The current mayor of the City of Melbourne, John So, has become a bit of a cult figure down here - almost a modern-day Emperor Norton of the United States. Frankly, much of his appeal probably derives from the fact that the mayor of Melbourne doesn’t have much more actual power than Norton did; by many reports, what little power he does have isn’t wisely used. For those actually affected by the smooth running of central Melbourne’s municipal council (which covers the CBD and a few of the innermost suburbs) there’s probably a fair bit of relief that he’s not seeking a third term. This article introduces the field so far. Former state Liberal leader Robert Doyle is a likely candidate; ALP members running include Will Fowles and Peter McMullin. Adam Bandt of the Greens is running, and it appears that the Greens are making a serious push to expand their representation on the City of Melbourne Council.
The hottest political issue across the entire Melbourne metropolis at the moment is transport. Melbourne’s freeways, trams, and trains are full to capacity, and the state government is preparing a “major transport statement” (their fourth, I believe, in about as many years) which will likely propose a number of major transport construction projects. One of those proposals, canvassed in the earlier Eddington report, is a road tunnel under the inner-northern suburbs (some of which are in the City of Melbourne) linking the Tullamarine and Eastern Freeways. Unsurprisingly, Bandt, and the Greens more generally, think this is a lousy idea, and instead believe that the new transport infrastructure required is lots of public transport.
To sell their message, the Victorian Greens have crafted one of the cleverest political websites I’ve ever seen. As well as a moderately funny Flash parody of John Brumby, the heart of the site is an interactive map that overlays their proposed improvements to the bus, train and tram networks onto a zoomable Melbourne map. It’s a really good way to get a sense how their plan would work for oneself, as an individual; it certainly kept me busy for a few minutes.
The accompanying discussion paper is reasonably well thought-out, too, for a political document, featuring a good discussion of some of the general principles underlying why people make the transport choices they do. While there are endless quibbles about the specifics of their proposed projects, it’s not a slapdash effort. For an instance, I’m personally quite impressed by one of the things that’s not proposed - they haven’t proposed endless new bus routes through the outer suburbs, which sound good in the abstract but are very rarely actually used.
In any case, it seems that the Greens are preparing to make their point on transport not only in the council election, but through to the next state election.
ELSEWHERE: The trainspotters at Transport Textbook have a look at the detail. This looks like a good blog to keep an eye on.
That’s a fun map.
The new short tunnel actually seems like a good idea - except the upfield line really oughta be light rail.
We could quibble about all sorts of details, the point is at least they’re making proposals. Didn’t ahve time to see about implementation plans and costs etc.
The one thing that makes me vote Green is transport. Since that’s about the main thing the State government needs to fix in Melbourne they’ll get my vote until the ALP really takes a good hard look at themselves, stops listening to the merchant bankers and starts investing.
As a resident of Doncaster East, currently one of the most poorly serviced Eastern Suburbs I can’t say I’m hugely impressed by the plan. But I agree, it’s still a good sight better than what anyone else is proposing.
It will all be solved by increased public transport running through the middle and inner suburbs to the CBD. Pity the poor bastards who have to transport little kids and the sick aged and infirm. Shove granny on the cross bar of the bike and dink her up the Dandenong creek bike path in the rain to the outpatients clinic at Monash Medical from Cranbourne.
Maybe I’m overstating it a bit but where is the recognition that people need and use cars for a variety of good reasons and at least a few gestures to the reality.
Are Harry Barber from Bicycle Victoria and Greg Barber Greens canditate related?
FXH - cars and roads have no shortage of cheerleaders, both commercial and in government. Nothing in the Greens’ policy suggests it’s going to stop funding the maintenance of roads, or deliberately making driving a difficult choice. Indeed, by providing as many people as possible with PT options, it will make driving far safer and easier for those who can’t realistically take advantage of that choice.
FXH: Dunno whether they’re related.
I agree that cars are not going to go away, and public transport is not the cure-all that the Greens sometimes claim.
But, given that they’re not going to ever concede that in public, I’ll give them credit for focusing their proposals on places where public transport has a chance of working.
Harry Barber (Bicycle Victoria) and Greg Barber (Greens MP) are not related, but they do have a connection. When Harry Barber stood as the Greens candidate for Lord Mayor of Melbourne in 2001, Greg Barber was his campaign manager. People constantly thought they must be brothers.
No one says cars are going to go away. But the absence of proper public transport, with conductors on trams and properly staffed stations, is shameful. This map is exciting in the way it addresses the needs of each area of Melbourne, and provides far more creative options than the Eddington road tunnels to nowhere.
I’m surprised that FX Holden doesn’t like the idea of a train line to Doncaster - property prices out there would skyrocket.
Brian, I like the idea of a (probably light-) rail line to Doncaster, but I want it run all the way along the freeway to Ringwood. Of course, EastLink is already built now and no consideration was really made as to the whether it could be post-fitted with such a thing.
One I really don’t get is the proposal for an airport rail line.
It’s hard to see what a train ride would offer that the Skybus doesn’t already.
Robert, how long does the skybus take to get from the Airport to Southern Cross station in peak hour traffic?
And how much does it cost?
There’s a bus to Tullamarine!? Geeze, in all my years of going to Mel and hosting visitors therefrom, I have never once heard of it.
d
wizo - It’s not that I think cars and commercial road transport don’t have advocates but I would have more respect for the Greens if I could see where cars and roads fit in their thinking and some realistic plans from them. Just as I would respect the RACV more when I see their brain power applied to bikes, pedestrians and public transport. It’s the interaction and combinations of all that are the hard bit.
The famous little white van doing deliveries of essentials all over town isn’t going to go away - yet I haven’t seen any decent plan that suggests some suitable allowance of space or priority that makes their life easier and perhaps makes it easier for others too.
Brian w.
I can never figure out why they didn’t build in light rail / trams down the middle or side of the freeway in from Doncaster or even a few other freeways. And I ‘d like to see a few short cross town trams linking up radial tram routes and train stations. Staions St Box hill from Donny through to Deakin / Burwood highway woudl be a good easy low hanging fruit with huge payoffs linking to Box Hill train, Whitehorse tram and Burwood Hwy tram and even Riversdale tram with a bit of short rail.
I’d like to see many places - not all - throw away the stupid bike lanes on main roads (Like say Balwyn Road) and instead implement Bicycle Prefered (Boulevards their called in someplaces) that run sort of parrallel to main drags through suburban streets and are restricted to local cars and away from buses, semis, B double, little white vans, tennis mums in 4WDs picking up kids from school and male yobs of all classes and ages in cars pushing 60 - 70- 80ks - whatever the speed limit is.
As far as conductors go - there has been a thread somewhere else before - I think they have been over romanticised. Many people’s memories were of a majority of petty rude officious people who were either too lazy to help anyone, half pissed or jumped up little tyrants. Sometimes all at the one time. I certainly don’t miss them. Not that I have any time for the thugs in coats who call themselves Customer Service Somethingorothers.
The Skybus is pretty bloody good and cheapish. And could be tweaked even better. Sky rail isn’t justified.
So, how are they planning to fund it all?
Not sure, don’t take it. My guess is that it’s not too bad, because Citylink gets you most of the way there.
But I wouldn’t take an airport train either. I’d have to take the train into the city, carting my bags 500 metres to the train station, from which, even if the Greens got their north-south rail tunnel built, it’d be another 15 minutes into the city, and probably another 5 minute wait for the train. I can be at the airport in 25 minutes by taxi from my house.
One weakness of the plan is that the new east-west tram line doesn’t actually connect with the airport rail link.
The Skybus only takes about 20 minutes from Southern Cross railway station and costs $15. It runs every 15 minutes. It’s pretty good sevice.
Costigns are in the appendix to the .pdf, and are scant on detail (which is actually fair enough) and I suspect they’re very optimistic.
$13.8bn, plus $333M annual operating costs.
An interactive transport map would be great for Brisbane. Two ideas for expanding the rail network: one link to Redcliffe (an idea that’s delayed again and again) and the second to Greenbank and beyond (a corridor that’s already occupied by the Sydney to Brisbane line; why not make it dual gauge?)
What, no monorails? I blame Marge.
I’m kinda hoping that, as we get no more snow in the ski-fields, there’ll be a chairlift ot two going cheap. One of them down the central boulevard of our suburb on the edge of the CBD into town would do just nicely, with a low-k green-chargable internal neighbourhood vehicle solution to do the homechairlift thing . Ferries could take care of the needs of the folks on the periphery of our riparian peninsula, and we could be a suburb with no need for cars.
…home 2-and-from chairlift thing… (carat orthography got interpreted as an html code, and didn’t show)
Down and Out,
I would hope the Redcliffe line is on as well, but you’d have to be an optimist to expect it to get through. The latest “Integrated Transport Plan” from the Government has it marked as ‘mixed infrastructure’ which says ‘Rail and Bus’, but actually should read “wasteful, poorly utilised dedicated busway”. It’s a joke, and a waste of taxpayers’ money (There was a report a few years back that said a dedicated bus link would actually represent a net loss on capital expenditure), put Peter said and Anna obeys, though really the Libs and Nats are just as culpable (except for, painfully, Joh who’s government bought the corridor before being kicked out of office).
On other Brisbane-related transport maladies, The Courier is running yet another piece about the much toted Brisbane Subway, This time using money from the “Building Australia” fund. Wonder how our southern mates are going to take that.
$14b subway system for Brisbane announced by Anna Bligh
And now I’ll stop hijacking the thread for Brisbane, and let you get back to Melbourne.
PinkyOz
FXH, the People Plan costs less than the Eddington Plan, which is something to consider when considering funding plans. Tunnels are expensive. And the question of cars has already been addressed - TPP proposes tripling passenger trips by 2020, which does indicate that people will still drive. Public transport passenger trips are at low numbers at the moment. Greg Barber’s done a lot of work researching how people travel - read through the discussion paper (which also has the costings).
Alister: The fudge factor in the Greens’ costings is likely to be substantially larger than the Eddington Reporrt’s fudge factor.
Down and Out, I’d like to see something like that too. It would really show you how ridiculous the whole TransApex thing is because it does nothing to improve public transport other than state that it may be possible to increase public transport services, maybe, on the surface roads above the tunnels. Maybe. If we can be bothered. And only then if building the things doesn’t send us bankrupt. Of course, thanks to the state government building busways we won’t have to worry about cars losing any road space on the surface because a lot of buses will get yanked, allowing Newman to close more bus lanes and transit lanes.
The proposed $14billion underground rail system for the CBD and surrounds is a step forward. The Greens put something like that out at the 2008 BCC election but it was surface light rail which cost perhaps $3billion and covered the entire city and busway network. Yes, we need more heavy rail capacity but underground/water heavy rail doesn’t come cheap.
Robert, “fudge factor” can be used in two different ways.
If you mean deliberately understating to get people to buy the idea then I don’t think there is any of that in the Greens plan, while I’d be surprised if there wasn’t for the road component of Eddington.
However, since The People Plan was put together on literally less than 1% of Eddington’s budget I’d agree there would be much more margin for error in the costings, simply because there was less opportunity to research the costs more accurately. However, that means that some Green costs may actually be overstated.
Robert, if you’re concerned about a ‘fudge factor’ then work out where we’ve got it wrong, or perhaps see what can be done to get a more accurate costing. The $4 billion difference between what we’re proposing and what Eddington’s proposing should assist with any flaws in our costs. But seriously, would you trust the Brumby government to cost anything at the moment? What was myki supposed to cost - some $500 million? Haven’t we passed a billion, and we’re still going? So why would you expect reliable figures out of Eddington?
Sam,
Your right of course, we need to put a bit more focus on public transport, but it doesn’t help that it’s the private joke of developers, constructors and party heads.
Personally, I’m a train man, I would love to see more rail infrastructure, but busways work as well. The Redcliffe thing gets right under my skin though, busways work by being dedicated and direct, building one between two bedroom suburbs, that will require either another bus ride or switch to train after a 20 minute trip directly west just goes against the grain a bit.
But that’s just me, requiring public policies make sense.
PinkyOz
Alister: what feral sparrowhawk said.
And, in my experience, projects very, very rarely come down in costs from the first pre-feasibility study to actual construction.
I’m probably going to be speaking out of school here as a Labor council candidate for an inner city council but I’m not hugely impressed by either the Greens plan, Eddington’s plan or most plans put forward to fix Transport here in Victoria.
By and large most plans get fixated by projects, and wars between different public transport modes, and the Greens transport plan is no different.
The fixation on heavy rail and trams bemuses me to no end. Its quite frankly elitist to suggest as many people do and the Greens plan implies that buses are a second best public transport option. What annoys me most about this plan (apart from the costings which are extremely dodgy) is the lack of vision.
The lack of vision permeates this plan, other lobby groups plans is a real lack of political leadership. So while the Greens say they are leading by nor proposing any road projects, that’s political point scoring.
The real question in transport policy is not what to build, but what sort of city we want. A real transport policy document would outline a vision for Melbourne, examine where people live (and are going to live), where they work (and are going to work), and how they move between home, work, and access local services. A real vision needs to set some targets beyond modal shift (20/2020), targets around improving local amenity, improved environment, improved economic opportunities, greater freight efficiency.
A real plan would not make public transport mode choices, but rather set out some planning guidelines. That is, at what level of patronage does a bus service become a smartbus, when does a smart bus become light rail, when does light rail then become eligible for an upgrade to something dedicated or to heavy rail.
But in Victoria we have a clayton’s debate. One in which favourite projects get put in front of good public policy.
For instance in my local area Brunswick, I can’t understand why you would spend hundreds of millions of dollars redirecting the Upfield line to Melbourne Uni. Upfield is one of our least used railway lines, surely there would be a greater bang for your buck doing something else. And why would you replace a bus (the 504 on Brunswick Road) which is barely used with a tram service? It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
What we need from the Victorian government is a real transport plan that rejects road building in inner Melbourne (though not necessarily in outer Melbourne), and makes some sensible decisions about public transport upgrades judged on a public, transparent methodology.
But I’m not holding my breath.
Chris: please, stick your bib in!
I can see where you’re coming from, but - and you probably know this far better than I - it seems to me most people want to see how you’re going to turn your principles into concrete actions.
I’d also argue that you’re (at least in this comment) not taking into account the “if you build it, they will come” factor, as well as the network effects you get from improving the system.
Finally, and to indulge in a bit of modal denigation, buses suck. They’re the least pleasant passenger experience, their travel times are unpredictable, the routes are often illogical and round-about, and their flexibility is actually a curse, because developers don’t develop around bus lines.
As to your specific examples, I think you’ve got a point - as noted, the airport rail link is probably a waste too. Personally, I wonder whether the best option (assuming a large pot of money was dropped in my lap) would be to put in the tunnel, take the trams out of Sydney road and replace them with buses (I admit this contradicts my earlier point about buses sucking, but they don’t block traffic nearly as badly when they stop either). The combination of speeding up the travel time, and making Melbourne Uni accessaible on the Upfield line without having to take the 401 bus, would probably make the Upfield line a lot busier.
Chris, you’ve also got the Parkville connection in to the city. Upfield runs through North Melbourne - an infamous bottleneck. Get Upfield to Parkville and Parkville to the City, and you free up a line in North Melbourne. While obviously not an independent observer (as a candidate for Melbourne City Council), this seems to me to be a solid, integrated plan.
And Robert, I’m not entirely sure that feral sparrowhawk was agreeing with your line of argument, although I’m not suggesting s/he’s agreeing with mine either. But it’s also probably not that important until either we’re able to implement our plan, or the current state government (or some future one) lifts it from us and does it themselves. For what it’s worth, I’d not replace the Sydney Road trams with buses because the priority should be extending transport to those that have it. We can cope, I believe, with trams on Sydney Road. We have so far.
Irrespective of your views on the plan, hopefully we’ve started a discussion. Integrated transport solutions aren’t being considered. Transport solutions seem to be managed solely according to political advantage, which is sad. You shouldn’t have to live in a marginal metropolitan seat to get your transport needs addressed. Having said that, there’s a lot to be said for living in a marginal seat, as I do.
I got a train from Sunbury to Southern Cross and it cost half what the Skybus from Tullamarine costs. Skybus is fine for people going directly to the city without luggage, children or old people. If you recognise that demographic patterns of air-travel usage have changed, you recognise that Melbourne needs a solution that taps into the wider public transport network.
For thirty years governments in this country have risen and fallen on the basis of what happens on the urban fringes. In all of this, nobody seems to have cottoned onto this notion. Get on one of those radial line trains they have in Melbourne and see how many people are still there when the train gets to Pakenham/Frankston/Healesville - public transport doesn’t reflect the way that people move around their city, and this is true of all Australian cities; the hide of inner-city people calling theirs “the People’s Plan”
beggars beliefis sadly typical. Don’t get me started on the need for heavy rail - yes, heavy rail - to get containers out of (air)ports and onto road transport hubs.Sydney Road reminds me of King St Newtown in Sydney: a funky community artery that wants to double as a major urban thoroughfare and is unconvincing at both. Sydney Road no longer lives up to its name - the road to Sydney - but nor is it a means for locals to get around their community.
None of that really relates to the “job” of big-city mayoralties which, unlike their American counterparts, aren’t really responsible for much. Plenty of high profile and prestige, no real work: you can wow the punters with a flash preso and make some speeches, then slouch off to a consultancy.
Andrew E: And get on a bus leaving one of those outer-suburban train stations - when there is one - and enjoy the solitude.
People in the outer burbs don’t take public transport around their local area. Why would they? Traffic is light outside the peaks, there’s no shortage of parking, and the density is so low that you can’t feasibly run enough buses for practical coverage. That’s why it’s a massive money sink.
Aside from what, in the European context, would be regional rail into the city, I don’t see the point of throwing good money after bad for outer-suburban public transport. Spend the money on fixing their roads, including bike lanes (which might actually work.)
Alister: the “fudge factor” is that when you actually sit down and do detailed costings, the cost invariably goes up.
As a regular user of bus services in Melbourne out to the eastern suburbs (Warrandyte), I have to say, buses are actually pretty good. They scoot down the Eastern Freeway (huzzah for bus lanes), and are frequent enough that its worth your while - every 15 minutes for peak times, and half an hour during the day.
What definately works for buses is park-and-rides - whether the official ones, or the slightly dodgy ones where people park all day at the local shopping centre and get the bus from there (this happens at The Pines and Doncaster Shoppingtown a lot - to the point that Doncaster Shoppingtown has decided to charge for parking. Grr).
I think that to increase suburban public transport use, you need to have large multi-storey car parks at all zone two railway stations, and major park and rides for bus serviced areas. This parking should be free, perhaps you would enter for free but have to use your metcard to exit, to make sure they’re actually being used for people using the services.
From my own region, Darebin Council, a ‘new tram line along Bell Street and Murray Road, from Heidleberg to Preston, Coburg, and Essendon’ is proposed.
Silly. Two buses perform those services already, going straight along Bell Street, or along Murray Road, feeding on to Bell Street. Buses also drive along Normanby Avenue/Moreland Road and Separation Street, all within a couple of blocks of one another. Do the Greens propose to do away with these bus services? Or to offer a dual tram/bus service? Surely it would be simpler, cheaper and more efficient to encourage those services that do already exist.
If the rest of the transport plan has suggestions like that, then it seems to me the Greens know it will never get up - it’s just designed to sound impressive for those people who don’t care about the details.
Had a proper read of the plan last night. I suspect that a lot of the costings are heroic, and we simply don’t have enough money to implement half of what they suggest. But you could certainly cherry-pick the better value options in the short-term, and it’s the best plan that’s going around (beats VicRoads and the RACVs ideas!), so it’s a good base to start from. One new idea I like is the underground through Parkville, which frees up Nth Melb capacity. But I have a much cheaper idea, that I’ve had for a long long time – turn upfield into regular fast light rail that runs all day, and run it through Royal Park and onto the streets of the CBD. Then take trams off Sydney road – the rail line is only about 100 metres away most of the time.
The cross city Brunswick rd tram is a good idea for connectivity.
Staffing every train station is a completely idiotic idea. What a waste of money. I see the Union came up with that one – hmmm, I wonder why.
Of course the real problem, as Robert has raised, is the outer suburbs. All of the promised/planned extensions should have happened a long time ago and it’s criminal neglect by Cain, Kirner, Kennett, Bracks and Brumby that they haven’t happened. Must happen now. Beyond that though, buses are surely the only realistic option – there are no rail reserves and the cost would be astronomical, and with dispersed movement trains would be empty.
We could get a lot smarter with buses though. Smaller buses in off-peak times, why doesn’t that happen? And as everyone always says, aligning bus routes so they all fit together with the trains, and run later and longer.
Some problems with buses, all easily solvable..
a) Can’t take bikes on ‘em.
b) Lack of express services - the closest major bus-stop to me is the Pines shopping centre, which I don’t believe has any non-stop services to other major hubs (e.g. the CBD or even doncaster shopping town). There’s what would seem to be potentially a semi-major bus-stop that a comfortable walking distance too (at Tunstall Sq, for anyone who knows the area), but that only seems to service smaller buses on minor routes.
c) Too many stops - compared to tram and certainly train stops, many bus stops seem to be absurdly close together, often to the point that if there’s any traffic you can walk between them faster than the bus can get there.
d) Lack of radial routes. Getting from Doncaster East to either Preston or Vermont (two options I needed recently) is basically impossible, despite the fact that they are well linked by major road routes (Doncaster proper is linked directly to Preston via Manningham Rd-Bell St. But ask metlinkmelbourne.com.au how to get from Doncaster to Preston and the only routes go via the CBD. I actually know at least two people in my immediate neighbourhood that commute to the Northern suburbs.)
I’d also want to look at the economics of hybrid engine buses - they start and stop so much that hybrid seems an obvious technology choice. But is hybrid diesel-electric even viable yet?
a) Can’t take bikes on ‘em.
True, but I don’t see why we should be sympathetic to bike riders. People are supposed to ride bikes, not take them on other forms of transport. They’re a real nuisance on trains. Some idiots probably use the trains to get their bikes past an inconvenient intersection - they only catch the trains for one or two stops.
Wow, way to generalise there Tim. I take it you’ve never tried riding from Springvale to the City, then?
Bikes are an integral part of public transport, because they fill in the gaps that public transport never will, e.g the distance of your house to the train station/bus stop, which allow people to ditch cars entirely, and encourage more use of public transport (for example, the bike lockers at most stations are rent free, as opposed to the parking spaces, which coupled with ticket prices provide a great disincentive for using PT). Also, they are environmentally and physically very good, so we should be encouraging them.
As for your last sentence, given that you actually have no idea about how far cyclists travel, or why, it’s a pretty far out statement. And futhermore, if you want to travel one station, or a dozen, it’s your choice. There’s no rule that says you’re only allowed to use PT if you travel a certain distance!
So people aresupposed to take them on transport - don’t blame the passengers when there’s not enough room on the train dude. Would you blame someone in a wheelchair for clogging up the train? Not everyone can afford a car, and a bike is just as much the only option for them as a motorised scooter is for people mobility issues.
Unless of course, you’re being sarcastic. In which case I wholly and unreservedly apologise in advance.
Also, the problem is easily fixed. In Canberra, buses have two prongs on the front especially for bikes. They hold about four or five, which is enough for the average trip, it seems.
TimT wrote:
Right On!
Screw those lazy bike riders for valuing their safety over your convenience.
What’s a dangerous intersection where you take your life into your hands compared to having to move 20cm to the right to get around a dirty wheel on a train?
(BTW ater a brief search, it seems that NZ have been using and even manufacturing hybrid-electric buses since 1999. So the answer is surely “yes, they’re viable in Australia”. I didn’t find any evidence they were in use here yet, though).
Mind you, a bike takes up room on a train that could have been used for passengers. So I do think bike riders have a bit of cheek expecting to take their bikes on crowded services for free.
I reckon we should encourage the use of folding bicycles for peak-hour commuters who want to take their bikes, and introduce something like Velib in the CBD.
Alister: I agree with you that we need a real discussion about integrated tarnsport policy. Integrated transport policy is not, as some suggest, a balanced transport policy between different modes. Its about making choices of what sort of modes you encourage and where.
On Sydney Road, I agree that the road is a confused mroass right now. We need to decide whether this is a public transport/cycling/walking street, or a arterial road, or a all day on road parking strip. I would submit that the first is the direction we shoudl go in. Ideas such as getting rid of trams or moving trams to the Upfield line have no community support and fail to udnerstand the role trams play on Sydney Road in terms of delivering consumers to shops and helping residetns access services.
Not being sarcastic, Patrick. You know, instead of riding a bike to the station, people could just - well - walk. Or just ride the bike to work.
It wouldn’t be a problem but for the fact that Robert points out - bikes take up a lot of room on the train and on crowded peak hour transport this really inconveniences other transport users. Including people in wheelchairs!
As for your point, David -
Screw those lazy bike riders for valuing their safety over your convenience. What’s a dangerous intersection where you take your life into your hands compared to having to move 20cm to the right to get around a dirty wheel on a train?
I’ve walked across plenty of ‘dangerous’ intersections in my time. Why are bike riders’ lives more valuable than pedestrians? Why? Whhhhhy?
I repeat what I said to Tim, Robert: Don’t blame the passengers for a problem with the infrastructure - trains could be better-designed for cyclists: the ‘prongs’ could just as easily be on the side/front of a train. They could run more services, etc. etc. The fold up seats near the carriage end are a good start, and bikes can squeeze up pretty tight.
There is some effort to do this: I was lucky when I lived in Springvale, that the secure lockers at my station were not all full (you would be mad to use the unsecure ones. Alas, poor Giant. I knew him.). Those lockers do get used a tonne though (Huntingdale was all full for example.).
This all said, we *should* be encouraging more people to use bikes, it’s the right thing to do - as I say, we wouldn’t be complaining about someone with a scooter on the train - the aim isn’t to squeeze the max of passengers in, it’s to provide the best utility to all the kinds of passengers that travel. Sydney trains fit way more people than Melbourne trains, but they’re effing hopeless both in function and design. You almost never see a bike on a Sydney train, but that’s a bad thing, not a good thing.
“Ideas such as getting rid of trams or moving trams to the Upfield line have no community support and fail to udnerstand the role trams play on Sydney Road in terms of delivering consumers to shops and helping residetns access services.”
mate, I’ve lived there for an extended period and know what it’s all about. “Lack of community support” is often enough rubbish – a coupla squeaky wheels presuming to speak for the rest of us. I was amazed that the light rail proposal was rejected back when citylink was being designed – people ahd very wrong impressions of what it is. It’s often a great alternative to either heavy rail or trams.
If Sydney Rd is to not have an arterial function, which N-S road nearby is to function in that manner?
Surely the parked cars on Sydney Rd cause more congestion than the trams? Certainly that’s been my admittedly limited experience. I’ve also actually used the Sydney Rd tram a few times, and my sisters who lives/lived in the area use/d them frequently. It doesn’t strike me as an obvious candidate for removal. And what examples of recent tram-line removal to we have to use as a basis for determining likely costs/disruption involved in doing so?
TimT wrote:
Ya want some cheese with that whine?
Not everyone is as big and tough as you and me Tim - sometimes they give up riding altogether during winter or magpie season. Those big empty spaces on trains at the end of the carriages are perfect for wheeled creations. Just because they’re normally packed like sardine cans doesn’t mean bikes shouldn’t be on there, it means more services are required. Cycling should be encouraged, even if it’s only from home to the closest station. Not everybody wants to commute 60-80km round trips in Sydney traffic (for example) but they might be persuaded that 20km round trips to the nearest train station is a good thing.
But Tim, as per my example. In Melbourne I lived in Springvale - over 30kms out of the city, and 3 1/2 km from the station itself.
Riding into the city from Springvale would around two hours, with all the route switiching and navigation. Walking to the station was a 35 minute trip each way. Walking is not doable for everybody.
As I say, you guys are castigating the wrong people here. I mean, you’re blaming cyclist for dangerous intersections for criminy’s sake. That’s not fair! If the train is so crowded that two extra people make(the room a properly stowed bike takes up) makes all the difference in a carriage that holds circa 70-80 people, is that a problem with one bike, or the train system? Fair crack of the whip dude, cyclists have as much right to ride the train as everyone else.
Paying for a ticket for a bike would be fine if we were in some kind of libtertarian wet dream, but public transport is there to service, not to make money first and foremost. Using my Springvale example, a weekly ticket for my bike would have pushed my weekly train bill to $95 - way more than I would spend driving. If we *want* people to use public transport, we have to make it attractive to them. Cycling and public transport is like a horse and carriage!
Phil, why aren’t you on this thread? Phhiiiiiillllll!
And I’ve lived within 200 metres of Sydney Road for five years now, and regularly take trams, trains, bikes, and drive a car in the area.
It would make much better use of the limited space available if
a) the car parking went, possibly to be replaced by wider footpaths, landscaping and maybe a bike lane (not essential, though, given the Upfield bikeway).
b) the Upfield train line had much more regular services, either with light rail or conventional heavy rail. Much of the tram-line traffic is because you can’t get to Melbourne Uni or RMIT conveniently on the train, which could be fixed by either the tunnel or light-rail transferring on to Royal parade.
c) the trams were replaced by buses, with the stops spaced to allow traffic to go past while a bus is stopped, which is not possible.
Like wilful, I don’t see how you can avoid Sydney Road being a traffic arterial, unless you’re prepared to put another road through Royal Park…
Robert, you forgot
d) Don’t live there.
Honestly, Sydney became unliveable for ordinary folk about 10 years ago, it’s high time the place was depopulated. Move every state government department out of there to Orange, Dubbo, Tamworth, Newcastle and Wollongong and fix it by fiat.
Patrickg: if you want to take your bike on a peak-hour train you should use a folding bike. That’s what the English do.
The shopkeepers would scream blue murder about reduced parking. They wouldn’t allow it to happen.
In the meantime, Sydney road is a disaster, doesn’t work for cars, trams or cyclists.
I do agree that there should be better and more frequent train and tram services, and that overcrowding is a problem created by the government and administrators of public transport. Trouble is in a crowded transport system the little niggles matter, and what would be minor breaches of etiquette elsewhere become a major inconvenience, and I think it’s worth mentioning (just as other breaches of etiquette - littering, for instance - are worth a mention). I also don’t see why public transport should be encouraging ‘bike’ users, particularly - saying that, it sounds like you’re asking for a system specifically tailored and customed to your own personal preferences.
And I don’t think I’m blaming cyclists for dangerous intersections. But I have actually seen cyclists get on at (say) Coburg Station, and get off a few stops later, at Brunswick or Jewell Station, presumably just to avoid the traffic in Brunswick proper (especially at Moreland Road).
“(NZ) hybrid-electric buses .. I didn’t find any evidence they were in use here yet, though” … from the company website this pic from their hybrid electric bus page suggests the 322 to Bondi Beach is, as they say, on the right track.
danny - nice find…did you use a search engine that OCRs images?
Robert - how would buses on Sydney Rd cause less noticeably congestion than trams?
wilful - of course, Sydney Rd shopkeepers are hardly likely to be a different breed to Bridge Rd shopkeepers. But a government committed to working out the whole city’s transport difficulties should be able to do better than to fold to that sort of pressure, unless a highly convincing case can be made that the loss of business along that stretch of road would cost more than the economic benefits to the whole state from allowing traffic to run smoothly along Sydney Rd. By all means, pay them some sort of compensation if necessary.
wiz: Sydney Road is the perfect storm - it’s narrow, heavily trafficked all day every day, and has a lane of parking.
There’s not enough room to put in tram stops with barriers in the center of the road to let cars pass while a tram is stopped. Therefore, the cars have to stop every time a tram does.
Buses, by contrast, can stop at the side of the road, letting traffic past on the right.
As far as buses go, as well as hybridizing them, a key technology for reducing their emissions to switch away from diesel and run them on CNG or LPG.
Another option is the trolleybus, which might work quite well on Sydney Road where there’s already overhead tram lines.
Clearly, we do need parking on Sydney Road and Bridge Road - but build it behind the shops. Paralel parking next to Tram lines is just stupid, for cars, trams, people.
There is plenty of parking behind Sydney Road - its just that no one uses it.
Some reality needs to be injected here. Trams don’t cause congestion. Cars do. parked cars, cars turning right, cars doing silly things. The ideas that buses would make things better is just, in my opinion, plain silly.
Chris: I travel down Sydney Road. A lot. I accept that my proposal for buses may not work. But to claim that trams stopping at intersections doesn’t slow down Sydney Road traffic just flat contradicts my own personal experience.
Well of course trams are a “cause” of congestion - anything on the road, including your own vehicle, contributes towards it.
All that needs to be determined is which makes the most sense to get rid of. If there really is plenty of unused off-street parking in the vicinity, then stricter parking restrictions seems the obvious first choice, given the small costs of introducing such would very quickly repay themselves (in better traffic flow and increased parking fines and/or fees). The other options are initially expensive and non-revenue generating, with the benefits primarily going to private commuters along the route.
The best solution for congestion on Sydney Road is of course road pricing.
I notice that not even the Greens are prepared to grab that particular hot wire, and Labor runs away in fright at the wrath of the Herald-Sun at the very thought
I’d also say, part of the bus vs tram equation has to be customer preference. If a significant number of customers who currently take trams would object to using buses, they may well use their cars instead, which would increase congestion. But I’m not sure how you’d accurately guage the likelihood of that.
Robert: If we want to chest thump about how often we travel down Sydney Road, well I usually catch the tram twice a day…
Sydney Road is however a gordian knot. If I knew how to cut through it I would, but alas I do not.
Not on Sydney Rd they can’t. It’s too narrow.
And as you point out, people like trams more than buses, anyway.
Robert:
Actually, that’s not the case. Road pricing, just like taxing the carbon content of fuel, can only go so far if the alternatives are not widely, cheaply and conveniently available. Unless and until Melbourne’s public transport, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure is upgraded to the point where it can easily accommodate a very substantial influx of extra passengers, the only impact of road pricing will be greater inequity and more pissed off Melburnians.
Small bit of good news – more trains at peak times, including on my benighted Sydenham line. http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election-2008/melbourne-trains-get-peakhour-boost-20081009-4×2v.html hey check that address – silly the Age.
Tim: again, I think I might pull the “I’m a local” stunt here.
Sydney road has trains 100 metres from most of its length, trams running up it every 10, a mostly off-road cycle path along the train line. There are bike lanes on just about every cross-street, too, and cross-city buses.
The alternatives are more satisfactory in this particular area than just about anywhere else in Melbourne. Frankly, it’s got me buggered why anybody bothers to drive on Sydney Road at all; it’s almost always quicker to head across to Lygon Street and go round.
Speaking of ’substantial influx of extra passengers’… I remember catching the No. 19 tram up Sydney Road during the Commonwealth Games. In off-peak times, two or three stops from the Elizabeth/Flinders Street terminus, the tram was packed to the gills. Tim Hollo may have a point!
Merkel @69 and you forgot to add that it’s all bloody flat as a pancake for bike riding and basically inner city. So why all the cars?
FXH, I’m not a local, I admit, but I’ve spent a fair bit of time in the area over many years of visiting your fair city. Now, I ride to and from work every day in Canberra, but there’s no bloody way you’d catch me taking my life in my hands to ride down Sydney Road!
Interesting point about the trains, Robert. I wasn’t aware of that. But what are the services like? Convenient? Frequent? Clean? Enough space?
The trains are usable, but not the best, Tim. They only run every 20 minutes except during the morning and evening peaks, and they take this annoying detour through North Melbourne which, importantly, means you can’t conveniently get to Melbourne University or the Royal Melbourne Hospital via the train.
This could be fixed in a number of ways; the cheapest would probably be to replace the heavy rail on the Upfield line, with light rail, and redirect the last past of the trip along Royal Parade (have a look at Google Maps). The more elaborate fix, as proposed by the Greens plan, is to put in a north-south rail tunnel with a station at Melbourne University, with the tunnel continuing to connect Melbourne Central, and Flinders Street.
As far as cycling goes, personally I don’t find it too bad. The traffic is so slow along Sydney Road most of the time, it’s not a hassle. And, as mentioned, there are a number of alternative routes.
Bugger, my previous comment has been spam-binned - Robert, can you release it please?
Tim: if it’s not up now, it’s gone; the spam bucket has been overflowing lately so it’s possible that we just plain missed it in the noise.
Thanks anyway Robert - I was just linking to Russ’s blog, who has a recent post referring to bicycles/buses/trains. He’s an urban planner, so he’d make an excellent addition to the conversation.