Even if you think what you would say is obvious, please add. This is genuinely something I think makes sense regarding local bus routes given the longevity of light rail and how infrequently routes change, but I also suffer from confirmation bias, so I’m hoping for reasons this would be a terrible idea but obviously would prefer reasons it would be an even more amazing idea than I thought.
I usually prefer light railway too, because it usually is less impacted by traffic than buses (depends on the road structure, of course)
Sometimes light railway have their own lanes as well, physically split from the rest of traffic, which also helps
Light rail, imo, has its own right of way. If it doesn’t it’s not light rail, it’s a tram/streetcar.
It depends on the type of light rail.
Here in my city the trams share some of the roads with regular traffic, which not only means they can get caught in traffic (though they have priority where possible), but it also means the rails become a real tripping hazard for cyclists (over 800 injuries since 2015 at the last count). There’s been an active campaign to introduce more safety measures but the council has been reluctant to do anything about it.
The tramlines are such a well-known hazard to locals that they actually put people off from cycling, which is surely counter-productive.
Are these the indented rails? Those will throw you off your bike instantly… Cycling lanes AND tramlines can coexist, but I guess the problem here is when you want to take a turn and the rails are in the middle of the road, so you’re forced to just go over them? I guess they could implement some kind of underpass for cyclists and pedestrians.
Having wider tyres ~2"/50mm or so pretty much eliminates the risk (and gives a comfy ride). If you really like the speed of narrow tyres, it’s really quite safe with the right technique – crossing tracks at an angle to avoid mishaps (I find 30° is sufficient, 90° is never a problem), and when they’re slippery, treating them like ice. It becomes second nature soon enough.
I think there are some rubber/elasromer inserts which have been developed which also eliminate the groove – it presents a flat surface to bikes, yet squishes down for the tram wheel flange under the immense weight.
You’re looking at mountain bikes or the sturdier gravel bikes to fit 2" tyres. Your average commuter bike likely won’t have rhe clearance. And yes, even tiny 23mm road racer tyres can cross tramlines with the right technique, but the requirement of a proper technique is still a barrier to entry.
We’ve been calling for those rubber inserts, but so far to no avail.
Light rail transit has its own right of way. Sharing the road means it’s a tram/streetcar.
Sheffield. Though I imagine most modern UK tram systems are in a similar situation.
It’s more reliable, usually runs on electric rather than buses, can run more frequent without causing congestion.
Only real con is that you need some time, money and maybe more space to add it
But isn’t it a case that our governments keep pushing austerity and thus our infrastructure doesn’t improve thus do things like run shitty services. The outlay is more expensive, but no one has ever said a light railway doesn’t pay for itself.
no one has ever said a light railway doesn’t pay for itself.
Most metro rail systems lose money. They cost more to operate than they generate in fare revenue.
This is OK because they provide a useful public service and should be funded by tax dollars. Light rail should not be expected to turn a profit. It should be expected to benefit the community it serves, which it generally does.
I want to know when the cars on the roads will have to turn a profit on a per-trip basis. People seem to demand that public transit be profitable for some insane reason, but in general never ask the cars pay their own way around town.
Both the roads and mass transit are services, just like the post office and the military. They’re costs of having civilization, not some kind of business enterprise the government is undertaking.
Depends on the road layout; if it’s a long straight road then light railway makes sense. It’s less maintenance, easier to operate, can move unhindered because it doesn’t get stuck in traffic (edit: provided they don’t share the roads).
For spaghetti road layouts though, I don’t see the benefit, but I could be wrong since I’m no expert.
It’s not an either/or thing. Buses are great (if they are well funded) and light rail is also great
The problem with buses is that most of the fleets are still running on fossil fuels. Buses also produce a shocking amount of waste in used tires. 
exactly.
you can’t assess the merits of an integrated transport system by arguing which one one mode of transport betters all others.
some places /routes (at some times) might work best with one option.
but most places / routes will be better served by several types at least at some times of day.
buses are one of the most flexible public transport options, fill gaps in space between high capacity modes, and fill gaps in timetables, and they sometimes fill gaps in affordability usually being cheaper.
give them bus lanes and priority at junctions, and they’re a lot cheaper and more flexible than trams.
i always think that a busy packed bus lane is making the business case for a train, but filling the gap in the meanwhile. and sometimes a train is impractical.
they didn’t only get rid of most of the trams in the uk due to cars wanting more roads. it was also because buses were cheaper and provided much better routes that could flex to travelers needs…