My city don't have trams but there was a political push to build them. However, bus routes were upgraded instead. Result is better than trams IMO. Some key points we do:
- Popular buses run ever 5-ish minutes during peak times
- Some buses have extension and cary a crapload of people.
- Problematic spots have bus-only lanes.
What is better than tram:
- Buses that share only a bit of the route can use those lanes too
- Taxis can use bus lanes
- Some of the lanes allow cars with 4+ people to promote carpooling
- If there's an accident or emergency, cars can use the bus lane
- Bus lanes are frequently reused as designated right turn lanes
- Overall maintenance is cheaper when using a single mode of transport. Same backup vehicles can serve all routes - no need for separate backup trams and buses. Same for technicians, spare parts etc.
- No big upfront construction costs. Some bus lanes were snatched from regular traffic, some were built later on. Mostly by making other lanes narrower and widening the road just a little bit. Trams would require much more space and wouldn't even fit in some spaces without banning cars altogether. The'd still have to pave these bits to let emergency services use them.
- In tight spots, buses can easily merge with general traffic. Buses have defacto priority, so no delays during merge.
In my city, introducing trams would have been at least few years of city-wide construction works, lots of possibilities for wasting public money and/or corruption. Bus lanes were super cheap and are added incrementally wherever costs in that specific section can be justified by savings. They can be removed easily if they cause too much trouble or don't speed up buses much. Rails would be there forever.
Comfortwise, good tram and good bus ride equally well. Unmaintained, both trams and buses suck.
TL;DR Buses are much cheaper and more agile stepping stone into good public transit. Trams themselves ain't magic cure. Buses can be