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

Sydney seems to have a defacto FTZ. My observations suggest up to 50% of riders within the CBD don't bother to tap on/off, and it is rare to see TOs checking cards in this area.
I noticed that ride figures for June 2022 on the L2/L3 were just under 2 million; no doubt more if the free loaders were included.

On Thursday, 28 July 2022 at 02:57:28 pm AEST, TP historyworks@...> wrote:

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...@... wrote:

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

The first iteration of double deck cars was the introduction of double
deck cars with the existing power cars being single deck.


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.