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

71–80 of 125 posts

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

#71

Post by devnulloverflow »

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.

Yes, the busways in parts of Brisbane are really excellent, better than any tram line I have seen. But they are also huge pieces of infrastructure that take up even more space (and I suspect money) than the a tram line would have.

Which is probably why they only extend in one direction from the city.

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

#72

Post by jaimex2 »

yoube wrote: post #67
jaimex2 wrote: post #53

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.

Melbourne isn't just the CBD, though. > They are free In the free tram zone, sure, which is an area of less than 2 by 3 km. The longest tram route is 23 km long.

Is that Burwood highway one?

But yeah, I feel like they do their best work in the CBD.

There are some examples that come to mind of trams I don't like. The tram that goes down Toorak rd is a huge nuisance, mostly due to how the council has mismanaged that road.

There are two lanes. That tram shares the right lane with cars and cars are allowed to park on the left lane. It completely bottlenecks the road - probably its intended purpose so people pay for Citylink bypass.

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

#73

Post by flukus »

pmontra wrote: post #66
waddlesworth wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I'd call the overhead cables "a blight on the streetscape." and the tracks inside the CBD aren't particularly deep. How do they impact pedestrians and cyclists? I take a tram to work every day, and any underground metro system would take a lot longer (It's a relatively short trip.)

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.

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

#74

Post by ImaCake »

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 sufficiently corrupt state government. By most measures, public transport in Newcastle has gotten worse over the past few years, mostly due to stupid (or maybe just self serving) decisions made by those in charge.

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

#75

Post by cylinder »

zizee wrote: post #56
cylinder wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 will operate like the above mentioned systems.

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

#76

Post by jurip »

jimmaswell wrote: post #60
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…

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

A problem with means based charges is that it gives no incentive to people covered by the system to alter their behavior. I think a better way would be to have the charges apply to everyone and add a system that directs (some of) the collected money to people less well off. That way, if they need to, they can still afford to drive in the city, but if they can avoid it, it benefits them.

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

#77

Post by cylinder »

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.

It's definitely an issue. A woman was killed when she rode over tracks and slipped, then went under a bus.

And: https://www.smh.com.au/national/tram-tracks-a-trap-for-cycli...

http://www.executivestyle.com.au/rail-lines-tram-tracks-and-...

It's a common issue for cyclists in Melbourne.

Now, a proper analysis would compare this detriment to the risks presented by busses, more cars, etc.

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

#78

Post by xodeus »

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…

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

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

#79

Post by distances »

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.

European cities usually have these in progression: tram for small cities, tram+train for large ones, tram+train+metro for the metropolis. Having a metro doesn't mean you shouldn't also have a tram. I agree that building everything from scratch may seem cost-prohibitive, but you have to start somewhere. Lifetime of cities is long enough to build these gradually.

> Eh the trams are cute, and smooth, but painfully slow.

Trams are for shorter trips that metro/heavy rail. They are slower than either of those two, but don't need to be painfully slow -- this depends on the city layout, e.g. Berlin vs. Prague has a large difference in tram speeds (Berlin having the fast ones).

> 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.

Also, strongly disagreeing with this too. Trams look great, including the tracks and overhead lines -- they just belong to a city.

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

#80

Post by cylinder »

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 for this isn't so bad. You won't find anywhere in the world where projects like this don't have some corruption. Shrug.
Post reply on HN