"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
What's the point of trams?

[snip]

Yes, the tram can carry twice as many
people, but the cost, once you factor in the infrastructure, has got to be
more than twice as much,

[snip]

And don't give me that off-street running rubbish - you can
build dedicated busways and get just the same benefits for buses.

There seems to be a certain logical error here. In order to provide a
higher quality of service than a regular bus on a regular road, you can
provide a tram on its own right of way or a bus on its own right of way. In
both cases, the cost of the system must factor in both (which is not
generally the case, for example the cost of maintaining bus lanes is not
charged to bus operators). If you do that, you will find, for certain
routes, trams are the cheapest option.

I would also refute your claim that, "other passenger-experience factors are
much the same." My experience of Croydon's trams and the London Bendy
Buses would suggest that the trams are significantly more pleasant to ride
than the buses.

Robin

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 18:49:10 +0100, Robin Payne wrote:

I would also refute your claim that, "other passenger-experience factors are
much the same." My experience of Croydon's trams and the London Bendy
Buses would suggest that the trams are significantly more pleasant to ride
than the buses.

My experience of Manchester Metrolink and the London (or indeed
Manchester) bendy buses (when not on fire) is the opposite.

It depends equally much on the quality of the tram, bus and the
infrastructure on both sides. Metrolink is cheap[1] and nasty; Tramlink
doesn't give the same impression at all.

[1] For the PTE, as it requires no operational subsidy. The passenger
fares are actually rather high.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
Mail me on neil at the above domain; mail to the above address is NOT read