Should urban bus networks be replaced with trams?

[PTR 444]

I’m not talking as such about trams complementing the local bus network, which certainly should be happening in all major towns and cities, but going one step further and asking the following question: Should we be building tram networks to replace local buses altogether?

Nowadays, most profitable bus corridors seem to be consolidated on single high-frequency routes, heavily congested with bunching a frequent occurrence. With a fixed schedule, trams would solve this issue amongst others such as:

• Pollution caused by diesel engines and rubber tyres.
• Driver shortages, overcrowding and wasted road space, since fewer vehicles would have the capacity to carry more passengers.
• The image problem associated with buses, although I believe this is an issue that can be solved more effectively through better education.

The main downsides are:

• Infrastructure would be highly expensive and disruptive to install on a widespread scale.
• Buses would still need to exist for interurban routes but these might not be as profitable if operationally separate from the tram network. Alternatively, these could be diverted to tram stops to encourage use of trams, but having to change would inconvenience people with young children, luggage or reduced mobility.

So more pros than cons assuming the willingness to install all the infrastructure is there. Besides, didn’t most towns and cities have widespread tram coverage a century or so ago?

 

[daodao]

Nowadays, most profitable bus corridors seem to be consolidated on single high-frequency routes, heavily congested with bunching a frequent occurrence.

Such dense bus corridors are fairly rare, so this suggestion is really a non-starter. There are one or two in Greater Manchester, in particular:

• the A6 from Manchester to Hazel Grove, but this has a parallel electrified railway line
• the Oxford Road/Wilmslow Road corridor as far as Withington where the bus routes diverge

Unfortunately, the unwieldy infrastructure that Metrolink requires for stops due to the high platforms needed means converting these routes to Metrolink would be problematic.

 

[Nottingham59]

This is the current bus network in Nottingham. It doesn't include the longer routes run by Trent Barton, or the council-contracted routes run by CT4N.

https://images.nctx.co.uk/2022-09/Nottingham%20Colour%20Coded%20Map%20%28web%29.pdf

Where woud you put the tram lines?

What I do think is that bus networks in cities like these should be converted to battery trolleybusses.
They could recharge on wires in the centre, and run on batteries on the outlying suburbs

 

[D365]

This is the current bus network in Nottingham. It doesn't include the longer routes run by Trent Barton, or the council-contracted routes run by CT4N.

https://images.nctx.co.uk/2022-09/Nottingham%20Colour%20Coded%20Map%20%28web%29.pdf

Where woud you put the tram lines?

The A52 (!)

[tongue rather in cheek - although I would love to see a NET extension to Derby one day.]

 

[daodao]

What I do think is that bus networks in cities like these should be converted to battery trolleybuses.

The scrapping of the proposed New Generation Trolleybus scheme for Leeds a few years ago has effectively killed off any prospect of trolleybuses being re-introduced in the UK.

 

[Ken H]

The scrapping of the proposed New Generation Trolleybus scheme for Leeds a few years ago has effectively killed off any prospect of trolleybuses being re-introduced in the UK.

Which is stupid. Trolleybuses would be a cheap way to electrify urban buses. Bung batteries in them for when the routes branch.

 

[NoRoute]

Besides, didn’t most towns and cities have widespread tram coverage a century or so ago?

A lot of the tram networks started back when horse pulled carriages were still common and the wheel-on-rail of the horse pulled trams was far superior to riding along cobbled streets, they got a further boost when electrically propelled trams were introduced. But around that same time the internal combustion engine was getting steadily improved, pneumatic tyres had been introduced and pretty soon the motor buses were emerging as the better alternative, being lower cost and more flexible.

All the rail based forms of transport suffer from the same flaw of being inflexible and typically very costly to operate which limits their suitability. Probably the better alternative is not a return to rail based trams but electric buses, with some form of guided busway or steering or guidance system.

 

[Ken H]

A lot of the tram networks started back when horse pulled carriages were still common and the wheel-on-rail of the horse pulled trams was far superior to riding along cobbled streets, they got a further boost when electrically propelled trams were introduced. But around that same time the internal combustion engine was getting steadily improved, pneumatic tyres had been introduced and pretty soon the motor buses were emerging as the better alternative, being lower cost and more flexible.

All the rail based forms of transport suffer from the same flaw of being inflexible and typically very costly to operate which limits their suitability. Probably the better alternative is not a return to rail based trams but electric buses, with some form of guided busway or steering or guidance system.

What did for trams was the demolition of acres and acres of high density terraced housing and its replacement with 'garden' estates with far lower density. In Leeds they never got trams to penetrate the massive sprawling gipton/seacroft housing built post WW1 up to the 70's.
I reckon the Moortown - Roundhay loop was only viable because of the draw of Roundhay Park and big events there. (Much of its route is low density private (not council) housing.) And my secondary school!

 

[NoRoute]

What did for trams was the demolition of acres and acres of high density terraced housing and its replacement with 'garden' estates with far lower density.

Some tram networks were closed well before post-war redevelopment and slum clearance occurred, so that certainly wasn't the cause of every tram network closure. Some systems got an extension by converting from trams to trolley buses to get rid of the rails.

It's also argued that many tram networks suffered from lack of maintenance during and after WW2, so they reached a point where investment to replace the trams and rails became necessary by which point they simply weren't financially viable. In the meantime the motorbus was now a mature, acceptable and much lower cost alternative so the bus won.

 

[Ken H]

Some tram networks were closed well before post-war redevelopment and slum clearance occurred, so that certainly wasn't the cause of every tram network closure. Some systems got an extension by converting from trams to trolley buses to get rid of the rails.

It's also argued that many tram networks suffered from lack of maintenance during and after WW2, so they reached a point where investment to replace the trams and rails became necessary by which point they simply weren't financially viable. In the meantime the motorbus was now a mature, acceptable and much lower cost alternative so the bus won.

There were issues with track post WW1 too. And much of the track was rubbish badly converted from horse tramways. So many systems closed in the 1920's

 

[To the trains]

I think it is a step in the right direction, France is building tramways left, right and centre - they have more capacity and are more pleasant and reliable, there's less rolling resistance and the trams last a very long time compared to buses, many cities around the world that had the foresight not to rip up their tram systems still operate trams that are 70 to 100 years old, not as tourist services, but as proper, day to day public transport. My home city of Bath has been discussing trams on and off for a while now, and I think they might be an answer to our traffic woes (I reject the notion that Bath is too small for trams - Besançon, and Nancy in France are a similar size to Bath and Aubagne is about half the size, and both have trams - Aubagne is nearly doubling the size of theirs and might join it up to the Marseille tramway) However, I'm not holding my breath about trams coming to Bath soon

 

[Ken H]

I think it is a step in the right direction, France is building tramways left, right and centre - they have more capacity and are more pleasant and reliable, there's less rolling resistance and the trams last a very long time compared to buses, many cities around the world that had the foresight not to rip up their tram systems still operate trams that are 70 to 100 years old, not as tourist services, but as proper, day to day public transport. My home city of Bath has been discussing trams on and off for a while now, and I think they might be an answer to our traffic woes (I reject the notion that Bath is too small for trams - Besançon, and Nancy in France are a similar size to Bath and Aubagne is about half the size, and both have trams - Aubagne is nearly doubling the size of theirs and might join it up to the Marseille tramway) However, I'm not holding my breath about trams coming to Bath soon

Continental cities have a denser housing stock. They live in flats more than the brits where estates of houses is more common.

 

[HSTEd]

I have personally come to the conclusion that urban buses are not capable of operating as attractive public transport systems.

They get caught in traffic, they are painfully slow even when they don't and they can't reliably follow a timetable without adding huge wait periods that can make them scarcely faster than walking. And to top it all off if you want a usable frequency they have huge staffing requirements too.

The problem is trams are really really expensive and disruptive to build. Even though 1:1 replacement of buses would not be necessary you would still need a huge number.

These reasons have me leaning more towards more esoteric solutions like urban cableways but that's off topic.

 

[MattRat]

The problem is trams are really really expensive and disruptive to build. Even though 1:1 replacement of buses would not be necessary you would still need a huge number.

Well, those projects get more expensive the longer you postpone them. And we've been postponing them for decades. It's only going to get worse, so either we pay up now, or pay up when we can't afford to, but are forced to.

 

[HSTEd]

Well, those projects get more expensive the longer you postpone them. And we've been postponing them for decades. It's only going to get worse, so either we pay up now, or pay up when we can't afford to, but are forced to.

To avoid the need for massive reliance on buses you are going to need a system comparable in density to the Paris Metro's density within the city of Paris.

Which is about a kilometre of route for every square kilometre served.

Even Manchester would need a system comparable in scale to the Paris Metro - and it would require massive construction work for years and be hugely disruptive.

 

[Ken H]

To avoid the need for massive reliance on buses you are going to need a system comparable in density to the Paris Metro's density within the city of Paris.

Which is about a kilometre of route for every square kilometre served.

Even Manchester would need a system comparable in scale to the Paris Metro - and it would require massive construction work for years and be hugely disruptive.

But does manchester have the population density to make it viable?
And does not manc. have heavy rail and light rail that does much of what a metro would do?
And Manc doent have one centre. It has subsidiary nodes like Oldham, Stockport, Bolton etc which makes it different to Paris.

 

[MattRat]

To avoid the need for massive reliance on buses you are going to need a system comparable in density to the Paris Metro's density within the city of Paris.

Which is about a kilometre of route for every square kilometre served.

Even Manchester would need a system comparable in scale to the Paris Metro - and it would require massive construction work for years and be hugely disruptive.

Surely that suggests more the need for a 'metro' system, by which you mean an underground network, if things really are that dense.

 

[HSTEd]

But does manchester have the population density to make it viable?

Not with light rail solutions no, which is why we would have to consider other options. Even though light rail is far cheaper than metro it is still rather expensive.

And does not manc. have heavy rail and light rail that does much of what a metro would do?

The City of Manchester doesn't really have a significant length of such systems compared to the length it would need for Paris station densities, which is what you would need to remove the need for urban buses..

And Manc doent have one centre. It has subsidiary nodes like Oldham, Stockport, Bolton etc which makes it different to Paris.

That wasn't Greater Manchester, that was the City of Manchester.