Do you like trams as means of transportation

[jmiki8]

I'm going to be a transport engineer, and I chose this profession because of my love of railways and aviation.

In my opinion, trams are vital for cities today. Tramways are relatively cheap to build and operate, and they have much higher capacity than buses (and they are more environment-friendly). Their only con is the catenary which doesn't look very nice. In Budapest, my hometown that can't really afford to build more subway lines (has 4 of them), and has a hilly terrain, trams are really good alternative to crowded and nature-threatening buses, and the subway which requires relatively flat terrain. Budapest has one of the most busiest tram lines in Europe, and it has a reason.

By the way, I gave up using mass transport, as I have a much faster (and cheaper!) way of transportation: a reliable 30-year-old Puch bicycle. It beats everything within the city limits, in terms of travel time.

Edited June 7, 2014 by jmiki8

[42undead2]

We don't have trams where I live. Nor trains. We don't have 4 lane roads. (Probably because we don't need them with the shrinking population we have here) Our buses looks like bricks, nobody rides bicycles here and the cars driving around here are boring, except for the few Germans or Swedes coming on holiday. /tangent

So I can't say I have an opinion.

[DJEN]

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.

Yes, I agree with you.

[Rainbowtrout]

Sadly, there are no trams where I live, but it would be a nice thing to have, judging by the fact that my town doesn't have the best of reputations. But, I have been to two places where they use trams (Blackpool and Zaragoza), the latter's being a bit more modern than the former's.

[Pixel of Life]

We don't have trams in my hometown - only trains and buses, and various forms of personal transport. The Finnish capital Helsinki, which is located about 10km away, does have trams, and a Metro system as well (basically a subway/underground/whateveryouwannacallit). When I'm there I usually use the Metro because it's the quickest way to get around.

I'd say buses are my most used means of traveling. They're almost always on time and most of them run every 10 minutes, some even more often. And they can take me very close to my destination - in many cases I can get off the bus just a few hundred metres away.

Edited June 8, 2014 by CaptainKorhonen

[StrandedonEarth]

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.

The cost of that bridge also included 37km of highway widening, and the new bridge is 10 lanes wide as opposed to 5 for the old one, making the the world's widest long-span bridge.

Public transit in Greater Vancouver is a joke, really, unless you live in Vancouver and the adjacent 'burbs, with its 3 Skytrain (metro) lines. Service bombs as soon as you have to cross a bridge to another 'burb. In fact, I work in the Gloucester Industrial Estates in Langley/Aldergrove, an area that employs thousands of people but is nowhere near (as in walking or easy biking range) any population centers. And there is absolutely NO bus/transit service there whatsoever! There are many people that would welcome a light-rail transit service (on existing tracks!), but hte local politicos always want to favor Skytrain (at ~$100 million/km) and then say it's too expensive to build!

[PakledHostage]

The cost of that bridge also included 37km of highway widening, and the new bridge is 10 lanes wide as opposed to 5 for the old one, making the the world's widest long-span bridge.

I am not sure I understand your point? You sound like you think that the money spent on the bridge and associated infrastructure (only a small part of which was the highway widening) was a good thing? Yet you seem upset that light rail transit and other improvements to public transit aren't being funded because the money is being allocated elsewhere?

My point was in response to jwenting's comment that public transit is a waste of taxpayer's money. I think public money was allocated inappropriately in the case of the Port Mann bridge and associated improvements to feeder routes to the bridge. As both you and I have pointed out, there is a need for improved public transit in the GVRD. Two and a half billion could have been better spent elsewhere, especially given that the bridge is underutilized.

[StrandedonEarth]

I am not sure I understand your point? You sound like you think that the money spent on the bridge and associated infrastructure (only a small part of which was the highway widening) was a good thing? Yet you seem upset that light rail transit and other improvements to public transit aren't being funded because the money is being allocated elsewhere?

I was just clarifying that $2.5B was more than just replacing a bridge, as the new bridge is twice as wide (tried to find the cost for the bridge only but couldn't; unconfirmed figures of $1-2B are thrown around ) and the cost of widening that much highway and building the overpasses was significant. Anyone who used to be stuck in Port Mann traffic jams would agree the upgrade was a good thing (something HAD to be done), but the $3 one-way toll is not. If the toll was lower (and spread to all the bridges in the region) the new bridges (Port Mann and Golden Ears) would be better utilized.

I'm just disappointed that an area employing thousands (including some entry-level-wage warehouses) has no public transit service whatsoever.

[phoenix_ca]

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.

I knew subjectively that trying to ride the 99 during rush hour sucked, but I didn't know it was moving that many bodies.

As for the buses, they don't have any reserved lanes along the entire route. The most they get is the same right-of-way that all buses get.

[PakledHostage]

As for the buses, they don't have any reserved lanes along the entire route. The most they get is the same right-of-way that all buses get.

Sorry. I meant "HOV lane", rather than dedicated bus lane.

[phoenix_ca]

Sorry. I meant "HOV lane", rather than dedicated bus lane.

As far as I'm aware, most if not all of the route of the 99 doesn't even have that.

[gooddog15]

In Minneasota, our tramways aren't really the best. Since most of our cities were built without trams in mind, our system doesn't work out too well. They take up space on roadways, operating costs are expensive , and somehow their rails and stations cost billions to construct. They are also magnets for car accidents, having about 2 accidents per week. They're not really overall practical here.

[CatastrophicFailure]

What, four pages in and I'm the first Ugly American to admit to driving an enormous gas-guzzling SUV, AND LOVING IT?

This is how I get around. I won't even set foot on a "public" airplane anymore. Had I not had my own transportation today, I never would have discovered this totally awesome "rocket garden" at the ATK plant in northern Utah completely by accident.

:kiss:Lol but seriously, I live outside of Seattle and have worked in the public transportation industry for over a dozen years. One just cannot make the same transportation parallels between America & Europe (or east Asia) for one simple reason:

Population density.

Issues of personal liberty and taxation aside, no matter how much money you throw at it nowhere in America (except MAYBE the very largest cities) will you ever have a public transportation system on par with what one finds in Europe or elsewhere because there simply aren't enough people per square-whatever to support it, especially out here in the wide open west. And the more spread out a city is, the truer that becomes. The Seattle metro area is "relatively" dense with tiny, dense-city roads, going to a store say 10 miles away is a bit of a pain and takes anywhere from 20-30 minutes in light traffic. Down in Phoenix, Arizona where I was staying all the roads are enormous 7-lane-wide "sprawl-roads" on nice, straight one-mile grids and popping down to a store 10 miles away is nothing, and takes 15 minutes (or less, the way people down there drive:sealed:).

I imagine the dichotomy is even more pronounced in Europe with its layers upon layers of history and roads first laid down a couple of millennia ago.

Phoenix actually does have a growing "tram" (light rail) system and it's proving quite popular, but for the majority of commuters it will always be more of a curiosity than a tool. Which is not to say it isn't good or nesecssary, just not a "standard."

(and actually, it's a diesel so it doesn't use a drop of gas, gets really good fuel economy for its size, and sees both sport AND utility. I have a motorcycle as well, but rest assured THAT's huge too )