6 ms·

I don't really get why trams are better than buses. Do they really carry a ton more people than buses? Why are people more likely to ride them? Buses come in s

I don't really get why trams are better than buses. Do they really carry a ton more people than buses? Why are people more likely to ride them? Buses come in short/long/articulated/double-decker sizes and don't need to be on rails or require overhead electrical lines. The only argument I can think of is that you get a smoother ride and no need to burn fuel with a tram. (I've only ridden the trams in one city, and they were pretty much slower buses on rails that happened to make a lot of dinging noises. Worked fine in the central district, I guess.)

oh_sigh 10y ago
One benefit is trams aren't subject to traffic, but theoretically you could have a dedicated bus lane to achieve that same result.
zik 10y ago
Here's an example of a good tram system: http://dyob.com.au/sites/default/files/u9/96%20North%20Carlton.JPG http://dyob.com.au/sites/default/files/u9/96%20North%20Carlt... It's separated from the traffic so it's fast, doesn't have associated tyre and asphalt maintenance costs, and each tram carries over 200 people maximum. The service is frequent - about every five to seven minutes - and much smoother and more comfortable than a bus.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  It's the 96 in Melbourne. That particular tram was made entirely in Victoria too. :)
- mantas 10y ago
  My city don't have trams but there was a political push to build them. However, bus routes were upgraded instead. Result is better than trams IMO. Some key points we do: - Popular buses run ever 5-ish minutes during peak times - Some buses have extension and cary a crapload of people. - Problematic spots have bus-only lanes. What is better than tram: - Buses that share only a bit of the route can use those lanes too - Taxis can use bus lanes - Some of the lanes allow cars with 4+ people to promote carpooling - If there's an accident or emergency, cars can use the bus lane - Bus lanes are frequently reused as designated right turn lanes - Overall maintenance is cheaper when using a single mode of transport. Same backup vehicles can serve all routes - no need for separate backup trams and buses. Same for technicians, spare parts etc. - No big upfront construction costs. Some bus lanes were snatched from regular traffic, some were built later on. Mostly by making other lanes narrower and widening the road just a little bit. Trams would require much more space and wouldn't even fit in some spaces without banning cars altogether. The'd still have to pave these bits to let emergency services use them. - In tight spots, buses can easily merge with general traffic. Buses have defacto priority, so no delays during merge. In my city, introducing trams would have been at least few years of city-wide construction works, lots of possibilities for wasting public money and/or corruption. Bus lanes were super cheap and are added incrementally wherever costs in that specific section can be justified by savings. They can be removed easily if they cause too much trouble or don't speed up buses much. Rails would be there forever. Comfortwise, good tram and good bus ride equally well. Unmaintained, both trams and buses suck. TL;DR Buses are much cheaper and more agile stepping stone into good public transit. Trams themselves ain't magic cure. Buses can be
  - flukus 10y ago
    Do you have to sit down on them like normal buses? One of the benefits of trams is the standing part so you can fit more people in. Last time I tried this on a bus the results weren't as good.
    - mantas 10y ago
      Well, I consider it a happy ride if I have a chance to sit down... Yes, the buses have handles and everything for standing passengers. Wider aisles and stand-only areas instead of more seats too. The inside of the bus look like a tram/metro rather than long distance bus/train. Yes, emergency stops are not comfortable. Some old lady falls and breaks her hand every few years. But trams have traffic lights and may have to do emergency stop too. Trams probably have less emergency stops per km travelled. But I never considered this a huge issue. AFAIK, bus service regularly train drivers to drive "nice-to-passengers". Park close to curb, avoid emergency stops, start smoothly etc. I guess there's a risk for this problem, but it seems to be manageable. Timetable rules may be a big factor too. I heard more bus drivers loose bonuses for driving faster than schedule than for being (unreasonably) late..
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      The interior of a bus doesn't need to be any different than the interior of a tram. Unless your city is repurposing coaches for public transport, the interiors of buses should have ample standing space.
      - nannal 10y ago
        In my experience trams trend to be wider than buses by a noticeable margin.
        zimpenfish 10y ago
        Here in the UK, trams (at least for Croydon[1][2], Metrolink[3], Newcastle Metro[4]) seem to be standardised at 2650mm width whilst the New Routemaster[5] is 2520mm wide. Probably not a noticeable margin (130/2650 =~ 5%). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CR4000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CR4000 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variobahn#Variobahn_trams_for_Croydon_Tramlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variobahn#Variobahn_trams_for_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M5000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M5000 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear_Metro_rolling_stock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear_Metro_rolling_st... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Routemaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Routemaster
- an_account 10y ago
  Los Angeles had dedicated bus lanes seperate from traffic (orange line) which is almost as good as rail for a fraction of the cost of laying track.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    > as good as rail for a fraction of the cost of laying track It's really not. Even long/double decker buses carry a fraction of the people a streetcar can. Streetcars are still faster given other things being equal (dedicated lanes). The maintenance of streetcars is much better. You have no tyers, fully electric engines, high torque and lower energy consumption. Buses are good for short term routes, but long term a rail network will always win out in capacity and energy efficiency.
    - mahyarm 10y ago
      Don't you get most of that with electric busses then? I can see the argument although for automation and how you can multicar trams with one driver.
      - wcummings 10y ago
        >Don't you get most of that with electric busses then? If you're going to put up catenary wires why not just make it a tram?
        mahyarm 10y ago
        Because then you also have to lay track.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
paganel 10y ago
Trams definitely carry more people than buses, even articulated ones. On top of that they produce no local pollution, as they run on power that is not produced locally (and which might actually come from clean sources of energy). As per for the "trams are slow" argument that doesn't really count. Most of the time cars are riding bumper to bumper during rush hour, while a tram has its own dedicated line which makes it get ahead of cars almost all the time. Source: me, who's riding the tram to work and back most of the times.
seszett 10y ago
I would add that an advantage of tram is that they actually stop at each stop, so you can take an unfamiliar line without fear of getting lost after missing your stop. They also usually run much more frequently than buses, and don't suffer from delays due to traffic or traffic lights (or not as much).
MarchHare 10y ago
One factor nobody has mentioned yet, social stigma. Busses in the US are often associated with poor people who can't afford a car or have lost their licenses. Trams do not have the same stigma.
- 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
  > Busses in the US are often associated with poor people who can't afford a car Also, to be blunt, black people. I live in a pretty white area. If I didn't ride the bus, I could probably not see a single black person for a week or two at a time. Riding the bus, it's every day. And I'm quite sure a lot more people prefer the former scenario than will admit it (not that they necessarily have any particular animosity, but a lot of people are "just not comfortable" inhabiting the same space as black people).
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    In part because the races are taught different norms about appropriate behavior in public. The black people sitting quietly aren't the ones everyone else is hesitant to be near.
- VLM 10y ago
  "Trams do not have the same stigma." Solely because they're new. If they're heated or air conditioned they'll fill with smelly homeless just like a bus, unless they're more expensive.
VLM 10y ago
The primary way they're actually being rolled out in the USA is conspicuous consumption. Yes a bus would do the job for a tenth the price, or a taxi for half the price, just like a $250/month apartment in the highest crime part of the inner city technically does the same job as this new $5000/month apartment on the tram line. The point of stainless steel appliance kitchens for people who can't cook is it prevents people who can't afford stainless steel kitchens from living there, like poor people, minorities and such. Likewise the rails are convenient enough because most social media holiness spiral destinations are permanent. So you can brag about how you're going to the progressive art museum, or a book signing at the library, or the performing arts center, or the hyper trendy college hipster bars (although the tram service stops at sundown to avoid actual drunks), but you can't use the tram to do prole stuff like go to work or school or the food store or doctors office because there's no tracks there, proles go away keep out. Trams are only for special rich people doing special rich people things, the kind that pat themselves on their backs for their egalitarianism on a regular basis, if you have to ask you don't belong there on the tram. Ideally there would be no icky poor people anywhere along the tram rails, nothing but rich white faces as far as the eye can see. Maybe they could build a fence around the whole neighborhood, or just have the police keep the riff raff out of our special area for special people.

oh_sigh 10y ago

One benefit is trams aren't subject to traffic, but theoretically you could have a dedicated bus lane to achieve that same result.

zik 10y ago

Here's an example of a good tram system: http://dyob.com.au/sites/default/files/u9/96%20North%20Carlton.JPG http://dyob.com.au/sites/default/files/u9/96%20North%20Carlt... It's separated from the traffic so it's fast, doesn't have associated tyre and asphalt maintenance costs, and each tram carries over 200 people maximum. The service is frequent - about every five to seven minutes - and much smoother and more comfortable than a bus.

djsumdog 10y ago
It's the 96 in Melbourne. That particular tram was made entirely in Victoria too. :)
mantas 10y ago
My city don't have trams but there was a political push to build them. However, bus routes were upgraded instead. Result is better than trams IMO. Some key points we do: - Popular buses run ever 5-ish minutes during peak times - Some buses have extension and cary a crapload of people. - Problematic spots have bus-only lanes. What is better than tram: - Buses that share only a bit of the route can use those lanes too - Taxis can use bus lanes - Some of the lanes allow cars with 4+ people to promote carpooling - If there's an accident or emergency, cars can use the bus lane - Bus lanes are frequently reused as designated right turn lanes - Overall maintenance is cheaper when using a single mode of transport. Same backup vehicles can serve all routes - no need for separate backup trams and buses. Same for technicians, spare parts etc. - No big upfront construction costs. Some bus lanes were snatched from regular traffic, some were built later on. Mostly by making other lanes narrower and widening the road just a little bit. Trams would require much more space and wouldn't even fit in some spaces without banning cars altogether. The'd still have to pave these bits to let emergency services use them. - In tight spots, buses can easily merge with general traffic. Buses have defacto priority, so no delays during merge. In my city, introducing trams would have been at least few years of city-wide construction works, lots of possibilities for wasting public money and/or corruption. Bus lanes were super cheap and are added incrementally wherever costs in that specific section can be justified by savings. They can be removed easily if they cause too much trouble or don't speed up buses much. Rails would be there forever. Comfortwise, good tram and good bus ride equally well. Unmaintained, both trams and buses suck. TL;DR Buses are much cheaper and more agile stepping stone into good public transit. Trams themselves ain't magic cure. Buses can be
- flukus 10y ago
  Do you have to sit down on them like normal buses? One of the benefits of trams is the standing part so you can fit more people in. Last time I tried this on a bus the results weren't as good.
  - mantas 10y ago
    Well, I consider it a happy ride if I have a chance to sit down... Yes, the buses have handles and everything for standing passengers. Wider aisles and stand-only areas instead of more seats too. The inside of the bus look like a tram/metro rather than long distance bus/train. Yes, emergency stops are not comfortable. Some old lady falls and breaks her hand every few years. But trams have traffic lights and may have to do emergency stop too. Trams probably have less emergency stops per km travelled. But I never considered this a huge issue. AFAIK, bus service regularly train drivers to drive "nice-to-passengers". Park close to curb, avoid emergency stops, start smoothly etc. I guess there's a risk for this problem, but it seems to be manageable. Timetable rules may be a big factor too. I heard more bus drivers loose bonuses for driving faster than schedule than for being (unreasonably) late..
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    The interior of a bus doesn't need to be any different than the interior of a tram. Unless your city is repurposing coaches for public transport, the interiors of buses should have ample standing space.
    - nannal 10y ago
      In my experience trams trend to be wider than buses by a noticeable margin.
      - zimpenfish 10y ago
        Here in the UK, trams (at least for Croydon[1][2], Metrolink[3], Newcastle Metro[4]) seem to be standardised at 2650mm width whilst the New Routemaster[5] is 2520mm wide. Probably not a noticeable margin (130/2650 =~ 5%). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CR4000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CR4000 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variobahn#Variobahn_trams_for_Croydon_Tramlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variobahn#Variobahn_trams_for_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M5000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M5000 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear_Metro_rolling_stock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear_Metro_rolling_st... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Routemaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Routemaster
an_account 10y ago
Los Angeles had dedicated bus lanes seperate from traffic (orange line) which is almost as good as rail for a fraction of the cost of laying track.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  > as good as rail for a fraction of the cost of laying track It's really not. Even long/double decker buses carry a fraction of the people a streetcar can. Streetcars are still faster given other things being equal (dedicated lanes). The maintenance of streetcars is much better. You have no tyers, fully electric engines, high torque and lower energy consumption. Buses are good for short term routes, but long term a rail network will always win out in capacity and energy efficiency.
  - mahyarm 10y ago
    Don't you get most of that with electric busses then? I can see the argument although for automation and how you can multicar trams with one driver.
    - wcummings 10y ago
      >Don't you get most of that with electric busses then? If you're going to put up catenary wires why not just make it a tram?
      - mahyarm 10y ago
        Because then you also have to lay track.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

paganel 10y ago

Trams definitely carry more people than buses, even articulated ones. On top of that they produce no local pollution, as they run on power that is not produced locally (and which might actually come from clean sources of energy). As per for the "trams are slow" argument that doesn't really count. Most of the time cars are riding bumper to bumper during rush hour, while a tram has its own dedicated line which makes it get ahead of cars almost all the time. Source: me, who's riding the tram to work and back most of the times.

seszett 10y ago

I would add that an advantage of tram is that they actually stop at each stop, so you can take an unfamiliar line without fear of getting lost after missing your stop. They also usually run much more frequently than buses, and don't suffer from delays due to traffic or traffic lights (or not as much).

MarchHare 10y ago

One factor nobody has mentioned yet, social stigma. Busses in the US are often associated with poor people who can't afford a car or have lost their licenses. Trams do not have the same stigma.

0xcde4c3db 10y ago
> Busses in the US are often associated with poor people who can't afford a car Also, to be blunt, black people. I live in a pretty white area. If I didn't ride the bus, I could probably not see a single black person for a week or two at a time. Riding the bus, it's every day. And I'm quite sure a lot more people prefer the former scenario than will admit it (not that they necessarily have any particular animosity, but a lot of people are "just not comfortable" inhabiting the same space as black people).
- prodigal_erik 10y ago
  In part because the races are taught different norms about appropriate behavior in public. The black people sitting quietly aren't the ones everyone else is hesitant to be near.
VLM 10y ago
"Trams do not have the same stigma." Solely because they're new. If they're heated or air conditioned they'll fill with smelly homeless just like a bus, unless they're more expensive.

VLM 10y ago

The primary way they're actually being rolled out in the USA is conspicuous consumption. Yes a bus would do the job for a tenth the price, or a taxi for half the price, just like a $250/month apartment in the highest crime part of the inner city technically does the same job as this new $5000/month apartment on the tram line. The point of stainless steel appliance kitchens for people who can't cook is it prevents people who can't afford stainless steel kitchens from living there, like poor people, minorities and such. Likewise the rails are convenient enough because most social media holiness spiral destinations are permanent. So you can brag about how you're going to the progressive art museum, or a book signing at the library, or the performing arts center, or the hyper trendy college hipster bars (although the tram service stops at sundown to avoid actual drunks), but you can't use the tram to do prole stuff like go to work or school or the food store or doctors office because there's no tracks there, proles go away keep out. Trams are only for special rich people doing special rich people things, the kind that pat themselves on their backs for their egalitarianism on a regular basis, if you have to ask you don't belong there on the tram. Ideally there would be no icky poor people anywhere along the tram rails, nothing but rich white faces as far as the eye can see. Maybe they could build a fence around the whole neighborhood, or just have the police keep the riff raff out of our special area for special people.