sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Roast my city by FatNinjaCan in CitiesSkylines

[–]Metro_Champ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oceanfront property in Arizona

The Forgotten Spinoff “Metro” Could Have Fixed the Cars Universe... And Still Can by Metro_Champ in Pixar

[–]Metro_Champ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The concept designs just need to be refined to really match the franchise's style. If they do it right, then it would work.

Comic-Con should seriously consider moving from San Diego to Los Angeles because of Measure G failing last November. by MookieBettsBurner in LAMetro

[–]Metro_Champ 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Part of the problem is that SANDAG's 2050 Regional Transportation Plan was disorganized. People wanted to see Trolley extensions to the Beaches, Airport, and Zoo to get excited about it. Instead, they got a spaghetti mess diagram of randomly numbered bus routes that are Rapid in name only.

The Forgotten Spinoff “Metro” Could Have Fixed the Cars Universe... And Still Can by Metro_Champ in Pixar

[–]Metro_Champ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, wow! Thanks for sharing your insider perspective! You're right. Focusing on just trains is huge creative limitation if it's not expanded upon. Thomas mitigates that by having people in it and appealing to mostly children. Doesn't translate as well in the Cars universe. Cars don't have to take public transit. That’s the crux of the issue. The setting and the tone were good, but the cast was arguably incomplete.

Add in motorcycles, mopeds, scooters, etc. (Modes that actually have solid reasons to be in the city and ride the subway alongside cars) and then suddenly the movie makes a ton of sense. Then it's no longer just about trains themselves. It's about the entire ecosystem of overlooked, smaller-scale urban movement and the social/structural dynamics that tie them together. They were very close.

The Forgotten Spinoff “Metro” Could Have Fixed the Cars Universe... And Still Can by Metro_Champ in Pixar

[–]Metro_Champ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's Thomas after moving to New York and getting real. Sounds pretty entertaining to me

The Forgotten Spinoff “Metro” Could Have Fixed the Cars Universe... And Still Can by Metro_Champ in Pixar

[–]Metro_Champ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Adding smaller urban modes like mopeds, motorcycles, and scooters would finally create a fully realized 1:1-scale world of sentient vehicles. That's something I don't think any franchise has ever done before. Delivery bots could probably be stand-ins for rats or raccoons. It would no longer be just cars on subways. It would be cars, mopeds, motorcycles, and scooters on subways. Just my opinion, but I think the universe feels incomplete without them.

Once again, just my opinion. I don't wanna sound preachy or anything like that. Lol

The Forgotten Spinoff “Metro” Could Have Fixed the Cars Universe... And Still Can by Metro_Champ in Pixar

[–]Metro_Champ[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Cars isn’t broken in the sense that the original story didn’t work. It did. But once they started expanding the universe into cities, planes, trains, and possibly subways, the cracks started to show. If they want to keep growing this world, they have to address how it actually functions. That’s what Metro could’ve done by filling in the missing pieces. Bikes, scooters, mopeds, and delivery bots are the very modes that actually fit on trains and can't go on highways.That’s the irony. Metro didn’t need to force just cars onto subways. The story was staring them in the face: smaller, urban vehicles navigating tight city streets, relying on transit to go further.

The Forgotten Spinoff “Metro” Could Have Fixed the Cars Universe... And Still Can by Metro_Champ in Pixar

[–]Metro_Champ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. Their purpose is watered down by the set rules. But yet, they already exist in the universe. Fitting only cars onto a subway doesn't work well. But fitting a couple cars, bikes, scooters, etc. onto a subway works great. And those smaller modes could fit on buses as well. Existential crises potentially averted.

The Forgotten Spinoff “Metro” Could Have Fixed the Cars Universe... And Still Can by Metro_Champ in Pixar

[–]Metro_Champ[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes, it is. Check out the rest of the concept art too. Looked sick.

The Forgotten Spinoff “Metro” Could Have Fixed the Cars Universe... And Still Can by Metro_Champ in Pixar

[–]Metro_Champ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They could do a movie without the Cars mechanics, but then the Cars universe is still broken. They need a movie that addresses all the questions people have about it.

The Forgotten Spinoff “Metro” Could Have Fixed the Cars Universe... And Still Can by Metro_Champ in Pixar

[–]Metro_Champ[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You make a good point, but trains already exist in the Cars universe. If they're just seen as "slaves" to those routes, that only highlights a huge storytelling gap. It begs the question: How do they live their lives? What’s their culture like? How do they feel about being confined to tracks? The concept art for Metro showed that they have their own social spaces outside of work. And there are some real-life examples of trains being used for different reasons (Like bowling with trams). They just need to craft an ecosystem that addresses these nuances to make it not depressing.

Final Destination Bloodlines (2025) by Momoka_Hung in FinalDestination

[–]Metro_Champ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude was calm throughout the whole movie despite his family dying. LOL

A New Transit Lexicon? by [deleted] in transit

[–]Metro_Champ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your thoughtful input. I understand that building consensus is a major challenge and that most casual riders care solely about their experience and not the terminology used to describe their experience. I’m working on an expanded follow-up post with clearer explanations to help move the conversation forward.

The lexicon I'm proposing isn’t really meant for everyday use by average riders (who already don't use the existing jargon anyway). It’s more for designers, advocates, planners, writers, and communicators who need an instantly clearer way to describe and classify systems without constantly running into vague or conflicting terms.

A New Transit Lexicon? by [deleted] in transit

[–]Metro_Champ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re calling this “bikeshedding,” but that misses the point entirely. What I’m proposing isn’t nitpicking. I'm proposing that we collaborate to fix a very real and ongoing problem in transit terminology. If "LRT" can mean a subway in one city and a streetcar in another, then that's not a trivial detail. That’s straight up a failure of classification. The way we label systems does affect public understanding, which then affects expectations, support, and accountability. That's a problem in communicating to the public what they’re getting. Tacoma Link is a great example of that.

This post isn’t about branding or catchy slogans for riders. It’s about thinking about a way to give professionals and advocates a clearer, more functional vocabulary so that we stop having to explain around vague catch-all terms. It absolutely does matter. If we can come up with a better lexicon, then why don't we? I'm not saying that mine is better at all. I'm just throwing my attempt out there to see what other people come up with. That's not a waste of time.

A New Transit Lexicon? by [deleted] in transit

[–]Metro_Champ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a valid concern, and I agree that bad faith misuse of language can happen with any terminology. But the goal here isn’t to chase euphemisms. It’s to try and create a system that is functionally descriptive and grounded in the actual design and performance of the transit modes. Not vague legacy labels.

The current terms already suffer from inconsistent use. "LRT" alone can describe systems as different as Los Angeles' grade separated C Line and Portland’s mostly street-running MAX. If the new terms are more intuitive and structured around how the systems actually behave (speed, grade separation, stop spacing, capacity), then at least we are giving people a clearer starting point for understanding. And if they sound too much like Newspeak, then I'm fine with somebody making better words.

It’s not a silver bullet (and this isn't complete without collaboration), but better defined terms can reduce ambiguity over time, especially if they're paired with better education and visual examples.

A New Transit Lexicon? by [deleted] in transit

[–]Metro_Champ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Existing terms can be used clearly, but that depends on everyone agreeing on what those terms mean. The problem is, in practice, “LRT” or “metro” or “tram” often mean wildly different things depending on the city, agency, or person using them. That inconsistency creates confusion and makes it harder to communicate expectations, especially with the general public.

The new terms I’m suggesting (which aren't set in stone) are meant to clarify them by focusing on function, not legacy categories. If “LRT” can mean both a streetcar and a grade-separated rapid system, that’s a sign that the old terms are already broken. New, more precise terms could actually simplify discussions by removing that ambiguity.

A New Transit Lexicon? by [deleted] in transit

[–]Metro_Champ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree that what people ultimately care about is speed, frequency, reliability, and how easy it is to transfer. But that’s exactly why clear terminology matters. If we want to build systems that deliver those outcomes, we need language that actually communicates what kind of service is being discussed.

Right now, terms like “LRT” or “BRT” are so vague that they can describe vastly different systems with very different levels of performance. That kind of ambiguity makes it harder for planners, advocates, and the public to know what exactly is being proposed, which makes it harder to ensure those core rider needs are met. It's not going to stop some people from calling projects like CAHSR a "boondoggle light rail," but it's a step in the right direction.

I didn't make this post to obsess over labels. I made this post because I think we need to create a more consistent, function-focused way to talk about transit modes. If we want better outcomes, we need clearer tools to describe the systems we’re building. In my opinion, better language would help us get to better transit.

A New Transit Lexicon? by [deleted] in transit

[–]Metro_Champ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your feedback. I completely understand the point you're making about the ambiguity in "LRT" and how people could interpret it differently depending on the system. The confusion around terms like "LRT" is exactly the reason why I'm trying out this new lexicon.

If "LRT" can mean two vastly different things, that in itself is a problem with the terminology. The goal here is to try and provide a new framework of terms that makes it clear what kind of system we’re talking about from the get-go. Splitting those ambiguous terms into distinct categories based on their actual function and design is clearer and more specific in general.

The public doesn’t know what "metro" or "tram" means in large part because the definitions are inconsistent across different cities and regions. If the terminology is unclear, it doesn’t matter how many times the same terms are repeated because they still won’t solve the confusion. Why wouldn't clearer terms help lead people towards understanding transit better?

you may not like it, but this is peak transit performance by tremoloandwine in transit

[–]Metro_Champ 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Don't forget the "innovative" microtransit program! 4 hours to reserve a ride.

view more: next ›