Have just been reading through the West London tram proposal. While I
am all for upgrading our transport system, I can't help wondering
whether building tram systems is the best value for money. This will
cost £648 million - £49 million per mile. I wonder how that compares
with building the channel tunnel rail link (the part that is already
open - not the tunnel under East London) - does anyone know?

My point is that the biggest advantage to be had from trams is that they
will run on separated track from the rest of the traffic, and so not
be held up by other traffic and hence more reliable.

Couldn't that be done by making a completely separate bus lane,
separated from other traffic by kerbs? This would deliver the
reliability and speed benefits at a fraction of the cost, and allow
similar schemes to be rolled out to other parts of London as well.

"Stephen Richards" wrote in message
...
Have just been reading through the West London tram proposal. While I
am all for upgrading our transport system, I can't help wondering
whether building tram systems is the best value for money. This will
cost £648 million - £49 million per mile. I wonder how that compares
with building the channel tunnel rail link (the part that is already
open - not the tunnel under East London) - does anyone know?

My point is that the biggest advantage to be had from trams is that they
will run on separated track from the rest of the traffic, and so not
be held up by other traffic and hence more reliable.

Couldn't that be done by making a completely separate bus lane,
separated from other traffic by kerbs? This would deliver the
reliability and speed benefits at a fraction of the cost, and allow
similar schemes to be rolled out to other parts of London as well.

A bus lane occupies more road space and carries fewer passengers per driver.
There was previously a tram from Shepherds Bush to Uxbridge which was
withdrawn in 1951.

For a current thread on the subject see "Why Trams?" in uk.transport.

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Stephen Richards wrote:

Have just been reading through the West London tram proposal. While I
am all for upgrading our transport system, I can't help wondering
whether building tram systems is the best value for money.

I asked more or less the same question - and made the same comparison to
busways - a few months ago:

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...oogle%2BSearch

(the thread's called 'Trams' and started on 2004-03-30, if that's no good)

I didn't get any really show-stoppingly good answers, but there are a few
things which stand out:

- Although a tram _may_ be more expensive (in terms of pence per
passenger-mile or whatever), a tram will have a higher capacity than a bus
route over the same corridor, so if you're looking at high traffic levels,
a tram may be able to provide a service that a bus simply can't.

- The cost of a tram isn't necessarily as much greater than a bus as you
might think; good figures are hard to come by, but what there is seems to
be within a factor of 2 of each other.

- There are soft factors: a tram is a fixed route, and has imposing
infrastructure, so it seems more secure; people thus trust it more than a
bus, which is basically some random guy driving wherever he likes.

- I came across something else recently (in that Maidenhead proposal,
actually): light rail (and so presumably trams) gets much more modal shift
than buses. That is, people will switch from cars to light rail who won't
switch from cars to buses. Presumably, this is about the ride experience
(and trams do tend to be much smoother and more spacious), and the
aforementioned trust issue. If you want to relieve traffic congestion, you
need modal shift.

The thing which bothers me about all this is that while you can make a lot
of theoretical arguments about the performance of high-quality bus routes
(using large, modern vehicles, fitted out with good furniture, exclusively
using prioritised bus lanes and busways, with relatively infrequent and
posh-looking stops and well-trained drivers - basically, a bus that looks
like a tram; what Clive calls Rapid Transit on Rubber Tyres), nobody's
really tried it, so there isn't any hard data. However, should the
Greenwich Waterfront Transit plan go ahead as it stands, we'll have
exactly that on our own doorstep, and we'll find out at last!

tom

--
Crazy week so far, which at one point involved spewing down the inside of my jeans! -- D

"Stephen Richards" wrote in message
...

My point is that the biggest advantage to be had from
trams is that they will run on separated track from
the rest of the traffic, and so not
be held up by other traffic and hence more reliable.

Couldn't that be done by making a completely
separate bus lane, separated from other traffic
by kerbs? This would deliver the reliability and
speed benefits at a fraction of the cost, and allow
similar schemes to be rolled out to other parts of
London as well.

I would imagine that the cost of the rails is a small fraction of the
project cost, so your bus lanes would be nearly as expensive as the tram
line.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

The thing which bothers me about all this is that while you can make a lot
of theoretical arguments about the performance of high-quality bus routes
(using large, modern vehicles, fitted out with good furniture, exclusively
using prioritised bus lanes and busways, with relatively infrequent and
posh-looking stops and well-trained drivers - basically, a bus that looks
like a tram; what Clive calls Rapid Transit on Rubber Tyres), nobody's
really tried it, so there isn't any hard data. However, should the
Greenwich Waterfront Transit plan go ahead as it stands, we'll have
exactly that on our own doorstep, and we'll find out at last!

Ever come across the Silver Lie in Boston, MA?

In message , James
writes
The thing which bothers me about all this is that while you can make a lot
of theoretical arguments about the performance of high-quality bus routes
(using large, modern vehicles, fitted out with good furniture, exclusively
using prioritised bus lanes and busways, with relatively infrequent and
posh-looking stops and well-trained drivers - basically, a bus that looks
like a tram; what Clive calls Rapid Transit on Rubber Tyres), nobody's
really tried it, so there isn't any hard data. However, should the
Greenwich Waterfront Transit plan go ahead as it stands, we'll have
exactly that on our own doorstep, and we'll find out at last!

Ever come across the Silver Lie in Boston, MA?

Yes, and in my opinion is no better than your average bus service. It's
still subject to (quite severe) traffic delays and at the end of the day
is just a bus painted silver.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 23:02:00 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:
The thing which bothers me about all this is that while you can make a lot
of theoretical arguments about the performance of high-quality bus routes
(using large, modern vehicles, fitted out with good furniture, exclusively
using prioritised bus lanes and busways, with relatively infrequent and
posh-looking stops and well-trained drivers - basically, a bus that looks
like a tram; what Clive calls Rapid Transit on Rubber Tyres), nobody's
really tried it, so there isn't any hard data.

There is one in Ottawa, with a dedicated busway from the city centre
to the out-of-town railway station (and beyond, but I didn't venture
further). The buses are trying to be trams, but the dedicated roads
are wider than a tramway would be. They run on normal roads in the
centre.

There is also a short light-rail-esque DMU-operated branch railway
into the suburbs from a not-quite-interchange with the buses outside
the city centre. All a bit odd.

In France there are some guided trolleybus things. One had a lot of
teething problems, but it is supposedly now fixed.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

The thing which bothers me about all this is that while you can make a lot
of theoretical arguments about the performance of high-quality bus routes
(using large, modern vehicles, fitted out with good furniture, exclusively
using prioritised bus lanes and busways, with relatively infrequent and
posh-looking stops and well-trained drivers - basically, a bus that looks
like a tram; what Clive calls Rapid Transit on Rubber Tyres), nobody's
really tried it, so there isn't any hard data.

There is one in Ottawa, with a dedicated busway from the city centre
to the out-of-town railway station (and beyond, but I didn't venture
further). The buses are trying to be trams, but the dedicated roads
are wider than a tramway would be. They run on normal roads in the
centre.

There's one in the UK as well - in Runcorn. Sadly, it was never
allowed to develop into what it could have been, with off-bus
ticketing, high-quality vehicles and more railway-station-like stops,
and is now more like a traditional bus service that happens to use a
large proportion of dedicated "track".

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:
James:

Ever come across the Silver Lie in Boston, MA?

Yes, and in my opinion [...] at the end of the day
is just a bus painted silver.

So James' typo describes it quite well? ;-)

.... Martin

"Arthur Figgis" ] wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 23:02:00 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:
In France there are some guided trolleybus things. One had a lot of
teething problems, but it is supposedly now fixed.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

You would be referring to Nancy where the vehicles look like very modern
multiple-unit trams but have pneumatic tyres, trolleybus poles and a guiding
slot in the road surface. Looked like a very good idea to me, incorporating
some of the best features of all systems but capable of ascending steep
gradients which was why they chose it.
Cheerz,
Baz