My city don't have trams but there was a political push to build them. However, bus routes were upgraded instead. Result is better than trams IMO. Some key points we do:

- Popular buses run ever 5-ish minutes during peak times

- Some buses have extension and cary a crapload of people.

- Problematic spots have bus-only lanes.

What is better than tram:

- Buses that share only a bit of the route can use those lanes too

- Taxis can use bus lanes

- Some of the lanes allow cars with 4+ people to promote carpooling

- If there's an accident or emergency, cars can use the bus lane

- Bus lanes are frequently reused as designated right turn lanes

- Overall maintenance is cheaper when using a single mode of transport. Same backup vehicles can serve all routes - no need for separate backup trams and buses. Same for technicians, spare parts etc.

- No big upfront construction costs. Some bus lanes were snatched from regular traffic, some were built later on. Mostly by making other lanes narrower and widening the road just a little bit. Trams would require much more space and wouldn't even fit in some spaces without banning cars altogether. The'd still have to pave these bits to let emergency services use them.

- In tight spots, buses can easily merge with general traffic. Buses have defacto priority, so no delays during merge.

In my city, introducing trams would have been at least few years of city-wide construction works, lots of possibilities for wasting public money and/or corruption. Bus lanes were super cheap and are added incrementally wherever costs in that specific section can be justified by savings. They can be removed easily if they cause too much trouble or don't speed up buses much. Rails would be there forever.

Comfortwise, good tram and good bus ride equally well. Unmaintained, both trams and buses suck.

TL;DR Buses are much cheaper and more agile stepping stone into good public transit. Trams themselves ain't magic cure. Buses can be

Why should a taxi get to use a bus lane? That's essentially a single person car with a chauffeur. How is a taxi-driven car more worthy than someone else's car?

Not really. They do it many times a day, depending on how long the ride is. When people take busses and cabs, they aren't needing parking nor contributing to traffic. If 15 people take a cab instead of driving in a day, that is 14 less cars on the road. This is the main point in general. The traffic with cabs is a bit different - you know how many cabs work on any given day (on average).

I guess you'd be shocked to learn that here, not only can taxis use bus lanes, but so can electric vehicles to help encourage better choices.

I live in a city where taxis can use the bus lane.

Pros - similar to an express lane (HOV free, single-occupant vehicles pay a toll) it's handy when you're the one who's running late and REALLY need to get somewhere quick.

Cons - Buses deal with taxi congestion, cyclists deal with maniacal taxi drivers.

More people using taxis - less cars parked in busy parts of city? Lobbying from taxi tycoons may or may not have influenced this.

Bus lanes are relatively empty most of the time. There're not that many taxis to slow down buses. Maybe not win-win, but nobody looses either. To be honest, this is first time I hear somebody complain about this rule. Feels kinda natural over there.

Bus lanes are only as good as their enforcement. Which in my experience has typically been near zero. The de jure bus lane is the de facto parking lane.

You describe a political decision to make bus service suck. A police force that can't keep cars out of the bus lane when it is actually trying to do so is a police force that can't enforce any law.

Do you have to sit down on them like normal buses? One of the benefits of trams is the standing part so you can fit more people in. Last time I tried this on a bus the results weren't as good.

Well, I consider it a happy ride if I have a chance to sit down...

Yes, the buses have handles and everything for standing passengers. Wider aisles and stand-only areas instead of more seats too. The inside of the bus look like a tram/metro rather than long distance bus/train.

Yes, emergency stops are not comfortable. Some old lady falls and breaks her hand every few years. But trams have traffic lights and may have to do emergency stop too. Trams probably have less emergency stops per km travelled. But I never considered this a huge issue.

AFAIK, bus service regularly train drivers to drive "nice-to-passengers". Park close to curb, avoid emergency stops, start smoothly etc. I guess there's a risk for this problem, but it seems to be manageable.

Timetable rules may be a big factor too. I heard more bus drivers loose bonuses for driving faster than schedule than for being (unreasonably) late..

The interior of a bus doesn't need to be any different than the interior of a tram. Unless your city is repurposing coaches for public transport, the interiors of buses should have ample standing space.

In my experience trams trend to be wider than buses by a noticeable margin.

Here in the UK, trams (at least for Croydon[1][2], Metrolink[3], Newcastle Metro[4]) seem to be standardised at 2650mm width whilst the New Routemaster[5] is 2520mm wide. Probably not a noticeable margin (130/2650 =~ 5%).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CR4000 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variobahn#Variobahn_trams_for_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M5000 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear_Metro_rolling_st... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Routemaster

It's worth noting that buses often have space taken up by the wheel arches, engine and stairs which can make them feel a lot more cramped than a tram with a similar footprint, which have floors elevated to platform level.

Los Angeles had dedicated bus lanes seperate from traffic (orange line) which is almost as good as rail for a fraction of the cost of laying track.

> as good as rail for a fraction of the cost of laying track

It's really not. Even long/double decker buses carry a fraction of the people a streetcar can.

Streetcars are still faster given other things being equal (dedicated lanes).

The maintenance of streetcars is much better. You have no tyers, fully electric engines, high torque and lower energy consumption.

Buses are good for short term routes, but long term a rail network will always win out in capacity and energy efficiency.

Don't you get most of that with electric busses then? I can see the argument although for automation and how you can multicar trams with one driver.

>Don't you get most of that with electric busses then?

If you're going to put up catenary wires why not just make it a tram?

Because then you also have to lay track.

It's the 96 in Melbourne. That particular tram was made entirely in Victoria too. :)