Professor Richard Knowles of the University of Salford told the annual conference of the Royal Geographical Society last week that when used at capacity, light rail is cheaper to run per passenger kilometre than buses.
How many passengers does your typical bus carry?
And your typical tram?
And does that account for empty running off peak.
Or is it a straight comparison?
Is he saying that if you ran trams only when they were full, and stopped as soon as they stopped being full, they would be more economic than buses (even allowing for the capital costs)?
Wouldn't be much of a transport system, though, would it?
We already have them only stopping every so many bus stops to try to make them "practical".
Around 20% of peak period passengers on the 7 existing tram and light rail systems previously used cars compared with just 6.4% on bus schemes, his research showed.
Does that include Nottingham?
Where they've effectively closed, at phenomenal cost, the road alternative.
On top of the tram being, as one pro trammer gloated, a mobile roadblock on the road it has commandeered.
Light rail is also faster, shifting passengers at speeds of up to 22 kilometres per hour compared to buses at 10 to 14 kilometres per hour in ordinary traffic.
Funny, I thought buses go go seventy, or faster.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
He means average speed.
Well, when a bus has to stop every few yards.
And wait while all the passengers sort out their change.
Whilst the tram only stops once or twice, and has two or three conductors onboard.
It's hardly surprising the tram is "faster".
IS IT?!