Re: CSELR rezoning
  TP

I'd only raise the point Andrew that the E class isn't a very long tram,
it's a standard tram nowadays. Even cities that still possess traditional
(approx) 15 metre trams typically run them in coupled sets to form a 30
metre consist. It's because of population/patronage growth and also because
the articulated bus now does the job of the 15 metre tram on a more
cost-effective basis.

Tony P

On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 22:36:20 UTC+10andrewh...@... wrote:

> It is a downgrade when a tram replaces a train, as happened with the Port

> Melbourne and St Kilda train lines. I don't blame those in charge at the

> time but it certainly increased travel times if you compare trains to

> trams/light rail.

>

> It was population growth in inner suburbs, higher population density that

> led to the need for very long trams with a high frequency rate on route 96

> and pre COVID overcrowding on the shorter C1 trams on route 109 to Port

> Melbourne. I suggest trams on those routes are moving more people to those

> destinations than trains have since post WWII. It is all about population

> growth and tourism over the last decade or so in St Kilda and Port

> Melbourne and not to do with the service offered. Though a quick train trip

> from both places would be better for many locals. Yes, the tram 96 was well

> extended over the train and made better for many than the fast St Kilda

> train for locals but not so for those at the former intermediate train

> stations, and nor those on the train from Port Melbourne.

>

> Andrew.

>

>

> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Virus-free.

> www.avg.com

> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail

> <#m_5593522508594641693_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

>

> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 at 20:14, 'Brent Efford' via TramsDownUnder <

>tramsdo...@...> 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

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> --

>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

>> "TramsDownUnder" group.

>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email totramsdownunde...@....

>> To view this discussion on the web visit

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/5374143d-aa52-418e-9e75-e7f99f3fc797n%40googlegroups.com

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/5374143d-aa52-418e-9e75-e7f99f3fc797n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

>> .

>>

>