>>1021291>Articulated trams were never used in the past, only double decker ones.Uhm... the system was shut down in the early 50's, there were no articulated trams in those days.
>The roads in London are tight and windingOther anon beat me to the punch with this one.
> trams would eat away all space and make bottlenecks for taxis, cars, and cyclists.Modern trams in an urban environment with lots of traffic only make sense if they have a ROW. If the streets are small this would mean closing them off to regular traffic and leaving them exclusively for trams, at the most you can allow taxis as well. There's nothing wrong with having some streets only for public transit, and others only for private cars, lorries and bikes. It's generally never a good idea to mix public transit with any other traffic.
>Sure they work in huge american and german cities with massive streetsI hate this dumb argument. For starters, a tram ROW is more narrow than a bus lane, because the tram doesn't need margin for steering. We have a 2nd gen tram with the widest standard size which is 2.65m, the ROW is about 3m for each direction, while a bus lane has to be at least 3m, ideally 3.5m to allow decent speeds.
>but for the tight, winding and hilly roads buses are far more versatile. >versatilebus "versatility" is a meme. Versatile how? Do you change the routes every few weeks? That would be a bloody pain in the arse. I bet there's bus lines in London that haven't changed in decades. Are buses better at taking turns then trams? No, they're much worse because trams are guided by the rails and never swerve off their lane. Hills, ok, yeah, trams can have grades up to around 6%. Other than that how are buses more versatile?
Seems to me many people repeat the same non-arguments like you're doing, it's like something we've been fed all our lives (like this "versatility" meme which sounds nice like but doesn't mean jack shit), but the case for buses is by far not as clear as you'd think.
