The primary thing that strikes me about that photo is how far apart the tram rails are. What's the space between the trams meant to be used for? Not cars, I assume, as that would slow the trams. It also doesn't look like a comfortable place for bikes. In fact, where are bikes even supposed to go on this street?
And if you pay attention to the car in the distance, you see that trams and cars are mixed in that direction; they're only separated in the direction away from the camera. Separating trams and cars completely might do traffic a lot of good here.
So it's not entirely clear to me what this street is supposed to be a good example of. Cars and trams separated in one direction, but not in the other (admittedly much less busy direction, at least at this moment). No space for bikes. It's not as punitive for cars as the article suggests, nor as great for trams as the article suggests. I guess it's okay for pedestrians.
The message of the article is certainly good: when it's crowded you need to invest in more efficient forms of transportation than cars. But that top photo is a poor example of that.
And if you pay attention to the car in the distance, you see that trams and cars are mixed in that direction; they're only separated in the direction away from the camera. Separating trams and cars completely might do traffic a lot of good here.
So it's not entirely clear to me what this street is supposed to be a good example of. Cars and trams separated in one direction, but not in the other (admittedly much less busy direction, at least at this moment). No space for bikes. It's not as punitive for cars as the article suggests, nor as great for trams as the article suggests. I guess it's okay for pedestrians.
The message of the article is certainly good: when it's crowded you need to invest in more efficient forms of transportation than cars. But that top photo is a poor example of that.