State Budget 2003/04

John of Melbourne · Posted: Sat May 10, 2003 12:06 am

tayser · Posted: Sat May 10, 2003 1:37 am

John of Melbourne · Posted: Sat May 10, 2003 1:58 am

Ben-P19 · Posted: Sat May 10, 2003 7:03 pm

[quote="John of Melbourne"]The tram extensions plan shows a tram line from Smith Street to Doncaster along the freeway then along roads, but the text says that this could be built as heavy rail. I would say that this one doesn't make sense to build as tram, and definitely should be heavy rail.[quote]

What?? I would definitely choose heavy rail for that one, It's ashame the original plan of about 20 years ago never got up.

If they want to put a tram line into Doncaster why not just extend the 48 from North Balwyn up Doncaster to Westfield, which is around about 4 km.

Ben

tayser · Posted: Sat May 10, 2003 8:07 pm

mjja · Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 9:51 am

Outlying tram networks sound good, in places like Dandy and Frankston. There are enough people there and the bus services aren't too good (how can they be?). A Geelong tram would be good too.

The important thing is to make sure they've got their own reserve track, don't try sharing with the cars. It just doesn't work.

Idea: make them put higher super-stops in so they can use some of the old W trams stored in Newport. The doors are wide enough so all they need is a high platform and they're wheelchair accessible. It's got to be cheaper and easier than buying new Low Floor trams.

Happy Gunzelling and remember, "Go by rail!"

Michael Angelico
President, Smart Passengers Inc
(My opinions are my own unless specifically stated.)

Nexas · Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 9:33 pm

mjja · Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 10:17 pm

I'm sure Adam knows that. And I bet he also knows that Ballarat are planning to put one back in.

Adam, re your comments.

Yes we need to "just do it" and not worry about the cash. But we've seen how much cash the government can waste on studies. There is too much fact-finding and not enough fact-facing. So we need a private company to be told, "You have 10 years. Get in there and do what's necessary. By the end of 10 years we want car trips down to 5% of what they are now and fossil fuel consumption down to 1%, with these certain minimum service levels and maximum prices". It's the only way we'll survive.

Happy Gunzelling and remember, "Go by rail!"

Michael Angelico
President, Smart Passengers Inc
(My opinions are my own unless specifically stated.)

zipitidoodah · Posted: Tue May 13, 2003 10:21 am

You have to wonder exactly what is going on when they want to spend 4 million dollars on a study to see what is already happening. I can understand why they won't just ring up rail operators and ask them about their problems, but I can't see why you $4m to do it the alternative way.

Adam, I agree with you totally. I think that governments today are too politically motivated (as dumb as that sounds). They are too concerned with their own immediate future in office to be worried about serious quality long-term projects like all the things you mentioned. And when they do announce that they'll have a bash at some long-term project, they still skimp on the cash they're willing to put into it. Obviously they don't have have endless vast amounts of money to splash around as they please, and they can't afford to put it into all one area like transport.

I think if you're going to do something, do it properly - the first time around. Too many "projects" appear in the headlines of papers and news but never seem to make quite a big impression when they're first available to the public, whatever they may be, and that's IF they actually go through to completion. Like you said, they need to start thinking ahead, doing fundamental things first and leaving room for expansion so that somebody can do it or complete it in the future.

For example, laying rail/tram corridors is a must. As much as I am personally opposed to new housing developments, they will need public transport one day or another and it will not just appear from thin air. Somebody has to do something now to ensure that it can still go ahead now. With the amount of outer-suburban growth in housing and land development, we're fast running out of room to put things in, especially as a lot of it is controlled by private developers. And I wouldn't like to be the goverment 15 years later faced with a public transport crisis in such an area that has to announce compulsory acquisition of land, or spend extra on using tunnels and/or bridges just because there is no land left.

In the world today I think there are already far too many examples of where cars and road traffic have become a pest. There are many cities in the world where cars simply flood all the streets. When you think about it, Melbourne is not that bad at all in comparison to some of these cities, in terms of traffic problems. In the future, the number of people who will own cars is always going to increase. In a country like Australia, and because it is so big, people need cars to get around from place to place. In many places public transport is not an option, but I think in places like the city, people should be able to do without cars. At least, even if they own one they shouldn't need it every single day just to get to work. You don't want to let Melbourne become like these other cities, and aside from all the noise and pollution levels associated with traffic problems, it just makes a city unattractive.

Again, trucks have their place on the roads, but we could certainly do away with some of them, especially those that travel rail routes like Melbourne - Sydney. The number of trucks on the road can turn into a safety issue anyway, and I believe many car drivers don't feel particuarly secure when there are large numbers of trucks around them, especially when they are speeding. I'm not having a stab at truck drivers, just pointing out a potential problem that may well develop over the years. There have to be advantages in running freight by rail on some of these major routes as opposed to trucks. When you consider that, depending on the load, 50 truckloads can equal one train. I've no idea how many litres of fuel trucks take but I'm sure that a train would be more efficient. And 50 trucks off the road could be the difference between life and death for some innocent driver; the difference between somebody driving all night / sleeping all day and somebody spending time at home.

Just some of my thoughts.

mjja · Posted: Tue May 13, 2003 11:14 am

Yep. Those housing estates all have four-car garages, and many of them have such narrow twisty streets that even a bus would find it hard to get around.

The skimping on cash is an interesting point. It's the normal way of doing things here - if you have ten projects and only funding for half of them, fund each one half what it needs. In Japan, they choose five and give them what they need - and then crucify someone if it doesn't do what it should.

Happy Gunzelling and remember, "Go by rail!"

Michael Angelico
President, Smart Passengers Inc
(My opinions are my own unless specifically stated.)

zipitidoodah · Posted: Wed May 14, 2003 11:16 am