/n/ — What are the advantages of these things as opposed to, idk,

>>2057440 (OP)
Great photo op for local leaders and politicians
You can brag about it on social media (although you seldom if ever use it)

>>2057440 (OP)
It's on rails which I assume aren't shared with vehicles, and doesn't need a battery charge.

>>2057440 (OP)
It doesn't get stuck in traffic and most very rarely stops at red lights. Trains are the future.

>>2057440 (OP)
Less pollution, quieter, smoother ride, more passengers, disabled people friendly, faster than bus, cheaper than metro.

>>2057449
why are you here? it takes you 4 hours to get to anywhere that an airplane will land deliberately, you're scared of the coast so no boats obviously, bicycles are for homos, trains are for commies, so... you're here because /o/ is too fast and no one pays attention when you act out like a special needs child?

>>2057456
lots of spite and projection going on in this post

>>2057457
to my shock, I see that you couldn't even come up with an /n/ related reply

>>2057460
why would there be an /n/ related reply to an /n/-unrealted seethe?

>>2057440 (OP)
Simple: HIGHER CAPACITY.

Higher capacity per vehicle and consequently per corridor or per occupied area. Also cheaper in proportion to the capacity offered than the same capacity with buses.

Modern trams of largest size can carry over 400 pax, biarticulated buses only get to 180. And those are very cumbersome.
Not everywhere will use such large trams, but usually in all scenarios trams will be larger than the largest buses you can realistically use. A tight european downtown with 1st gen tram will have smaller trams, but still smaller buses. In practice, trams have *at least* 2:1 capacity advantage over buses, usually more.

Means: You run a tram every 5 minutes gets you same capacity as 2 or 3 buses every 5 minutes. If you run 2 or 3 buses every 5 minutes you can't give them good signal priority (because it wouldn't give enough time to other traffic signal phases, for dumb people: the crossing street doesn't get enough green light). Also difficult to have a bus arrive every 1-2 minutes at the stop, because it may take up to a minute for boarding. Buses won't be perfectly spaced so they bunch up which means they lose time. Plus you have more vehicles, more drivers, etc.

Getting similar capacity on one corridor with buses as with a tram is very impractical. You get slower and less regular service, probably double stops (where two buses stop at the same time and people have to run to their bus).

On a secondary level trams tend to be more comfortable and attractive for people, they generally are always built with private ROW or other priority (bus could have that but often doesn't because due to low capacity it's not seen as economical), and they give an impression of commitment to higher quality service which attracts riders.

>tl;dr tram gets higher capacity on any single corridor than bus line(s) ever could.

>>2057444
>>2057445
Retards who don't get it, a bus can do all of that too.

>>2057462
>a bus can do all of that too.

Only if you have a dedicated lane for them. Yes in theory a bus with a dedicated lane that gets in no traffic and doesn't stop in traffic lights would be the same. Wait, I found a difference: the train is like 6 buses combined and it only needs a driver so less costs for the city.

>>2057440 (OP)
Less noise.
>inb4 electric bus

>>2057468
>Wait, I found a difference: the train is like 6 buses combined
Yes but that wasn't mentioned in the quoted posts.

>>2057470
Wrong, electric buses, trolley or battery, are noticeably quieter than trams.

>Yes but that wasn't mentioned in the quoted posts.

I don't care about that but if you think about it, it's more costly having 12 buses with 12 drivers than having 2 trains with 6 train cars each one and only 2 drivers.

>>2057491
Only if you only consider paying the driver for "costs". It's expensive to rip up a road and put in a rail for a trolley, as opposed to *maybe* slapping down a coat of paint on the preexisting road.

>>2057512
>>2057491
Even in the long run trams are usually more expensive per passenger transported than buses. Probably depends on many factors like economy of scale (a large tram network has better economy of scale than a small one) and regional variations of cost. The discussion is therefore pointless.

However, the capacity factor remains and is *the* essential justification for trams over buses.
After all, a subway is also way more expensive per passenger than buses or trams, even in the long run. It also has the main advantage of having higher capacity.

>>2057444
Pros:
-Higher capacity
-Grade seperation for non street-running trams means bypassing traffic.
-On a vehicle per vehicle basis trams tend to be faster and enjoy quicker acceleration than busses
-Can run off overhead wires (less smog and noise from diesels, and batteries are a meme)
-Permanent transit corridor is a good shot in the arm for local businesses and property values
Cons:
-More expensive than a bus even on a rider-per-mile basis (though mileage may vary; this is based on my own amatuer inquiries into this)
-Not nearly as flexible as a bus: outside of being stuck on a fixed line, trams cannot overtake other trams, cannot be dispatched as easily to account for unforseen surges or drops in ridership, etc.
-Street running trams get caught in the same traffic as everyone else.
-Higher capacity is not as important as frequency with respect to making transit an attractive alternative to driving, or to put it another way: having a tram with 3x the capacity of a bus is a net detractor if it passes a third as often-

>>2057560
>Pros:
>-Higher capacity
>-Grade seperation for non street-running trams means bypassing traffic.
>-On a vehicle per vehicle basis trams tend to be faster and enjoy quicker acceleration than busses
>-Can run off overhead wires (less smog and noise from diesels, and batteries are a meme)
>-Permanent transit corridor is a good shot in the arm for local businesses and property values
Of all these only the first one is exclusive to trams, also buses accelerate faster. Why are people on this board so dumb they can't understand that it's not an argument for trams if you can do the same with a bus?

>-Higher capacity is not as important as frequency with respect to making transit an attractive alternative to driving, or to put it another way: having a tram with 3x the capacity of a bus is a net detractor if it passes a third as often-
This is a dumb point, if a tram is built it's usually because demand is so high that raising bus frequency is impractical, see >>2057462
This con would only apply to a poorly planned tram. Why would you name
>if you do it wrong it works badly
as a con for anything? It's like saying
>con of a toaster is that if you stick your dick in it your dick gets burned


This thread is extremely low quality except for my replies.

>>2057462
>Buses won't be perfectly spaced so they bunch up which means they lose time.
Bunching up buses is actually great for commercial speed as that'll lead them to stop less often. When the following bus approaches a stop the leading bus is already stopped at and assuming no one requested the following bus to stop to alight, said following bus can just fly by the stop, overtake the other bus and become the leading bus, to similarly be overtaken by the other bus the next time he has to stops and the other doesn't
>t. Bus line I use the most got converted to articulated few years ago to replace a lovely standard length bus spam (could go as low as bus every minutes scheduled, eventually leading to 3-5 bus chains by the middle of the line). It's so fucking slow now.

File: 1344670512330.jpg (27 KB, 465x313)

>>2057440 (OP)
The rail factor, it actually attracts automobile drivers. Shops, businesses and housing rise in value in proximity of it.
Then there's legal quirks. Collide with a bus and it's just a big car. Collide with a tram and it's automatically your fault.

>>2057598
what an incredibly dumb take. What you describe may happen in a very specific situation of buses from exactly the same line bunching up, and then having a passing lane with no traffic to overtake the other bus, of course only so long as no-one wants off. This is completely unrealistic to extrapolate, it's just an anecdotal situation.

Apart from that the whole suggestion assumes that the bus doesn't even have a proper schedule or just ignores it so it goes as fast as possible in a completely anarchic operation. I guess that may be a thing in shitholes but not in civilized cities.

>>2057440 (OP)
tires bad https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/where-rubber-meets-road-epa-researchers-study-environmental-and-health-impacts-tires

>>2057525
>It also has the main advantage of having higher capacity.
Other advantages are high median speed (highest of all urban public transit, IIRC), because no traffic/stoplights, direct connections to places which would require a circuitous route on the surface, and lower infrastructure impact (no power line spiderweb and associated poles). Plus building ancillary rail infrastructure (ex. shunting loops) is easier, because dirt is free real estate (once you've started digging), whereas surface space is limited.
Technically, you could have reasonably high speeds with trams as well, if you fully segregate the rail, but the issues of stoplights and having to build along existing thoroughfares still remain.

>>2057440 (OP)
Buses are really rough and go through long circuitous roots. It can take 30 minutes to go 5km as the crow flies. Trams are gentle and go straight. They're much better for getting between suburbs.

One oft-overlooked advantage is durability. It's not uncommon to see 50 year old trams running regular (i.e. not tourist) lines in many cities.
Buses end up beat to shit after about 20 years.

>>2057637
>and lower infrastructure impact (no power line spiderweb and associated poles)
Nta but I don't know about that, they're very serious infrastructure projects both to build and maintain/operate.

>Plus building ancillary rail infrastructure (ex. shunting loops) is easier, because dirt is free real estate (once you've started digging), whereas surface space is limited.
That's offset by the cost of tunneling, which isn't linear and increases exponentially as the width of the tunnel increases. That's why once you're out of the urban core a lot of rail moves up to the surface or is put on a viaduct.

>>2057639
Yeah, but longevity can work against a transit agency too. Sooner or later sourcing parts becomes a problem if the manufacturer (or subcontractor) stops supporting it or goes out of business altogether. In Boston, the MBTA is paying a lot of money to keep its ~50 year old trains in service since they're making some replacement parts in-house. Because of their shorter lifespan, bus fleets get replenished more frequently (and are cheaper to buy outright) so those problems are minimized in comparison.

>>2057638
Most trams I'm aware of run as street cars, so they're stuck in the same routes as a bus. Are you talking about a subway? I'm not even sure what kind of situation you can cut a straight rail path from point A to point B where you couldn't just pave a road for significantly cheaper.

It's not really an argument either way, but I hate the le flexibility meme about buses, referring to the route. It's often presented as an advantage that you can change lines around with relative ease, and of course if you really need to change a line routing then ofc the bus will be easier to do. But more often than not it's actually better that a line *can't* be moved around. What often happens is that bus lines are changed to accommodate car traffic routings, and the bus line will get a worse route so that car traffic can be more easily managed (eg. One-way streets). If you have a tram this can't be so easily done and keeping the tram line where it is will weigh more than the necessity of re-ordering car traffic.

So in a way, the fixed and inflexible infrastructure can actually be an advantage over more flexibility.

>>2057440 (OP)
can carry massive capacity
easy to electrify without having to deal with batteries
looks eco
reasonably economical if used intensively
may be capable of using abandoned actual train-lines outside the city (cheaper than a real train and with direct connection into the city center)

>>2057645
>they're very serious infrastructure projects both to build and maintain/operate
not him but I guess that was not what that meant. Rather, the lower impact refers to a subway not messing with other (transport) infrastructure as much as a tram and thus allows you ad a huge capacity without crippling the existing capacity.
As in, if you install a street-running tram it'll be too slow to help much, if you give it a dedicated ROW that space will have to come from somewere, and chances are neither pedestrians, cyclists nor cars, buses and trucks have a lane or two to spare. So your extra capacity in the tram will come at a high price for the other modes of transport or may be outright unachievable where there is no room left to take. The subway is expensive to build and has to mind cables and pipes but it doesn't hinder traffic above it.

>>2057462
>but usually in all scenarios trams will be larger than the largest buses you can realistically use.

???
How does this make any sense at all
The only physical difference is rubber wheels vs steel wheels
Both can be whatever arbitrary size you want

>>2057715
The main difference is that the train runs on tracks. That really helps with directional stability and keeps the thing on track (*badumtss*) in turns.
Articulated buses work well with one articulation if you keep speeds low. They tend to be tricky at high speeds already. Double articulation has been done but has been deemed problematic every time it was used. More difficult to drive, got to have the engine somewhere upfront (where it's in the way), not very precise in turns. Of course you could make a road-train but maneuvering that in a crowded city would be a recipe for desaster. Meanwhile a tram will go around that turn on its track just the same no matter how long.

Aditionally, it's easier to distribute multiple engines all over the tram than on the bus.

>>2057715
>Both can be whatever arbitrary size you want
Good luck with your 400 foot long bus anon.

>>2057715
based retard

>>2057440 (OP)
I feel more confident that I'm getting on the correct vehicle when I see it has to follow rails

>>2057719
>>2057720
?
computerized steering axles that let the rubber wheel bus automatically follow in its own tracks, just like rails do but on the road
Just think about things a little bit

>>2057716
Yes multiple length articulating buses need some work sure, but this is 2025 not 1960's, its a trivial engineering issue to tackle to have independent computerized steering on each section, or a diesel electric power train with engines + brakes in each section

Other options: Double decker buses with both bottom and top doors. Computer gets it within 3-6 inches each time, mind the gap. Each transit station will have stairs to get up/down.

>>2057742
Think about how much traffic would be tied up while a 400 foot long bus makes a stop. It could be blocking one or more intersections while stopped for traffic lights. There would have to be turnstiles or a human at the entrances and exits to prevent fare evaders. It's likely it couldn't fit in any existing maintenance facilities. And if you're considering building a bus that's hundreds of feet long, ridership would be high enough to just use a train.

Just think about things a little bit

>>2057743
Blocking intersections is a "not my problem" situation
Obviously infrastructure would need adjustment to match whatever vehicle is picked, but thats the same for building a light rail network where there is only roads

>>2057744
Sorry dude, you can't make buses much longer than they are now. That's how it goes

File: IMG_3397.jpg (168 KB, 960x720)

>>2057685
>le flexibility meme about buses
The last Brooklyn trolleys ran in 1956 but almost every current bus line has the same route and number as the old trolley lines. Buses have their place and advantages but route changes aren’t that common. Even with major road repairs they can do temporary track or substitute a bus. Pic shows temporary track over Manhattan subway construction.

>>2057759
That was over a century ago when material and particularly labor costs were small compared to today. Has there been any instance of temporary track being laid for trams to get around construction?

File: a-temporary-tram-cross-over-v0-c5iveoi6vr2a1.jpg (309 KB, 1080x1350)

>>2057767
I won't pretend it's too common and it's mostly just a temporary switch but it's not completely unheard of. You don't have much open-cut subway construction nowadays either.
Usually however it's just easier to either re-route the tram for a time or run replacement busses. Extensive tram systems will often have service tracks so that trams can be diverted around construction work while still serving most of their route

>>2057599
>Collide with a tram and it's automatically your fault
Surely not always.
Example: Turning left across a roadway which includes a tram following the opposite direction of travel. If the tram is boarding before the intersection and runs into you (because you had to block the box to finish your turn) it can't be your fault, the tram didn't have a clear path to proceed.

>>2057440 (OP)
More room, less shaking and more on time.

>>2057512
>>2057525
It's often enough just not to get rid of existing networks. But with a bigger network they get more flexible though.

>>2057440 (OP)
Efficiency, size, reliability, running costs, much easier to automate, and, by default, separate tracks it doesn't have to share with cars.

>>2057785
No, it is your fault always, you should never be in the way of any rail transport. Even if your local laws don't give it legal power, 30 tons of steel should give it real power to scare you into submission.

Auckland New Zealand here.
Well in Auckland we have busses, many are driven by 3rd world immigrants that seem to think they're a battering ram. I hear of cars getting fucked up by these busses weekly.
They also break down constantly.
A tram or small commuter train has alot of benefits especially 1 being the driver can't play demolition Darby with the vehicle easily.
You can also just have a Train service rather than say "AT" that sprung up around our bus system to be arguably one of the most dysfunctional services in the world. It's so bad its a likely contributing factor that will put the National Government out of office next election.

>>2057440 (OP)
More space and easier access when transporting bigger stuff.

>>2057440 (OP)
Stability. Bus drivers are retards who can't drive to save their lives, it's perfect if you want to get sick

You will never be a real train

>>2057571
>buses can accelerate faster
straight into the car in front of them
>if you do it wrong it works badly
population flow in a city isn't stagnant so having an inflexible transportation system is vulnerable to becoming redundant

>This thread is extremely low quality
what can I say, we work hard but you work harder.

>>2058912
>population flow in a city isn't stagnant so having an inflexible transportation system is vulnerable to becoming redundant
I agree in principle but the permanence of a rail line can lead to long-term growth around it. Takes a decade or more to see results though and if you make a trolley to nowhere like a number of cities it may not ever happen without more public intervention. Big gamble because moronic politicians ultimately have the final say over where it will be built.

>>2058912
>population flow in a city isn't stagnant
lol
lmao even
Show me one (1) first gen tram system that ever ran into this problem in any significant way. Hell in countless cities without trams the bus network still mirrors the old tram networks. Population flows are extremely stable and usually only change with significant growth, and such growth would make additional transit lines necessary anyway.

>>2057462
Higher capacity is only a benefit if buses reach near the same capacity, otherwise it's actually more of a waste of time and money.

Trains are nicer and more attractive than buses, which is true, and also why people get larger cars that they don't actually need.

>>2057767
I still see temporary ("shoofly") railroad tracks for major road construction (underpasses, etc.)

>>2057738
That's only useful when it's simple like "get on the green line, it's the one that goes to the university" and less simple when the subway is a spider-web of different lines and sublines and more of the "use the H5 line, but don't use H5 Express because it will skip over your stop" variety. Think the New York system.

>>2058885
Silly anon, the roller coaster feeling in the last row is a feature not a bug.

>>2057599
>Shops, businesses and housing rise in value in proximity of it
I doubt it. I mean, yes, they do rise in value, but so does everything else.

>>2058965
>Higher capacity is only a benefit if buses reach near the same capacity, otherwise it's actually more of a waste of time and money.
no shit sherlock

>>2059057
Youd think itd be obvious but tram advocates (tramvocates?) tout the higher capacity of trams as superior because "for any x number of buses you can use x/3 number of trams which means paying x/3 number of drivers" ignoring that nobody's going to wait an hour for a tram over a bus that runs every 20 minutes