Higher capacity is not an "only" - that's the major advantage of trams over
buses. That's going to be reinforced on the east coast (heavy vehicle regs)
by the reduced capacity of battery-electric buses due to weight. A 60
passenger (formerly 80 as a diesel) bus isn't going to do the job of a 200
passenger tram, let alone a 300 or 400 passenger tram. A Labor government
would bring more high capacity buses, but they wouldn't be carrying more
than the present capacity of 100-110. There's always a role for trams and
there won't be a reduction in development, because of population growth.
People have to have somewhere to live and work.
On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 10:25:16 UTC+11
> On 24/11/22 09:24, David McLoughlin wrote:
> > Not good news for future tram extensions if Broad stays in that post,
> > is it?
> After the mess they made with the current and prior projects, I don't
> think any extensions are on the cards unless some developer mates lean
> on them for height and density waivers and push the 'traffic problems of
> the extra apartments will be mitigated by a light rail service argument'.
> Certainly most existing residents of suburbs that could be in reach of
> extensions will probably vigorously appose any extensions.
> We are now seeing anti-development independents wining seats in elections.
> Personally I think the coming of the battery electric bus has all but
> killed off the prospects for LR extensions. Rail has lost the 'cleaner'
> argument. LR only has higher capacity advantage now. But that comes with
> turning your suburb into a high rise slum to make it pay. People don't
> like their suburbs being trashed that way.