What I meant is that if a tram breaks down on the track, or there is an obstruction on the track, any other tram is stuck dead in the water. A bus can drive around stationary objects.

The trams in melbourne suburbs usually drive down the middle of the road, and stop in the middle of the road, meaning people exit in the middle of the road and have to walk across it to the footpath, halting the traffic. Conversely buses pull over to the side of the road, usually into a lane that is used for parking, or at the most stopping only the one lane of traffic.

> Conversely buses pull over to the side of the road, usually into a lane that is used for parking...

This can actually be pretty bad for travel time as well, because then the bus has to wait for a break in traffic to get back on the road. Now in the US many places build bus stops out to the road lanes so that they don't have to waste time pulling in and out of traffic.

This seems less a problem of trams running in the middle of the road and more of a problem of localities that don't build suitable waiting areas next to the tram tracks. Example: https://nacto.org/wp-content/themes/sink_nacto/views/design-...

My only time in Melbourne, I saw a car crash into a tram. This blocked a bit of the road, and the entire tram line for an hour plus

The bus behind could have driven around, but the next tram was stuck until the blockage was cleared

Now, if the busses had dedicated lanes that they could use, they may run as well as trams, with the flexibilty of changing route for exceptions like crashes, or road works

this is so rare, i take trams every day and have never seen it.

And, to be honest, while buses may not be stuck on rails, the process to change a bus route is almost never less than a few months and can take much longer.

It will always take less time to change a bus line than a train line - but this isn't a difference of hours vs. years, it's months vs. even more months.

It’s pretty quick when the (tram|bus) in front has stalled out.

Trams will have relief route loops, but they’re never in the most ideal location.

The trams can't go diagonally, meaning if your destination doesn't align with the road grid you have to catch two of them.

I'm not sure what you mean - if a bus can turn a corner then so can a tram's track. They don't have to go in one straight line from one end of the city to another.

I mean they can't in the sense that it's not how the network is set up today. Not that it's impossible.

You can pick frequent or point-to-point service but you can rarely have both. Transfers are a perfectly normal part of a transit network.

Ok, but buses often travel more convenient routes in Melbourne because they're able to head in directions trams can't.

Offering a general principle doesn't somehow refute reality.

What use is a bus if missing one means you're out of luck for the next 29, 39, or 59 minutes? It's not really 'refuting' it, but there are downsides to prioritizing point-to-point travel.

If you look at a map of Melbourne's frequent services (tram and bus) they pretty much all form a grid. https://melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/2019/04/are-you-near...

Auckland redesigned its transit network to have more frequent routes requiring transferring, and public transport ridership is poised to double in ten years. https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/111564109/aucklands-unbelie...