For me, trams have a much more comfortable ride. The lack of pitch and roll reduces a lot of motion sickness and the rails are obviously a lot smoother than paved surfaces.
There’s nothing stopping a road from being smooth but, logistically, there’s clearly no reason to rush to repair roads when they deteriorate. That means potholes get tolerated, potholes means suspension, and both of those mean bus-like rides instead of suburban light rail rides.
Railway track has to be flat. Anything less than perfect is intolerable so it tends to hold its maintainers to a higher bar.
As I understand it tracks do a much better job of spreading the load than asphalt which makes it much more durable.
I've found the new battery buses to be far more comfortable to ride in than older diesel buses since they remove the vibration when idling. The extra weight might mean more potholes to repair though.
You’re absolutely right about potholes, technically, but my point was more about how people work not the immediate technical difference between road and rail.
If you have a system that requires 100% upkeep in order to function at all — the rails of a tram system — then it receives nothing less than the complete maintenance it demands.
The social and technical economics of roads, on the other hand, practically ensures that they’re only ever barely maintained to the lowest possible standard people (and air suspension) will tolerate.
Trams, the divas that they are, will tolerate nothing less than perfection!
One advantage is that light rail encourages transit oriented development.
The fact that buses are so flexible and easily (and cheaply) rerouted makes developers less likely to build developments that rely on access to transit, but once a community spends a hundreds of millions of dollars on a light rail line, they know it's there for the long term.
There's been a ton of research on this and the conclusion has been that light rail does indeed attract more development than bus rapid transit, but that there is no net gain in development across an urban area. It just shifts development to the corridor in question. There's a reason the overwhelming majority of transportation engineers favor bus rapid transit. On the other hand, I personally prefer to ride in light rail and I think many people would agree. So there's a reason that many urban planners prefer light rail.
That's sort of the popular wisdom, but rails don't guarantee it will be there for the long run. DC recently announced that they're replacing their light rail with buses:
I agree with him that in order to endure and justify a permanent operating subsidy a transit service needs to be useful and used by many people. Most American light rail doesn't meet that bar.
Interesting piece, thanks. I also enjoyed his piece "Streetcars: An Inconvenient Truth." His argument is based on length, speed and cost; the main point is that a technically equivalent bus would often be cheaper and thus could be run on a longer, more useful route. If you look at the hundreds of millions spent on DC Streetcar and its limited utility, this all starts to look quite obvious. So why did we do it?
I think there is another aspect that usually goes unstated, which is the vibes. If you're a mayor you want to build a tram. If you're a tourist you want to ride a tram. If you're a prospective resident you want to live near a tram. Yes, it's smoother and yadda yadda, but really it's because it has more sex appeal. A technically equivalent bus may well be _technically_ equivalent but could never be truly equivalent. Nobody would write a play entitled A Technically Equivalent Bus Named Desire. In a way, spending money on a tram is similar to spending money on parks or flowers or public art. And so we will spend the money; and we will build the streetcar; and damn the technical equivalence.
I wonder what the world would be like if we were honest with ourselves.
I've seen that claim, but places that run good bus service for decades see plenty of transit oriented development. (most of those places also have subways though. The other options seems to bad bus service which won't get transit oriented development but bad service is enough to explain why)
As a city grows, it's common for the transit system to evolve from direct bus routes to trunk lines supported by local buses. Maybe there was a good bus service to the city center when you bought your home. But now the buses only go to the nearest transit hub, because there is no space for all the buses in the city center anymore. While the average quality of transit may have improved, your services are slower and less convenient than they used to be.
You and I are well aligned on a lot of things - but in general, buses do not result in TOD. There are some exceptions, but they are very much exceptional. Trains generally do result in TOD because the people pushing for TOD get to try over and over again.
That's sad but I can see that. Maybe more with train and metro stations though than light rail that often makes little difference to commute times vs a bus.
Physically easier. Often not politically easier. Voters are often more willing to pay for a metro than lose a lane from cars. We ran into this in Seattle over and over.
A bus only lane is also a vehicle lane that is sitting empty a good part of the time.
Not really that efficient...
And, as has been rediscovered about 200 times in Southern California (by the drivers, not by the sstate government), you can add additional lanes almost indefinitely, and it doesn't really help congestion that much.
For me, trams have a much more comfortable ride. The lack of pitch and roll reduces a lot of motion sickness and the rails are obviously a lot smoother than paved surfaces.
There’s nothing stopping a road from being smooth but, logistically, there’s clearly no reason to rush to repair roads when they deteriorate. That means potholes get tolerated, potholes means suspension, and both of those mean bus-like rides instead of suburban light rail rides.
Railway track has to be flat. Anything less than perfect is intolerable so it tends to hold its maintainers to a higher bar.
As I understand it tracks do a much better job of spreading the load than asphalt which makes it much more durable.
I've found the new battery buses to be far more comfortable to ride in than older diesel buses since they remove the vibration when idling. The extra weight might mean more potholes to repair though.
What pitch and roll? And potholes in a road can be maintained at far lower cost than building railway lines.
And lastly badly maintained railway lines are just as prone to causing motion sickness as badly maintained roads.
Buses are just… bouncier!
You’re absolutely right about potholes, technically, but my point was more about how people work not the immediate technical difference between road and rail.
If you have a system that requires 100% upkeep in order to function at all — the rails of a tram system — then it receives nothing less than the complete maintenance it demands.
The social and technical economics of roads, on the other hand, practically ensures that they’re only ever barely maintained to the lowest possible standard people (and air suspension) will tolerate.
Trams, the divas that they are, will tolerate nothing less than perfection!
One advantage is that light rail encourages transit oriented development.
The fact that buses are so flexible and easily (and cheaply) rerouted makes developers less likely to build developments that rely on access to transit, but once a community spends a hundreds of millions of dollars on a light rail line, they know it's there for the long term.
There's been a ton of research on this and the conclusion has been that light rail does indeed attract more development than bus rapid transit, but that there is no net gain in development across an urban area. It just shifts development to the corridor in question. There's a reason the overwhelming majority of transportation engineers favor bus rapid transit. On the other hand, I personally prefer to ride in light rail and I think many people would agree. So there's a reason that many urban planners prefer light rail.
That's sort of the popular wisdom, but rails don't guarantee it will be there for the long run. DC recently announced that they're replacing their light rail with buses:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/05/27/steetcar-...
Jarrett Walker has a good piece about it: https://humantransit.org/2025/05/what-was-wrong-with-the-was...
I agree with him that in order to endure and justify a permanent operating subsidy a transit service needs to be useful and used by many people. Most American light rail doesn't meet that bar.
Interesting piece, thanks. I also enjoyed his piece "Streetcars: An Inconvenient Truth." His argument is based on length, speed and cost; the main point is that a technically equivalent bus would often be cheaper and thus could be run on a longer, more useful route. If you look at the hundreds of millions spent on DC Streetcar and its limited utility, this all starts to look quite obvious. So why did we do it?
I think there is another aspect that usually goes unstated, which is the vibes. If you're a mayor you want to build a tram. If you're a tourist you want to ride a tram. If you're a prospective resident you want to live near a tram. Yes, it's smoother and yadda yadda, but really it's because it has more sex appeal. A technically equivalent bus may well be _technically_ equivalent but could never be truly equivalent. Nobody would write a play entitled A Technically Equivalent Bus Named Desire. In a way, spending money on a tram is similar to spending money on parks or flowers or public art. And so we will spend the money; and we will build the streetcar; and damn the technical equivalence.
I wonder what the world would be like if we were honest with ourselves.
1 reply →
I've seen that claim, but places that run good bus service for decades see plenty of transit oriented development. (most of those places also have subways though. The other options seems to bad bus service which won't get transit oriented development but bad service is enough to explain why)
As a city grows, it's common for the transit system to evolve from direct bus routes to trunk lines supported by local buses. Maybe there was a good bus service to the city center when you bought your home. But now the buses only go to the nearest transit hub, because there is no space for all the buses in the city center anymore. While the average quality of transit may have improved, your services are slower and less convenient than they used to be.
You and I are well aligned on a lot of things - but in general, buses do not result in TOD. There are some exceptions, but they are very much exceptional. Trains generally do result in TOD because the people pushing for TOD get to try over and over again.
That's sad but I can see that. Maybe more with train and metro stations though than light rail that often makes little difference to commute times vs a bus.
no tire dust
Try to transport the following objects - would you rather do it on a bus or tram?
a longtail ebike, a pushchair with/for 2 kids (horizontal arrangement), a dining table for 6 people and 30 kg of cement
I tried it, and with most of em they don’t let you on a bus or you can’t fit but tram is fine
Trains have their own right of way, buses sit in traffic.
Modern urban light rail is also typically electric, using overhead power. Although buses can also use this.
This is one of the main reasons the super dense Japanese cities aren't as air poluted as other urban centers.
You can have a bus-only lane easier than a tram-only track.
Physically easier. Often not politically easier. Voters are often more willing to pay for a metro than lose a lane from cars. We ran into this in Seattle over and over.
A bus only lane is also a vehicle lane that is sitting empty a good part of the time.
Not really that efficient...
And, as has been rediscovered about 200 times in Southern California (by the drivers, not by the sstate government), you can add additional lanes almost indefinitely, and it doesn't really help congestion that much.
12 replies →
Busses don't have to sit in traffic, but they can (and trams can too, in some cases)
Bus rapid transit, when done right (basically, almost like a tram) can be quite successful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh1IaVmu3Y8
When you have a cost overrun on BRT, the easiest way to save money is to share ROW with cars.
Since it's harder to make that choice when you're building rail, it's more likely to be done right.
They’re much more energy efficient due to the lower friction