I think you've summarised it well Brent. Of course I'm referring to where a
train service is replaced by a tram service, which naturally means a
downgrade in line capacity - not necessarily patronage, that depends on
individual situations.
Tony P
On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 20:14:34 UTC+10brent....@... wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>