4 ms·

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%20Nort

by 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]

by zik 10y ago

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]