I now have videos explainer the Paris Trams, Metro, and RER in detail! Metro: th-cam.com/video/kGsCejwW6Kk/w-d-xo.html RER: th-cam.com/video/6afb6uv1V1Y/w-d-xo.html
The split in 3A and 3B is incredibly frustrating. You are right that most people aren't wanting to go all around the loop, but it means that for people wanting to go from Porte de Montreuil to Bercy, they must get on the tram for 2 minutes before needing to change. It isn’t a cross-platform interchange. They make you walk across the large and busy street to get to the other terminus. In cold months like this, it is very annoying.
Actually, the split is a great idea. It completely avoids having every through tram block that busy street (Cour de Vincennes), and avoids the street traffic from blocking trams. Plus, more space is available for platforms along C de V. When I have been there, including last week, I have not seen many people transfer from T3b to T3b or vice versa. (BQRail)😊
Honestly I see so many people do the switch between T3a and T3b, I wonder if they should just cut the line somewhere else or just try to have one long tram but with real systematic priority at each intersection, and REAL FINES for EACH car blocking them too. They're the main problem for the trams, as always.
@@puccaland While that is technically true, I don't think there's any control. Therefore it's pretty common to use TER for their direct connection to Paris with a regular metro/RER pass.
@Clery75019 No don't do that. TER are like TGV etc and usually can't run without a ticket inspector on board. Don't try your luck. And actually I was wrong. It seems you can use a zone free Navigo or the Imagin R (Navigo for students) to use the TER within the Ile de France region limits. So the TER is an integral part of the Greater Paris railway network like the RER etc. But you can't use simple tickets unless it's a TER ticket.
@@0Defensor0 T9 is beautiful and also very smooth and quiet. People were skeptical at first, even disappointed because they wanted a metro instead but now they love it.
I disagree. Reece has made 8 videos about Paris now, and yet other cities with bigger systems have not had a single video. Even on other channels, I feel like Paris gets mentioned pretty often.
@@mdhazeldine Paris has a big metro system, a big RER system, a big commuter rail system, a big tram system… all of that at the same time, so there’s a lot to cover and talk about. Some other cities may have a bigger metro but no RER equivalent, more trams but no metro, etc.
@@sans_hw187 Yeah I get that. I just don't know why you'd single out the Paris tram network over somewhere like Melbourne, Prague or Budapest, when you've already made 7 videos about Paris and 1 or none about those other cities.
No the Moscow metro does not get credit. Everybody bangs the drum about the Grand Paris Express expanainsons , about the Elisabeth line in Lonson. But in Moscow they have done a massive series of expansions , similar to GPE, 10-20 years ago .. But hardly anyone talks about it ..
Reece deleted a global video covering the entire Paris transit system to create individual videos for each mode of transport. That’s why there’s so much coverage of Paris
@alph5230 dedicated tram rails and sensor guided intersections. For what I have seen most Trams in Paris have dedicated lanes. Those sensors can also be used by buses and emergency services. That should give a smooth flow for the tram . If cars are on the junction because of congestion at the next junction, the management of a chain of traffic lights should be reexamined. The number of cars that are let go thru a traffic light A can be monitored by how many cars are still at junction B ...
Here in Quebec we like to emulate things France does since it's easy to get notes on how their stuff works on, yet we can't be bothered to do that with their trams. Sad.
As a Montrealer living in Toronto, I also think the exo/AMT trains not being modelled off the RER is a massive waste of potential. Never took exo/AMT trains or buses in my life but I have used GO trains and buses many times. Montréal transit has been too stagnant over the past few decades.
@@AshgabatKetchumov i couldn’t believe the plan for EXO was to let it rot… like it’s already built why not improve it? Toronto’s RER network will lap Montreal even with REM.
Well the historic center is so densely packed with metro lines and stops that you don't need tram service. Besides the few large boulevards that could accommodate a tram line are precisely those that have metro lines running underneath
@@nicolaschung916 I would have loved T8 to be extended on the Petite Ceinture former rail line but apparently it doesn't look like it will be the case. 😢
The most viable project is the "tramway des gares" which would directly connect Paris' many long-distance train stations, but even that gets massive opposition because 1) even if the metro isn't optimized for those specific routes, it's not terrible enough to justify new infrastructure, and 2) conservative people do not want unsightly and bulky tram infrastructure in the historical center.
Prague has a great and pictoresque system. And indeed is an example of "modern tram principles", even though it's something like a... element of everyday life? As in other bigger central-european cities (Brno, Bratislava, Kraków, Poznań, etc.) where tram systems function well before "it was cool"
And once all the currently planned extensions are completed in the early 2030s, Paris will boast the world’s largest tram system, surpassing Melbourne. This is especially impressive given the relatively young age of the system! Not sure if it was intentional, but you didn’t mention some key extension projects that are already at advanced planning stages: - By 2032, T10 is expected to receive a fully underground eastern extension, connecting to Transilien N and Line 15. The Line 15 station is already being built with provisions for this future underground connection. - By 2030, T1 is planned to extend further east to Rueil, beyond its currently under construction extension to Colombes. At 35 km long, T1 will be divided into three segments (T1a, T1b, and T1c), similar to T3. - Although technically off-topic, it’s worth noting that the 10 km long T13 tram-train extension is already under construction.
If we are assuming "tram" and "light rail" are the same thing (which I do), then Los Angeles might actually end up with the longest system in a decade or two. At least they will be longer than Moscow if not Melbourne and Paris. The Wiki page on this has them at 12th currently, but that doesn't include a one stop extension that opened a month ago, which should be enough for them to pass Sofia, Bulgaria, listed as 11th. They already have the longest single tram line (the A Line) with one extension to it opening in just a few months, another extension that just got funded with work beginning soon, and then a third (to Ontario Airport) frequently discussed but not funded or approved (amongst various other extensions of other existing lines as well new lines in various stages of planning and construction).
I might be biased, but watching all these "tram rediscovering" and finding how are they works well in cities look a bit surprising. It gives like a "it's just a tram, it's all obvious" feeling... at least from Polish point of view where in biggest cities (e.g. Kraków) trams are just an everyday experience for decades.
Yeah lol, I feel this too, coming from Amsterdam. The thing is that these new trams are just very high quality: fast, seperated and with modern rolling stock. In Amsterdam we have many slow tram lines, with old, narrow inaccesible stops, but we are slowly upgrading things.
Because Paris removed the trams a century ago and reintroducing them in one of the densest cities in the world is a technical challenge and feat when it's a success.
The specificity of Paris is that tram is mostly a suburban service that doesn't serve at all Paris city center (T3a and T3b are at the edge of the City of Paris). Also it's fastly growing as its ridership reached 361 million trips in 2023. It will probably become the busiest tram network in the world in the upcoming years.
I don't think you understand how old some tram networks are in France, the new modern trams became popular in the 90's and the 2000's (20 - 30 years ago) and they are also very different from old USSR like trams you see in Eastern Europe, so there are a lot of things to say about it (and also because it's a Channel that talks in detail about public transport)
For having taken tram both in paris and Kraków (I come from both cities) i must say they are very different, the parisian one dare very modern while the polish ones feel, like you said, to be just the normal way of transport that has always been there.
Thanks. I've used Paris and IDF transit off and on since 1978. I haven't had an opportunity to use the new trams. Yet! 14m59s I'm glad too see that this problem is not a unique feature of Toronto.
12:43 Interesting seeing T7 going under the runway at Orly. I bring this up because an objection I heard to New York's LaGuardia extension of the Astoria subway line was that it would conflict with some FAA zone (I believe it was the OFV, Obstacle Free Zone) that reaches under the runway. This despite that the fact London Heathrow Airport has the Picadilly and Elizabeth Lines each going under a runaway twice. Of course, the FAA is American, but I wonder if there were similar rules and issues with T7 and TfL. Like, did they get waivers to deal with the OFVs?
In Paris the A1 freeway also run under 2 CDG airport runways. Knowing how many freeways you guys have in the US, I'm sure there are examples to be found .
The bridge has to be wide enough (150 m: 75 on each side of the runway centerline) for the graded area around the runway to be... well graded, so no hole, an aircraft should be able to run on it without damage. Then there is the strip, which is 280 m if I remember well (140 on each side of the runway centerline) which must be clear of obstacles (a hole is not an obstacle, obstacles go above the level of the runway). Then there are oblique (the further from the runway, the higher the limit) surfaces above which you mustn't find obstacles. These are the ICAO rules. I learned it in France, may be in the US, national regulation go further than that.
You were mentioning that Translohr line having a bumpy ride but I can tell you where you can get a bumpy ride and that’s on the Health Line in Cleveland. It almost makes me want to be against BRT.
May I suggest a video on Besançon tram : one of the smallest cities to have a tram, one of the cheapest to be built, really bold choices in the old town (especially the bridges) and Chalezeule branch, stunning design
Hey RMTransit! I think it would be amazing if you made a video about Norway's transportation system. Norway has Europe's largest rail freight terminal in Alnabru, Oslo, which is a major hub for goods transport across the continent. Additionally, the country is investing heavily in its future with the development of a new high-speed rail line capable of 250 km/h between oslo and Hamar, which will significantly improve connectivity between major cities like Oslo and Bergen. It’s an exciting time for Norwegian transport, and I’m sure your detailed analysis would bring a lot of interesting insights! Hope you consider it!
I would still love to see a video on San Diego, or a video on why BRT lines need to be well integrated with rail lines. In San Diego we have multiple locations where BRT routes cross the trolley tracks with no interchange. If the two services were integrated, I could get to work in 20 minutes using transit, but because they're not, it takes an hour. Also, SANDAG is doing preliminary research on a brand new rail line called the purple line which would add around 26 miles of track and radically improve our rail system. I know you probably have other priorities but I would love to hear you weigh in on this.
I would also love to see Reece’s perspective in San Diego. IMO the purple line proposal is a little lacking, it would not be particularly useful unless built in whole, and even then leaves Mid-City and Uptown without a direct downtown connection . Better to build a purple line like system serving the core (Mid city/SE/Uptown) first and then add branches. Also SANDAG seems to be proposing the line entirely subway which is problematic given the extistence of wide stroads for elevated ROW- they use its price to justify also considering light rail which would be extremely limiting for a new regional system. Agreed with you on BRT and really bus connections in general - the connections are poor even at some stations on the new Mid-Coast trolley extension
@@elefante8572 I live in mid city (city heights) and we already have 2 direct downtown connections - 215 rapid and 235 rapid buses. We don't want the purple line to go from mid city to downtown. Most of us are commuting to Kearny mesa, mission valley, or Sorrento valley, not downtown. The proposed path of the purple line follows the path of the 805 freeway which is one of if not the busiest freeway in San Diego and does NOT go through downtown. Right now there are so many ways to get to downtown using transit from literally every neighborhood, but the days are past where most of the jobs are downtown. We now lack ways to get to places where jobs actually are (mission valley, Sorrento, Kearny mesa) and that's exactly what the purple line is going to do. The purple line would also give us an indirect rail connection to downtown (we would need to transfer to the orange line) but again we already have 2 direct BRT connections. The current plan is to build the northern section first (national city to Sorrento). The problem with this is that the south bay remains underserved and relatively unable to access the purple line, but they could fix this by building additional stations for the existing 225 BRT route that would connect with the purple line. But basically the point is WE DON'T need to go downtown and already have plenty of ways to do that, and the places we do need to go, we have no transit options so we are forced to drive. The purple line would give us that option.
@@willmorris8198 Thanks for writing! Sorry in advance for a long comment, but I'd love to hear your further thoughts on my reasoning! I totally understand why transit to Sorrento Valley and Kearny Mesa is essential -- they are comparable employment centers to downtown/uptown/naval base area in job population. (170k for SV, 125k for KM, 69k for Mission valley, 100k for downtown with 38k at Naval Base, 31k in Hillcrest, and 34k at Bayfront) I however do think that higher order transit should be built first where demonstrated transit demand, job density, and population density already exist. The 215 and 235 buses, along with buses 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 929, are 8 of the top 12 highest ridership routes in the system. That ridership demonstrates strong transit demand. I also think there's good reason to believe ridership on a metro along those routes would be quite high. While improvements are being made to bus lanes none of the Rapid routes are BRT quality along their full route, the highway Rapids miss population and job centers, many of the local buses are slow in traffic, and most run on 15 minute frequencies all day which is not sufficient. A massive increase in speed and frequency enabled by Skytrain-like automated metro would drive ridership and improve transfers. It would also free up some of the resources from buses (though local buses would still be necessary) and those resources could go to improved service in other areas.
It's somewhat tough to serve Kearny Mesa and Sorrento Valley effectively given their sprawl and poor local coverage. One of the advantages of serving downtown is that you get built in transfers to the trolley and bus lines serving downtown, uptown, Midway, and the naval base and shipbuilding yards. Demonstrating demand and maybe building some enabling infrastructure with a BRT route along the 805 and/or genesee (Rapid 43) is warranted before building a subway. SANDAG estimated 20000 daily riders for the 20 mile SV-NC route which is comparable to the fairly slow and infrequent Orange Line and less than a third of the Blue Line. This is wildly poor value for money if it indeed will cost 20 billion dollars (worse than San Jose BART). Nonetheless, connecting Sorrento Valley is essential. I just think a phased approach where the priority is serving existing transit demand and then branching out to serve the region might be preferable. Additionally, if it served downtown, this project could replace the Blue Line Express project and vastly improve service to National City, Chula Vista, and South SD, which have very high transit ridership but where the Blue Line mostly runs along the 5 and misses the population/job centers. I would imagine a first phase of the project as serving SDSU Mission Valley (GL), running along the 15 to City Heights, El Cajon Blvd and 54th St through Mid-City, Euclid Ave through SE SD (OL), and then Logan/National Ave through Southcrest and along the 5 to downtown (12 mi with about 9 stations for a total travel time of about 25 min) This would be valuable both radially and circumferentially (particularly for areas of Mid City and SE SD not well served by either the Orange Line or Rapid) but also crucially be the backbone of a regional network developed in phases. Hopefully phased development could allow for lower costs through an in-house planning/engineering team building the network over decades.
One area that desperately needs trams is to the North West of Paris, in Val d'Oise : Ermont, Eaubonne, Sannois, Enghien, Deuil la Barre, Saint Gratien. They all have some transilien service to them, but 0 tram. Which means if you don't go towards Paris or Pontoise... You're screwed. Inside a triangle formed by Pontoise, Epinay and Valmondois, there is nothing. You have to take the bus, and those areas have BIG traffic jams during peak hours, and buses don't have their own lanes. Once, the line H had issues, and I took the bus. It was predicted to take 30 min just to do 2 stops of transilien that would have taken 4 min... After the first 15 min of bus, I decided to walk, and I beat the bus to my destination by a couple min, as I saw it going by later... The sad thing is that there are plans for a bus on its own lane east of that area, from like Epinay to Villiers le Bel, plans south of that area to continue the T2 tram with another bus on its own lane to Herblay. But again, nothing in that heavily urbanized triangle where bike lanes are awful, roads are narrow, and traffic jams are huge.
Would you consider talking about the Freiburg transit system at some point? It punches well above its weight for a city of 200k, including an extensive tram network and an s-Bahn, and could be seen as a model for how to do transit in small cities.
There's a big push to add tram lines to Montreal, and I am worried that they won't follow a good model for fast and efficient trams in the semi-dense suburbs.
Even though they are studies at the moment to see if the TVM could be converted, because how busy it is, it will be difficult to convert it to a tram. Also there is a miss connection with the T10 at Croix de berny, and from personal experience, its a pain in the ass to go from T10 to TVM/RER B
No. When the TVM was launched there were tracks to make it work as a tram but they removed them, the project won't happen. The TVM and 393 can't be converted into trams. Too many bridges and not even straight bridges. Moreover that route is too busy. The TVM works like a RER bus, the 393 is good back up till Pompadour. The buses are huge and can take way more passengers than a tram. Moreover the waiting time between buses can be in seconds. Basically buses can follow back to back. Impossible with a tramway. What they should do on the TVM route is to put double decker buses. It's possible but I am not sure about the safety on the bridges. The 393 is bound to go to Orly airport and I don't see how they can make a tramway route from Carrefour de la Résistance to Orly airport. Especially that there is already T7 in the area.
I just learned that the TVM is the busiest bus line in Europe. I am not surprised. They are doing good but they need even more frequency to answer the demand especially with the connections to metros and tramways which keeps increasing. They aren't back to the pre Covid frequency I think but even the pre Covid frequency won't be enough for the future. They need to find a way to take more passengers per bus. Even maybe create express buses and buses stopping at every stations like a RER.
@@puccaland TVM ridership (23 million/year) is higher than Miami subway (13 million/year). Also the T3b ridership (69 million/year) and T3a (66 million/year) are both higher than LA subway (61 million/year).
Thank you Reece for an extraordinarily good video, even by you very high standards! Heidi Alexander, the new British Secretary of State for Transport appointed yesterday, should watch this video. You rightly kept coming back to the point that in Paris, when a new tram route is built, the streets on which the trams run are completely reconstructed. This is, of course, true of all French cities which have reintroduced trams.
There are a few errors with ridership, especially for the circular lines. The overall tramway network has well over 1 million rides per day. Lines 3a and 3b are counted separately, not as a single line. But combined, they regularly pass 700 000 daily rides, which is humongous for tramways. The latest extension alone was expected to increase daily ridership on 3b by 80.000 passengers with only 3.5 additional kilometers and 7 new stations. Thankfully, most passengers travel rather short distances, or it simply wouldn't be possible. These 2 lihes are the workhorses of the tram network and are severely overcrowded.
The fact that Translohr trams have bumpy rides is a no brainer... But for using one of those just today, I can tell you that this things have a really strong and satisfaying acceleration ! This is one of the (few) good points I can give to this technology haha.
T1, when it will be extended East and West, will be split into three sublines, Les Courtilles platforms have already been extended to allow that and Bobigny Picasso station will be completely redesigned as a two islands platforms and 4 tracks station, at the same time the M15 station will be built, hence why the line Easter portion is closed until sometime next year... Technically T2 is NOT underground at La Défense, it goes ABOVE ground but under concrete structures and main level of the La Défense Esplanade... Ah the joys of modern urbanism where seemingly underground is not actually under GROUND... Also the initial section was a rail line that was closed (seeing poor service and low passenger numbers and modified into a tram. With its success, many residential areas were built around it so it's a victim of its own success and way too crowded for its own good. About T3, it could have been argued than a VAL system could have been better but the Mayor wanted transit to be visible so they preferred a tram. T5 has ridiculously short stock compared to its ridership, it's a planning failure, not to mention the choice of Translohr for this line and T6. T6 should have been a metro or two metros meeting at Hôpital Béclère, extension of Line 13 to Petit Clamart and OrlyVal to Vélizy2 Shopping centers. I like the architecture of the two underground stations though. About T7, Rungis is not pronounced as Fungus but as if it was a J instead of a G. Pronounce "Runjis." it also sees very low passenger numbers pasr Rungis section, joining the Airport is very slow and has now been overtaken by Line 14 must faster route. Imo, in its current state this line is kinda useless and would benefit greatly of being extended to Juvisy as well as Line 15 (which opening has been postponed until mid 2026 at best) T8 having branches is messed up and repeats the mistake of metro Line 13. T9's most interesting feature is the connection to its workshop which goes several buckes under the rail yard of RER C before going up on the other side. Some argue that T10 should be extended underground until the Clamart M15/train station.
“Seemingly underground is not actually under GROUND” This happened in Atlanta. The city developed around core railroad tracks that had been there since the start of the city (and are why it even exists), and the tracks used to just cross the streets until in the early 1900s they just built the streets over the railroad lines, and the new buildings had their storefronts out to the elevated streets. All the train stations in Atlanta past that time had the tracks pass through under the main buildings, and when Terminal Station was demolished, they just built a federal building over that space, keeping the tracks below and the platforms (for a time).
If T2 isn't under ground at La Défense, then Paris metro line 1 isn't as well, as it's technically built at grade covered by a concrete slab. But then if you continue with such technicalities, all metros that were built with the cut and cover method are also not "under ground", as they are also covered by a concrete slab. In the end of the day, functionally speaking, the only thing that matters is whether or not a section is covered as that's what allows full grade separation from the urban environment.
@@Clery75019no, the metro is two floors down compared to the T2, in la défense the tram, trains and busses are all on the same level with each other and that level is officially the ground floor. You can see it when going into one of the malls from the esplanade, you'll see signs saying you're on level 1 and if you go down one floor, you'll be on level zero.
@@Clery75019 Not really, M1 was built under the level of the ground by digging soil. T2 in la Défense was built at grade or above the ground and covered by the giant esplanade slab, like the CNIT, of which the real ground level at the time of construction is now under the level of the slab. It's a very different situation from M1. The "ground" of the esplanade is like 2 stories above the real ground (soil). For M1 to be comparable it would need to be running at street level and then covered by a slab at the height of Rivoli buildings' second floor. T2's tracks don't need to climb out of the station to reach the surface, they already are on the surface of the real ground but underneath the built-up elevated esplanade slab. Parts of M1 were built cut-and-cover by digging a trench under the ground level. Line T2 at la Défense was not cut-and-cover but just "cover", without digging a trench. One could even say that the tracks of line T2 and Transilien L and U at la Défense are in fact slightly elevated and enclosed as there's some debate about the A14 highway that runs underneath being actually the real ground level (same level as line M1).
The old buse lines PC1,PC,PC3 before T3A & T3B existed did have overlapping sections so you weren’t arbitrarily forced to change lines at certain points. I can’t see why they didn’t keep this organisation for the trams…
You missed T11 (initially planned to reuse "Grande Ceinture" tracks but finally used dedicated tracks - Épinay sur Seine to Le Bourget, opened in 2017), T12 (opened in late 2023 - actually, mostly a repurposing of a RER C branch from Massy to Épinay sur Orge in the south + an extension to the east), T13 ("opened" in 2022 - repurposing of the Saint-Germain to Saint-Cyr Transilien line, that was dubbed "le train fantôme" due to low ridership)
8:52 T3s miss connection also with RER A. Though it was considered to extend both T3s from Porte de Vincennes to Nation and I hope someday RER D will stop at Porte de Charenton or Porte de la Chapelle to provide metros 8 / 12 a better connection to RER network.
Hey, nice video as always But where have you read that T6 could be converted into a regular tramway ? I'd be much interested to know more about it, considering I've read that T6 couldn't be turned into a real tramway because of the size of the tunnel. Thanks !
T4 was discarded as it was considered a tram-train. However that's not so true considering that T4 is an urban tram on it's branch from Gargan to Monterfermeil.
@@cdrw92 T2, just like T4, has been built over an already existing train line, but expanded later at street level. The only reason why T4 is considered more a "tram-train" than T2 is that the line historically belongs to the SNCF and is now operated by its subsidiary Transkeo, whereas RATP bought the "Ligne des Coteaux" rail line before converting it into a tram.
I can see why T11, T12 and T13 were excluded as they are indeed tram-train express services, that's not so true about T4, which is actuallly a standard urban tram on its section from Gargan to Montfermeil.
I love TFS's. they shouldn't be scrapped, they're reliable. building a standard gauge railway is cheap, especially when you mix them a little bit with traffic, which tfs's are also made made for. I can think of so much places in France where they could be used
While Paris trams work pretty well, largely because of wide boulevards and off street running, their success does not justify large street running trams elsewhere. (BQRail)
Melbourne could do something like this instead of its super-expensive and decades-to-build Suburban Rail Loop, augmenting its extensive radial tramways with new orbital lines on dedicated rights-of-way.
The main issue with Paris' trams is that each line is designed to be fully independent, it is not a real network. Different rolling stock, different technologies, different widths, different companies, different tickets etc. Too often this leads also to poor connections between the tram lines and with the other train or metro lines.
That's not really an issue as trams are used to fill the gaps in the rail network. I'd estimate than 70% of riders use it only for 2-3 stops then transfer to metro or train.
There aren't different tickets. Different companies means nothing, the network works as one and is managed by IDF Mobilite. The tramways aren't connected among them because they are already connected to the existing network of metro and trains the whole thing working as one network. Moreover they are back up lines to connect the suburbs or the outskirt of Paris so logically they can't be connected together.
@@puccaland Indeed, trams in Paris are really a complementary service to the metro/RER network. It all works as a whole, it doesn't make sense to be singled out.
@@Clery75019 I think those people base on cities where the entire railway network is just a tramway. So in those cities the tramway lines have to be connected.
Re 1:33 In addition to these flaws, trams in Amsterdam, Berlin and Toronto don't stop at all stops, they have request stopping. Is it true that stop skipping on these systems is only to cover for these flaws? It requires knowledge of when stop needs to be requested, has anyone here seen people miss their stops because they did not expect to have to request them? Re 2:25 In additon to level boarding for accessiblity, trams in Paris, and those on most other second generation tramways just stop at all stops regardless, which may also help accessiblity as it does not require knowledge of when a stop needs to be requested and people waiting at stops don't need to be visible to drivers, as is often the case at bus stops. I myself have missed trams in Melbourne because the driver did not see me. However, trams in Paris do have passenger operated doors, and this requires knowledge of when door buttons need to be pressed.
"this requires knowledge of when door buttons need to be pressed."... I'd say, when the tram is stopped at a station, and when the push button is lit... not rocket science? And if you press it too early, nothing happens and you can try again some seconds later. I'd also say that this is a feature, not a bug: it prevents cold air from rushing in needlessly in winter (and vice-versa during summer), or your 3 year-old from rushing out of the tram at the worst moment.
@@takix2007 The thing is there is not a need to press a button to get in or out if a door is already open. If someone on one side presses a button to open the door, someone on the other side does not.
@@Myrtone I'm really sorry but I fail to understand your point... If someone presses the button to get on or off, then the door does not open needlessly...?
@@takix2007 If you are are on one side of the door when the tram stops, how do you know whether someone on the other side of the door is going to press a button to open the doors. Also think of people with walking frames, passenger operated doors might be a problem for them.
@Myrtone I'm terribly sorry but I am still not getting your point; yes, I do not know whether someone will open the door, but if I have to get down, I press the button, if I don't, I won't press it. Also, there is a big hint whether the door will open: do I see people waiting on the platform behind the door when the tram actually stops... Another benefit is reduced tear and wear, reducing maintenance costs, and thus the cost to passengers/taxpayers. And regarding people with walking frames, it will be less of a challenge for them than opening any regular building door (including their front door through which they came out in order to walk to the tram). You could object that on some metro/RER (not trams...) you open the doors with some kind of lever or a rubbery button, both often hard to operate (needing some force), which can be a challenge for older/disabled people; I'd answer that you are correct, and this feedback is taken in consideration, since this kind of rolling stock is 40+ years old, and progressively renovated or phased out, with newer/renovated rolling stock equiped with low force press button similar to trams. But the wider challenge is to make a legacy metro network (100+ years old) disabled/handicapped friendly, and that is quite another topic compared to the trams we were talking about.
Toronto's trams should have looked like the T10 at the end with the double doors at the front. I know there were some limitations to it and all. I'm just saying..
Looking at a railway map, it perplexes me why T3 was built at all instead of converting the Petite Ceinture railway to a metro line...the infrastructure is already there.
Petite Ceinture offers a poor connection with the metro. That's actually a funny story as, somehow, Petite Ceinture was in the 19th century the Parisian equivalent to the London circle line. Yet, as the City of Paris decided to build an entirely independent metro that wasn't connected to other railways (contrary to London), it ignored on purpose the Petite Ceinture. The big problem of the Petite Ceinture is that the line was shared by various trafics, leading to a pretty poor local service (only 4 trains per hour). When metro lines 2 and 6 opened, they were far more efficient for locals and had a lot more success. This eventually lead local passengers service to be closed on the Petite Ceinture in 1934.
@@edvardmunch6344 no it's not. At least not in the south where it is some 100m north of the T3a line, and on an artificial elevated "hill", between rows of buildings.
London always broadly spaced bus stops at 200yds (Central area .... red buses) and 400yds (out in the rim .... green buses). There's no point converting to metres (a meter is 9.375% longer than a yard) , as the spacings are scarcely inch perfect anyway! I look at new tramways across Europe 🇪🇺 and can't help thinking of the almighty hoo-ha there'd be if sufficient demolition occurred in my home city of Brighton & Hove 🇬🇧 to enable a new* network to be constructed. *Two unconnected 3-6" gauge tramways operated, the horse drawn service from Portslade to Shoreham closed in 1913, the Brighton Corporation Tramways closed on 1st September 1939. With half it's trams under a decade old and trackwork in good nick, some reckoned it could've certainly gone through WWII and likely into the mid 1950s at minimal cost.
Unfortunately, actually using the Paris trams is quite frustrating. The intervals are often not great. The trams are INCREDIBLY slow, as they slow at every intersection even if they have full right of way. The 3a for example travels 20-30km/h for most of the time! When i lived in Prague the trams always accelerated to 50km/h even mixed with traffic! The wait at the stops is also incredibly long. The interior is uncomfortable and the mandatory validaton of tickets even with a subscription is infuriating. In addition, French drivers don't really understand trams so very often block it at many intersections, slowing down the trams even further, so much that biking is a lot faster.
Paris trams are most often one of two things: an interconnection between other modes of transportation (ex: T3, a and b) or a rather short extension of a metro line that would not be justified as an actual metro line, but need something more than bus lines. Very few people take 3a or 3b from end to end, as faster alternatives exist for most of the way (namely, RER C and A respectively). So both high speed and high comfort are not goals by themselves. If you prefer biking, that's an excellent choice too. Also, the mandatory validation of tickets/passes can be boring, but it serves two purposes: 1) so that the company operating the transport (RATP, SNCF, subsidiaries of these for rail and bus, or other companies for bus) can be paid by the Paris region transport authority for their service (to which *you* paid your ticket or subscription), and 2) so that ridership statistics can be used to adapt infrastructure and rolling stock to needs (ex: T12 and T13 that were conversions of low ridership heavier rail lines)
I agree with you that the intervals can be horrendous at times (15-20 min in the cold!) I wish they would improve the intervals for morning commuters at least, 6-8h, and on the weekends. I do disagree that the speeds aren't too bad if you're only using the tram to make an interchange to a larger line, or ride a few stops in a suburban area to get between amenities. It turns a 30-40 min walking trip with groceries to 10-20.
Re 4:30 Yes, the TW20, with bogies right under the cabs, minimizing wheelbox intrusion. New Citadis trams for Nantes also have bogies under the cabs, as will new Citadis trams for Strasbourg. Strasbourg already has bogie-under-cab Citadis trams, albeit with unpowered small wheeled end bogies. Bogies under cabs, combined with very short intermediate wheeled segments, could make it quite easy to come up with a low floor tram with an internal amenity like that of high floor rail vehicles, but with the added benefits shared with other low floor trams, in that level boarding can easily be achieved in the street environment with little impact on street amenity and that it can share platforms with buses, quite common in some other European countries.
As a Parisian, I can tell you there's a reason why La Défense is "underappreciated". It's an awful place basically no one who doesn't have to be there doesn't want to go. It's grey, always crowded with busy people who look like they're tired of life and have lost their smile as a result. Its size would be impressive in any other city that isn't Paris, but in the land of Gare du Nord, Gare de l'Est, Gare Montparnasse, Auber/Opera/St Lazare and Châtelet-Les Halles, it gets throughly outshone in every aspect. Just not a place that's worth visiting if you don't have business there, unfortunately.
@@MrCoco59f 1) faut se réveiller et savoir qu'il y a le traducteur sous chaque commentaire. 2) apprendre à avoir confiance en soi et ne pas culpabiliser comme beaucoup de français si des gens ne comprennent pas. 3) remarque qui prouve que vous ne défendez pas votre culture qui commence par la langue !
@@cleroy61 Vous faites peur à vous emporter pour ça, on dirait un chauvin d'extrême droite... Votre commentaire initial ne présentait aucun contrepoint à la personne à qui vous répondiez, il faudrait donc peut être commencer par ne pas partir complètement en hors sujet si vous voulez qu'on prenne vos propos au sérieux. (Je n'ajouterai rien de plus à cette discussion au vu de votre agressivité mal placée.)
France is THE world leader in the revival of tramways. Almost every major French city now has trams. There are only two exceptions. And one of those is Rennes, the capital Britanny province, which has a two-line lightweight metro!
@@dnocturn84 in the revival of trams. Far more German cities kept their tram systems in the first place, whereas all but three networks in France were ripped out
@@dnocturn84Germany didn't demolish as many of its tramways as many other other countries did. I think only 2 French cities had a tramway in the early 80s so they've built most of their tram systems in the last few decades.
I live in Paris and I'm surprized T3a and T3b has such a great success as they are painfully slow. I would better make a transfer to use line 2 or 6 instead.
@Clery75019 You can't, the T3s do a work the metro doesn't do. The connection of neighbourhoods which were far from the metro, were connected by bus, had the metro but not the same lines so people had to make a detour. Check Porte de Versailles and Porte de Vanves for instance. It was faster to do it by bus. The tramway lines replace bus lines. Here the circular tramways replace the PC buses.
@Clery75019 And the T3s are successful like all the tramway lines because they are faster, more comfortable and take more passengers than the buses they replaced.
It's good that Paris brings back tramways in the region... but, unfortunately, this "network" has so many flaws that I don't know where to start. The main one is that almost every line has been built without considering the existing ones (that's why I'd rather use quotes when talking about this "network") ; as a result, we have different gauges, and even different technologies, often for no valid reasons. And it avoids as much as possible to share tracks or stations, and even just to cross : when you see how the stations are displayed at Porte de Versailles, Porte de Choisy and Rosa Parks (when T8 will be extended there), it's meant to avoid further extensions of T2, T8 and T9. The other main flaw (quite common in France) is the bad commercial speed, mostly due to the speed trams cannot exceed when crossing the street (on some lines, they even have to wait for the traffic light). Plus, a certain number of crossings haven't been designed to let the cars circulate along the tram, so they have a lack of fluidity. T1 was built at a time when trams had to prove their reintroduction potential ; and it really was a success. But, nowadays, the line is victim of its success ; and most of the stations, plus the vehicles, were not dimensioned for this. Especially Saint-Denis (RER D), which needed to be completely rebuilt ; and La Courneuve (metro 7), which had to modify the interchange with the metro because it got crowded (plus, the station is in the middle of a roundabout, which is not ideal for extending the vehicles). Plus, I'm afraid the line will get too long to be efficient. It's planned to have three different sections in the future ; but in practice, it might be the same tram which will do all the route (with longer stops at termini stations), so I don't know if it's that more efficient. T2 was a good idea at first, replacing an old railway line which didn't have much success, and extending it to the nearest CBD (plus, at Issy, they requalified the area next to the stations). But here again, it became victim of its success ; and the bad idea here was to make extensions on streets, which downgrade the average speed of the line. Honestly, without them, it could become a VAL to absorb the never growing demand. But we'll see in the next years the impact of line 15, which should take off a part of the current traffic between Issy and La Défense. T3... there had been a debate 20 years ago between reusing the old orbital railway line and building this new one. The second option had been chosen for its better accessibility, but also because it allowed the boulevards to be requalified, which is more visible than reopening the old railway line (with no impact on car traffic and urbanity). And it's a good thing : but we can see that Paris mayors were way better at showing off with the urban requalification, than at doing an efficient tram. Again, the commercial speed is bad, the line gets crowded, and I'm afraid we couldn't extend vehicles more. Plus, at some places, it's not very optimized : at Porte de Vincennes (termini of T3a and T3b), users have to cross the avenue to do the interchange (instead of having a simple platform interchange) ; and near Canal Saint-Denis and Rosa Parks, the multiple turns badly affect the speed. Plus, although it ensures a good interchange quality with the RER, it won't be the case with T8 when it gets here : and what's infuriating is that the T8 station will take place on the boulevard where the T3 would have passed without the detour. We could have a better speed for T3 and a better interchange for T8, but we'll have the silliest solution instead. Thanks, mayor of Paris ! Then we had the Translohr gadgetbahn on T5 and T6 lines... no need to say more about that. Stupid choices for both cases. Forecast frequenting for T5 didn't need an engine with even less capacity than a high frequency articulated bus, which could do the job (with dedicated lanes and priority at crossings) for better costs. Even a real tram would have been more cost efficient, and able to be extended to the south. For T6, the tram was justified ; but again, choosing the gadgetbahn exploded the costs for a badly efficient service. I suspect that this technology got trouble when passing on the highway near Vélizy ; because at a time, it went at a ridiculously low speed of 5 km/h on this bridge ! It was quicker to cross it by foot ; and I even tested it by myself, by getting off the tram before the bridge, walking, and getting in the same tram at the next station ! And the tunnel section is very discutable. The aim was to have interchanges with the nearest rail lines ; but it could have followed the existing bus lines going to the towns around (Versailles and Chaville), for the same result, and even more trains stopping at these stations. Plus, at Viroflay, it's not interesting to take the tram to change between the train lines, because of the depth of tram stations. I have less troubles with the other urban tram lines for the moment, except the northern terminus of T9 (and the future southern one for T8). T9 feels boring, but its aim was just to replace the busiest suburban bus route, so they didn't aimed to make it more interesting. But the semi-express ones have their lot if issues too, especially T4 where it was not justified (it would have been more efficient to convert it like T2, and way less costly when it got extended to the East) ; and T12 which ruined a pre-existing connection between three important suburban poles (Versailles, Massy and Juvisy) and has an important lack of vehicles and drivers. Sorry for the big (and negative) post ; it's just that, although it's a good thing that Paris and its suburbs got new modes of transportation, I think the result is quite frustrating in practice, with its lacks of efficiency depending on the lines, and its missed opportunities. When I compare it to other cities in France with a more coherent network, I feel that we had better examples of what could be done.
It doesn't matter since unlike the other cities in France, those tram lines aren't built to be connected together. The other cities in France usually have only that, the tramway network. The tramway in Paris is integral part of the railway network and they are connected to metros, RER etc.
@@puccaland In fact, it could matter for some cases. First : cost efficiency. If all lines have the same gauge (and potentially the same vehicle dimensions), it's possible to do a bulk order for material. The region started to do this with T7/T8 and T9/T10. Besides, it would have de facto excluded the costly Translohr gadgetbahn for T5/T6, which depends on a single constructor (which, at the time, almost went bankrupt ; so if Translohr hadn't been bought by another constructor, the lines would have been condemned to be completely rebuilt to make a real tram circulate). And, mostly : when lines need to cross each other, or circulate on a shared section. It's very rare in the region, but T1 extension to the West will require a shared section and a shard station with T2. Luckily, the two lines have the same gauge ; but if they didn't have the same gauge (or, worse, one of them was a gadgetbahn), it would have been impossible. And in some cases, we can see that the actual situation prevents intersting extensions or optimizations. The main example is the stupid T5 gadgetbahn : if it had been a real tram, it could have been extended to the south, had better interchanges with M13 and T8, served St-Denis town center very well, and even been extended to Paris by serving La Plaine. But since it cannot cross classic tram tracks, all it can do is having its way sub-optimized southern terminus. Another case is the planned terminus at Rosa Parks for T8 : if the two lines have had the same gauge, T8 could have probably shared a short piece of tracks with T3b and have a station with platform interchanges, near to the RER station, which would have been a short and practical interchange. But since it's not the case (and since the decision-makers want to connect lines as less as possible, especially Paris's mayor who wants to keep her land reserves...), it will have an unpractical terminus for everyone. Plus, on a long-term vision, if we needed to redefine the routes, it would have been easier with a real network (or, at least, with lines with the same gauge everywhere), like the metro which has been thought as a network (where some lines changed routes, like line 6 which took a big section of line 5, lines 8 and 10 which permuted sections, or line 13 which is a concatenation of two old lines which were owned by different companies at the time).
@sylvainldgo7361 It's not possible to do a bulk order. It takes a decade or more to plan a tramway line. The tramway was reintroduced 30 years ago, then had to wait many years for another line then almost a decade for a new line then new lines are being added. As someone who enjoy the technology on t9 I can tell you that I am glad it wasn't part of anything which was agreed for the t2 or T3s for example or any tramway before. Even the t7 looks like dated technology in comparison. And the t9 isn't even perfect. Ultimately it will always come to the same thing anyway, changing equipment to buy new which is already happening on some tramway lines. So you can't buy in bulk for a specific model because the timing doesn't allow it. That's what happened for some RER lines and we've been waiting for ages. Moreover in the future, it is totally possible to order a model with multiple versions to adapt to the different lines, and adapting the existing infrastructure to the new equipment is something very common in public transportation anyway.
@sylvainldgo7361 The other reasons is that the tramways don't answer to a same problematic so they don't need the same type of equipment. Some replace very long bus lines, some need to be smaller, some only replace short bus lines, some replace train lines so they need to be heavier, some will be on relatively straight routes, others will have a lot of curves so need more articulation, others will have a lot of hills etc.
This is What you should be making Longer higher quality videos rather than shorter poorly researched videos then it does not matter if you only upload twice a month
Well because at the time (1st half of the 20th century) when the metro lines were built, most of the suburbs were mere villages. There was insufficient demand to justify a métro service but as the video rightly says, the burbs were covered with tram lines, that were dismantled post WW2
It's a fair question and I don't think the other answers do it justice. The Paris "suburbs" clearly justified a dense suburban railway and tramway system even at the time, and even after the "suburbs" surpassed Central Paris in population (which is really long ago at this point) metro construction outside the Périf was basically nonexistent until recently. I think it was a deliberate decision in the 10s-30s to build a system that is specced for moving around real Parisians and didn't focus on connections to the dreaded banlieus. Parisian authorities used to have a habit of pretending the world ended after the boulevards des Maréchaux, and it's probably not that surprising that the Paris Metro was conceived as a Paris transportation system and not a banlieue-to-Paris transportation system. The law that drove much of the Metro construction specified that the system should provide coverage to all of "Paris". It never applied to other municipalities.
Well, the burbs were less dense than the center (even though they’re more populated overall) so less customers for each kilometre you dig. Plus tunnel boring got more expensive and money was kept for RER, périphérique and freeways.
@@n.bastians8633 When the metro was built the suburbs didn't justify building a network there. They were underpopulated, still are. Half of the Greater Paris today that's just fields. Imagine back then. Then when the urban area extended to the suburbs they started building the RER and reorganising what would become the Transilien. Then it's easy to say build this build that but even the closest suburbs became as densed or even denser than Paris center. Building in such environment is a real challenge and that's not something which can be done overnight. Ultimately they did it anyway and are still doing it. And that's not as if they didn't do anything in the meantime, the bus network is also extensive. Today the Parisian network is the densest in the world and every Parisian at the Greater Paris level is at 10 min walk of a public transportation station.
This is one of your best explainers, because of how you interspersed footage throughout, while you were explaining each line. Well done Reece, please do that more, if you can! I do find it a little curious though, how you've made so many videos about Paris (this is now the 2nd video purely about Paris's tram network), when it's not even in the top 10 biggest tram networks in the world. There are a lot of glaring omissions. You've never made a video about Melbourne's trams (the largest tram system in the world), or a single video about Prague, Budapest, Moscow, St. Petersburg or Kiev (OK, I get that the war makes that harder). Istanbul is the 2nd biggest city in Europe, and you've only made 1 video about it. Cologne, Milan, Katowice, Vienna and Amsterdam also have huge tram systems, and those have not been covered. I don't really understand the obsession with Paris. I think other cities need some airtime.
The two biggest flaws of paris tram network are TransLohr lines and the lack of connection between lines: every line should be connected at least with line t3 (and t3 line should be completed filling the gap on the west side. I nstead of only splitting line could be served by threee different services, with t3a and t3b on half line and t3 on the entire line).
@@ogamiitto8627That’s not what the RATP website says for t+ ticket, which is what I was addressing. Once validated on a tram, the ticket is not good for the Metro, I understand.
Grammarian triggered! Oh my! "Myriad" is used just like "many"; no "of" needed. Many means many. Myriad means many of differing varieties. "The many trams" = "The myriad trams"
T3 is a stupid political project. It was not designed to ne efficient or improve public transport. It was designed with the only goal of creating car jammed (especially at all the Paris "doors") A round line around Paris is a good idea by itself, but it should have been a metro. A metro is a lot faster, more liable and has a much greater capacity than a tram. Also it would have allowed direct connexion with almost all the metro lines in Paris. It would have been amazing to avoid the very crowded center. They event decided to not used part of the old train line going around Paris, even though it would have significantly improved performance.
T3 is a great line, does a great job for banlieue/banlieue trips. Efficiency is ok, you're not supposed to do the whole circle (métro is here for that kind of trip...). Just a few stops from a porte to another, and you're done. Plus it reshaped Maréchaux boulevards for the better.
@@ogamiitto8627 it should have been a metro. Twice as fast, 4 times the capacity, more reliable, less accidents... The T3 is already running at 50% over it's predicted capacity. In Paris we need high performance, high capacity public transportation, a tram is not the right solution.
There are already metros going around Paris. Metro 2 and 6. And now a second ring with metro 15. The trams replaced buses and they do a good job at it. From someone who initially wanted a metro instead of T9 but T9 is the perfect option.
Wrong ! I live there (porte de vincennes) and I can tell you that a tram always packed with 300 000 users each day cannotnbe created for car jammed. You are an ignorant or a hater
I now have videos explainer the Paris Trams, Metro, and RER in detail!
Metro: th-cam.com/video/kGsCejwW6Kk/w-d-xo.html
RER: th-cam.com/video/6afb6uv1V1Y/w-d-xo.html
The split in 3A and 3B is incredibly frustrating. You are right that most people aren't wanting to go all around the loop, but it means that for people wanting to go from Porte de Montreuil to Bercy, they must get on the tram for 2 minutes before needing to change. It isn’t a cross-platform interchange. They make you walk across the large and busy street to get to the other terminus. In cold months like this, it is very annoying.
Actually, the split is a great idea. It completely avoids having every through tram block that busy street (Cour de Vincennes), and avoids the street traffic from blocking trams. Plus, more space is available for platforms along C de V. When I have been there, including last week, I have not seen many people transfer from T3b to T3b or vice versa.
(BQRail)😊
actually a lot faster to take the 9 for 3 stops and then the 6 for a few stops...
@@obifox6356 Living there. It's awful.
Honestly I see so many people do the switch between T3a and T3b, I wonder if they should just cut the line somewhere else or just try to have one long tram but with real systematic priority at each intersection, and REAL FINES for EACH car blocking them too. They're the main problem for the trams, as always.
@ Do you consider that switch a problem? Worse than Metro connections at Nation, for example?
The Trinity Is Completed! Metro, RER and trams. But there is also the Transilien!
And also the TER although the fares aren't included in the commuter pass.
@@puccaland While that is technically true, I don't think there's any control. Therefore it's pretty common to use TER for their direct connection to Paris with a regular metro/RER pass.
And in a few months, the Cable
@Clery75019 No don't do that. TER are like TGV etc and usually can't run without a ticket inspector on board. Don't try your luck. And actually I was wrong. It seems you can use a zone free Navigo or the Imagin R (Navigo for students) to use the TER within the Ile de France region limits. So the TER is an integral part of the Greater Paris railway network like the RER etc. But you can't use simple tickets unless it's a TER ticket.
@@puccaland Yeah I have a colleague living in Mantes and taking TER direct trains to Saint-Lazare to go to work with his Navigo pass.
Those light trams on T9 look amazing, almost like they are from Tron!
@@0Defensor0 T9 is beautiful and also very smooth and quiet. People were skeptical at first, even disappointed because they wanted a metro instead but now they love it.
France knows how to do an attractive tram.
France knows how to make attractive transit
Great video! I feel like Paris transit system rarely gets the recognition it deserves.
I disagree. Reece has made 8 videos about Paris now, and yet other cities with bigger systems have not had a single video. Even on other channels, I feel like Paris gets mentioned pretty often.
@@mdhazeldine Paris has a big metro system, a big RER system, a big commuter rail system, a big tram system… all of that at the same time, so there’s a lot to cover and talk about. Some other cities may have a bigger metro but no RER equivalent, more trams but no metro, etc.
@@sans_hw187 Yeah I get that. I just don't know why you'd single out the Paris tram network over somewhere like Melbourne, Prague or Budapest, when you've already made 7 videos about Paris and 1 or none about those other cities.
No the Moscow metro does not get credit. Everybody bangs the drum about the Grand Paris Express expanainsons , about the Elisabeth line in Lonson.
But in Moscow they have done a massive series of expansions , similar to GPE, 10-20 years ago .. But hardly anyone talks about it ..
Reece deleted a global video covering the entire Paris transit system to create individual videos for each mode of transport. That’s why there’s so much coverage of Paris
A nice thing bout Paris' tram network is that they designed it to *NOT* interfere with other street traffic.
I guass it more the other way around. The other traffic does not interfere with the tram transit. ...
Like most trams in France actually, except in a few cities like Saint-Etienne I think, that did not remove its old trams
@@lws7394 Exactly
@@lws7394 Well just try to use it every day. The tram is blocked by cars at every intersection
@alph5230 dedicated tram rails and sensor guided intersections. For what I have seen most Trams in Paris have dedicated lanes. Those sensors can also be used by buses and emergency services. That should give a smooth flow for the tram .
If cars are on the junction because of congestion at the next junction, the management of a chain of traffic lights should be reexamined. The number of cars that are let go thru a traffic light A can be monitored by how many cars are still at junction B ...
Here in Quebec we like to emulate things France does since it's easy to get notes on how their stuff works on, yet we can't be bothered to do that with their trams. Sad.
Il n’y a plus rien qu’on fait comme les français depuis la mafia caq au pouvoir. On est devenu américains
As a Montrealer living in Toronto, I also think the exo/AMT trains not being modelled off the RER is a massive waste of potential. Never took exo/AMT trains or buses in my life but I have used GO trains and buses many times. Montréal transit has been too stagnant over the past few decades.
@AshgabatKetchumov they claimed a study into extending the Candiac line to St-Jean indicated it'd take to long to be worth it, my eye it would.
@@AshgabatKetchumov i couldn’t believe the plan for EXO was to let it rot… like it’s already built why not improve it? Toronto’s RER network will lap Montreal even with REM.
@@ZontarDowwas "my eye" a direct translation of mon œil? Never heard it in English 😂
I'd love to see more trams 🚊 in the historic center of Paris co-existing with the metro 🚇
Well the historic center is so densely packed with metro lines and stops that you don't need tram service. Besides the few large boulevards that could accommodate a tram line are precisely those that have metro lines running underneath
@@nicolaschung916 I would have loved T8 to be extended on the Petite Ceinture former rail line but apparently it doesn't look like it will be the case. 😢
The most viable project is the "tramway des gares" which would directly connect Paris' many long-distance train stations, but even that gets massive opposition because 1) even if the metro isn't optimized for those specific routes, it's not terrible enough to justify new infrastructure, and 2) conservative people do not want unsightly and bulky tram infrastructure in the historical center.
I agree, though they'd have to do things quite differently!
Will you do an explainer on Prague Trams? It's one of the biggest systems and adopts some of the modern principles quite well.
Really good idea!!! I was there some months ago
Prague has a great and pictoresque system. And indeed is an example of "modern tram principles", even though it's something like a... element of everyday life? As in other bigger central-european cities (Brno, Bratislava, Kraków, Poznań, etc.) where tram systems function well before "it was cool"
And will that explainer note that Prague's tram system has only a few request stops, and that a bell icon appears on approach to them?
@@Myrtone Interesting, I didn't know that!
I might do one on Prague in general if I can get good footage!
And once all the currently planned extensions are completed in the early 2030s, Paris will boast the world’s largest tram system, surpassing Melbourne. This is especially impressive given the relatively young age of the system!
Not sure if it was intentional, but you didn’t mention some key extension projects that are already at advanced planning stages:
- By 2032, T10 is expected to receive a fully underground eastern extension, connecting to Transilien N and Line 15. The Line 15 station is already being built with provisions for this future underground connection.
- By 2030, T1 is planned to extend further east to Rueil, beyond its currently under construction extension to Colombes. At 35 km long, T1 will be divided into three segments (T1a, T1b, and T1c), similar to T3.
- Although technically off-topic, it’s worth noting that the 10 km long T13 tram-train extension is already under construction.
If we are assuming "tram" and "light rail" are the same thing (which I do), then Los Angeles might actually end up with the longest system in a decade or two. At least they will be longer than Moscow if not Melbourne and Paris. The Wiki page on this has them at 12th currently, but that doesn't include a one stop extension that opened a month ago, which should be enough for them to pass Sofia, Bulgaria, listed as 11th.
They already have the longest single tram line (the A Line) with one extension to it opening in just a few months, another extension that just got funded with work beginning soon, and then a third (to Ontario Airport) frequently discussed but not funded or approved (amongst various other extensions of other existing lines as well new lines in various stages of planning and construction).
@@Geotpf if you assume tram and light rail are the same, paris would still be first since paris also has light rail lines under construction
Its really exciting how large the scale will be, and its a network like no other!
simply massive
Meanwhile T11's extension is uncertain, or even sadder is likely to be abandoned :(
These trams, on dedicated ROWs, are awesome as orbital connectors to the various Metro Lines. Really cool organization of the system.
Paris so gets its surburban transit right! I wish London had the same enthusiasm for tramways in its surburbs.
Yeah the tram network is pretty deep into south London it would be nice if they did some extensions to other areas
I might be biased, but watching all these "tram rediscovering" and finding how are they works well in cities look a bit surprising. It gives like a "it's just a tram, it's all obvious" feeling... at least from Polish point of view where in biggest cities (e.g. Kraków) trams are just an everyday experience for decades.
Yeah lol, I feel this too, coming from Amsterdam. The thing is that these new trams are just very high quality: fast, seperated and with modern rolling stock. In Amsterdam we have many slow tram lines, with old, narrow inaccesible stops, but we are slowly upgrading things.
Because Paris removed the trams a century ago and reintroducing them in one of the densest cities in the world is a technical challenge and feat when it's a success.
The specificity of Paris is that tram is mostly a suburban service that doesn't serve at all Paris city center (T3a and T3b are at the edge of the City of Paris). Also it's fastly growing as its ridership reached 361 million trips in 2023. It will probably become the busiest tram network in the world in the upcoming years.
I don't think you understand how old some tram networks are in France, the new modern trams became popular in the 90's and the 2000's (20 - 30 years ago) and they are also very different from old USSR like trams you see in Eastern Europe, so there are a lot of things to say about it (and also because it's a Channel that talks in detail about public transport)
For having taken tram both in paris and Kraków (I come from both cities) i must say they are very different, the parisian one dare very modern while the polish ones feel, like you said, to be just the normal way of transport that has always been there.
I really hope we will gets Prague's trams and metro video, they have amazing public transport system
And also mention that Prague's tram system has a few request stops.
T2 was my everyday line in my exchange semester in Paris! Huge service difference vs the Toronto streetcar network
Thanks. I've used Paris and IDF transit off and on since 1978. I haven't had an opportunity to use the new trams. Yet!
14m59s I'm glad too see that this problem is not a unique feature of Toronto.
Really liked the video, thank you.
Nice video!
12:43 Interesting seeing T7 going under the runway at Orly. I bring this up because an objection I heard to New York's LaGuardia extension of the Astoria subway line was that it would conflict with some FAA zone (I believe it was the OFV, Obstacle Free Zone) that reaches under the runway. This despite that the fact London Heathrow Airport has the Picadilly and Elizabeth Lines each going under a runaway twice. Of course, the FAA is American, but I wonder if there were similar rules and issues with T7 and TfL. Like, did they get waivers to deal with the OFVs?
In Paris the A1 freeway also run under 2 CDG airport runways. Knowing how many freeways you guys have in the US, I'm sure there are examples to be found .
The bridge has to be wide enough (150 m: 75 on each side of the runway centerline) for the graded area around the runway to be... well graded, so no hole, an aircraft should be able to run on it without damage. Then there is the strip, which is 280 m if I remember well (140 on each side of the runway centerline) which must be clear of obstacles (a hole is not an obstacle, obstacles go above the level of the runway). Then there are oblique (the further from the runway, the higher the limit) surfaces above which you mustn't find obstacles.
These are the ICAO rules. I learned it in France, may be in the US, national regulation go further than that.
You were mentioning that Translohr line having a bumpy ride but I can tell you where you can get a bumpy ride and that’s on the Health Line in Cleveland. It almost makes me want to be against BRT.
I needed this so bad, I'm going to Paris tomorrow lol, thank you
May I suggest a video on Besançon tram : one of the smallest cities to have a tram, one of the cheapest to be built, really bold choices in the old town (especially the bridges) and Chalezeule branch, stunning design
Hey RMTransit! I think it would be amazing if you made a video about Norway's transportation system. Norway has Europe's largest rail freight terminal in Alnabru, Oslo, which is a major hub for goods transport across the continent. Additionally, the country is investing heavily in its future with the development of a new high-speed rail line capable of 250 km/h between oslo and Hamar, which will significantly improve connectivity between major cities like Oslo and Bergen. It’s an exciting time for Norwegian transport, and I’m sure your detailed analysis would bring a lot of interesting insights! Hope you consider it!
I would still love to see a video on San Diego, or a video on why BRT lines need to be well integrated with rail lines. In San Diego we have multiple locations where BRT routes cross the trolley tracks with no interchange. If the two services were integrated, I could get to work in 20 minutes using transit, but because they're not, it takes an hour. Also, SANDAG is doing preliminary research on a brand new rail line called the purple line which would add around 26 miles of track and radically improve our rail system. I know you probably have other priorities but I would love to hear you weigh in on this.
I would also love to see Reece’s perspective in San Diego. IMO the purple line proposal is a little lacking, it would not be particularly useful unless built in whole, and even then leaves Mid-City and Uptown without a direct downtown connection . Better to build a purple line like system serving the core (Mid city/SE/Uptown) first and then add branches. Also SANDAG seems to be proposing the line entirely subway which is problematic given the extistence of wide stroads for elevated ROW- they use its price to justify also considering light rail which would be extremely limiting for a new regional system.
Agreed with you on BRT and really bus connections in general - the connections are poor even at some stations on the new Mid-Coast trolley extension
If the latter, should it mention buses and trams sharing platforms? This is something that is sure to give a better user experience over time.
@@elefante8572 I live in mid city (city heights) and we already have 2 direct downtown connections - 215 rapid and 235 rapid buses. We don't want the purple line to go from mid city to downtown. Most of us are commuting to Kearny mesa, mission valley, or Sorrento valley, not downtown. The proposed path of the purple line follows the path of the 805 freeway which is one of if not the busiest freeway in San Diego and does NOT go through downtown. Right now there are so many ways to get to downtown using transit from literally every neighborhood, but the days are past where most of the jobs are downtown. We now lack ways to get to places where jobs actually are (mission valley, Sorrento, Kearny mesa) and that's exactly what the purple line is going to do. The purple line would also give us an indirect rail connection to downtown (we would need to transfer to the orange line) but again we already have 2 direct BRT connections. The current plan is to build the northern section first (national city to Sorrento). The problem with this is that the south bay remains underserved and relatively unable to access the purple line, but they could fix this by building additional stations for the existing 225 BRT route that would connect with the purple line. But basically the point is WE DON'T need to go downtown and already have plenty of ways to do that, and the places we do need to go, we have no transit options so we are forced to drive. The purple line would give us that option.
@@willmorris8198 Thanks for writing! Sorry in advance for a long comment, but I'd love to hear your further thoughts on my reasoning!
I totally understand why transit to Sorrento Valley and Kearny Mesa is essential -- they are comparable employment centers to downtown/uptown/naval base area in job population. (170k for SV, 125k for KM, 69k for Mission valley, 100k for downtown with 38k at Naval Base, 31k in Hillcrest, and 34k at Bayfront)
I however do think that higher order transit should be built first where demonstrated transit demand, job density, and population density already exist. The 215 and 235 buses, along with buses 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 929, are 8 of the top 12 highest ridership routes in the system. That ridership demonstrates strong transit demand. I also think there's good reason to believe ridership on a metro along those routes would be quite high. While improvements are being made to bus lanes none of the Rapid routes are BRT quality along their full route, the highway Rapids miss population and job centers, many of the local buses are slow in traffic, and most run on 15 minute frequencies all day which is not sufficient. A massive increase in speed and frequency enabled by Skytrain-like automated metro would drive ridership and improve transfers. It would also free up some of the resources from buses (though local buses would still be necessary) and those resources could go to improved service in other areas.
It's somewhat tough to serve Kearny Mesa and Sorrento Valley effectively given their sprawl and poor local coverage. One of the advantages of serving downtown is that you get built in transfers to the trolley and bus lines serving downtown, uptown, Midway, and the naval base and shipbuilding yards. Demonstrating demand and maybe building some enabling infrastructure with a BRT route along the 805 and/or genesee (Rapid 43) is warranted before building a subway. SANDAG estimated 20000 daily riders for the 20 mile SV-NC route which is comparable to the fairly slow and infrequent Orange Line and less than a third of the Blue Line. This is wildly poor value for money if it indeed will cost 20 billion dollars (worse than San Jose BART).
Nonetheless, connecting Sorrento Valley is essential. I just think a phased approach where the priority is serving existing transit demand and then branching out to serve the region might be preferable. Additionally, if it served downtown, this project could replace the Blue Line Express project and vastly improve service to National City, Chula Vista, and South SD, which have very high transit ridership but where the Blue Line mostly runs along the 5 and misses the population/job centers.
I would imagine a first phase of the project as serving SDSU Mission Valley (GL), running along the 15 to City Heights, El Cajon Blvd and 54th St through Mid-City, Euclid Ave through SE SD (OL), and then Logan/National Ave through Southcrest and along the 5 to downtown (12 mi with about 9 stations for a total travel time of about 25 min) This would be valuable both radially and circumferentially (particularly for areas of Mid City and SE SD not well served by either the Orange Line or Rapid) but also crucially be the backbone of a regional network developed in phases. Hopefully phased development could allow for lower costs through an in-house planning/engineering team building the network over decades.
One area that desperately needs trams is to the North West of Paris, in Val d'Oise : Ermont, Eaubonne, Sannois, Enghien, Deuil la Barre, Saint Gratien. They all have some transilien service to them, but 0 tram. Which means if you don't go towards Paris or Pontoise... You're screwed. Inside a triangle formed by Pontoise, Epinay and Valmondois, there is nothing. You have to take the bus, and those areas have BIG traffic jams during peak hours, and buses don't have their own lanes. Once, the line H had issues, and I took the bus. It was predicted to take 30 min just to do 2 stops of transilien that would have taken 4 min... After the first 15 min of bus, I decided to walk, and I beat the bus to my destination by a couple min, as I saw it going by later... The sad thing is that there are plans for a bus on its own lane east of that area, from like Epinay to Villiers le Bel, plans south of that area to continue the T2 tram with another bus on its own lane to Herblay. But again, nothing in that heavily urbanized triangle where bike lanes are awful, roads are narrow, and traffic jams are huge.
Would you consider talking about the Freiburg transit system at some point? It punches well above its weight for a city of 200k, including an extensive tram network and an s-Bahn, and could be seen as a model for how to do transit in small cities.
There's a big push to add tram lines to Montreal, and I am worried that they won't follow a good model for fast and efficient trams in the semi-dense suburbs.
Please do a bern transit explained or more in Switzerland and I would appreciate that if you could do a tehran metro too thank you
Wonder if the TVM (and 393) might be converted to tram operation in the future (especially the TVM, given how busy it is)
Even though they are studies at the moment to see if the TVM could be converted, because how busy it is, it will be difficult to convert it to a tram. Also there is a miss connection with the T10 at Croix de berny, and from personal experience, its a pain in the ass to go from T10 to TVM/RER B
No. When the TVM was launched there were tracks to make it work as a tram but they removed them, the project won't happen. The TVM and 393 can't be converted into trams. Too many bridges and not even straight bridges. Moreover that route is too busy. The TVM works like a RER bus, the 393 is good back up till Pompadour. The buses are huge and can take way more passengers than a tram. Moreover the waiting time between buses can be in seconds. Basically buses can follow back to back. Impossible with a tramway. What they should do on the TVM route is to put double decker buses. It's possible but I am not sure about the safety on the bridges.
The 393 is bound to go to Orly airport and I don't see how they can make a tramway route from Carrefour de la Résistance to Orly airport. Especially that there is already T7 in the area.
I just learned that the TVM is the busiest bus line in Europe. I am not surprised. They are doing good but they need even more frequency to answer the demand especially with the connections to metros and tramways which keeps increasing. They aren't back to the pre Covid frequency I think but even the pre Covid frequency won't be enough for the future. They need to find a way to take more passengers per bus. Even maybe create express buses and buses stopping at every stations like a RER.
@@puccaland TVM ridership (23 million/year) is higher than Miami subway (13 million/year). Also the T3b ridership (69 million/year) and T3a (66 million/year) are both higher than LA subway (61 million/year).
@@puccalandPerhaps at some point, they’ll need to introduce bi-articulated buses to cope with the passenger demand
Cool video. Would love one about the tram line currently being built in my home city Bologna👍🇮🇹
Thank you Reece for an extraordinarily good video, even by you very high standards! Heidi Alexander, the new British Secretary of State for Transport appointed yesterday, should watch this video. You rightly kept coming back to the point that in Paris, when a new tram route is built, the streets on which the trams run are completely reconstructed. This is, of course, true of all French cities which have reintroduced trams.
Yep, they do a very good job taking lessons learned and spreading them across the country!
There are a few errors with ridership, especially for the circular lines.
The overall tramway network has well over 1 million rides per day.
Lines 3a and 3b are counted separately, not as a single line. But combined, they regularly pass 700 000 daily rides, which is humongous for tramways.
The latest extension alone was expected to increase daily ridership on 3b by 80.000 passengers with only 3.5 additional kilometers and 7 new stations.
Thankfully, most passengers travel rather short distances, or it simply wouldn't be possible.
These 2 lihes are the workhorses of the tram network and are severely overcrowded.
The fact that Translohr trams have bumpy rides is a no brainer... But for using one of those just today, I can tell you that this things have a really strong and satisfaying acceleration ! This is one of the (few) good points I can give to this technology haha.
I imagine the combination of electric motor and rubber tyres is quite effective.
Still a damn gadgetbahn though.
T1, when it will be extended East and West, will be split into three sublines, Les Courtilles platforms have already been extended to allow that and Bobigny Picasso station will be completely redesigned as a two islands platforms and 4 tracks station, at the same time the M15 station will be built, hence why the line Easter portion is closed until sometime next year...
Technically T2 is NOT underground at La Défense, it goes ABOVE ground but under concrete structures and main level of the La Défense Esplanade... Ah the joys of modern urbanism where seemingly underground is not actually under GROUND... Also the initial section was a rail line that was closed (seeing poor service and low passenger numbers and modified into a tram. With its success, many residential areas were built around it so it's a victim of its own success and way too crowded for its own good.
About T3, it could have been argued than a VAL system could have been better but the Mayor wanted transit to be visible so they preferred a tram.
T5 has ridiculously short stock compared to its ridership, it's a planning failure, not to mention the choice of Translohr for this line and T6.
T6 should have been a metro or two metros meeting at Hôpital Béclère, extension of Line 13 to Petit Clamart and OrlyVal to Vélizy2 Shopping centers.
I like the architecture of the two underground stations though.
About T7, Rungis is not pronounced as Fungus but as if it was a J instead of a G. Pronounce "Runjis." it also sees very low passenger numbers pasr Rungis section, joining the Airport is very slow and has now been overtaken by Line 14 must faster route. Imo, in its current state this line is kinda useless and would benefit greatly of being extended to Juvisy as well as Line 15 (which opening has been postponed until mid 2026 at best)
T8 having branches is messed up and repeats the mistake of metro Line 13.
T9's most interesting feature is the connection to its workshop which goes several buckes under the rail yard of RER C before going up on the other side.
Some argue that T10 should be extended underground until the Clamart M15/train station.
“Seemingly underground is not actually under GROUND”
This happened in Atlanta. The city developed around core railroad tracks that had been there since the start of the city (and are why it even exists), and the tracks used to just cross the streets until in the early 1900s they just built the streets over the railroad lines, and the new buildings had their storefronts out to the elevated streets. All the train stations in Atlanta past that time had the tracks pass through under the main buildings, and when Terminal Station was demolished, they just built a federal building over that space, keeping the tracks below and the platforms (for a time).
If T2 isn't under ground at La Défense, then Paris metro line 1 isn't as well, as it's technically built at grade covered by a concrete slab. But then if you continue with such technicalities, all metros that were built with the cut and cover method are also not "under ground", as they are also covered by a concrete slab. In the end of the day, functionally speaking, the only thing that matters is whether or not a section is covered as that's what allows full grade separation from the urban environment.
Interesting about the reconfiguration of T1! Thanks for watching!
@@Clery75019no, the metro is two floors down compared to the T2, in la défense the tram, trains and busses are all on the same level with each other and that level is officially the ground floor. You can see it when going into one of the malls from the esplanade, you'll see signs saying you're on level 1 and if you go down one floor, you'll be on level zero.
@@Clery75019 Not really, M1 was built under the level of the ground by digging soil. T2 in la Défense was built at grade or above the ground and covered by the giant esplanade slab, like the CNIT, of which the real ground level at the time of construction is now under the level of the slab. It's a very different situation from M1.
The "ground" of the esplanade is like 2 stories above the real ground (soil).
For M1 to be comparable it would need to be running at street level and then covered by a slab at the height of Rivoli buildings' second floor.
T2's tracks don't need to climb out of the station to reach the surface, they already are on the surface of the real ground but underneath the built-up elevated esplanade slab.
Parts of M1 were built cut-and-cover by digging a trench under the ground level. Line T2 at la Défense was not cut-and-cover but just "cover", without digging a trench.
One could even say that the tracks of line T2 and Transilien L and U at la Défense are in fact slightly elevated and enclosed as there's some debate about the A14 highway that runs underneath being actually the real ground level (same level as line M1).
Related to trams, Basel would be an excellent city to cover
i haven't saw those trains in yrs they're detailed & tbqh nice lookin.
I have used the T2 and T6 for several years. They are so much nicer to use than the metro.
The old buse lines PC1,PC,PC3 before T3A & T3B existed did have overlapping sections so you weren’t arbitrarily forced to change lines at certain points. I can’t see why they didn’t keep this organisation for the trams…
Great explainer! (the sound is a little muffled on part of the video though...)
You missed T11 (initially planned to reuse "Grande Ceinture" tracks but finally used dedicated tracks - Épinay sur Seine to Le Bourget, opened in 2017), T12 (opened in late 2023 - actually, mostly a repurposing of a RER C branch from Massy to Épinay sur Orge in the south + an extension to the east), T13 ("opened" in 2022 - repurposing of the Saint-Germain to Saint-Cyr Transilien line, that was dubbed "le train fantôme" due to low ridership)
OK I commented before the video was over... you mentioned them at the end as "tram-trains"
Nice Vid ❤👍
I noticed you had SD Trolley signs in your background. Would you consider making a video on it?
I would also love to see a San Diego video, especially since SANDAG is now researching the purple line
nice video, could you do a video about Zurichs tram network?
8:52 T3s miss connection also with RER A. Though it was considered to extend both T3s from Porte de Vincennes to Nation and I hope someday RER D will stop at Porte de Charenton or Porte de la Chapelle to provide metros 8 / 12 a better connection to RER network.
Correction: RER B is connected to the t3 at cité universitaire, RER A and D are not
Great video, could you do one on the Gothenburg tram network?
thessaloniki metro opened you should cover it ! Venizelos station is the prettiest station in the world !
Could you do a video on the tram network in Prague?
Hey, nice video as always
But where have you read that T6 could be converted into a regular tramway ? I'd be much interested to know more about it, considering I've read that T6 couldn't be turned into a real tramway because of the size of the tunnel.
Thanks !
hey Reece, I haven't found on nebula T4 video. Where can I find it?
Are you going to make a video of Florence trams?
i live in france
What's the music in the intro? It's awesome!
can you please cover the story of the metro of Thessaloniki, which just launched operation after decades?
Oh, Reece, we wanna be REAL trams sur les wheels of steel
Is there a different narrator reading the script? The voice is very different to the usual one on this channel.
French trams are so pretty
Can you please cover the topic of Kochi Water metro. And is it viable anywhere else?
Why no T4? Straight from T3 to T5-T6?
T4 was discarded as it was considered a tram-train. However that's not so true considering that T4 is an urban tram on it's branch from Gargan to Monterfermeil.
T4 exists it's just not part of the video because it's a tram-train (I believe he already made a video about tram-trains)
Same for T11, T12 and T13
@@cdrw92 T2, just like T4, has been built over an already existing train line, but expanded later at street level. The only reason why T4 is considered more a "tram-train" than T2 is that the line historically belongs to the SNCF and is now operated by its subsidiary Transkeo, whereas RATP bought the "Ligne des Coteaux" rail line before converting it into a tram.
I can see why T11, T12 and T13 were excluded as they are indeed tram-train express services, that's not so true about T4, which is actuallly a standard urban tram on its section from Gargan to Montfermeil.
You gotta get a Jet Lag collab
I love TFS's. they shouldn't be scrapped, they're reliable. building a standard gauge railway is cheap, especially when you mix them a little bit with traffic, which tfs's are also made made for. I can think of so much places in France where they could be used
Will you be talking about the newly opened Riyadh metro? If you need videos or info reply here!
While Paris trams work pretty well, largely because of wide boulevards and off street running, their success does not justify large street running trams elsewhere. (BQRail)
"We can't dedicate one of the 8 lanes of road traffic to silly tramways, can we?"
THESSALONIKI METRO IS OPENNNN
Melbourne could do something like this instead of its super-expensive and decades-to-build Suburban Rail Loop, augmenting its extensive radial tramways with new orbital lines on dedicated rights-of-way.
The main issue with Paris' trams is that each line is designed to be fully independent, it is not a real network.
Different rolling stock, different technologies, different widths, different companies, different tickets etc. Too often this leads also to poor connections between the tram lines and with the other train or metro lines.
That's not really an issue as trams are used to fill the gaps in the rail network. I'd estimate than 70% of riders use it only for 2-3 stops then transfer to metro or train.
Same thing with Toronto. Line 5 and 6 use totally different technology
There aren't different tickets. Different companies means nothing, the network works as one and is managed by IDF Mobilite. The tramways aren't connected among them because they are already connected to the existing network of metro and trains the whole thing working as one network. Moreover they are back up lines to connect the suburbs or the outskirt of Paris so logically they can't be connected together.
@@puccaland Indeed, trams in Paris are really a complementary service to the metro/RER network. It all works as a whole, it doesn't make sense to be singled out.
@@Clery75019 I think those people base on cities where the entire railway network is just a tramway. So in those cities the tramway lines have to be connected.
Re 1:33 In addition to these flaws, trams in Amsterdam, Berlin and Toronto don't stop at all stops, they have request stopping. Is it true that stop skipping on these systems is only to cover for these flaws? It requires knowledge of when stop needs to be requested, has anyone here seen people miss their stops because they did not expect to have to request them?
Re 2:25 In additon to level boarding for accessiblity, trams in Paris, and those on most other second generation tramways just stop at all stops regardless, which may also help accessiblity as it does not require knowledge of when a stop needs to be requested and people waiting at stops don't need to be visible to drivers, as is often the case at bus stops. I myself have missed trams in Melbourne because the driver did not see me.
However, trams in Paris do have passenger operated doors, and this requires knowledge of when door buttons need to be pressed.
"this requires knowledge of when door buttons need to be pressed."... I'd say, when the tram is stopped at a station, and when the push button is lit... not rocket science? And if you press it too early, nothing happens and you can try again some seconds later.
I'd also say that this is a feature, not a bug: it prevents cold air from rushing in needlessly in winter (and vice-versa during summer), or your 3 year-old from rushing out of the tram at the worst moment.
@@takix2007 The thing is there is not a need to press a button to get in or out if a door is already open. If someone on one side presses a button to open the door, someone on the other side does not.
@@Myrtone I'm really sorry but I fail to understand your point...
If someone presses the button to get on or off, then the door does not open needlessly...?
@@takix2007 If you are are on one side of the door when the tram stops, how do you know whether someone on the other side of the door is going to press a button to open the doors.
Also think of people with walking frames, passenger operated doors might be a problem for them.
@Myrtone I'm terribly sorry but I am still not getting your point; yes, I do not know whether someone will open the door, but if I have to get down, I press the button, if I don't, I won't press it. Also, there is a big hint whether the door will open: do I see people waiting on the platform behind the door when the tram actually stops...
Another benefit is reduced tear and wear, reducing maintenance costs, and thus the cost to passengers/taxpayers.
And regarding people with walking frames, it will be less of a challenge for them than opening any regular building door (including their front door through which they came out in order to walk to the tram).
You could object that on some metro/RER (not trams...) you open the doors with some kind of lever or a rubbery button, both often hard to operate (needing some force), which can be a challenge for older/disabled people; I'd answer that you are correct, and this feedback is taken in consideration, since this kind of rolling stock is 40+ years old, and progressively renovated or phased out, with newer/renovated rolling stock equiped with low force press button similar to trams. But the wider challenge is to make a legacy metro network (100+ years old) disabled/handicapped friendly, and that is quite another topic compared to the trams we were talking about.
Do thessaloniki! Just opened
Toronto's trams should have looked like the T10 at the end with the double doors at the front. I know there were some limitations to it and all. I'm just saying..
Paris had trams???
Why is the sound so bad ?
Looking at a railway map, it perplexes me why T3 was built at all instead of converting the Petite Ceinture railway to a metro line...the infrastructure is already there.
The petite ceinture is deep underground so it is not suited for short trip
Moreover there are already metro 2 and 6 going around Paris. Tramways replace buses and are better for short rides while going faster than a bus.
Petite Ceinture offers a poor connection with the metro. That's actually a funny story as, somehow, Petite Ceinture was in the 19th century the Parisian equivalent to the London circle line. Yet, as the City of Paris decided to build an entirely independent metro that wasn't connected to other railways (contrary to London), it ignored on purpose the Petite Ceinture. The big problem of the Petite Ceinture is that the line was shared by various trafics, leading to a pretty poor local service (only 4 trains per hour). When metro lines 2 and 6 opened, they were far more efficient for locals and had a lot more success. This eventually lead local passengers service to be closed on the Petite Ceinture in 1934.
@@edvardmunch6344 no it's not. At least not in the south where it is some 100m north of the T3a line, and on an artificial elevated "hill", between rows of buildings.
London always broadly spaced bus stops at 200yds (Central area .... red buses) and 400yds (out in the rim .... green buses). There's no point converting to metres (a meter is 9.375% longer than a yard) , as the spacings are scarcely inch perfect anyway!
I look at new tramways across Europe 🇪🇺 and can't help thinking of the almighty hoo-ha there'd be if sufficient demolition occurred in my home city of Brighton & Hove 🇬🇧 to enable a new* network to be constructed.
*Two unconnected 3-6" gauge tramways operated, the horse drawn service from Portslade to Shoreham closed in 1913, the Brighton Corporation Tramways closed on 1st September 1939. With half it's trams under a decade old and trackwork in good nick, some reckoned it could've certainly gone through WWII and likely into the mid 1950s at minimal cost.
14:57 Candidate for Darwin Award in the Category "Hit by Tram".
Unfortunately, actually using the Paris trams is quite frustrating. The intervals are often not great. The trams are INCREDIBLY slow, as they slow at every intersection even if they have full right of way. The 3a for example travels 20-30km/h for most of the time! When i lived in Prague the trams always accelerated to 50km/h even mixed with traffic! The wait at the stops is also incredibly long. The interior is uncomfortable and the mandatory validaton of tickets even with a subscription is infuriating. In addition, French drivers don't really understand trams so very often block it at many intersections, slowing down the trams even further, so much that biking is a lot faster.
Paris trams are most often one of two things: an interconnection between other modes of transportation (ex: T3, a and b) or a rather short extension of a metro line that would not be justified as an actual metro line, but need something more than bus lines. Very few people take 3a or 3b from end to end, as faster alternatives exist for most of the way (namely, RER C and A respectively). So both high speed and high comfort are not goals by themselves. If you prefer biking, that's an excellent choice too.
Also, the mandatory validation of tickets/passes can be boring, but it serves two purposes: 1) so that the company operating the transport (RATP, SNCF, subsidiaries of these for rail and bus, or other companies for bus) can be paid by the Paris region transport authority for their service (to which *you* paid your ticket or subscription), and 2) so that ridership statistics can be used to adapt infrastructure and rolling stock to needs (ex: T12 and T13 that were conversions of low ridership heavier rail lines)
I agree with you that the intervals can be horrendous at times (15-20 min in the cold!) I wish they would improve the intervals for morning commuters at least, 6-8h, and on the weekends. I do disagree that the speeds aren't too bad if you're only using the tram to make an interchange to a larger line, or ride a few stops in a suburban area to get between amenities. It turns a 30-40 min walking trip with groceries to 10-20.
Re 4:30 Yes, the TW20, with bogies right under the cabs, minimizing wheelbox intrusion. New Citadis trams for Nantes also have bogies under the cabs, as will new Citadis trams for Strasbourg. Strasbourg already has bogie-under-cab Citadis trams, albeit with unpowered small wheeled end bogies.
Bogies under cabs, combined with very short intermediate wheeled segments, could make it quite easy to come up with a low floor tram with an internal amenity like that of high floor rail vehicles, but with the added benefits shared with other low floor trams, in that level boarding can easily be achieved in the street environment with little impact on street amenity and that it can share platforms with buses, quite common in some other European countries.
As a Parisian, I can tell you there's a reason why La Défense is "underappreciated". It's an awful place basically no one who doesn't have to be there doesn't want to go. It's grey, always crowded with busy people who look like they're tired of life and have lost their smile as a result.
Its size would be impressive in any other city that isn't Paris, but in the land of Gare du Nord, Gare de l'Est, Gare Montparnasse, Auber/Opera/St Lazare and Châtelet-Les Halles, it gets throughly outshone in every aspect. Just not a place that's worth visiting if you don't have business there, unfortunately.
en tant que parisien, commencez par parler français !
@@cleroy61 Pour que personne ne comprenne ? Mais bien sûr, pourquoi n'y a-t-il/elle pas pensé...
@@MrCoco59f 1) faut se réveiller et savoir qu'il y a le traducteur sous chaque commentaire. 2) apprendre à avoir confiance en soi et ne pas culpabiliser comme beaucoup de français si des gens ne comprennent pas. 3) remarque qui prouve que vous ne défendez pas votre culture qui commence par la langue !
@@cleroy61 Vous faites peur à vous emporter pour ça, on dirait un chauvin d'extrême droite... Votre commentaire initial ne présentait aucun contrepoint à la personne à qui vous répondiez, il faudrait donc peut être commencer par ne pas partir complètement en hors sujet si vous voulez qu'on prenne vos propos au sérieux.
(Je n'ajouterai rien de plus à cette discussion au vu de votre agressivité mal placée.)
@@MrCoco59f si vous avez peur des mots, en effet, pas la peine d'aller plus loin ! Il y a ceux qui baissent leur froc, et d'autres non !
I only thought Paris had like one tiny tram line 😂
France is THE world leader in the revival of tramways. Almost every major French city now has trams. There are only two exceptions. And one of those is Rennes, the capital Britanny province, which has a two-line lightweight metro!
@@Fan652w That's wrong. Germany has 2039km of tramways, France only 835km.
@@dnocturn84 in the revival of trams. Far more German cities kept their tram systems in the first place, whereas all but three networks in France were ripped out
@@grassytramtracks That's also wrong. The number of revival tramlines in Germany also excedes Frances figures.
@@dnocturn84Germany didn't demolish as many of its tramways as many other other countries did. I think only 2 French cities had a tramway in the early 80s so they've built most of their tram systems in the last few decades.
But these are slower right?
Definitely. Maybe 1/3 speed of Metro, but with some time saving of time because stops are at street level. (BQRail)
Slower than what? Not slower than the buses they replace.
I live in Paris and I'm surprized T3a and T3b has such a great success as they are painfully slow. I would better make a transfer to use line 2 or 6 instead.
@Clery75019 You can't, the T3s do a work the metro doesn't do. The connection of neighbourhoods which were far from the metro, were connected by bus, had the metro but not the same lines so people had to make a detour. Check Porte de Versailles and Porte de Vanves for instance. It was faster to do it by bus. The tramway lines replace bus lines. Here the circular tramways replace the PC buses.
@Clery75019 And the T3s are successful like all the tramway lines because they are faster, more comfortable and take more passengers than the buses they replaced.
you forgot
transillien p witch is a tram train but a train too
It's good that Paris brings back tramways in the region... but, unfortunately, this "network" has so many flaws that I don't know where to start.
The main one is that almost every line has been built without considering the existing ones (that's why I'd rather use quotes when talking about this "network") ; as a result, we have different gauges, and even different technologies, often for no valid reasons. And it avoids as much as possible to share tracks or stations, and even just to cross : when you see how the stations are displayed at Porte de Versailles, Porte de Choisy and Rosa Parks (when T8 will be extended there), it's meant to avoid further extensions of T2, T8 and T9.
The other main flaw (quite common in France) is the bad commercial speed, mostly due to the speed trams cannot exceed when crossing the street (on some lines, they even have to wait for the traffic light). Plus, a certain number of crossings haven't been designed to let the cars circulate along the tram, so they have a lack of fluidity.
T1 was built at a time when trams had to prove their reintroduction potential ; and it really was a success.
But, nowadays, the line is victim of its success ; and most of the stations, plus the vehicles, were not dimensioned for this. Especially Saint-Denis (RER D), which needed to be completely rebuilt ; and La Courneuve (metro 7), which had to modify the interchange with the metro because it got crowded (plus, the station is in the middle of a roundabout, which is not ideal for extending the vehicles).
Plus, I'm afraid the line will get too long to be efficient. It's planned to have three different sections in the future ; but in practice, it might be the same tram which will do all the route (with longer stops at termini stations), so I don't know if it's that more efficient.
T2 was a good idea at first, replacing an old railway line which didn't have much success, and extending it to the nearest CBD (plus, at Issy, they requalified the area next to the stations). But here again, it became victim of its success ; and the bad idea here was to make extensions on streets, which downgrade the average speed of the line.
Honestly, without them, it could become a VAL to absorb the never growing demand. But we'll see in the next years the impact of line 15, which should take off a part of the current traffic between Issy and La Défense.
T3... there had been a debate 20 years ago between reusing the old orbital railway line and building this new one. The second option had been chosen for its better accessibility, but also because it allowed the boulevards to be requalified, which is more visible than reopening the old railway line (with no impact on car traffic and urbanity).
And it's a good thing : but we can see that Paris mayors were way better at showing off with the urban requalification, than at doing an efficient tram. Again, the commercial speed is bad, the line gets crowded, and I'm afraid we couldn't extend vehicles more.
Plus, at some places, it's not very optimized : at Porte de Vincennes (termini of T3a and T3b), users have to cross the avenue to do the interchange (instead of having a simple platform interchange) ; and near Canal Saint-Denis and Rosa Parks, the multiple turns badly affect the speed. Plus, although it ensures a good interchange quality with the RER, it won't be the case with T8 when it gets here : and what's infuriating is that the T8 station will take place on the boulevard where the T3 would have passed without the detour. We could have a better speed for T3 and a better interchange for T8, but we'll have the silliest solution instead. Thanks, mayor of Paris !
Then we had the Translohr gadgetbahn on T5 and T6 lines... no need to say more about that. Stupid choices for both cases.
Forecast frequenting for T5 didn't need an engine with even less capacity than a high frequency articulated bus, which could do the job (with dedicated lanes and priority at crossings) for better costs. Even a real tram would have been more cost efficient, and able to be extended to the south.
For T6, the tram was justified ; but again, choosing the gadgetbahn exploded the costs for a badly efficient service. I suspect that this technology got trouble when passing on the highway near Vélizy ; because at a time, it went at a ridiculously low speed of 5 km/h on this bridge ! It was quicker to cross it by foot ; and I even tested it by myself, by getting off the tram before the bridge, walking, and getting in the same tram at the next station !
And the tunnel section is very discutable. The aim was to have interchanges with the nearest rail lines ; but it could have followed the existing bus lines going to the towns around (Versailles and Chaville), for the same result, and even more trains stopping at these stations. Plus, at Viroflay, it's not interesting to take the tram to change between the train lines, because of the depth of tram stations.
I have less troubles with the other urban tram lines for the moment, except the northern terminus of T9 (and the future southern one for T8). T9 feels boring, but its aim was just to replace the busiest suburban bus route, so they didn't aimed to make it more interesting.
But the semi-express ones have their lot if issues too, especially T4 where it was not justified (it would have been more efficient to convert it like T2, and way less costly when it got extended to the East) ; and T12 which ruined a pre-existing connection between three important suburban poles (Versailles, Massy and Juvisy) and has an important lack of vehicles and drivers.
Sorry for the big (and negative) post ; it's just that, although it's a good thing that Paris and its suburbs got new modes of transportation, I think the result is quite frustrating in practice, with its lacks of efficiency depending on the lines, and its missed opportunities.
When I compare it to other cities in France with a more coherent network, I feel that we had better examples of what could be done.
For all their faults, high ridership indicates the value of Paris trams. (BQRail)
It doesn't matter since unlike the other cities in France, those tram lines aren't built to be connected together. The other cities in France usually have only that, the tramway network. The tramway in Paris is integral part of the railway network and they are connected to metros, RER etc.
@@puccaland In fact, it could matter for some cases.
First : cost efficiency. If all lines have the same gauge (and potentially the same vehicle dimensions), it's possible to do a bulk order for material. The region started to do this with T7/T8 and T9/T10.
Besides, it would have de facto excluded the costly Translohr gadgetbahn for T5/T6, which depends on a single constructor (which, at the time, almost went bankrupt ; so if Translohr hadn't been bought by another constructor, the lines would have been condemned to be completely rebuilt to make a real tram circulate).
And, mostly : when lines need to cross each other, or circulate on a shared section. It's very rare in the region, but T1 extension to the West will require a shared section and a shard station with T2. Luckily, the two lines have the same gauge ; but if they didn't have the same gauge (or, worse, one of them was a gadgetbahn), it would have been impossible.
And in some cases, we can see that the actual situation prevents intersting extensions or optimizations. The main example is the stupid T5 gadgetbahn : if it had been a real tram, it could have been extended to the south, had better interchanges with M13 and T8, served St-Denis town center very well, and even been extended to Paris by serving La Plaine. But since it cannot cross classic tram tracks, all it can do is having its way sub-optimized southern terminus.
Another case is the planned terminus at Rosa Parks for T8 : if the two lines have had the same gauge, T8 could have probably shared a short piece of tracks with T3b and have a station with platform interchanges, near to the RER station, which would have been a short and practical interchange. But since it's not the case (and since the decision-makers want to connect lines as less as possible, especially Paris's mayor who wants to keep her land reserves...), it will have an unpractical terminus for everyone.
Plus, on a long-term vision, if we needed to redefine the routes, it would have been easier with a real network (or, at least, with lines with the same gauge everywhere), like the metro which has been thought as a network (where some lines changed routes, like line 6 which took a big section of line 5, lines 8 and 10 which permuted sections, or line 13 which is a concatenation of two old lines which were owned by different companies at the time).
@sylvainldgo7361 It's not possible to do a bulk order. It takes a decade or more to plan a tramway line. The tramway was reintroduced 30 years ago, then had to wait many years for another line then almost a decade for a new line then new lines are being added. As someone who enjoy the technology on t9 I can tell you that I am glad it wasn't part of anything which was agreed for the t2 or T3s for example or any tramway before. Even the t7 looks like dated technology in comparison. And the t9 isn't even perfect. Ultimately it will always come to the same thing anyway, changing equipment to buy new which is already happening on some tramway lines. So you can't buy in bulk for a specific model because the timing doesn't allow it. That's what happened for some RER lines and we've been waiting for ages. Moreover in the future, it is totally possible to order a model with multiple versions to adapt to the different lines, and adapting the existing infrastructure to the new equipment is something very common in public transportation anyway.
@sylvainldgo7361 The other reasons is that the tramways don't answer to a same problematic so they don't need the same type of equipment. Some replace very long bus lines, some need to be smaller, some only replace short bus lines, some replace train lines so they need to be heavier, some will be on relatively straight routes, others will have a lot of curves so need more articulation, others will have a lot of hills etc.
This is What you should be making Longer higher quality videos rather than shorter poorly researched videos then it does not matter if you only upload twice a month
He has a deadline for content and the quality doesn't matter.
John Connor must hate Paris
I don't think you can use myriad like that
🚋❤
I do not understand why the french decided to build so much metro in the centre and ignore the suburbs
Because the center of Paris is one the most deadly populated city on Earth (20.000 inhab./km²)
Well because at the time (1st half of the 20th century) when the metro lines were built, most of the suburbs were mere villages. There was insufficient demand to justify a métro service but as the video rightly says, the burbs were covered with tram lines, that were dismantled post WW2
It's a fair question and I don't think the other answers do it justice. The Paris "suburbs" clearly justified a dense suburban railway and tramway system even at the time, and even after the "suburbs" surpassed Central Paris in population (which is really long ago at this point) metro construction outside the Périf was basically nonexistent until recently.
I think it was a deliberate decision in the 10s-30s to build a system that is specced for moving around real Parisians and didn't focus on connections to the dreaded banlieus. Parisian authorities used to have a habit of pretending the world ended after the boulevards des Maréchaux, and it's probably not that surprising that the Paris Metro was conceived as a Paris transportation system and not a banlieue-to-Paris transportation system. The law that drove much of the Metro construction specified that the system should provide coverage to all of "Paris". It never applied to other municipalities.
Well, the burbs were less dense than the center (even though they’re more populated overall) so less customers for each kilometre you dig.
Plus tunnel boring got more expensive and money was kept for RER, périphérique and freeways.
@@n.bastians8633 When the metro was built the suburbs didn't justify building a network there. They were underpopulated, still are. Half of the Greater Paris today that's just fields. Imagine back then. Then when the urban area extended to the suburbs they started building the RER and reorganising what would become the Transilien. Then it's easy to say build this build that but even the closest suburbs became as densed or even denser than Paris center. Building in such environment is a real challenge and that's not something which can be done overnight. Ultimately they did it anyway and are still doing it. And that's not as if they didn't do anything in the meantime, the bus network is also extensive. Today the Parisian network is the densest in the world and every Parisian at the Greater Paris level is at 10 min walk of a public transportation station.
14:58 stuipid woman
This is one of your best explainers, because of how you interspersed footage throughout, while you were explaining each line. Well done Reece, please do that more, if you can! I do find it a little curious though, how you've made so many videos about Paris (this is now the 2nd video purely about Paris's tram network), when it's not even in the top 10 biggest tram networks in the world. There are a lot of glaring omissions. You've never made a video about Melbourne's trams (the largest tram system in the world), or a single video about Prague, Budapest, Moscow, St. Petersburg or Kiev (OK, I get that the war makes that harder). Istanbul is the 2nd biggest city in Europe, and you've only made 1 video about it. Cologne, Milan, Katowice, Vienna and Amsterdam also have huge tram systems, and those have not been covered. I don't really understand the obsession with Paris. I think other cities need some airtime.
The two biggest flaws of paris tram network are TransLohr lines and the lack of connection between lines: every line should be connected at least with line t3 (and t3 line should be completed filling the gap on the west side. I nstead of only splitting line could be served by threee different services, with t3a and t3b on half line and t3 on the entire line).
A disappointing aspect of Paris trams and buses is no free transfer with Metro.
That's not correct, transfer is possible if done in less than 1h30.
@@ogamiitto8627That’s not what the RATP website says for t+ ticket, which is what I was addressing. Once validated on a tram, the ticket is not good for the Metro, I understand.
The Parisians don't care, they use passes which are the cheapest option.
@@puccaland True.
Video 23 of asking for a Cleveland Video
Seeing this while eating chinese in paris after getting my phone stolen in the 2 train
Grammarian triggered! Oh my! "Myriad" is used just like "many"; no "of" needed. Many means many. Myriad means many of differing varieties. "The many trams" = "The myriad trams"
T3 is a stupid political project. It was not designed to ne efficient or improve public transport. It was designed with the only goal of creating car jammed (especially at all the Paris "doors")
A round line around Paris is a good idea by itself, but it should have been a metro. A metro is a lot faster, more liable and has a much greater capacity than a tram. Also it would have allowed direct connexion with almost all the metro lines in Paris. It would have been amazing to avoid the very crowded center. They event decided to not used part of the old train line going around Paris, even though it would have significantly improved performance.
T3 is a great line, does a great job for banlieue/banlieue trips. Efficiency is ok, you're not supposed to do the whole circle (métro is here for that kind of trip...). Just a few stops from a porte to another, and you're done. Plus it reshaped Maréchaux boulevards for the better.
@@ogamiitto8627 it should have been a metro. Twice as fast, 4 times the capacity, more reliable, less accidents...
The T3 is already running at 50% over it's predicted capacity. In Paris we need high performance, high capacity public transportation, a tram is not the right solution.
There are already metros going around Paris. Metro 2 and 6. And now a second ring with metro 15. The trams replaced buses and they do a good job at it. From someone who initially wanted a metro instead of T9 but T9 is the perfect option.
@ 2 and 6 are nothing like T3. Neither is T9.
Line 15 is way outside of Paris.
T3 is very slow (
Wrong ! I live there (porte de vincennes) and I can tell you that a tram always packed with 300 000 users each day cannotnbe created for car jammed. You are an ignorant or a hater
🚊🇫🇷