You are failing to take into account a number of important factors.

Firstly approximately 80% of the cost of transporting a passenger is the
wages of the driver.  Larger trams means greater productivity per driver
and more available seats in off peak periods.  Its a major factor
locally (Gold Coast, Sydney are examples) and internationally leading to
providing trams in heavily used corridors rather than buses..  One has
to question why Melbourne is not providing greater funding for trams,
surely they should be preparing for significant increases in public
transport demand.  Many small trams will significantly push up operating
costs.  Where will this money come from?

Small trams actually lead to increased traffic congestion, both tram and
motor vehicles.  Two small trams will take 50% longer than a large tram
to cross an intersection (safety separation between operating trams). 
Two or more small trams occupy a larger road footprint than one large
tram and road space is a limited resource.  Today trams in Sydney's
George Street are significantly larger than Melbourne's and run at a
greater frequency than Swanson Street.  Even historically Sydney
operated larger trams than Melbourne (coupled 80 seat cars compared to
single W cars) but they had to as the Sydney system was moving virtually
twice the number of passengers as Melbourne (check out the annual
patronage between World War 1 and World War 2).

Greg

On 26/07/2022 7:41 pm, espee8800 wrote:
> I would like to think that many small trams should mean a vastly

> better read shorter headways. Past experience has shown that larger

> trams mean longer headways. But then what would I know, I'm just a PT

> user.