Re: Re: Melbourne's free tram zone - time to go

It was basically because the postwar NSW Labor government of the time
eventually realised it wasn't going to be able to build the track
amplifications and other work like signalling that would increase the
capacity of the system, so they were looking for a solution that would not
require an increase in the number of trains running on the system, yet
could fit some more passengers on board. "Luckily", after the 1960s,
patronage stagnated for the next three decades so they got by until the
population growth crisis post 1990s hit.

The interview with Daniel has appeared on the Facebook pages of the Age and
the radio station and the comments on both are overwhelmingly against
canning the FTZ, not that we should entirely go by Facebook comments. Two
of the reasons given are that the free travel encourages economic activity
and tourism in the CBD and that it makes it easier for people from outside
Melbourne to move around the CBD as they typically don't ave Myki cards.
The latter points to a deficiency in the Myki system in that one-off users
can't buy a day ticket from a machine at tram and train stops, unlike in
other states and ACT. For certain, there are two main ways to go. Either
cancel the free travel or build up the fleet to 30 metre trams and closer
headways. I think another interim possibility until tram capacity grows is
to just run a single free loop tram service around the CBD, like the free
bus loops in other cities.

Tony P

On Thursday, 28 July 2022 at 12:54:53 UTC+10gregsut...@...

> Wasn't the introduction of double deck trains done to increase train

> capacity without having to make the trains longer which would have

> involved heavy expenses in the lengthing of platforms especially in the

> underground?


> The first iteration of double deck cars was the introduction of double

> deck cars with the existing power cars being single deck.


> Greg



> On 26/07/2022 8:32 pm, TP wrote:

> > The size of the tram has nothing to do with the headways. The whole

> > idea of increasing the size of the vehicle is to increase the capacity

> > at the same headways.

> >

> > Having said that, of course there are a few more negative operators

> > and agencies who will use the excuse of bigger vehicles to cut back

> > the number being used (hence longer headways). The introduction of

> > Sydney's double deck trains was an example.

> >

> > So by corollary, it will be interesting to see if Melbourne's smaller

> > trams result in greater frequency.

> >