What do you mean by "downgrading railways to tramways (tram-trains)" Tony?
Can you give examples where introducing trams onto railway infrastructure
has lowered capacity or patronage?
True tram-train operation – Karlsruhe, Mulhouse, Sheffield-Rotherham etc
etc – retains the availability of the railway for heavy rail operations as
well – so is hardly a "downgrading". As far as I am aware, all the examples
of complete conversion of railway to light rail (e.g. St Kilda and Port
Melbourne) has resulted in greatly increased patronage, if only because the
tramway normally provides a much larger catchment, extending beyond the
former railway at one or both ends, as in Melbourne. (Of course many former
railway lines converted to tramway had no passenger service anyway, as in
Sydney.)
Brent Efford
On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 3:15:14 PM UTC+12 TP wrote:
> 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.
>
> Tony P
> 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
>> tramways.
>>
>> There's an interesting animated map at:
>>
>> https://chartingtransport.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/melbourne-population-density-2006-2011-20163.gif
>>
>> 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
>> routes.
>>
>> Mal Rowe - fact checking
>>
>>
>>