4 ms·

Personally, I prefer trams. You can see the buildings and the stops are typically closer to your destination.

FredFS456 2y ago
IMO you need both. Trams for local transit, metros for faster mid-range transit, and finally urban rail for long(ish) range transit.
- bitmasher9 2y ago
  Subway/Light Rail is fantastic for highly congested areas, even if you only need to move a few miles. There’s nothing like looking out of a light rail window moving peacefully to your destination and seeing stop and go highway traffic.
- epoxia 2y ago
  I disagree about trams for local transit. A metro system is sufficient, the issue is the flat-rate pricing model of most public transit systems in the US. It prevents the casual short hop usage of public transit, needlessly subsidizing longer distance travel. Trams are just unreliable trains, with an inflexible route as compared to a bus. Notably, Tokyo only has 1 operating tram.
  - Gud 2y ago
    Have you been to Zürich? It is by far the best public transport system I’ve ever used, with Stockholm a distant second. It’s trams all the way down 0) trams are hardly unreliable 1) tram lines are routinely changed around 2) in Switzerland, there is no distinction between local and remote public transport. This has the advantage that you can use the regular trains for short hops. Zürich itself has 20+ railway stations. Zürich has really opened my eyes for what a good tram network can do.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Few things beat a dedicated personal tram: https://youtu.be/zWDt_Rmu9MQ?t=89 https://youtu.be/zWDt_Rmu9MQ?t=89
paxys 2y ago
Does a tram offer anything over a regular bus?
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  Trams are much more comfortable than buses. The ride is way smoother.
  - masklinn 2y ago
    Also higher efficiency due to being rail, and some amount of grade separation & dedicated infrastructure which makes them less flexible but more reliable: it takes a high amount of driver incompetence to stick a tram in traffic.
- itronitron 2y ago
  What Diogenes said, but also trams will often have dedicated lanes so are less likely to get stuck in traffic.
  - paxys 2y ago
    That isn't an inherent property of trams. A lot of them share road space with vehicles. A lot of buses meanwhile have dedicated lanes.
    - itronitron 2y ago
      True, I should add as well that dedicated lanes for buses or trams also provide an advantage of being available to emergency vehicles.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  Comfort has already been mentioned. There is an observation that if you replace a bus line with an equivalent tram / light rail line, the rail line will attract more passengers. The reasons are not fully understood. Comfort probably plays a role. Another reason might be that rail lines are easier to understand. Buses are almost universally confusing, while tracks make it obvious where the rail line goes. Trams also have a capacity advantage, because the vehicles can be larger. And operating them is cheaper in the long term, because the vehicles are much more durable.
masklinn 2y ago
They’re not exclusive and a good network will likely have both (and more), at least in a somewhat large city: trams are much slower and compete with others for above-ground space. Their frequency is also limited by the need for other users of the above ground to use the share space. Trams are also not able to deal with high gradients, unless they’re hybrid rack rail, or they’re trolleys rather than trams. Finally, metros commonly have above ground sections or lines (which is why that’s a better name for urban rapid transit in general).
- itronitron 2y ago
  The advantage of trams for cities is that they impede cars on the narrower smaller streets, which helps to enforce speed limits and flow. On the wider streets trams will have dedicated lanes wherein they can just pass the vehicles stuck in traffic.
  - masklinn 2y ago
    > The advantage of trams for cities is that they impede cars on the narrower smaller streets In which case cars also impede trams on the narrower smaller street.
jeffchien 2y ago
You can have surface or elevated heavy rail too. I never understood this fascination with modern light rail.

IMO you need both. Trams for local transit, metros for faster mid-range transit, and finally urban rail for long(ish) range transit.

bitmasher9 2y ago
Subway/Light Rail is fantastic for highly congested areas, even if you only need to move a few miles. There’s nothing like looking out of a light rail window moving peacefully to your destination and seeing stop and go highway traffic.
epoxia 2y ago
I disagree about trams for local transit. A metro system is sufficient, the issue is the flat-rate pricing model of most public transit systems in the US. It prevents the casual short hop usage of public transit, needlessly subsidizing longer distance travel. Trams are just unreliable trains, with an inflexible route as compared to a bus. Notably, Tokyo only has 1 operating tram.
- Gud 2y ago
  Have you been to Zürich? It is by far the best public transport system I’ve ever used, with Stockholm a distant second. It’s trams all the way down 0) trams are hardly unreliable 1) tram lines are routinely changed around 2) in Switzerland, there is no distinction between local and remote public transport. This has the advantage that you can use the regular trains for short hops. Zürich itself has 20+ railway stations. Zürich has really opened my eyes for what a good tram network can do.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Few things beat a dedicated personal tram: https://youtu.be/zWDt_Rmu9MQ?t=89 https://youtu.be/zWDt_Rmu9MQ?t=89

paxys 2y ago

Does a tram offer anything over a regular bus?

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
Trams are much more comfortable than buses. The ride is way smoother.
- masklinn 2y ago
  Also higher efficiency due to being rail, and some amount of grade separation & dedicated infrastructure which makes them less flexible but more reliable: it takes a high amount of driver incompetence to stick a tram in traffic.
itronitron 2y ago
What Diogenes said, but also trams will often have dedicated lanes so are less likely to get stuck in traffic.
- paxys 2y ago
  That isn't an inherent property of trams. A lot of them share road space with vehicles. A lot of buses meanwhile have dedicated lanes.
  - itronitron 2y ago
    True, I should add as well that dedicated lanes for buses or trams also provide an advantage of being available to emergency vehicles.
jltsiren 2y ago
Comfort has already been mentioned. There is an observation that if you replace a bus line with an equivalent tram / light rail line, the rail line will attract more passengers. The reasons are not fully understood. Comfort probably plays a role. Another reason might be that rail lines are easier to understand. Buses are almost universally confusing, while tracks make it obvious where the rail line goes. Trams also have a capacity advantage, because the vehicles can be larger. And operating them is cheaper in the long term, because the vehicles are much more durable.

masklinn 2y ago

They’re not exclusive and a good network will likely have both (and more), at least in a somewhat large city: trams are much slower and compete with others for above-ground space. Their frequency is also limited by the need for other users of the above ground to use the share space. Trams are also not able to deal with high gradients, unless they’re hybrid rack rail, or they’re trolleys rather than trams. Finally, metros commonly have above ground sections or lines (which is why that’s a better name for urban rapid transit in general).

itronitron 2y ago
The advantage of trams for cities is that they impede cars on the narrower smaller streets, which helps to enforce speed limits and flow. On the wider streets trams will have dedicated lanes wherein they can just pass the vehicles stuck in traffic.
- masklinn 2y ago
  > The advantage of trams for cities is that they impede cars on the narrower smaller streets In which case cars also impede trams on the narrower smaller street.

jeffchien 2y ago

You can have surface or elevated heavy rail too. I never understood this fascination with modern light rail.