Re: New Melbourne trams have fewer seats than the old ones but they're longer!

[David McLoughlin <davemclNOSPAM@iprolink.co.nz>]

David Bromage wrote:
> 
> David McLoughlin (davemclNOSPAM@iprolink.co.nz) wrote:

> > Somebody really seems to have goofed with this new tram order. Longer
> > trams with fewer seats?  The proverbial will hit the fan in a big way
> > the moment these trams hit the streets or the useless Melbourne news
> > media get a tip-off.
> 
> Welcome to reality. Low floor vehicles usually have fewer seats. Wait
> until all the older buses are replaced with low floor versions, which also
> have fewer seats.


The issue of fewer seats in low-floor buses has been an ongoing debate
in the mtu-t group. It appears that in North America, low-floor buses
are not very well designed and have fewer seats than standard buses
because they don't have seats over the wheel wells, for example. But
low-floor buses here in NZ have as many seats as high-floor buses.

I think the issue with the new Melbourne trams is not that they are
low-floor, but that they are European designed and built for the shorter
routes in compact European cities. European buses and trams have long
had fewer seats than buses and trams in Australia (and NZ and Canada and
the US) where cities sprawl more and transit routes are longer and thus
people are not as happy to stand as they are in Europe.

David McLoughlin
Auckland New Zealand