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

91–100 of 125 posts

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

#91

Post by benj111 »

ImaCake wrote: post #74
ajxs wrote: post #50

I don't feel like anyone has addressed the fact that Sydney's new tram system is an absolute joke. There's no point comparing it to Melbourne's expansive tram network, ours covers less than a tenth of the distance and pretty much runs between UNSW ( incredibly wealthy private institution ) and the new casino ( incredibly wealthy private institution ). The NSW state government has been thumbing it's nose at the ICAC f…

I think your new tram system will be a great improvement on what is there right now (i.e over crowded buses). Maybe I am optimistic because I have witnessed the white elephant that is Newcastle's new 2.1km tram line (that's the next city up the east coast for non-Australians). Newcastle's tram line is a stark reminder that corporate interests can and will rip up heavy rail lines given enough incentives and a sufficie…

"2.1km"

I hope theres more planned, thats barely worth going out of your way to catch.

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

#92

Post by m0llusk »

This is an increasingly popular narrative, but it isn't entirely true. The trams of the 1950s were not well loved by everyone because they were alternatively burning hot or frigid cold, they forced all manner of people to squeeze together or hang on the outside as shown in the pictures, and at that time the system had fallen into disrepair during the war and had such deferred maintenance that it was necessary to either rebuild or ditch the system altogether.

Being honest about the limitations of the system and its lack of strong popularity helps explain very much. At that time cars were still relatively new so that all the downsides of traffic and freeways were not yet understood. It is also worth noting that modern trams deliver a much more refined experience not only from their own improvements but also from the traffic signal control integration that many newer tram lines enjoy. That kind of system was not available for trams of the 1950s and so they were slower in traffic.

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

#93

Post by DavidPiper »

> "They just got convinced by what was going on overseas, what the Americans were doing ... It was the wrong decision. I think we’ve always regretted that."

That final line struck a bit of a nerve. It always feels like Australia just sits around waiting to see what America's stance is on and then try to follow suit.

Notable examples: immigration, data privacy, climate change, extensive privatisation in recent years.

(Notable counter-examples: gun control, healthcare)

I'm interested to know if this is just my own biased perception based on media and news exposure though.

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

#94

Post by daemin »

cylinder wrote: post #80
ajxs wrote: post #50

I don't feel like anyone has addressed the fact that Sydney's new tram system is an absolute joke. There's no point comparing it to Melbourne's expansive tram network, ours covers less than a tenth of the distance and pretty much runs between UNSW ( incredibly wealthy private institution ) and the new casino ( incredibly wealthy private institution ). The NSW state government has been thumbing it's nose at the ICAC f…

Ah there are so many whingers in Australia who hate change! The new tram is much needed and George St is much better off with this than the hellscape of buses and cars. The southeast desperately needs a proper link to the city. As someone who moved from overseas to Sydney, I am excited about the new line, and WestConnex was desperately needed too. I'm grateful for all the infrastructure coming online here. $3 billion…

The big thing about WestConnex was that it fed many lanes of traffic into a tiny crowded one lane street that has a lot of pedestrian traffic as well.

Maybe that's a bit of NIMBY but generally after new highways are built they are effectively choked off by the roads that feed in and out of them, especially ones where people want to exit on.

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

#95

Post by mb_72 »

cylinder wrote: post #80
ajxs wrote: post #50

I don't feel like anyone has addressed the fact that Sydney's new tram system is an absolute joke. There's no point comparing it to Melbourne's expansive tram network, ours covers less than a tenth of the distance and pretty much runs between UNSW ( incredibly wealthy private institution ) and the new casino ( incredibly wealthy private institution ). The NSW state government has been thumbing it's nose at the ICAC f…

Ah there are so many whingers in Australia who hate change! The new tram is much needed and George St is much better off with this than the hellscape of buses and cars. The southeast desperately needs a proper link to the city. As someone who moved from overseas to Sydney, I am excited about the new line, and WestConnex was desperately needed too. I'm grateful for all the infrastructure coming online here. $3 billion…

More like there are plenty of people born in Australia or who are longer-term residents than yourself who are jaded after seeing ridiculous developments or promises by successive State and Federal governments.

All that aside, I'm not against reasonable and financially responsible development. In my hometown of Adelaide the recent revival and expansion of the tram lines has been done in a successful and financially responsible manner (IMO): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Adelaide

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

#96

Post by michaelt »

flukus wrote: post #73
pmontra wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rails are notoriously bad for cyclists. I live in a city with underground metro, buses, trams and trolley buses (Milan, Italy.) It's nearly impossible to change the route of a tram line unless there are rails and overhead cables everywhere but it's immediate for buses. Even trolley buses can move on batteries to drive around road works or car accidents. On the other side trams can be much longer than a standard bus a…

> Rails are notoriously bad for cyclists. These ones are basically a small bump, you don't even slow down when you go over them. If you're riding along them they can be slippery and you can get stuck in the grooves, but they're in the middle of the road so this isn't really an issue.

You're picturing someone crossing at a right-angle to the tram tracks, as one might cross a train track at a level crossing. In that case you would indeed only get a small bump!

But if you cycle in the direction the tram travels - as you would if it was a bus lane, or a car would in a lane shared between trams and cars - then [1] can happen. Wheel goes into the groove in the road, cycle can't no longer steer, so it can't balance.

Obviously, you might think "Well then, don't cycle along lanes with tram tracks" but that means retrofitting an existing city with new tram tracks makes it less welcoming to cyclists - unlike busses or a metro system.

[1] https://youtu.be/aE3W4kEBhuE

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

#97

Post by kmlx »

I lived in Amsterdam a number of years ago. There were people constantly hit and killed by trams. There was a constant health emergency with cyclists getting their wheels stuck in the lines and then damaging their kneecaps, shoulders you name it. Anyone know if Melbourne solved any of these issues?

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

#98

Post by wastedhours »

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…

> 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.

I lived within the Congestion Zone, even with a 90% reduction on the charge per day (so you still have the cognitive load of having to pay) and having a parking space included with my flat (a damned luxury in London), still didn't feel the need to have a car.

As a Zone 1 resident I found driving in central more agro than it was worth. Granted, there are leafier areas that are still caught within it, but around where I was, and most of the places I've been inside it, the mix of 20mph zones, speed bumps, yellow boxes, bus lane cameras, cyclists, angry Uber drivers, and trying to find somewhere to park at the end... it's not worth it.

Now living in Zone 2, I have a car that I use exclusively for getting out of the city. I still struggle to understand why anyone would willingly drive in London on a daily basis (unless they're paid to drive).

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

#99

Post by friendlybus »

ajxs wrote: post #50

I don't feel like anyone has addressed the fact that Sydney's new tram system is an absolute joke. There's no point comparing it to Melbourne's expansive tram network, ours covers less than a tenth of the distance and pretty much runs between UNSW ( incredibly wealthy private institution ) and the new casino ( incredibly wealthy private institution ). The NSW state government has been thumbing it's nose at the ICAC f…

Building between two highly trafficked buildings that can make obscene money off the participants via uni fees or gambling makes sense. Presumably those people are getting some value for their money and making that happen more accessibly is reasonable.

I don't understand the logic that leads to corruption. There might be corruption there for sure, but I'm not sure that reasoning is evidence for it.

Putting tram out to low traffic or density areas wouldn't make sense for your primary lines.

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

#100

Post by friendlybus »

wastedhours wrote: post #98
cletus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I lived within the Congestion Zone, even with a 90% reduction on the charge per day (so…

Driving at night in London is more pleasant.
Post reply on HN