What would it take to build a tram network the size of Melbourne’s?

[lrt's friend]

As far as moving passengers per square foot of road space, double decker buses will be the most efficient. Yes, you can move more passengers with fewer vehicles with LRVs but they still occupy the same amount of road space as buses do.

The stigma of buses is mostly an American thing with racial overtones. Whether it is LRVs or buses, it is the quality of service that is most important. If I had a choice between LRVs every 20 minutes or buses every 10 minutes, I would choose the buses. Service frequency is important especially because trains inevitably mean more transfers.

We also have to understand that light rail cannot run to every part of the city especially to lower density areas and buses will remain the workhorses of most cities

I don't see surface LRT being the big saviour of most cities. This will require a lot of planning (allowing for right of ways) that has not been occurring or a willingness to give up traffic lanes. I have not seen any significant move in the latter direction.

[M II A II R II K]

There's a noticeable difference between the old and the new:

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

There's a noticeable difference between the old and the new:

Yes, and you do know what this means? Service frequency can be reduced significantly.

I don't see the move towards larger transit vehicles as necessarily a good thing. I have seen it repeatedly in this city that the end result is significantly poorer service. In the long-term, this drives ridership away when wait times get significantly longer.

[Innsertnamehere]

service frequencies are going to reduce slightly, but the frequency drop is usually from something like every 2 minutes and 15 seconds to 2 minutes and 45 seconds, barely noticeable. Frequency when you are running that often doesn't matter a whole lot.

What is key is that the new fleet will increase network capacity by roughly 30%, which is badly needed when they are running supplementary buses to provide extra capacity on streetcar lines as they don't have enough streetcars.

The TTC also wants to buy some more streetcars on top of the current order, which would mean frequencies would drop again to deal with ridership growth. The current fleet is 248, the order to replace those is 204 streetcars, and they want to buy an additional 60 which means it will jump back up to 264 streetcars.

[ssiguy]

The new Toronto streetcars will also move significantly faster even on the same routes because they have level boarding which the old ones didn't and will also use POP. This means loading/unloading will be much faster.

As far as what it would take for a city to get Melbourne's tram network size.........a lot of money and even more stupidity.

Most new tram networks especially in the US don't get near enough ridership to compensate for their relatively low ridership. Most seem to be built for no other reason than "everyone else has one". Lousy urban planning but the politicians love the ribbon cutting ceremonies.

Building systems from scratch is an obscene waste of money and usually advocated by politicians and policy wonks who will never ride the thing once it's open. BRT can work just as well at a far lower price if done properly as proven by Cleveland's Healthline which saw ridership soar by 80% within 3 years despite going down what was already the busiest bus in the system. It has created billions of dollars in development along the route which is amazing considering Cleveland's huge number of empty houses.

The primary goal of transit is to move people in the most efficient, safe, and timely manner possible and NOT to create urban renewal. If that is a consequence of the new route then that icing on the cake but should never be the priority.

The amount spent on these new streetcar/tram systems would be far better spent on increasing the bus frequency and enlarging/renovating the bus fleet. By doing this they serve hundreds of more locations and hundreds of thousands more people.

new streetcar systems especially in the US also have a habit of robbing the operational costs of the current system. Politicians are so concerned about the route itself that they are willing to bankrupt the rest of the system to prove to the taxpayers that it was a good investment. It may save their political skin and help them qualify for more ribbon cutting money but can actually harm the current system to say nothing of the people who actually rely on public transit to get around.

[Mr Downtown]

^The biggest scam is when places like Salt Lake City put in a LRT line and cut the former express buses back so they're mere feeders to the LRT line. Bingo, opening of the light rail line means that boardings (unlinked trips) double in that corridor—because the same few commuters now have to board two vehicles to get to work. Because the LRT line makes a bunch of intermediate stops, it also takes them longer.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^The biggest scam is when places like Salt Lake City put in a LRT line and cut the former express buses back so they're mere feeders to the LRT line. Bingo, opening of the light rail line means that boardings (unlinked trips) double in that corridor—because the same few commuters now have to board two vehicles to get to work. Because the LRT line makes a bunch of intermediate stops, it also takes them longer.

Bingo! The upside of LRT is predictability. The downside is also predictability. LRT has to stop at every station. Express buses don't. For those making a longer trip, the trip will be longer.

I have also heard the yarn that you won't have to wait long for a train. That only applies inbound. On outbound trips, you still have to wait for that bus, which almost always runs less frequently than the train. The difference being that a suburban station likely has few amenities making the wait more unpleasant.

[Mister F]

I know this thread hasn't been active in a month but I felt that a few things should be responded to....

Originally Posted by FREKI

When even the newest trams has a top speed of 70km/h I find that a strange claim..

Modern LRVs can go well over 100 km/h. Of course, that's much faster than an urban, on-street streetcar (or bus) ever needs to go. Different streetcar models have different top speeds depending on the service type.

Originally Posted by FREKI

What buses are you comparing rail based trams to?

All of them. I've never seen a bus that's quieter than a streetcar, especially newer ones. Apparently people in Prague are complaining that their new streetcars are too quiet.

Originally Posted by FREKI

There are more cities using double decker buses than trams..
Sure, why most buses are not double decker but instead the normal kind that still offers on par or better seat per meter ratio with significantly betters seats

Better seats? Buses and streetcars generally have the same seats, at least the ones I've ridden. Why would rail based vehicles have inherently worse seats than buses?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As far as moving passengers per square foot of road space, double decker buses will be the most efficient.

Somebody needs to remind you guys that double decker streetcars are a thing...


http://travelnotes.co/?p=54