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.

  • pgetsos@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Light rail/trams are better especially for avenues etc. But busses are more flexible, and you usually need a combination of both for best results

    • h14h
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This.

      I think of buses as the caterpillar to a tram’s butterfly.

      You can start with a comprehensive bus network, and as a particular route stabilizes and the bus starts struggling to meet throughput needs, that is an indicator that a tram may be worthwhile.

      Starting w/ a tram line is a pretty big financial bet that it will be useful/needed, as once you build it, you’re locked-in to that specific route.

    • sabreW4K3@lemmy.tfOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Buses for longer journeys make sense. We have a bunch of buses in London that run from the city centre out towards the green belt. Buses for those especially long journeys makes sense.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why not just build a train for long journies? Cheaper over time, more capacity, and reduces road dependency.

        • sabreW4K3@lemmy.tfOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          We need more tube lines to be fair. But also I want to service as many people as possible.

      • jocanib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Buses are awful for long journeys. Trams for longer journeys make sense. You need the buses to get you to the tram stop.

        • sabreW4K3@lemmy.tfOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Could a tram do Trafalgar Square to Leyton Bakers Arms? I feel like it would leave a lot of people without public transport options.

            • sabreW4K3@lemmy.tfOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              sorry to make you feel targeted, I just felt your comment warranted a response. Didn’t mean to make you like you have a target on your back. But also, London could improve. It doesn’t need as much as the North, but it could do better.

          • paaviloinen@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you would demolish all the other options, then it would de facto do just that. But nobody has even suggested the kind of baffoonery.

              • paaviloinen@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I was referring to the numerous options that exist alongside the said rail option in most real world places. But yes, most of the time the bus is the worse option of them two. Less accessible, economical etc.

        • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pretty much the point of trams are that they’re in populated areas, are in walking distance, and have many stops. They’re local public transport.

          In cities they’re equivalent to buses, and in many countries existing trams where replaced by bus routes starting in the 1960s.

          If you need longer and faster transport, metro and light rail are the modes to bring people to and around town.

          • jocanib@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Our tram is called the Metro, which is light rail. It connects a small city to a bigger city, and loops around the bigger city. The residential zone along it is enormous, well beyond walking distance. Many people need buses to make use of it.

            • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              My mistake, I meant to type suburban rail (S-Bahn) not light rail.

              Anyway, light rail is and extremely loose term and can mean a lot of things, up to a „light metro“, but it’s commonly understood to have exclusive tracks separated from roads. A tram (or streetcar) runs on the street.

                • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There are many different concepts, but generally a tram shares a space with the road traffic, hence streetcar (German: Straßenbahn). There are other terms, e.g. Stadtbahn, that are used when they are separated from other traffic.

                  While there are no hard rules and different approaches, I think it’s not helpful to mix up terms. A tram is not a metro. And it’s not helpful to mix modes on the same tracks, since you will run into trouble with scheduling due to vastly differing occupancy rates.

          • paaviloinen@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Have you actually ever seen the tram network in North Rhine and Westphalia, Germany? Also in many places in the world the replacement of trams by buses has been since seen as a mistake and there are plenty of examples of extensive new trams networks introduced and in planning in cities where they got rid of them in 1960s.

            • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Have you actually ever seen the tram network in North Rhine and Westphalia, Germany?

              Yes, thank you, I was born there. What is it you’re trying to tell me?

              Also in many places in the world the replacement of trams by buses has been since seen as a mistake and there are plenty of examples of extensive new trams networks introduced and in planning in cities where they got rid of them in 1960s.

              Yes, thank you, I live in Berlin, the city where one part decided to trash it’s tram network, replaced it with buses, and is now struggling to get it back.

              Still not sure what you’re trying to tell me, where did I say it was a good idea? I said the two modes are comparable.

              • paaviloinen@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I would argue they’re not equal. Bus makes a bad replacement for a tram and tram can’t really replace the bus if there are no tracks. The reason why I was asking is because Essen and Mühlheim a.d. Ruhr plus some nearby areas have got sections where trams aren’t confined to just the populated areas and do not have many stops and outside the city core they aren’t Stadtbahn, but are that and much more outside the urban areas, act part of the way like the good old Strassenbahn but are marked as Stadtbahn. I guess I don’t really have a point here, just rambling. But really there’s big difference between what you can offer on rails (if you don’t make stupid planning decisions and your system isn’t falling into disrepair) and by buses. Yes, they’re comparable mostly in the way that they’re both moving dozens of people per unit. In everything else, how comparable are they?

                • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well, like I said, I agree buses aren’t a good replacement, but they’re comparable in the way they’re used in cities: as a short to medium ranged local transport. You wouldn’t want to take the bus from one end of Berlin to the other, you would take the S-Bahn, because that’s what it’s for.

                  Compare the bus network with the tram network in East Berlin. The buses (usually) run where the trams don’t, but they have a similar amount of stops. Of course there’s overlap between the modes, but the general idea is: tram/bus for short to medium distance, S-Bahn for medium to long distance, and U-Bahn bridging between them.

                  They’re also comparable in accessibility: with the U- and S-Bahn I have to enter a station. With the tram, I just step out my house, go to the next corner, there it is. Same with buses.

                  • paaviloinen@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Fair point. Also a way of classification that I completely omitted inside my mind during previous days.