Trams, Trams, Glorious Trams

 Ah, trams. Streetcars. Trolleys. Lightest of light rails. We used to have them in the Quad Cities; in fact, Davenport was a very early adopter of electric streetcars, back in the 1880s. 

We don't have them anymore.

But that's not the point of this post. Sure, I'd love to have them back; don't ask how much time in NIMBYRails I've spent drawing hypothetical routes you could use to cover the Quad Cities in public transit that doesn't feature a bus an hour (more on that in a later post). But this post is positive! Excited! Gushing! Because this post is actually about the excellent tram systems I've had the chance to ride in other cities, and what I think makes them great.

1. Croydon's trams are underrated

The Croydon Tramlink/Tramlink/London Trams/whatever they're calling it this Wednesday are a very underrated form of transportation. Sure, they're not the Tube, the Overground, Crossrail/the Elizabeth Line, or the DLR. In other words, sure, London is overgrown with excellent transportation options that aren't trams, and I haven't even mentioned their mainline trains. But that doesn't mean the trams aren't good. It just means that London has an embarrassment of riches.

I recently had the chance to visit South London for a business trip, and grabbed the chance to ride the trams (not actually my first time doing that, but the first time in a while). 

Here's what I found myself looking at:

Here we are in West Croydon, at the edge of a pedestrianized area, and there's the tram making its merry way through the road and then going (as you can see in the edge of the picture) in a direction that cars can't. And that's what I like about the Croydon trams; they don't duplicate anything else that you can do. In addition to the space they share, like the street above, they go places you can't walk, can't drive, and can't take other transportation either. And they're a happy medium between a higher-capacity but also higher-cost line like a Tube line on the one hand, and something like these buses on the other:

These are also in Croydon. And I have nothing against the London buses. In fact, I love them too! But just by seeing the bus I can't actually tell where it's going, whereas the tram line is a bit more obvious, even when it's not in the middle of the street:

I'm not saying the Croydon trams are perfect. In fact, they're probably the worst of the three systems I'm going to talk about here (spoilers, I guess). But they are quite pleasant to ride, distinctive from the rest of the transport options in London, and they whisked me from Croydon to Wimbledon in relative comfort and ease.

2. Paris knows what it's about

Paris has been actively increasing its tram offerings in recent years; in fact, I visited in January and I'm pretty sure more tram routes have opened since I've been there! Unlike in London, Paris has trams all over the place, though like London, mostly not in the main city center. That link I just gave you suggests that this makes them uninteresting to tourists, to which I say: mais non! 

The Paris trams are not in the main city center, but they're still about moving people from place to place, and like most transit systems they focus on places people want to be. Places like this:

That football (soccer for us Americans) stadium is served by this tram line:

And that tram looks like this inside:

It's a nice two-by-two layout, with plenty of space. It wasn't packed the day I took the tram photos, but it sure was the day I took the stadium photo (which is why I didn't take the tram photos then)! And the station I caught the tram from was also an RER B stop, so if you couldn't tell from the map linked up above, I can tell you that the trams are well-integrated into the larger transit universe of Paris (though apparently they'll remain on a separate fare system from the RER and metro, along with the buses, with the new fare rates coming in 2025).

This tram was much more comfortable than the Croydon tram, much faster even in traffic, and much cooler looking (which doesn't really matter...except it does matter). Paris's trams are a serious system of 13 lines, and you can tell why. Sure, you can't get to the Louvre on one--but that should just be a reminder that Paris is more than the center city, and tourists (just like locals) can benefit from getting out into the rest of the city as well.

3. Amsterdam's trams are better than its Metro

I have nothing against the Amsterdam metro. It's small, but I liked it! But every single time I wanted to go somewhere, the tram system was more direct and more helpful, especially when it connected directly to the bus network in various spots. Like in Paris, the tram system is a central part of the larger transportation system in Amsterdam. Here's one turning around directly in front of Centraal station:

And here are the catenary wires that tell you trams come here too from various angles around the same spot, showcasing how many tram lines radiate out from the center:

As you can see, that includes a connection to the Metro I just insulted earlier, as well. I don't have nearly as many pictures of the Amsterdam trams, because I was too busy actually taking them all over the place! But the main takeaway I got from Amsterdam was this: in a city that values people not driving, trams can take a major role. Bike lanes, tram lanes, and bus lanes dominated the streets in Amsterdam, and while I certainly saw plenty of cars, they weren't the dominant life form on the street like they are in America. Amsterdam's trams are a big part of that--partly because they do integrate so well with buses, bikes, and trains.

So consider for your city (or four, in my case) what a tram could do for you. Whether the single-line alternative of Croydon, the peripheral connector of Paris, or the center-city system of Amsterdam, a tram might just be the ticket to improved mobility in any city--if properly connected to the rest of your transit system, of course!