature of trams. The difference is that whilst these characteristics apply to SOME trams, they apply to ALL light rail vehicles

[option] "Trams suck!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a prominent opposition leader in the same city. "Trams are slow, block hog the outside lane and, because they stop in the middle of the road, they require all traffic to stop. What we need is Bus Rapid Transit. A bus system is a good way of moving lots of people quickly and are much less inconvenient then those stupid LRVs! We should just use buses for transport."
[effect] the government is trying to convince the public that a bus has the same capacity as a train

Some BRTs are also in the middle of the road too. The difference is signalling and actual bus stops. Melbourne has the world's largest tram network (retained from the 1800s) and, because trams travel on the right side of the road (Australia drives on the left), trams stop in the middle of the road, requiring all other vehicles to stop so that passengers can walk to from the tram stop safely, where as bus stops are on the left, buses pull over on the left, and therefore don't effect cars. Also, whilst trams are in the middle of the road in Melbourne, there aren't any physical tram stop structures. But rather, passengers have to run to the middle of the road to board their trams. In countries which drive on the left, the trams will be in the right lane, and the doors will open on the left.

Modern Light rail systems don't have this problem, even though they're also in the middle of the road, because of traffic lights and because of actual light rail stops. However, I left that in for the sake of exaggeration. BRTs SOMETIMES run in the middle of the road, but once again, don't have that problem, because of traffic lights.

[option] "Let's all calm down, folks," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, the Minister of Moderation, who happens to be from the same city, in a soothing voice. "LRVs and buses both have pros and cons. Buses are cheaper and more convenient in less crowded neighborhoods while LRVs are cheaper in crowded neighborhoods because they transport lots of people very efficiently and have lower maintenance costs than buses. Also, LRVs run cleanly in crowded cities, minimizing pollution, and buses have more flexible routes, which are useful in rural and suburban areas. We should invest in both buses and LRVs and use each where it's optimal. It'll cost a bit more money, but the economic and environmental gains will revitalize our cities!"
[effect] travelers have to transfer from the tram to the bus when going from the city into the suburbs

I'm so sorry about this, but there's a few problems here:
Firstly, trams/light rail are an EXCLUSIVELY urban transport system, with the exception of tram-trains, which are a different kettle of fish all together. Trams do not exist outside of urban areas (with the exeption of tram-trains, which are completely different)
Secondly, "Suburbs" is a bit problematic. There are two types of suburbs. The first type of suburb is what you find in North America, where by cities and suburbs are different entities, cities are (mostly) consistent of the downtown areas and a few surrounds, whereby the second type of suburbs is what you get in Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Europe where by cities are consistent of most (but not all) of the metropolitan area, whereby suburbs are fully integrated parts of the city, equally as part of a city as the downtown area is. In Australia, trams (which have shorter lines than light rail) usually run into the suburbs because suburbs are integrated as part of the city in the way that downtown is, and therefore light rail (which has longer lines) almost always run into the suburbs. Our tram systems are the same, it's the definition of suburbs which is different
Third, none of this matters anyway, because issue 895 already addresses rail links in rural areas

[option] "Why are we paying for this?" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Treasurer, showing you charts with red lines on them. "If these cities want public transport, they can pay for it themselves!"
[effect] nobody is sure who's responsible for funding intercity transport projects
[new flag] devolution

Oh, I like this one, thanks!

[option] Maybe add one about banning cars...

I was considering that, but I figured that we already have enough options in this issue, and, independently, to that, we already have enough issues which ban cars

[Radical Islamic Buddhism]

I'm pretty sure that every notable city in the world has some form of public transport, and that includes Pyongyang

There might be some issues that ban it?

Basically, I'll let you fill in the option details as you know more about trams than I do! However, let's just get the options straight first, I'll let you write the text and then I'll simply edit/proofread/whatever without changing the content unless the content is flawed. Because my edited version kept the options mostly the same, I think we just need to rework those.

What I'm getting is that the cities HAD trams and WILL build LRVs. Tell me if I'm wrong and it shouldn't be too much work to change that.

[desc] Many cities across @@NAME@@ have failed to properly maintain their tram networks over the last few decades, and some cities have even demolished parts or all of theirs. Political thinkers and tram specialists from all over @@NAME@@ have gathered with you for a meeting on public transit.

ALSO you could change this to the environmental one suggested by Candlewhisperer Archive - even if @@NAME@@ uses coal, mass transport is still cleaner than individual transport. However, this would require more work to change the options, so I would recommend the story we're currently with.

Option 1 - mayor of city that once had a large tram network describes benefits of LRVs and says the government should invest in them.

Option 2 - opposition person of the same city describes disadvantages of LRVs using just short of strong language and says that the government should invest in BRTs instead.

Option 3 - Minister of Moderation who is from the same city decides that since both LRVs and BRTs have benefits in different places, with BRTs in less dense neighborhoods and LRVs in more dense neighborhoods. Change the effect to exclude the issue of suburbs.

Option 4 - The original option, which I just edited for grammar.

[Australian rePublic]

Next draft is up

I'm pretty sure that every notable city in the world has some form of public transport, and that includes Pyongyang

There might be some issues that ban it?

Basically, I'll let you fill in the option details as you know more about trams than I do! However, let's just get the options straight first, I'll let you write the text and then I'll simply edit/proofread/whatever without changing the content unless the content is flawed. Because my edited version kept the options mostly the same, I think we just need to rework those.

What I'm getting is that the cities HAD trams and WILL build LRVs. Tell me if I'm wrong and it shouldn't be too much work to change that.

[desc] Many cities across @@NAME@@ have failed to properly maintain their tram networks over the last few decades, and some cities have even demolished parts or all of theirs. Political thinkers and tram specialists from all over @@NAME@@ have gathered with you for a meeting on public transit.

ALSO you could change this to the environmental one suggested by Candlewhisperer Archive - even if @@NAME@@ uses coal, mass transport is still cleaner than individual transport. However, this would require more work to change the options, so I would recommend the story we're currently with.

Option 1 - mayor of city that once had a large tram network describes benefits of LRVs and says the government should invest in them.

Option 2 - opposition person of the same city describes disadvantages of LRVs using just short of strong language and says that the government should invest in BRTs instead.

Option 3 - Minister of Moderation who is from the same city decides that since both LRVs and BRTs have benefits in different places, with BRTs in less dense neighborhoods and LRVs in more dense neighborhoods. Change the effect to exclude the issue of suburbs.

Option 4 - The original option, which I just edited for grammar.

Thanks. However, most cities, even those which retained most of their networks, removed atleast 1 tram like, or scaled it back a little bit. Also, trams were replaced by buses, not cars. The issue is whether trams should replace the buses which replaced the trams. I'll fix the draft whenever I can think of how to improve it. Also, option 3-Light rail systems for more densly populated areas and buses for less populated are a given

[Australian rePublic]

Bump

[Caracasus]

I would consider reframing this in some ways Aussie. I'm reminded here of the United States - which had a burgeoning tram transport links in many cities until successful lobbying from the auto industry drove them out. Might be worth doing some digging and see what you could use from that?