>>1013424Some small-sized systems still make sense. The tram in Bilbao is an interesting example. I remember a passionate discussion some time ago here on /n/ where it was debated wether the line made sense. Some anon offered good points against it, here's the scoop:
>uses 30m long trams which offer about the capacity of a double articulated bus>runs mostly or entirely on ROWThe arguments against were obviously that it's more expensive and you could just build a BRT. However a BRT consumes much more space, since BRT lanes have to be pretty wide to allow good speeds, while a tram is obviously guided. The narrow streets would make it almost impossible for an articulated bus to run through at any decent speed.
Also this particular tram line has single track sections at either end, where it runs through some narrow streets, and the terminus is just a dead end in an alley. Being a tram it's easy to operate bidirectionally on the single track sections (they're 2 stations on either end, so it takes about 3+3 minutes and leaves 4 minutes for the driver to change cabins, for a total frequency of 10 minutes.
A BRT wouldn't allow the single track sections (or you'd need complex signalling which isn't standard with buses), and instead of a dead end would need turning loops at either end.
So in this particular case the tram makes sense not because of capacity, but because ir uses up less space while offering better speed and capacity than a regular bus.
Pic related is one of the termini for this line. The building on the left is a train terminus for the local narrow gauge lines (note the service connection to the rail lines, otherwise that alley is a dead-end). On the right you can see the single track section along the road.
