Shouldn't we be switching buses with light railway?
Shouldn't we be switching buses with light railway?
Even if you think what you would say is obvious, please add. This is genuinely something I think makes sense regarding local bus routes given the longevity of light rail and how infrequently routes change, but I also suffer from confirmation bias, so I'm hoping for reasons this would be a terrible idea but obviously would prefer reasons it would be an even more amazing idea than I thought.
You're viewing a single thread.
There's pros and cons of buses vs trams.
The pros that I'd slate for trams do include a better ride, more throughput (carries more people), wholly electric, are more durable than busses, and very quiet in general. People in this thread have noted most of these already, but the one that I feel is very overlooked is that they're a commitment by the city along their routes. Many people will note that busses have advantages because their routes are easier to change. While true, I feel it's actually worth considering that this is also a negative from the perspective of anyone who wants to invest in property that relies upon the bus route. If you can't trust that the city won't just up and move the bus stop away from your shop or apartment complex, you'll be more reluctant to invest in the location. Trams are indeed much harder to change, but that's actually a good thing from the perspective of investors. If I'm going to invest millions of dollars in an apartment complex, would I rather do it next to a bus stop that might not be there next year, or a tram stop that's really hard to move away?
Another advantage is how well the tram integrates with pedestrians. Busses are only as accurate as the driver. As a pedestrian, I have to pay attention to every bus just as I would cars on the road. They're dangerous to be around. Trams are much more predictable (see: rails) so they can be used in/around public squares, markets, and along walkways with more safety for the people walking nearby. The rails themselves also show you where the transit is. Bus routes are invisible except for the stops and when you see the busses go by. When I'm walking in a city that has railed transit, I love seeing the rails because I know that I likely follow them to the next stop, and that by stops there will be shops, stores, and interesting places. They're a guide to the best places in the city even if I can't see the tram at that exact moment.
Trams are also usually larger inside. There's more room for wheelchairs, bicycles, and other mobility aids. They're a better conveyance for people who need the room. Those same people also need to pick where they live carefully so that their transit won't up and change on them. Having the bus stop move a block away could be a huge hurdle for their daily mobility needs.
Railed transit provides a permanency and a more equitable transit solution for a city. It's not the right solution in every instance, but as a city grows it needs to start investing in railed transit. Those rails provide the bones of where growth will centralize around giving the city focus and then identity as neighborhoods grow around tram/light rail stops. There's a power to railed transit that busses just don't provide in their stability, visibility, and statement of commitment to the longevity that a city should be investing in.
Also, look up grassy tram lines. That's peak urbanism!
I'd never heard of grassy tramlines, I love them! I've never seen any anywhere, and I've been all over Europe, they are either quite rare, or I haven't been paying attention.
We have some small sections of grassy tram lines in Melbourne (Australia) but I wish we had more.
One problem with grassy lines is that when you need to temporarily use replacement buses (like in cases of issues with the electricity or maintenance, etc.) they can't drive on the lines and have to take the regular roads with the cars.
At the moment one tram line in my city has been interrupted for a few weeks and that's how I noticed that the grassy line was making things more complicated for the buses that are used instead.
I think that's one reason why most cities only put a few sections with grass.
We've even got them in Finland and we only have two cities with a tram network. Otherwise I've seen them a lot in Germany and newer systems tend to have them more often than older ones.
I'd seen quite a few pictures and video of them, but the first ones I actually got to walk around and ride on were in Heidelberg in Germany. The north lines (5, 21, 24, 26) have grassy tram sections.
I mostly agree with you that trams are generally better, but we need to point out that bus stations are not placed randomly on the map. If an appartment complex gets build somewhere, a bus station will also appear next to it, probably faster than rail transport (assuming whichever organism in charge is competent, and that there is discussion between them and the users). Busses are better suited places with less trafic and fast to put in place. Trams are good long term and better for pedestrians. (and a lot cooler and more comforable)
in kansas city they funded light rail with property taxes and the increase in property value offset the tax and then some
You make some excellent points. I hope you'll understand a little nuanced disagreement.
In new cities (towns, suburbs, what-have-you) it is a great advantage to put in any kind of rail because of just the investment security you suggest. Stations here in Japan offer little predictable bubbles of goods and services. I know I'll find a convenience store and a restaurant or two. The lines create corridors for residential living with little need for cars.
My neighborhood was designed around passenger rail services rather than light rail. But knowing where the stations would be allowed the planners to put in many, many kilometers of paths for walking, bicycles, strollers, and the like that connect the stations with schools, apartments, clinics, supermarkets, parks, and most other stuff you're looking for in a place to live and raise a family.
In older cities, however, I think it best to hang on to bus lines. Cities evolve over time and it is very useful to have buses that can link areas that have been repurposed or rezoned due to unforeseen trends. For example, a warehouse district may become defunct as the city grows and shipping needs change. That warehouse was set up for trucks and/or ships but never had train service. As the warehouses are turned into lofts and galleries and what-not, it is probably better to quickly set up a bus line and allow people and businesses to move in right away without needing to rely on cars. It may seem impossible, impractical, or just too expensive to ever put in light rail, but a successful bus line might (just might) convince folks to make the transition.
TLDR: Rail is great for new towns. Buses are better for rezoned parts of older cities.
It's also beneficial for users of the systems, most of which are non-investors, that the lines do not change ever so often and the stops don't vanish or move several hundred meters.