Melbourne Loves Trams - But Not It's Own!!

Hi,

Having been a constant user of them for getting to my various workplaces in the past twenty years, I have noticed that the various (state) governments have given very little help to support them in comparison to the car brigade. It disappoints me to see local councils (and to a lesser extent the police) do nothing by implementing road laws that allow for a quicker service. You read people complaining why do they not run on time but it is hard when you are competing for the same ground as your opposition:wink:.

As the saying goes "you get what you deserve unless you are prepared to do something about changing it".

Cheers
MH

could not understand why Adelaide are buying trams from OS when we have a car manufacturing plant just about empty and all those skilled workers looking for work.

Cheers Fred

Trams are nothing but a mobile chicane, and a public transport subsidy for the rich.

Mobile chicane because they destroy the flow of traffic on any road on which they run. If trams ran on the OUTSIDE of the road they'd be better, but completely blocking the flow of traffic at each stop means that they actually degrade the efficiency of the roads on which they run.

Subsidy for the rich because they only support those suburbs which have an affluent population, and they can't carry enough passengers quickly enough to make them efficient park-and-ride carriers for outlying suburbs.

Scrap 'em. Re-use the electric infrastructure for buses. I'm in Seattle at the moment and they have what looks like tram overhead in city streets. It is actually used by hybrid buses, which change to electric power by connecting a boom much like a tram, but they have the BIG advantage of not being tied to the centre of the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Dunn

Scrap 'em. Re-use the electric infrastructure for buses. I'm in Seattle at the moment and they have what looks like tram overhead in city streets. It is actually used by hybrid buses, which change to electric power by connecting a boom much like a tram, but they have the BIG advantage of not being tied to the centre of the road.

---

Thanks for the interest post Ron:wink::). It led me to "googled" for further info on what you said with the additional bonus of it highlighting the "Green House" benefits of the system. However it appears from the article there is no difference there in noting that public transport is a money pit.

Here is an heart-warming story about a man who is systematically riding every bus line in the Seattle area. He started with route 1 and is working his way up. So far, he is up to 152 and has a few hundred lines to go.

Seattle has a pretty good bus system. Although Seattle is the nation’s 14th largest urban area, its buses carry the eighth-most number of trips and passenger miles. Seattle’s buses carry a higher percentage of commuters and of total regional travel than Portland’s rail and bus system put together. Seattle’s hydroelectric-powered trolley buses are one of the few transit systems in the country that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our faithful bus rider discovered that riders on some commuters buses "know each other so well they pick up the previous day’s conversations midsentence". When a newcomer has ridden a route regularly for a week, the rest of them introduce themselves and draw them into their circle.

Some routes have higher percentages of "choice" riders than others, he notes. But the worry that “buses are full of derelicts” is far from true, he says. Although he loves trains, he thinks the city could do more to improve its bus system to attract more riders. "Buses are so much cheaper and faster to expand than light rail". The bus system isn’t perfect. The city spent $444 million (in 1990 dollars) building an inane 1.3-mile downtown tunnel for the buses that - because of exhaust problems - could only be used by a few dozen buses that were specially designed to be "dual mode". Diesel above ground, electric trolley wires in the tunnel.

The $538 million, 1.3-mile bus-rail tunnel.

Then, after just five years, they closed the tunnel for two years so they could spend another $94 million installing a light-rail line. The original tunnel included built-in rails in case the city ever built light rail - but those rails had to be torn out because a planning error - actually, a last-minute cost-reduction measure - caused them to skimp on the insulation needed to prevent stray current problems. Managers knew about the problem but installed the rails anyway without telling anyone. Then, after the tunnel had been reopened for just a few weeks, a computer glitch forced them to close it for several days. Buses running on the streets don’t need computers to tell them when to stop and go.

To top it off, the new tunnel was incompatible with the special dual-mode buses, so after five years of use they were replaced by new hybrid buses. So, even without counting Seattle’s light-rail line - which, at $170 million per mile, is the most expensive light rail in the world - Seattle’s transit system is a giant money pit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metal Head

Melbourne Loves Trams

---

Personally I don't, I accept that they are a necessary evil as it would cost too much to replace them with buses.


The thing I really abhor are the socalled superstops that they have been building , ruins good roads.


Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Personally I don't, I accept that they are a necessary evil as it would cost too much to replace them with buses. The thing I really abhor are the socalled superstops that they have been building , ruins good roads.

Peter

---

Hi Peter,

The reason is so wheelchair users and handicapped people can use them - no more discrimination. Plus with an ageing population it will stop (beyond 2015) them having to struggle getting on (and off) the non friendly older trams.

MH

But why don't they rerout the tracks to the kerbside so you don't need these stupid stops. With buses they stop at the kerb and not in the middle of the road so why not trams.


Peter.