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

81–90 of 125 posts

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

#81

Post by distances »

xodeus wrote: post #78
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…

I would 100% rather drive 25 minutes each way instead of sitting on a train for 40 minutes each way even if I could use my laptop/phone the whole time

> I would 100% rather drive 25 minutes each way instead of sitting on a train for 40 minutes each way even if I could use my laptop/phone the whole time

To each their own. I'd always take train, even if I couldn't use the time for anything.

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

#82

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

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 are bumpier. The experience of riding a tram is simply much nicer. The fact that people avoid buses in Melbourne, as you say, is just a consequence of the difference in comfort.

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

#83

Post by mikelward »

cylinder wrote: post #75
zizee wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Melbourne has a suburban heavy commuter rail network with an underground CBD loop. That's not the same thing as an underground metro like the NYC subway, Paris metro, Tehran metro, Japan, London Underground etc. All of these cities have urban metros in addition to suburban commuter rail (except Tehran I guess?). Melbourne's just not there yet and is still fairly suburban. Sydney's building a new metro system which wi…

I don't see the difference. Take Melbourne versus London. Both use electrified trains. Both have drivers. Both travel at similar speeds. Neither have to stop for automobile traffic (except for slowing down at the few level crossings in Melbourne).

Whether the line is fully underground or not doesn't seem to affect much (other than ventilation).

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

#84

Post by distances »

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've lived in a couple of cities with all of these (bus, tram, train plus metro). I'd never take a bus if I can avoid it. They are the lowest form of public transportation that is only meant as a cheap fix when rails aren't practical/affordable.

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

#85

Post by reitzensteinm »

yoube wrote: post #55
samplatt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yeah, I read the above comment with a four block to myself coming out of Flinders on the Blackburn line. Never? Come on.

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

#86

Post by xodeus »

distances wrote: post #81
xodeus wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would 100% rather drive 25 minutes each way instead of sitting on a train for 40 minutes each way even if I could use my laptop/phone the whole time

> I would 100% rather drive 25 minutes each way instead of sitting on a train for 40 minutes each way even if I could use my laptop/phone the whole time To each their own. I'd always take train, even if I couldn't use the time for anything.

I take the train as well, but only because it would take me just as long to drive + parking costs in the city are insane

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

#87

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M »

mikelward wrote: post #83
cylinder wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Melbourne has a suburban heavy commuter rail network with an underground CBD loop. That's not the same thing as an underground metro like the NYC subway, Paris metro, Tehran metro, Japan, London Underground etc. All of these cities have urban metros in addition to suburban commuter rail (except Tehran I guess?). Melbourne's just not there yet and is still fairly suburban. Sydney's building a new metro system which wi…

I don't see the difference. Take Melbourne versus London. Both use electrified trains. Both have drivers. Both travel at similar speeds. Neither have to stop for automobile traffic (except for slowing down at the few level crossings in Melbourne). Whether the line is fully underground or not doesn't seem to affect much (other than ventilation).

The technical difference is that metros have dedicated tracks and sufficiently frequent services that you can just turn up and go. In Melbourne (and Sydney), tracks are shared in complicated ways by many lines and other traffic (regional, long distance, even cargo) so any issue somewhere cascades in complicated ways, and frequencies are metro-like only in the densest corridors.

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

#88

Post by sytringy05 »

mikelward wrote: post #83
cylinder wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Melbourne has a suburban heavy commuter rail network with an underground CBD loop. That's not the same thing as an underground metro like the NYC subway, Paris metro, Tehran metro, Japan, London Underground etc. All of these cities have urban metros in addition to suburban commuter rail (except Tehran I guess?). Melbourne's just not there yet and is still fairly suburban. Sydney's building a new metro system which wi…

I don't see the difference. Take Melbourne versus London. Both use electrified trains. Both have drivers. Both travel at similar speeds. Neither have to stop for automobile traffic (except for slowing down at the few level crossings in Melbourne). Whether the line is fully underground or not doesn't seem to affect much (other than ventilation).

I think the metro distinction is often frequency of trains and usage of the tracks. Ie London runs trains every 2 mins basically from 6am - 8pm on virtually every line vs a heavy suburban rail which will run every 15 - 30 mins, share track with freight or intercity rail and so on.

I know it doesn't look too different to a passenger but operationally I think they are very different.

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

#89

Post by sytringy05 »

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.

This about sums it up for your average Melburnian - '“A MAN who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself a failure.” So Margaret Thatcher is reputed to have said in 1986'

Buses are for pensioners and school kids.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2006/09/28/the-wheels-on-t...

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

#90

Post by 666lumberjack »

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…

>London has not seen fit to reinstall trams

That's not strictly true[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramlink

Post reply on HN