Do you like trams as means of transportation

[Pawelk198604]

In Poland, the trams are very popular with most of our major cities have them.

I live in Wroclaw, frequently use public transportation, and not have a car or even a driving license, so I do not have much of a choice :-)

Although your last I had a problem with what I wrote in this topic

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82145-Is-the-contemporary-man-can-do-without-a-computer

It would be nice to be able to ride the subway, but for now only our capital Warsaw has it.

I like rail transport (tram, train, i only don't ride on subway so far )

[Nuke]

i walk everywhere i go. of course there aren't many places to go.

[jfull]

For whatever reason, we Americans just don't seem willing to commit to public transport.

Outside of the biggest cities, everyone is expected to have their own vehicle

[shynung]

I'd ride trams only if they are separated from the main road (i.e. elevated). I live in Jakarta, where traffic jams are a constant problem. Elevated trams would get around the problem nicely.

Though, it'd probably be crowded if one were ever built here.

[Duxwing]

For whatever reason, we Americans just don't seem willing to commit to public transport.

Outside of the biggest cities, everyone is expected to have their own vehicle

Suburban sprawl is a known problem in Real Life v.2.0.14. Bug fix seems unlikely--especially whilst the 'all-natural' fad persists.

-Duxwing

[Starwhip]

Yes, I like trains.

They are faster in general than everyday traffic. Living in Miami, Fl, I use the Metrorail/Metrobus system. It's not fast, but it isn't that bad.

[PakledHostage]

I have three options when commuting to work: public transit (a train and a bus), driving and cycling. Driving takes the same amount of time as public transit by the time I park and walk to my office. Cycling takes about 5-10 minutes longer than the other two options.

When the weather's nice, I ride my bike. It is cheaper, good for me and it doesn't feel like commuting; I am doing something I enjoy. When it rains, I take the train/bus. I don't have to fight traffic and I can entertain myself by reading these forums on my phone...

[kmMango]

Detroit has the People Mover. To get from A to B, you have to ride the one train through C, D, E, F-K, and Q.

[bsalis]

I don't have much experience with trams. I used them when I visited Melbourne. I liked them.

[Seret]

Trams used to be a lot more common in the mid-20th century, but they're making something of a comeback. Modern ones are able to function as light rail too, where they run at good speed between towns (often on elevated tracks) then enter the towns and travel on the streets.

[CaptainKipard]

I visited a city with trams once. They came very often, and the stops were quite close together. It seemed like a very convenient way to get around. I wish more cities had them.

I also travelled in a subway once. It was super depressing.

[Nibb31]

Tram, metro/underground/subway , bus... it really depends on the topology of the city.

My city (Toulouse, France) has been investing in a tram system for the last couple of years. We already have two lines of an automatic metro already. Metros are good for a small radius around the city center but the system is saturated, and each line cost 1 billion euros.

A surface tram costs 20% of the price of the metro per kilometer. It has a lower capacity and is slower but because it's cheaper, it can cover a wider area. To maximise its efficiency, it needs to have its own lanes, otherwise it just gets stuck in the traffic like a bus. The infrastructure costs are still high, with a lot of surface area, rails, crossings, signs, stations, and power lines.

What I hate about tramways is that it is implemented by city councils more as a way of bannishing cars from urban centers than as a genuine public transport solution. The more real estate a tram system uses, the better.

It also has some disadvantages: it's still expensive, the rails are a hazard for cyclists, the power lines are ugly, and it isn't any faster than a bus. Also, if one tram breaks down, or if there are roadworks or an obstacle blocking the line, then the whole line is interrupted. You also need a minimum distance between two trams, which limits the cadence, because of power constraints. They require especially trained drivers and maintenance workers and specialized depot facilities.

I think that new high capacity bus systems are a much better solution. They have the same capacity as a modern tram. They use dedicated lanes, like a tram line but without rails or power lines, which can also be used by emergency vehicles. They can drive around obstacles or take alternate routes. They are also cheaper to maintain because they share most of their parts with the city's standard bus fleet and can use the same depot facilities and tooling.

[DJEN]

I like the metro system more. Trams may look cool, but they are incompatible with sprawls such as Seoul.

[Nibb31]

I like the metro system more. Trams may look cool, but they are incompatible with sprawls such as Seoul.

It really depends on what you want to do. An underground metro line is good if you need to transport 100K to 500K people every day. A tram line is good for 50K to 100K. A bus line is good for 10 to 50K. There are also distance, cost, and real-estate factors to take into account.

Each system is a different tool for a different purpose. You can't compare a hammer with a screwdriver.

[phoenix_ca]

I like trains (too).

Here in Vancouver we have a modest metro system for public transport. The best part about it though is that the whole thing is completely automated; there are no drivers. Delays are caused almost entirely by passengers holding the doors open, and the time-to-arrival is calculated and displayed automatically at all stations ahead of a train. These times are really accurate; like, set-your-watch-by-them accurate. Even in peak times its pretty efficient, and it's also a nice way to do a little sight-seeing depending on which lines you take.

Trams are great for cities that already have the rails down in the first place. Toronto is a fine enough Canadian example of that. They've got them, they might as well use them. Personally though I'm more partial to Vancouver's electric buses/trolleys:

They have the same benefits of a tram like using electricity instead of gas, but they can also disconnect from the lines and run on battery power to get around traffic accidents, construction, road closures, or the like. The only really annoying bit is that those connector thingamajigs do get derailed sometimes. It's infrequent, and the driver can fix it pretty easily, but it happens enough that if you use public transport to get around, you'll likely be on a bus where it happens at least once or twice a year.

Edited June 6, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[lajoswinkler]

Trams are very cool if they're are applicable to the given city. I use them on a regular basis. I walk and I ride the public transportation. There's no need for getting a vehicle when you live in a city which is covered by such network.

I don't understand the need for wanting to have your own car if your mobility is sufficient. It's an extra expense and pollutes the environment.

[Jouni]

It really depends on what you want to do. An underground metro line is good if you need to transport 100K to 500K people every day. A tram line is good for 50K to 100K. A bus line is good for 10 to 50K. There are also distance, cost, and real-estate factors to take into account.

The real numbers are lower, and the ranges also overlap significantly.

Essentially, end-to-end bus lines work for from a couple of hundred to a few thousand passengers per direction during the peak hour. Light rail probably requires at least 1000 passengers during the peak hour, unless it can reuse existing rail infrastructure. Its capacity peaks at around 20000 passengers per direction per hour.

For trunk lines, bus-based systems have reached 40000 passengers per hour, with 20000 passengers being more common upper limit. Metros and other heavy rail systems have roughly double the capacity.

Rail transit is generally quieter and more comfortable for the passengers, has higher capacity, and causes less local pollution. Bus transit is more flexible and requires less infrastructure investments.

[KOCOUR]

Trams are ok but i prefer subway. To the work i go 20minutes walk and then 6minutes by bus, and then another 10ish minutes walk. When going longer distances, i prefer trains its lot more expensive by bus, but lot more comfortable, and lot cheaper than car. I drive car only if traveling long distances with lot of luggage, or when transporing some cargo, or if enough people willing to share the gas expenses are going with me. so 4 people at least.

[jwenting]

trams, like buses, never run when you want to travel or where you want to go, unless the system is too dense to be economically feasible in which case either the price of a ride is excessive and nobody uses it who has any alternative or the system is heavily subsidised from excessively high taxes.

[Nibb31]

trams, like buses, never run when you want to travel or where you want to go, unless the system is too dense to be economically feasible in which case either the price of a ride is excessive and nobody uses it who has any alternative or the system is heavily subsidised from excessively high taxes.

In your ideological world.

Fortunately, in Europe and the rest of the World, public transportation is a system that pretty much works and avoids all major cities from being paralyzed.

[Jouni]

trams, like buses, never run when you want to travel or where you want to go, unless the system is too dense to be economically feasible in which case either the price of a ride is excessive and nobody uses it who has any alternative or the system is heavily subsidised from excessively high taxes.

The most heavily subsidised form of transport are private cars in dense cities. Cars are the least space efficient form of transport, and building the high-capacity streets for them is expensive. Even more expensive are the opportunity costs: what else you could do with the prime real estate, if you didn't have to build so much street and parking capacity.

[PakledHostage]

The real numbers are lower, and the ranges also overlap significantly.

Admittedly it is a bit of an extreme example, but Vancouver's 99 B-line bus route has ridership in excess of Nibb's numbers. They are as high as 60k per day.

Articulated double buses similar to the one shown in Phoenix_ca's photo serve the route, running in a restricted bus lane and making only limited stops. If I am not mistaken, they are natural gas powered diesel buses rather than electric trolley buses. This is because they have to be able to pass the electric trolley buses that are connected to the overhead power lines along the same route.

Overcrowding on that bus route's transportation corridor is one of the strongest arguments in support of building a new metro line.

The most heavily subsidised form of transport are private cars in dense cities. Cars are the least space efficient form of transport, and building the high-capacity streets for them is expensive. Even more expensive are the opportunity costs: what else you could do with the prime real estate, if you didn't have to build so much street and parking capacity.

I agree. A new bridge was built in the greater Vancouver regional district over the past few years or so at a cost of ~2.5 billion CAD. The major aspects of the project did nothing more than replace an existing bridge and upgrade an existing highway interchange. A metro line to replace the bus route I just mentioned above would cost less than 1/2 that and serve far more commuters.

Edited June 6, 2014 by PakledHostage
Fixed up the formatting a bit

[Pawelk198604]

I like trains (too).

Here in Vancouver we have a modest metro system for public transport. The best part about it though is that the whole thing is completely automated; there are no drivers. Delays are caused almost entirely by passengers holding the doors open, and the time-to-arrival is calculated and displayed automatically at all stations ahead of a train. These times are really accurate; like, set-your-watch-by-them accurate. Even in peak times its pretty efficient, and it's also a nice way to do a little sight-seeing depending on which lines you take.

Trams are great for cities that already have the rails down in the first place. Toronto is a fine enough Canadian example of that. They've got them, they might as well use them. Personally though I'm more partial to Vancouver's electric buses/trolleys:

http://bc.transport-action.ca/images/TL_2007_NFI_E60LF_2533.jpg

They have the same benefits of a tram like using electricity instead of gas, but they can also disconnect from the lines and run on battery power to get around traffic accidents, construction, road closures, or the like. The only really annoying bit is that those connector thingamajigs do get derailed sometimes. It's infrequent, and the driver can fix it pretty easily, but it happens enough that if you use public transport to get around, you'll likely be on a bus where it happens at least once or twice a year.

Trolley almost forgot about them, there are a few towns in Poland with trolleybus lines, but they are slowly being replaced by trams and city buses usual, never rode a trolley

[EdFred]

I don't live in the city, and the one I do live near (only half a million or so including the suburbs) there is no rail system at all. Unless you count Amtrak to go to Chicago - which takes longer and costs more than driving in your own vehicle anyway. We have a bus system that I know nothing about because, I would have to drive at least 5 miles (8km) to get to the nearest stop. If I am leaving my house it is probably to go get groceries or materials, and it would make zero sense to drive 5 miles to the bus stop when it's only another 3 miles to the places I most frequently go to anyway (not counting work - which is the opposite direction of the bus stop from my house.) Then I have to carry 6 bags of groceries on the bus back to my car, load them into my car, then drive home? Even taking a cab would be more expensive than driving - even counting insurance, maintenance, and acquisition cost. Public transport would never work for me, additionally I'm looking to move even further from the city, so it would become even less useful.

Plus, I like driving. I have two cars and am looking at buying another one to drive on weekends if I sell my airplane this month.

[MC.STEEL]

Dont like them even the slightest.

Either use my feetmobile or a car and avoid trams or buses.

I dont really like public transport but i find the metro quite awesome.

But here is Sofia (Bulgaria) we have all sorts of transport options:

Buses, trolleys, trams,a rudimentary metro,and a sort minivan transports that are most commonly seen in intercity distances.