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

31–40 of 125 posts

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

#31

Post by bobthepanda »

glangdale wrote: post #27
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #21

I believe buses are almost universally better than any kind of city light rail. Please no more light rail in cities, more buses.

I used to work with a public transit evangelist tragic (in his spare time) and he hated buses and bus-ways. I could never understand it. I think there's an element of permanance to light/heavy rail where the physical infrastructure is there (ergo it can "never" be taken away, ha ha) while a bus-way can be turned into a road. I think there's some legit reasons (capacity) that light rail is better than buses in many ci…

A lot of times buses/busways get trotted out as the anti-transit alternative. Or are super watered down. In general if you have to build new infrastructure doing it with rails vs asphalt cost is not actually that different.

In general, for developed countries with high labor costs busways are a rotten deal since buses have such low per-driver capacity. And the most successful busways can't scale and end up getting replaced by light rail anyways. (Ottawa, Seattle, LA's Orange Line)

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

#32

Post by gizmonty »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #7
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.

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 live in Melbourne and drive a Tesla, but without a wanky number plate. I would love to use public transport, but it's completely impractical for me. It takes me 25 minutes to drive to work or 45 minutes (or more) on public transport. That 40 minutes a day is very valuable to me. I also often finish work very late when the frequency of public transport drops which further increases the travel time. I also often have to take children to school or other events and public transport is very poorly set up for that type of travel, and quickly becomes much more expensive than driving (once you already have the sunk cost of the car) when you have to pay for 3 trips. Melbourne is a primarily suburban city with very limited public transport available to substitute for the vast majority of journeys. If I was a single person with no children who worked in the city I would ride my bike or take the train every day. But I'm not, and I don't, so I drive. I drive a Tesla so I'm not contributing to the foul stench of burnt hydrocarbons that is increasingly choking this city.

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

#33

Post by chrisseaton »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #17
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!

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

I'm not sure what you mean - if a bus can turn a corner then so can a tram's track. They don't have to go in one straight line from one end of the city to another.

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

#34

Post by reitzensteinm »

bobthepanda wrote: post #26
reitzensteinm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can pick frequent or point-to-point service but you can rarely have both. Transfers are a perfectly normal part of a transit network.

Ok, but buses often travel more convenient routes in Melbourne because they're able to head in directions trams can't.

Offering a general principle doesn't somehow refute reality.

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

#35

Post by reitzensteinm »

gizmonty wrote: post #32
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 live in Melbourne and drive a Tesla, but without a wanky number plate. I would love to use public transport, but it's completely impractical for me. It takes me 25 minutes to drive to work or 45 minutes (or more) on public transport. That 40 minutes a day is very valuable to me. I also often finish work very late when the frequency of public transport drops which further increases the travel time. I also often have…

It's only the wanky number plate I'm commenting on.

You're not doing anything wrong by driving a Tesla, and it's preferable to an ICE.

But you aren't doing more for the environment than someone who only takes public transport, which is practical and quite common here.

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

#36

Post by reitzensteinm »

chrisseaton wrote: post #33
reitzensteinm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not sure what you mean - if a bus can turn a corner then so can a tram's track. They don't have to go in one straight line from one end of the city to another.

I mean they can't in the sense that it's not how the network is set up today. Not that it's impossible.

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

#37

Post by reubens »

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.

I love that

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

#38

Post by wahern »

flukus wrote: post #28
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.

Couldn't disagree more. Buses are much slower, often have long and winding routes (because they're not stuck on rails), get stuck in traffic and can't hold as many people, my tram lines with dedicated lanes don't have those problems. I doubt you'd see many people taking buses for trips where trams are an option. The permanence is also a feature. One of my favorite things about Melbourne is never having to visit a sho…

> my tram lines with dedicated lanes don't have those problems

Dedicated lanes is the biggest factor. Plenty of trams don't have dedicated lanes, in which case the significant cost premium is a complete waste.

Buses can also have dedicated lanes with right-of-way. The ones I've been on in Mexico and Ecuador were quite nice. While I personally find rail more comfortable and also appreciate how route permanence effects property values, as a taxpayer even dedicated lanes and right-of-way don't justify the costs.

Historic lines are a different matter as the initial capital costs are already spent, and even if they cost more to operate it can still make sense. So it does suck that old lines were destroyed. But if you're gonna build new, I just can't abide paying the ridiculous premium for rail unless they're going underground or otherwise grade separated for a significant portion of the line. But if they're grade separated then by definition they're not really trams.

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

#39

Post by ShinTakuya »

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.

Keep in mind that Melbourne is a planned city and Sydney isn't. That makes a huge difference on the viability of modes of transport. So it's not really a good experiment at all.

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

#40

Post by flukus »

gizmonty wrote: post #32
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 live in Melbourne and drive a Tesla, but without a wanky number plate. I would love to use public transport, but it's completely impractical for me. It takes me 25 minutes to drive to work or 45 minutes (or more) on public transport. That 40 minutes a day is very valuable to me. I also often finish work very late when the frequency of public transport drops which further increases the travel time. I also often have…

> It takes me 25 minutes to drive to work or 45 minutes (or more) on public transport.

Keep in mind that you only have a 25 minute drive because so many other people are taking public transport, if it was ripped out you'd have a much longer commute so it is very practical for you, albeit indirectly.

> That 40 minutes a day is very valuable to me

Depending on how crowded the tram/train is that 40 minutes can usable time with a smartphone or laptop, it's not in a car.

Post reply on HN