> saw in my former city a bus line get replaced by a train. It was infuriating. They tore up the roads and replaced the busses with trains which are worse in every imaginable way
Trains are faster, have more capacity and usually grade separated so flow is easier to manage. In what way is any form of train worse than a bus besides the few obvious ones - needs infrastructure and upfront costs.
This train is not grade separated (it drives with the cars, and creates massive confusion in the vehicles lanes) and doesn’t hold more people than the busses did. It also requires overhead power lines, and has fewer stops than the busses it replaced.
I don't see how a train could be creating confusion - it's just a vehicle (apparently, what a shit implementation).
I find it hard to believe that even the smallest light rail/tram deployment won't have higher capacity than your average bus deployment (not BRT). Can you name the system so that we can check the passengers per hour capacity?
Overhead power lines means electric propulsion, so lower noise and less pollution (electric buses are a rarity and only work on short routes).
Trains are faster, have more capacity and usually grade separated so flow is easier to manage. In what way is any form of train worse than a bus besides the few obvious ones - needs infrastructure and upfront costs.