The flexibility and lower cost of buses is actually a profound disadvantage from an economic signalling perspective.

I'd argue the most important reason why tram or rail line is better than a bus is the sunk cost of installation, which prevents rerouting and discourages withdrawal of service. This encourages private investment along the service corridor because the route is not subject to political whims. In other words, it can be relied upon for time scales on the order of decades, and that matters in real estate.

(Also they're generally much more pleasant to ride than buses, but I don't want to overemphasize aesthetics. The real reason people prefer trains over buses is reliability.)

They don't stand in traffic. Tram lines are built in a way they have a physical priority on the road. They can also take a lot more people than a bus. Streetcars are good for you :), it is funny to see how people are viewing them as a novelty. Down here in Europe, after some degradation (but not outright removal as in the U.S.) in 1970-1980s, tram lines are being built like crazy. East European countries especially benefit since they didn't see much tram degradation - time when a personal car was in vogue in the 70s-80s was Soviet times for them, so they didn't have cars, and by 1989 cities have realized that scrapping public transport in a city is impossible.

These are not old-timey tourist-trap "streetcars" wobbling around at 15mph. Modern "trams" are fast, quite, provide better ammenities for wheelchairs and strollers and provide greater travel comfort. Like rolling stock in general, they're built to higher standards compared to buses and will last a lot longer with way smaller maintanace cost.

They also use a lot less energy per passenger-mile to move due to the minimal friction of steel wheels on rails compared to rubber wheel.

Ridership goes up when bus lines are converted to tram lines, by something like 50%, or at least that's what I remember from an article I read years ago about that sort of thing here in Munich (which I can't seem to find).

Personally, I prefer the tram to the (Diesel) bus, since it's less shaky, less noisy, wider, longer and brighter. It's really a much nicer way to travel. Trams also tend to get their own signals and/or lanes a lot more than buses seem to, but that's of course not an inherent feature.

Emissions for one. Ever walked or driven behind a city bus in low gear? The diesel exhaust is quite disgusting.

Light rail tends to arrive on time more often. I've been stuck at a bust stop for an hour only to have all 3 scheduled buses arrive at the same time. They were all stuck in traffic.

Light rail trends have shown they have a lot of green space around them. Even the space between the tracks is inlayed with grass. A bus line feels temporary while rail stations are permanent. Rail favours development.

I prefer taking the tram over taking the bus, because

a) It's faster because it does not get stuck in traffic usually (mostly runs in its own tracks).

b) It's more comfortable. The ride is smoother. It's quieter. It's more spacious and you're more likely to find a good seat.

I live in a city with many teams and busses and I surely prefer the trams.

Higher capacity, tend to be more durable (with some still in service after 50+ years of service), and yes more energy efficient.

E-class trams [1] that are being deployed (46 in service and more added each month) here in Melbourne can carry up to 210 passengers (64 seated, 146 standing).

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-class_Melbourne_tram

If your goal is to move the max people for min cost, buses almost always win. Those aren't the only variables which are important however.

Just Google "light rail vs bus" and you will get a variety of perspectives. It's a matter of some controversy.

Aw prob not for you, it's more of a Shelbyville idea..

[monorail song here]