>>1712899>but a tram is worse than a bus in this because every outbound tram has to return to the city in servicecompletely ignoring all other factors that benefit capacity and throughput. trams can be completely separated from traffic. if a situation would actually require an express lane, you could easily make a high-speed dedicated lane for trams. this is quite common for lrt and metro systems.
>They do accelerate somewhat faster with no passengers on boardthere might be minuscule differences, but those are negligible.
>not having to stop every 500m makes them fastera train doesn't stop. that's the point.
>being able to go off routebuses don't go off route. they might go out of service, towards a depot, but they will always stick to a given route.
all journeys have to be extensively documented.
>using a less congested stretch of road makes them faster againcongestion is unavoidable. if a route is going to be congested, it and its shortcuts will be congested no matter what lane.
rail doesn't have this problem, since it is completely separated from the congestion.
>You can have dedicated bus lanes that become parking spaces outside of peak timesyou cannot. besides the inability to enforce it, parking space is a waste compared to a functional lane.
>bus priority at lightswhy would you prioritise buses, especially empty buses, over lorries with far more economic value.
thats my whole point. leave the roads for the ones who actually need it, and have no other place to go, like emergency vehicles, businesses or the disabled.
>Busses don't have to only run to train stationsthats their only feasible use. in rural areas, with low demand, you use buses instead of trains, to take people to train stations, where they often want to go in the first place. there is no point in using buses for anything trains can do, since they'll just be inferior trains.
>they can go wherever they want, one of the reasons they are so much better than trainsyet they never do.
