It didn't help that my view of trams was formed by this, before I returned
to experience modern tram operation in Australia (and this was filmed in a
heritage tourist tram, never mind a regular service!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5tqfuikKC8

This ruined me for life.

Gold Coast and Canberra have had a crack at something better, though helped
by longer stop spacings and priority, but otherwise why are our Australian
trams driven like hearses?

Tony P

On Thursday 14 March 2024 at 20:14:10 UTC+11 TP wrote:

> A tram with dedicated tram lanes and the same number of stops should take

> about 20 to 22 minutes, 25 at the absolute outside, to cover 8.5 km.

> They're both terrible operations, but Melbourne has the excuse of a number

> of legacy institutional constraints, including lack of priority. Sydney L2

> was designed and built as a new line and has no excuses other than

> incompetence.

>

> Also, I don't think there's generally a tradition of quick public

> transport journeys in either city and the status quo is sort of accepted,

> except by those few who have experienced better systems elsewhere. Sydney

> is now getting an eye-opener with the metro and the technology revolution

> on the ferries that have both speeded up journeys immensely. Light rail,

> buses and suburban trains will doubtless continue to amble along as they

> always have. The old tram system was faster.

>

> Tony P

> (who finds riding Sydney's light rail is like watching grass grow)

>

> On Thursday 14 March 2024 at 14:46:30 UTC+11 Richard Youl wrote:

>

>>

>> Which Tram is Slower? Sydney L2 or Melbourne 96?

>> https://youtu.be/gJ7st9dn0as

>>

>>

>>

>> Richard

>>

>