"rail-free" tram - what do you all think?

[Hywel & Ros]

> > Ooh, I don't know. I recently had the good fortune to go to Linz in
> Austria
> > for a conference, not a big city by any means but with a very good
network
> > of trams and buses.
......
> > Interestingly Vienna had the same type of trams and electrical pylons,
all
> > manufactured by Siemens. Trams in Austria at least don't seem to be individual solutions for
> > individual cities.
>
> But most European cities were so stupid in the 50's, 60's & 70's that they didn't modernise their
> transport infrastructure like the enlightened
British
> did.
>
> The result is that they still had the basics in place to up-grade in the 80's & 90's.
>

At the risk of contradicting my earlier "buses are the thing" argument, there was a radio program a
while back which suggested trams were killed off by the motoring lobby. They were said to "cause
delays" as well as being dangerous (to cars presumably). Mmm...

Although it's nice travelling by tram (Helsinki in my case), trying to look at it objectively, it's
hard to so why as a customer you care whether you're on a bus or a tram - ie whether it's rubber on
tarmac or steel on rails. Having right of way / precedence and dedicated space (said to be the
tram's advantage) can be given to the bus with a few pots of paint to draw some lines on the road
(with suitable legal enforcement).

I'd also accept that if some f***wit in the 60s hadn't dug up all the tram lines, it would be a
viable option. Especially if there were standard off-the-peg solutions rather than specials for each
city. Mind you I've worked on the fringes of the German railway industry and it's not necessarily a
good model to follow. It may be great as a customer, but someone is footing the bill.

Hywel

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:15:38 +0100 someone who may be "Hywel & Ros"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I guess what it comes down to is a bus route can be created, changed, moved at the drop of a hat.

That is not necessarily a good thing. From a passenger viewpoint the rails mean commitment. The
service is highly likely to be running along those rails for some decades to come, which gives
confidence. A bus route may indeed be moved "at the drop of a hat" [1], which is not reassuring to
those who may be considering using it.

>Buses (perhaps unsubsidised ones eve) seem to be able undercut highly subsidised
>rail-travel by 80%.

Off-peak bus return tickets from where I live to Edinburgh cost the same as off-peak train tickets.
In peak hours train tickets are more expensive.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Geraint Jones]

"Hywel & Ros" <[email protected]> wrote: ( And if you want a dedicated bus lane,
then that can be ) acheived for the cost of some paint and a man with a brush.

I know it's intended to be an exaggeration, but that's simply not true. Dedicated bus lanes are
(almost necessarily) narrow, and confine the wheels of buses to two narrow slots which rapidly
become ruts in the tarmac. The problem is the same as that of guided buses, and given that bus lanes
rarely get a rebuilt road, requires a vastly accelerated road surface repair programme. Things are
not helped by the nearside rut being right over the storm drains, which collapse with monotonous
regularity.

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:34:20 +0100 someone who may be David Hansen <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>A bus route may indeed be moved "at the drop of a hat" [1], which is not reassuring to those who
>may be considering using it.

Oops, I forgot to add:

[1] outside London by giving the appropriate notice to a bod called the Traffic Commissioner. The
last I heard this "notice" was a few weeks.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.