3 ms·
Running on rails is super efficient once they are in place. Less resistance, less wear and tear. For high-frequency routes, they really are great. But for new r
by mcv 4y ago
Running on rails is super efficient once they are in place. Less resistance, less wear and tear. For high-frequency routes, they really are great. But for new routes, trolley buses are probably a lot cheaper to set up. Maybe use trolley buses first, and only switch to trams once it's clear that this really is a high demand, high frequency route that's not going to go away.
- bigDinosaur 4y agoOne of the major problems with anything that isn't on rails is that it is easy to make go away. Unironically one of the reasons for trams is that it's harder to rip up the tracks and delete the service entirely as opposed to bus routes which can vanish in a single day or be altered in incredibly dumb ways. Of course, if you're sufficiently destructive you can rip up any infrastructure.
- mcv 4y agoSadly this hasn't stopped people from destroying massive amounts of rail infrastructure.
- evandijk70 4y agoThere is indeed about a 30% reduction in power usage when comparing trams to electric buses. https://bathtrams.uk/the-most-energy-efficient-mode-of-public-transport/ https://bathtrams.uk/the-most-energy-efficient-mode-of-publi... Still, I feel that trams will be dying soon. The improved efficiency is simply not enough to justify the extra infrastructure and inflexibility. Modern battery electric buses have a range of 500+km and can thus be used for an entire day, and charged at times when electricity is cheap and green (ie overnight on wind energy).
- mcv 4y agoBattery electric buses require batteries, which may be flexible, but are also expensive. I don't see existing trams and light rail disappearing soon. Not in cities that have well-functioning networks, like Amsterdam. But I can imagine that for new projects, electric buses are preferable.