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

51–60 of 125 posts

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

#51

Post by flukus »

samplatt wrote: post #42
flukus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ti…

>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. I have never been in any train or tram that has anywhere near enough room to use a laptop. In peak hours I try to even avoid using my phone - there's simply not enough room to have a raised hand near your face without the hand also being in someone else's face. The long-distance trains (like the…

If you can get a seat you've got enough room for a laptop, back when I was doing a cross Melbourne commute a got a 10" one that was perfect for coding, watching movies or browsing the web. Getting a seat is the real challenge but if you can adjust your hours then getting on before 8AM or after 10AM you've got a good chance. Once your out of the CBD it's pretty rare to not have room to use your phone.

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

#52

Post by shard972 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #29
mrmincent wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 buse…

> Conversely buses pull over to the side of the road, usually into a lane that is used for parking... This can actually be pretty bad for travel time as well, because then the bus has to wait for a break in traffic to get back on the road. Now in the US many places build bus stops out to the road lanes so that they don't have to waste time pulling in and out of traffic. This seems less a problem of trams running in t…

It's the law to give way to busses merging in australia so you clearly don't know what your talking about.

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

#53

Post by jaimex2 »

I love our trams in Melbourne.

They are free, don't emit fumes, reduce pedestrian numbers on the sidewalk and get you where you need to go quickly. Hook turn laws work well to make sure traffic doesn't get in their way.

We still have an underground train loop and the trams help reduce congestion in there as well.

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

#54

Post by jonny_eh »

oska wrote: post #14
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…

Sounds like an identical story to California redwood trees.

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

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

#55

Post by yoube »

samplatt wrote: post #42
flukus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ti…

>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. I have never been in any train or tram that has anywhere near enough room to use a laptop. In peak hours I try to even avoid using my phone - there's simply not enough room to have a raised hand near your face without the hand also being in someone else's face. The long-distance trains (like the…

That's horseshit. Granted, peak hour trains from Flinders are packed and using a laptop is a bit difficult since your elbows keep bumping into the next person sitting, but not being able to use a phone? People are always on their phones, reading, or knitting.

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

#56

Post by zizee »

cylinder wrote: post #47
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.

Eh the trams are cute, and smooth, but painfully slow. Better passenger experience than buses, but the tracks and overhead cables are a blight on the streetscape and impact drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike. Overall, not worth it. Real cities have metros underground, full stop. Would I rather have trams than not have trams, absolutely -- but they shouldn't be relied on as a true solution to urban transport.

> Real cities have metros underground, full stop.

I am not sure if this implies you think Melbourne is lacking a underground metro? Or perhaps you're just making a general statement.

FWIW Melbourne has both trams and a underground metro system that does a fairly respectable job serving the CBD, and good network coverage to inner suburbs.

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

#57

Post by sjwright »

jimmaswell wrote: post #43
9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #24

> “London has resolved its traffic problem by replacing trams with buses, and Sydney should do the same,” he advised. Interestingly enough, London has not seen it fit to reinstall trams, instead choosing to continually expand the Underground (subway) network and apply congestion charges to the inner-city traffic. And as it happens, one of the more valid criticisms levied against Sydney's new line is that its capacity…

Banning poor from the roads really seems like no solution at all to me. Like one of those misguided solutions an AI comes up with like pausing Tetris forever to avoid the score going down. You alleviated congestion for a few without solving the real problem. Improve transit and traffic engineering instead.

A congestion charge isn't "banning poor from the roads" any more than other significant costs like vehicle and fuel taxes or inner-city parking. And in the absence of the congestion charge, London's roads would be utterly unusable for everyone, including "poor" people who need an emergency ambulance provided by the free Government healthcare.

If the congestion charge was eliminated, daily commuting to central London by car would still be a non-starter for even the most aspirational middle-class office worker—let alone the poor.

If you've ever been to London you'd notice that the mass transit system—particularly the tube—is dominated by smart-looking, professionally dressed people navigating the city. It's a great system, it's almost always better than driving, and its use spans a broad socio-economic group.

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

#58

Post by flukus »

wahern wrote: post #38
flukus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Buses can also have dedicated lanes with right-of-way.

IME they're an improvement but no where near as good as separated rail. It's like building a 32 lane highway, it speeds up most of your trip but then 90% of it is spent at the exit ramp.

Underground would probably be an improvement for travel times but I'm not sure how much, part of the benefit of trams is their frequent stops so being completely unimpeded is less critical. I doubt you'd see the same level of retail build up along the lines too.

One option I'd like to see return through the CBD would be elevated lines, I'm not sure why they fell out of fashion.

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

#59

Post by cletus »

jimmaswell wrote: post #43
9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #24

> “London has resolved its traffic problem by replacing trams with buses, and Sydney should do the same,” he advised. Interestingly enough, London has not seen it fit to reinstall trams, instead choosing to continually expand the Underground (subway) network and apply congestion charges to the inner-city traffic. And as it happens, one of the more valid criticisms levied against Sydney's new line is that its capacity…

Banning poor from the roads really seems like no solution at all to me. Like one of those misguided solutions an AI comes up with like pausing Tetris forever to avoid the score going down. You alleviated congestion for a few without solving the real problem. Improve transit and traffic engineering instead.

I hate this argument because it seems altruistic and empathetic but most of the time it's entirely self-serving. People wheel it out when something that would inconvenience them, specifically, is proposed.

Example: in Manhattan we still have free street parking. It's insane. Yet any attempts to remove it get this same argument of "what about the poor who need to drive?" To anyone who says this or thinks this I challenge you to walk several blocks of pretty much any street below 110th street and look at the cars parked there. On some I see Maseratis, Teslas, BMWs and so on. It's not poor people who own these cars. It's just another giveaway to incumbents and the wealthy for no good reason.

I lived in London when congestion pricing was first rolled out. The difference in traffic in the West End was night and day, overnight. It was unbelievable, so much so that Ken Livingstone (then Mayor of London) worried they wouldn't hit revenue targets.

The problem with London's congestion pricing is there's an exemption for those who live in Zone 1, basically (technically, it's a subset of Zone 1). Why? These are the people who have the least need for private vehicles (by virtue of good public transportation) and are probably significantly wealthier than the average Londoner.

This is also the problem I have with what NYC is doing. They're also flirting with congestion pricing. So far all they've done is make Ubers stupidly expensive (there are rides that 5 years ago would cost me <$15 that now cost $35), which is again completely wrong. Uber and Lyft make efficient use of vehicles. They're not driven once a week and otherwise block the street cleaners in their free parking. Private vehicle ownership for Manhattan residents needs to be punitively taxed and street parking should require an expensive permit. There should also be a lot less of it.

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

#60

Post by jimmaswell »

cletus wrote: post #59
jimmaswell wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning poor from the roads really seems like no solution at all to me. Like one of those misguided solutions an AI comes up with like pausing Tetris forever to avoid the score going down. You alleviated congestion for a few without solving the real problem. Improve transit and traffic engineering instead.

I hate this argument because it seems altruistic and empathetic but most of the time it's entirely self-serving. People wheel it out when something that would inconvenience them, specifically, is proposed. Example: in Manhattan we still have free street parking. It's insane. Yet any attempts to remove it get this same argument of "what about the poor who need to drive?" To anyone who says this or thinks this I challe…

I'd be fine with a means based program to avoid congestion pricing then. I've never driven in Manhattan myself.
Post reply on HN