Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Sydney destroyed its trams for love of the car

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 125 posts

Re: How Sydney destroyed its trams for love of the car

#11

Post by munk-a »

chrisseaton wrote: post #8
mrmincent wrote: post #3

As someone who moved to Melbourne (and doesn’t have a car), I don’t have the love for trams that Melbournians do. They’re slow and disruptive to the rest of the traffic. At the same time buses aren’t stuck on rails and usually get you places a lot quicker. They’re also easier to get a seat on as the Melbournians I know hate buses and refuse to catch them.

> buses aren’t stuck on rails What's the difference to you, as a passenger, between being stuck on a tram rail, and being stuck on a bus route? You can't ask a bus driver you take a de-tour from their route, can you? > disruptive to the rest of the traffic No the rest of the traffic is disruptive to the trams!

And, to be honest, while buses may not be stuck on rails, the process to change a bus route is almost never less than a few months and can take much longer.

It will always take less time to change a bus line than a train line - but this isn't a difference of hours vs. years, it's months vs. even more months.

Re: How Sydney destroyed its trams for love of the car

#12

Post by Scoundreller »

munk-a wrote: post #11
chrisseaton wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> buses aren’t stuck on rails What's the difference to you, as a passenger, between being stuck on a tram rail, and being stuck on a bus route? You can't ask a bus driver you take a de-tour from their route, can you? > disruptive to the rest of the traffic No the rest of the traffic is disruptive to the trams!

And, to be honest, while buses may not be stuck on rails, the process to change a bus route is almost never less than a few months and can take much longer. It will always take less time to change a bus line than a train line - but this isn't a difference of hours vs. years, it's months vs. even more months.

It’s pretty quick when the (tram|bus) in front has stalled out.

Trams will have relief route loops, but they’re never in the most ideal location.

Re: How Sydney destroyed its trams for love of the car

#13

Post by guitarbill »

gumby wrote: post #2

The Melbourne's retention of the trams has provided a wonderful A/B experiment. Although I consider Sydney a more attractive city (sorry, city of my birth!) Melbourne frankly is a much easier and more enjoyable city to get around and live in.

agree in the centre. Sydney's trains are good for the sprawl, it can be hard to get to some Melbs suburbs without a car (even though there are trains in Melbourne)

Re: How Sydney destroyed its trams for love of the car

#14

Post by oska »

femto wrote: post #6

The burning of Sydney's rolling stock was a crime against woodworkers. The same thing happened to old wooden railway carriages in Sydney. Slabs of well seasoned (Australian) red cedar, the length of a railway carriage, inches thick and even wider gone up in smoke. That sort of wood was rare when the carriages were burnt and practically unobtainable now.

For people unfamiliar, 'Red Cedar' in Australia refers to a tree from the mahogany family, Toona Ciliata. Quoting an easy reference:

> It is one of Australia's few native deciduous trees. The timber is red in colour, easy to work and very highly valued. It was used extensively for furniture, wood panelling and construction, including shipbuilding, and was referred to as "red gold" by Australian settlers. Heavily and unsustainably exploited in the 19th and early 20th centuries, almost all the large trees have been cut out and the species is essentially commercially extinct. Availability of this timber is now limited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toona_ciliata

Re: How Sydney destroyed its trams for love of the car

#15

Post by andrewstuart »

mrmincent wrote: post #3

As someone who moved to Melbourne (and doesn’t have a car), I don’t have the love for trams that Melbournians do. They’re slow and disruptive to the rest of the traffic. At the same time buses aren’t stuck on rails and usually get you places a lot quicker. They’re also easier to get a seat on as the Melbournians I know hate buses and refuse to catch them.

Off topic but I think Canterbury road in Melbourne should be open to bike traffic only during peak hour with continuation to the city from there through Swan Street.

Re: How Sydney destroyed its trams for love of the car

#16

Post by ACow_Adonis »

munk-a wrote: post #9
reitzensteinm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of the traffic is disruptive to the trams. I also moved to Melbourne recently, and my theory is that the love of trams is inertia from a time where congestion wasn't so bad. I prefer to walk within the city loop, but both activities would be so much faster and more pleasant without the cars. There are quite a few Teslas that drive around here with wanky number plates like they're doing the world a favor, whi…

I feel like the best solution for this problem is a reduction of traffic in core city areas by restricting car access.

Which I believe is Melbourne cities long term strategy along with more pedestrian prioritization.

Re: How Sydney destroyed its trams for love of the car

#17

Post by reitzensteinm »

chrisseaton wrote: post #8
mrmincent wrote: post #3

As someone who moved to Melbourne (and doesn’t have a car), I don’t have the love for trams that Melbournians do. They’re slow and disruptive to the rest of the traffic. At the same time buses aren’t stuck on rails and usually get you places a lot quicker. They’re also easier to get a seat on as the Melbournians I know hate buses and refuse to catch them.

> buses aren’t stuck on rails What's the difference to you, as a passenger, between being stuck on a tram rail, and being stuck on a bus route? You can't ask a bus driver you take a de-tour from their route, can you? > disruptive to the rest of the traffic No the rest of the traffic is disruptive to the trams!

The trams can't go diagonally, meaning if your destination doesn't align with the road grid you have to catch two of them.

Re: How Sydney destroyed its trams for love of the car

#18

Post by munk-a »

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #16
munk-a wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the best solution for this problem is a reduction of traffic in core city areas by restricting car access.

Which I believe is Melbourne cities long term strategy along with more pedestrian prioritization.

Nice, Vancouver appears to be leaning that way as well and I think it'll bring a lot of benefit to the downtown businesses.

Re: How Sydney destroyed its trams for love of the car

#19

Post by mrmincent »

chrisseaton wrote: post #8
mrmincent wrote: post #3

As someone who moved to Melbourne (and doesn’t have a car), I don’t have the love for trams that Melbournians do. They’re slow and disruptive to the rest of the traffic. At the same time buses aren’t stuck on rails and usually get you places a lot quicker. They’re also easier to get a seat on as the Melbournians I know hate buses and refuse to catch them.

> buses aren’t stuck on rails What's the difference to you, as a passenger, between being stuck on a tram rail, and being stuck on a bus route? You can't ask a bus driver you take a de-tour from their route, can you? > disruptive to the rest of the traffic No the rest of the traffic is disruptive to the trams!

What I meant is that if a tram breaks down on the track, or there is an obstruction on the track, any other tram is stuck dead in the water. A bus can drive around stationary objects.

The trams in melbourne suburbs usually drive down the middle of the road, and stop in the middle of the road, meaning people exit in the middle of the road and have to walk across it to the footpath, halting the traffic. Conversely buses pull over to the side of the road, usually into a lane that is used for parking, or at the most stopping only the one lane of traffic.

Post reply on HN