You're quite correct Mal and that's all well and good, but the tramway
infrastructure isn't being sweated in sync with this trend. When you've
gone to all the trouble and cost of laying rails in the ground, you
shouldn't underutilise the investment by operating it with vehicles no
bigger than an articulated bus. This is the foolishness that underlies such
projects as the Brisbane busways - massively expensive infrastructure, low
capacity vehicles. Downgrading railways to tramways (tram-trains) in some
parts of the world seems to me to be part of the same concerning trend. The
world's population is growing, not shrinking. I would think some close
investigation of why some Melbourne tram corridors are underutilised should
be done and planning undertaken to ensure that they're used to their
potential. Something is falling short in spite of the increased
densification. Increased density yet low patronage don't add up. I remain
of the belief that investing in 24 metre trams is a huge, very
short-sighted mistake for a city of Melbourne's population and expected
rate of growth. Capacity-wise, it's no better than what the Brisbane
"metro" offers and we all laugh at that.
On Thursday, 22 July 2021 at 12:31:24 UTC+10 Mal Rowe wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 11:40, TP wrote:
> > That seems to me to be the planning difference between Sydney and
> > Melbourne. Sydney sweats its transport infrastructure. Melbourne
> > wastes it with an indifferent attitude of oh well there aren't many
> > people using it, let's downsize the vehicles. The people who suffer
> > are the ones who have to find a home out in the bundooks because there
> > isn't enough housing in the inner areas.
> Sorry Tony, the figures don't support your view.
> According to https://profile.id.com.au/australia/about?WebID=260 Greater
> Melbourne has a population density of 5.17 persons per hectare and on a
> related page, Greater Sydney is quoted as 4.34 persons per hectare.
> Melbourne's population has been growing more rapidly than Sydney's and a
> large proportion of the growth is in urban infill - especially along
> There's an interesting animated map at:
> It shows both infill (which will increase the density) and urban sprawl
> which has the opposite effect.
> As a local in the middle of the north west tramways I can assure you
> that there is plenty of infill.
> See the attached pic. Since I made that photo three more (much larger)
> housing towers have been completed at Moonee Ponds.
> The introduction of the E class to West Coburg and West Preston are
> needed because of the substantial increase in urban density along these
> Mal Rowe - fact checking