How Sydney destroyed its trams for love of the car • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by michaelt » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 9:37 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #63

vorg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like Auckland NZ is planning on following this trend by building two tram lines over the next 10 years (CBD down Dominion Rd to Airport, another CBD to West), 60 years after following Sydney's lead of tearing out the trams (first replacing them with electric trolley buses, then removing the overhead lines 20 years later). I don't see either line making a financial return on the investment, but the NZ government…

> I don't see either line making a financial return on the investment Do they get a financial return on the roads they build?Infrastructure (and practically all government services) never make money, that doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile.

If you're putting the country's pension fund into it you need a financial return. Otherwise you're not making an investment, you're just withdrawing money from the pension fund.

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

#102

Post by rexelhoff » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 9:39 AM UTC

DavidPiper wrote: post #93

> "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

Gun control, yes.

Healthcare, it seems like the Libs (at least) are bent on destroying Medicare in favour of what? Likely private healthcare

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

#103

Post by glangdale » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 9:43 AM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #31

glangdale wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

Buses are transit yo.

The thing about busways is that the buses get to the end of the busway and can then go around different areas and pick people up in places it would be impossible or uneconomical to lay track.

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

#104

Post by wastedhours » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 9:50 AM UTC

friendlybus wrote: post #100

wastedhours wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The ULEZ is 24/7 though, so you also need to pay at night now, which is a shame.

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

#105

Post by friendlybus » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 9:53 AM UTC

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…

Personal space in Perth is much better than most places. The glut of replies you're getting is more representative of what people in general will put up with on public transport. There's some nice trains in Madrid's metro and england though if you go outside London.

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

#106

Post by chii » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 9:57 AM UTC

friendlybus wrote: post #99

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 t…

There are other heavily trafficked areas that doesn't have any investment. Esp the poorer western suburbs, with overcrowded trains and few busses.

The tram and light rail investment benefits the property and businesses along the route, but the taxes are paid by the silent majority who derive little to no benefit.

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

#107

Post by friendlybus » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 10:09 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #106

friendlybus wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

There are other heavily trafficked areas that doesn't have any investment. Esp the poorer western suburbs, with overcrowded trains and few busses. The tram and light rail investment benefits the property and businesses along the route, but the taxes are paid by the silent majority who derive little to no benefit.

Yeah get those western suburbs solutions too! The second tram line can go there. I'm fairly sure casinos and unis pay taxes too.

I can't get into this base politicking about public services in such a crass way. I was sure Australia was above this nonsense. Go talk to your local rep! Bringing up corruption over not placing tram lines where you want them, is for the Americans. I'm not so easily persuaded that our pollies are that dumb.

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

#108

Post by falsedan » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 10:28 AM UTC

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.

There might be some old red rattlers in sidings of rural stations, my dad made a deal to get one and the fittings from its sibling when the owner wanted to use the bogeys and trays for a tourist train. That was a fun few summers of unscrewing everything from one unairconditioned carriage and and reattching it to ther other.

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

#109

Post by falsedan » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 10:32 AM UTC

devnulloverflow wrote: post #69

guitarbill wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

It's hard to get to some Sydney suburbs for the same reason. Though interestingly this includes rich areas like the Eastern Suburbs and Northern Beaches. I suspect fat-cat NIMBYs have been keeping the trains out for generations now.

no it's the geography, too hard and bumpy or waterlogged to drill tunnels

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

#110

Post by ajxs » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 11:06 AM UTC

friendlybus wrote: post #107

chii wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other heavily trafficked areas that doesn't have any investment. Esp the poorer western suburbs, with overcrowded trains and few busses. The tram and light rail investment benefits the property and businesses along the route, but the taxes are paid by the silent majority who derive little to no benefit.

Yeah get those western suburbs solutions too! The second tram line can go there. I'm fairly sure casinos and unis pay taxes too. I can't get into this base politicking about public services in such a crass way. I was sure Australia was above this nonsense. Go talk to your local rep! Bringing up corruption over not placing tram lines where you want them, is for the Americans. I'm not so easily persuaded that our polli…

Are you joking? Did you miss the fact that NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell dug his heels in and refused to sell Ausgrid infrastructure, then gets thrown out on a dubious corruption charge over a donated bottle of wine? From memory he denied this at first, then changed his tune and bowed out voluntarily. Only to be replaced with Casino Mike Baird who has a fire sale on public infrastructure. He presides over selling the poles and wires, the Westconnex debacle with the amalgamation of uncooperative inner-west councils, the Newcastle train line scandal, all the rest. Then just up and resigns before the end of his term after doing so many highly controversial deals. If you don't smell a rat in NSW politics you're clearly not paying attention.