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

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

#41

Post by bobthepanda » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 1:27 AM UTC

reitzensteinm wrote: post #34

bobthepanda wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What use is a bus if missing one means you're out of luck for the next 29, 39, or 59 minutes? It's not really 'refuting' it, but there are downsides to prioritizing point-to-point travel.

If you look at a map of Melbourne's frequent services (tram and bus) they pretty much all form a grid. https://melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/2019/04/are-you-near...

Auckland redesigned its transit network to have more frequent routes requiring transferring, and public transport ridership is poised to double in ten years. https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/111564109/aucklands-unbelie...

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

#42

Post by samplatt » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 1:30 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #40

gizmonty wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 Quiet Carraiges to Geelong) have more room, and in Perth I could use a laptop for the first ~30min of my journey before the train filled up.

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

#43

Post by jimmaswell » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 1:32 AM UTC

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.

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

#44

Post by samplatt » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 1:38 AM UTC

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…

>One of my favorite things about Melbourne is never having to visit a shopping mall because retail spaces spring up naturally along tram lines

Been in Melbourne for 18 months now and have only just realised that this is one of my favourite things as well, I only appreciated it subconsciously until now.

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

#45

Post by craz8 » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 1:52 AM UTC

mrmincent wrote: post #19

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!

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…

My only time in Melbourne, I saw a car crash into a tram. This blocked a bit of the road, and the entire tram line for an hour plus

The bus behind could have driven around, but the next tram was stuck until the blockage was cleared

Now, if the busses had dedicated lanes that they could use, they may run as well as trams, with the flexibilty of changing route for exceptions like crashes, or road works

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

#46

Post by ShinTakuya » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 1:54 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #22

Sydney is still being influenced by overseas trends right now as trams become popular again across large western cities. So do they actually make rational decisions or just follow whatever anyone is doing at the time?

The latter, definitely the latter. Although as much as I dislike the state government they kinda got screwed over by the federal government of the same party. There were reserved heavy rail corridors sold off by the Howard government that would have proven pretty useful.

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

#47

Post by cylinder » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

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.

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

#48

Post by i386 » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

The NRMA campaigned for decades to remove the trams from Sydney streets and it was effectively done at their behest. Corporate vandalism at its finest.

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

#49

Post by zik » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 1:59 AM UTC

yoube wrote: post #10

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.

As someone who lives in Melbourne (and usually just uses a bicycle to commute), buses suck. They don't follow timetables, get noticeably slower during peak hours and get faster during school holidays. The reason people avoid using them is that they're unreliable. If I occasionally use the bus to get to/from work the trip can take anywhere from 30 minutes to 45.

Most Melbourne buses are horrendous. They're unpredictable timing-wise, slow, noisy, uncomfortable and many of the routes are poorly thought out so they don't get anywhere in a useful amount of time anyway.

There are some express buses which at least are quick but they're still noisy and uncomfortable. Trams are a dream after using the buses.

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

#50

Post by ajxs » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 2:01 AM UTC

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 for years with some of shadiest dealing and poor infrastructure investment of little benefit to the public. This new tram network is just the latest in this tradition. You can't possibly say that projects like this, Westconnex, the shortening of the rail line in Newcastle, etc did not reek of corruption and keep a straight face. Admittedly, transport to UNSW was always bad via road. The congestion in the Eastern Suburbs is terrible. I never found the buses to Randwick to be _that_ terrible, but I never rode them in peak hour on a daily basis.