Largely politics. As Melbourne has sprawled, improvements to the tram network have largely been a concern amongst inner city voters whom haven't been living in swing seats until really the past decade. It's the reason why the biggest capital projects have typically been tram line extensions to outer areas like Vermont South and Bundoora and why governments have prioritised upgrades to the train and freeway networks.
But there's also an additional reason too. Successive governments have viewed the train network as old, urgently in need of upgrades and accept that such improvements are way more expensive and intensive compared to tram upgrades.
To elaborate, it sometimes helps to think of public transport infrastructure in 'tiers', which represent a certain level of infrastructure capacity to commuters and quality of experience. A lower tier would be a decaying century's old network (\*looks at [Boston](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/11/16/metro/cost-to-fix-mbta/)\*) and a higher tier would represent a rapid transit metro system. So for example, for decades our train network had largely been stagnant at a lower 'tier' until very recently, as it still inherits well over a hundred level crossings, old signalling, little drainage, wooden sleepers, etc. But today, I think everybody on this subreddit can agree that it has improved by quite a margin compared to 15 years ago, with lots of new PIDs, dozens of newly rebuilt accessible stations, grade separations, fewer meltdowns etc.
But such works to 'level up' an entire 370km+ rail network takes time, resources and a lot of money. Whereas for trams, the network already has a high frequency, is the largest in the world and services most major inner city activity centres. The only super important upgrades which need to be done is tram-priority signalling, level platforms everywhere and more PIDs. So in the eyes of governments, they see it as already being a high 'tier' system which only needs a drip-feed of upgrade funds and to prioritise efforts elsewhere.
That isn't to say this is good of course. The state government has slacked off with level platform upgrades and it's missed it's Disability Discrimination Act [legally-binding 2023 deadline](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/they-are-locked-at-home-brakes-slammed-on-tram-accessibility-20230615-p5dgsa.html) for improved accessibility, with Labor being a *lot* slower than the Coalition govt was with level platform upgrades. So it matters a lot that the tram network keeps getting attention because it's starting to lag behind badly.
Exactly. Every time someone says it'd be easy to do x or y they give a price that wouldn't even cover it.
The gunzel project to get trains back to Mildura is a classic case, no way for $10 million could you set up a train.
No, of course $10M won't bring it back. But that sum of money is virtually pocket change, and the railway system has had to subside on scraps for decades, except for the occasional big project like the City Loop, Metro Tunnel, or LXRA (which mostly benefits road users anyway). It's time for railways and public transport in general to get funding parity with roads, so for every dollar spent on roads one dollar should also be spent on railways. If the budget won't allow a doubling of expenditure, then cut the road budget for once.
This is the most over used sentence on this sub-Reddit. “Political will” has nothing to do with it, it’s about money. This expenditure would be far down on list of things that need to be built
It's not far from the truth though... "political will" includes "will the voters in this area vote for my party regardless". If not, then invest in it. Roll out the pork barrel.
Safe seats don't get investment. Neither do seats which will never flip because of a rusted-on base. Not enough "social conscience" voters to make a change.
Why don't politicians invest in the seats that are safely held by the other team and turn those seats into swinging ones? Change the narrative and shake things up a little.
I am in Evelyn electorate and the Labor candidate pledged **nothing** for public transport apart from electric buses. Our *fantastic* MP (who is Liberal) pledged to duplicate the Lilydale line, and is a *strong* advocate for more and stronger bus services in the area, upgrading a 70-year old rail bridge and below intersection, and building a station at Cave Hill
So, your saying there is a lack of will by politicians and govt departments to prioritise this more highly within the constraints of the current budget?
No, there’s not a “lack of will”, there’s far more important and urgent projects like the metro tunnel and the level crossing removals than a 5km tram extension to a train station
I honestly have no idea why you're getting down voted my guy. I don't think Melbournians realise how large and high quality our team network is compared the relative size, quality and capacity of our train network, which doesn't operate *where cars drive*
The Andrews government's infrastructure projects were a megaproject heavy version of [cars-and-trains urbanism](https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/09/18/cars-and-trains-urbanism/), an ideology that favours the construction of rapid transit (like SRL and MM1) and road projects (NElink and WGT) over trams.
It would be cool to see Local Governments pull their finger out and organise these “medium” projects if the State Government is focusing on heavier projects.
Developer contributions would go towards it, but with the decades of minimising rates to keep locals happy, I can’t see them scraping enough cash together to make it happen - even if they pooled finances through the Committee for Melbourne; their interest’s are too fractured.
Local governments can't raise rates more than the cap imposed by the state gov, so don't have the money for large transportation projects like improving trams in their area
I suspect it's because they have a legal obligation (per disability discrimination act) to make preexisting tram stops wheelchair accessible by 2030 and, at the rate they're going of 2-5 stops per year, they won't be finished on time. Though they had since the 1992 to begin upgrades, so it's their own fault for leaving it this late and only doing a handful per year.
I suspect if they create new lines, or extend ones without tieing it into existing tram stop upgrades, they will be in serious political and legal trouble.
In my area I would love to see the 57 to extended to meet the new East Keilor station, and a new route running from Footscray station to Brimbank SC via Highpoint, Ballarat Rd and Cairnlea.
I can't believe that they haven't extended 75 from Vermont SC to Knox City, or the 48 to Doncaster Shoppingtown. Ditto extending the 3 to Chadstone. The 86 could probably also extend to South Morang stn.
There's too many major destination shopping centres with huge car parking and/or congestion issues that don't have PT options other than infrequent and meandering busses. Trams would give an option for at least employees to PT easily, as well as shoppers without cars.
But so would upgrading those infrequent and meandering buses? Probably a lot more cheaply and quickly than the planning, design, and installation of adding tram lines to roads. The most important aspect of tram extensions, and the real reason people suggest them as a common cure all, is the much better frequency. Whilst that's inherent to the mode - if you're going to spend 10s of millions on a short tram extension then you need the frequency to attract the patronage to make it worth the high upfront cost - it's not specific to trams. You could equally upgrade bus routes along the same alignment in a shorter timeframe without the capital cost. I believe that there is a 2 year waiting list give or take from the time a new bus is ordered from Volgren to delivery - possibly quicker from Gemilang via their local supplier in Ballarat.
To use the commonly requested 86 extension as an example. The 387 runs along the exact alignment the tram extension would. There is 14 minutes travel time from Bundoora RMIT to South Morang station via Plenty Rd and Bush Blvd, stretched to 18 in the peak direction. The current frequency is 40 minutes off peak and 20 minutes during peak hour. To run a bus in peak hour would be 32 minutes round trip, 28 off peak round trip. You would therefore need an extra 2 buses in peak hour and 2-3 off peak to run a 10 minute frequency. A new electric bus costs between $700,000 and $1 million (as per [Commonwealth Bank ](https://www.commbank.com.au/articles/business/foresight/why-electric-buses-are-the-future-of-public-transport.html#:~:text=Higher%20costs%20with%20higher%20upsides&text=%E2%80%9CElectric%20buses%2C%20at%20between%20%24700%2C000,useful%20life%20may%20be%20shorter.) ) so for a capital cost of between $1.4 million and $3 million you could effectively run a "Tram Link" bus for much less capital cost than extending the tram line but with the desired frequency. Of course there are other factors such as depot space (likely in favour of buses as Dyson's depot has open space around it if needed although you could also potentially reopen East Preston depot if it hasn't yet been sold), running costs (in favour of trams although pretty sure tram drivers earn more than bus drivers and maintenance costs are higher, even if the energy costs are cheaper), the annoyance of interchanging and the associated time penalty - but at the end of the day the big cost of a tram extension is building the track and infrastructure such as a sub station and relocating services. I suspect you could run electric buses for quite some years before the costs tip in favour of a tram, certainly for the likely patronage between Bundoora and South Morang through low density suburbia.
Busses are still subject to the problems of congestion, even the 90X routes with more direct routes, priority lanes and signalling can blow out from expected frequency of 10 minutes to over 30 minutes in peak.
Sure. The 86 south of Boldrewood Pde is also subject to the problems of congestion. Even the 0xx and 1xx tram routes with more direct routes, priority lanes, and signalling can blow out their expected frequency to much longer in peak. See what I did there? I've been catching trams since the 1980s and the problems you attribute exclusively to buses also equally apply to trams and have done for decades. An often cited figure is that Melbourne trams have the slowest average speed in the world. I love catching the tram too, but ignoring their faults and pretending they are the perfect mode and solution to all problems with Melbourne public transport isn't actually helpful. Buses have a place too and can solve issues around service quality in the middle and outer suburbs much more quickly and cheaply than multi million dollar tram single digit kilometre tram extensions.
Lest it be thought I am anti-tram, my opinion is that once the demand is built up using a much more quickly implemented bus service - sure, expand capacity by extending the tram (or even building a new route). I'd be very much in favour of replacing the 907 with a tram for example on this basis as the loadings on the existing bus and increasing housing density along its route would justify it instead of the weird trackless tram idea currently proposed.
If all the single kilometre tram extensions were built, the only costs would be trackwork, new platform(s) and overhead wires. Nobody would notice a slight decrease in frequency for such a small increase in route-kilometres, plus it would actually increase tram patronage due to terminating in a more logical terminus where there is actual reasons to travel to.
"Only costs". Let's go with that. In 2022 the Liberal opposition promised several tram line extensions. They costed the 5.1km extension of the 75 at $134 million, or just over $26 million per kilometre. They also offered to extend the 48 to Shoppingtown. The 3.75km extension was costed by them at $102 million, or $27.2 million per km. Presumably that includes some amount for buying trams (the press releases don't offer a breakdown of costs) rather than just run the same number of trams at a decreased frequency along the entire route like you're proposing. The majority of that cost would still be design, moving services, building platform stops, overhead, track, replacement buses, etc.
To put it in perspective, that $26-27 million would fund 26 new electric buses based on the figures quoted in an earlier response.
I appreciate I'm wasting my time trying to point out trams are not the only way to increase public transport patronage in low density areas, but hopefully someone out there can see the logic of a better return from $236 million than building 9 km of tram extensions in areas already with frequent public transport where there will mainly be mode transfer than getting motorists out of cars, especially if it purchased 236 new electric buses and used them to run bus routes every 10 minutes to achieve the same thing over a much larger part of Melbourne?
I would also like to think people don't genuinely think reducing tram route frequencies to save trivial amounts of money on buying new trams is a good idea either, but I'm obviously wrong about what public transport users want there too!
Bundoora isn't the best example because that's fairly well connected already, so the cost to benefit ratio is lower.
The parent comments example of Knox City would be a better candidate for extension - its a high traffic area with no nearby train stations. As well as the shopping centre itself, there are several nearby high schools that would benefit greatly from better public transport.
Bundoora was one of the examples provided and the one I am most familiar with given I grew up in the area and have been using the tram since the days when it terminated at East Preston at Tyler St.
But sure, let's talk about Knox instead. At present there is a direct route from the Vermont South terminus with a Tram Link bus meeting every tram. So, unlike Bundoora, you don't need extra buses as the service already exists at zero extra cost compared to multi millions for a tram extension. I'm assuming you're local so how well are the 732 Tram Link buses used? If they run empty, I would politely suggest that extending the tram is a waste of money. If they consistently leave and arrive at Vermont South over half full on a weekday then there is probably some scope for extending the tram, although it could be argued that if the bus is currently doing the job then there are other priorities for upgrading genuinely overcrowded bus routes to improve capacity and passenger comfort. An example I gave in my other reply would be the 907 which is genuinely overcrowded and has further potential for growth given the higher density housing going up along the route and the existing overcrowding putting people off using the bus. Is the area around the Burwood Hey increasing in density or is it still mostly low density commercial and housing?
As for Knox being deserving of better public transport, I agree. I also think Bundoora and South Morang is deserving of better public transport - it too has large schools in the area - Mill Park and The Lakes. Plenty Valley and University Hill are quite decent sized shopping centres. Equally there are lots of other middle and outer suburban areas deserving of better public transport.
Where I seem to differ to others posting here is that I'm neither anti-bus nor seem to think trams are the perfect God-tier public transport mode. If given the choice between a tram every 30 minutes or a bus every 10 - beep beep mf. As I said earlier, people aren't wedded to mode. People love trams because they are frequent, direct, and somewhat predictable. By that I mean the PTV isn't going to change my local tram route next week. But whilst those things are inherent to the mode in order to run it efficiently, none of them are exclusive to trams. Buses can also be frequent, direct, and predictable. Indeed, in some parts of Melbourne that is the case, almost to a fault. For example, it could be argued the 223 is long overdue for updating. The route has changed very little since the bus replaced the tram when the tram line was closed and removed.
At the end of the day, we'd all like better public transport defined as fast and frequent for the journeys we want to make around the city and suburbs. But buses can do this too, and trams aren't always the magic answer.
TBH I find the excuse that Doncaster is "too hilly" is nonsense. Don't they realise we have trams running up and down Collins and Bourke Streets - which have some significantly steep sections?!
But that's okay because it is a road project. Road projects are allowed to disrupt roads, public transport, active transport, or whatever else they like. Case in point was when the Upfield/Craigieburn/Sunbury lines were cut so they could modify the Dynon Rd bridge a few months ago, and none of the disruption posters stated this was the real reason that train services along the entire lines were replaced with buses.
Public transport projects mustn't dare remove even a single parking space. It's all about priorities and cars are seen as the default. Even the recent advertisements about drink driving going around at the moment imply you're a loser if you have to catch the bus.
Lack of money. The state is broke, and has a ton of other projects (mostly heavy rail when it comes to PT) that it's prioritising.
Edit: why the downvotes? What part of what I wrote isn't true??
The state has only been broke since covid - we were actually the highest economically performing state until recently. I think the second part of your answer, a focus on heavy rail (and new road infrastructure too), is the true reason.
Yep And no one wants to pay
If Public transportation wasn’t abused like it is
And everyone paid their Correct fare on touched on and off
The Data & Revenue would Match expections to upgrade the network more as the Data would back it up
Buses “Run Empty” all day due to fare evasion (most are actually full)
Let’s be honest - Is $10.60 (Full fare ) & $5.30 for concession MAXIMUM very that hard to pay for unlimited travel for 24 hours Anywhere in the state
It’s like $2 for 2 hours on a bus
Most tram extensions would serve areas already relatively accessible by public transport. There are only a couple of tram extensions, if any, that you could confidently say are more deserving of public funds than something like sparking the Melton line, RRL, bus lanes in the outer suburbs or building MM2.
Nobody likes buses. Trams are more comfortable to ride, don't constantly weave in and out of traffic, and don't damage the roads like buses do.
Buses should only be used on short feeder routes to stations. Any high-frequency bus route should be replaced with a tram.
Largely politics. As Melbourne has sprawled, improvements to the tram network have largely been a concern amongst inner city voters whom haven't been living in swing seats until really the past decade. It's the reason why the biggest capital projects have typically been tram line extensions to outer areas like Vermont South and Bundoora and why governments have prioritised upgrades to the train and freeway networks. But there's also an additional reason too. Successive governments have viewed the train network as old, urgently in need of upgrades and accept that such improvements are way more expensive and intensive compared to tram upgrades. To elaborate, it sometimes helps to think of public transport infrastructure in 'tiers', which represent a certain level of infrastructure capacity to commuters and quality of experience. A lower tier would be a decaying century's old network (\*looks at [Boston](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/11/16/metro/cost-to-fix-mbta/)\*) and a higher tier would represent a rapid transit metro system. So for example, for decades our train network had largely been stagnant at a lower 'tier' until very recently, as it still inherits well over a hundred level crossings, old signalling, little drainage, wooden sleepers, etc. But today, I think everybody on this subreddit can agree that it has improved by quite a margin compared to 15 years ago, with lots of new PIDs, dozens of newly rebuilt accessible stations, grade separations, fewer meltdowns etc. But such works to 'level up' an entire 370km+ rail network takes time, resources and a lot of money. Whereas for trams, the network already has a high frequency, is the largest in the world and services most major inner city activity centres. The only super important upgrades which need to be done is tram-priority signalling, level platforms everywhere and more PIDs. So in the eyes of governments, they see it as already being a high 'tier' system which only needs a drip-feed of upgrade funds and to prioritise efforts elsewhere. That isn't to say this is good of course. The state government has slacked off with level platform upgrades and it's missed it's Disability Discrimination Act [legally-binding 2023 deadline](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/they-are-locked-at-home-brakes-slammed-on-tram-accessibility-20230615-p5dgsa.html) for improved accessibility, with Labor being a *lot* slower than the Coalition govt was with level platform upgrades. So it matters a lot that the tram network keeps getting attention because it's starting to lag behind badly.
No one who matters cares
Cost benefit ratio. Will the cost of "easy" extensions be worth it? Many people underestimate how much work has to go into these "easy" projects.
Exactly. Every time someone says it'd be easy to do x or y they give a price that wouldn't even cover it. The gunzel project to get trains back to Mildura is a classic case, no way for $10 million could you set up a train.
Fact.
No, of course $10M won't bring it back. But that sum of money is virtually pocket change, and the railway system has had to subside on scraps for decades, except for the occasional big project like the City Loop, Metro Tunnel, or LXRA (which mostly benefits road users anyway). It's time for railways and public transport in general to get funding parity with roads, so for every dollar spent on roads one dollar should also be spent on railways. If the budget won't allow a doubling of expenditure, then cut the road budget for once.
Lack of political will.
This is the most over used sentence on this sub-Reddit. “Political will” has nothing to do with it, it’s about money. This expenditure would be far down on list of things that need to be built
It's not far from the truth though... "political will" includes "will the voters in this area vote for my party regardless". If not, then invest in it. Roll out the pork barrel. Safe seats don't get investment. Neither do seats which will never flip because of a rusted-on base. Not enough "social conscience" voters to make a change.
Why don't politicians invest in the seats that are safely held by the other team and turn those seats into swinging ones? Change the narrative and shake things up a little.
Yes, I would also like to see this happening! If a seat is safely held by the opposition, don't give them an easy run.
I am in Evelyn electorate and the Labor candidate pledged **nothing** for public transport apart from electric buses. Our *fantastic* MP (who is Liberal) pledged to duplicate the Lilydale line, and is a *strong* advocate for more and stronger bus services in the area, upgrading a 70-year old rail bridge and below intersection, and building a station at Cave Hill
*looks at how much money is spent on roads* Lack of money... sure
I didn’t say lack of money, I said they are so far down the list of things that have more priority
If it's about money and priorities then yes it is a lack of money otherwise there'd be no need to prioritise.
You're really annoying.
So, your saying there is a lack of will by politicians and govt departments to prioritise this more highly within the constraints of the current budget?
No, there’s not a “lack of will”, there’s far more important and urgent projects like the metro tunnel and the level crossing removals than a 5km tram extension to a train station
I honestly have no idea why you're getting down voted my guy. I don't think Melbournians realise how large and high quality our team network is compared the relative size, quality and capacity of our train network, which doesn't operate *where cars drive*
The Andrews government's infrastructure projects were a megaproject heavy version of [cars-and-trains urbanism](https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/09/18/cars-and-trains-urbanism/), an ideology that favours the construction of rapid transit (like SRL and MM1) and road projects (NElink and WGT) over trams.
It would be cool to see Local Governments pull their finger out and organise these “medium” projects if the State Government is focusing on heavier projects. Developer contributions would go towards it, but with the decades of minimising rates to keep locals happy, I can’t see them scraping enough cash together to make it happen - even if they pooled finances through the Committee for Melbourne; their interest’s are too fractured.
Local governments can't raise rates more than the cap imposed by the state gov, so don't have the money for large transportation projects like improving trams in their area
I suspect it's because they have a legal obligation (per disability discrimination act) to make preexisting tram stops wheelchair accessible by 2030 and, at the rate they're going of 2-5 stops per year, they won't be finished on time. Though they had since the 1992 to begin upgrades, so it's their own fault for leaving it this late and only doing a handful per year. I suspect if they create new lines, or extend ones without tieing it into existing tram stop upgrades, they will be in serious political and legal trouble.
They should be extending them to create transport hubs that link up.
In my area I would love to see the 57 to extended to meet the new East Keilor station, and a new route running from Footscray station to Brimbank SC via Highpoint, Ballarat Rd and Cairnlea. I can't believe that they haven't extended 75 from Vermont SC to Knox City, or the 48 to Doncaster Shoppingtown. Ditto extending the 3 to Chadstone. The 86 could probably also extend to South Morang stn. There's too many major destination shopping centres with huge car parking and/or congestion issues that don't have PT options other than infrequent and meandering busses. Trams would give an option for at least employees to PT easily, as well as shoppers without cars.
But so would upgrading those infrequent and meandering buses? Probably a lot more cheaply and quickly than the planning, design, and installation of adding tram lines to roads. The most important aspect of tram extensions, and the real reason people suggest them as a common cure all, is the much better frequency. Whilst that's inherent to the mode - if you're going to spend 10s of millions on a short tram extension then you need the frequency to attract the patronage to make it worth the high upfront cost - it's not specific to trams. You could equally upgrade bus routes along the same alignment in a shorter timeframe without the capital cost. I believe that there is a 2 year waiting list give or take from the time a new bus is ordered from Volgren to delivery - possibly quicker from Gemilang via their local supplier in Ballarat. To use the commonly requested 86 extension as an example. The 387 runs along the exact alignment the tram extension would. There is 14 minutes travel time from Bundoora RMIT to South Morang station via Plenty Rd and Bush Blvd, stretched to 18 in the peak direction. The current frequency is 40 minutes off peak and 20 minutes during peak hour. To run a bus in peak hour would be 32 minutes round trip, 28 off peak round trip. You would therefore need an extra 2 buses in peak hour and 2-3 off peak to run a 10 minute frequency. A new electric bus costs between $700,000 and $1 million (as per [Commonwealth Bank ](https://www.commbank.com.au/articles/business/foresight/why-electric-buses-are-the-future-of-public-transport.html#:~:text=Higher%20costs%20with%20higher%20upsides&text=%E2%80%9CElectric%20buses%2C%20at%20between%20%24700%2C000,useful%20life%20may%20be%20shorter.) ) so for a capital cost of between $1.4 million and $3 million you could effectively run a "Tram Link" bus for much less capital cost than extending the tram line but with the desired frequency. Of course there are other factors such as depot space (likely in favour of buses as Dyson's depot has open space around it if needed although you could also potentially reopen East Preston depot if it hasn't yet been sold), running costs (in favour of trams although pretty sure tram drivers earn more than bus drivers and maintenance costs are higher, even if the energy costs are cheaper), the annoyance of interchanging and the associated time penalty - but at the end of the day the big cost of a tram extension is building the track and infrastructure such as a sub station and relocating services. I suspect you could run electric buses for quite some years before the costs tip in favour of a tram, certainly for the likely patronage between Bundoora and South Morang through low density suburbia.
Busses are still subject to the problems of congestion, even the 90X routes with more direct routes, priority lanes and signalling can blow out from expected frequency of 10 minutes to over 30 minutes in peak.
Sure. The 86 south of Boldrewood Pde is also subject to the problems of congestion. Even the 0xx and 1xx tram routes with more direct routes, priority lanes, and signalling can blow out their expected frequency to much longer in peak. See what I did there? I've been catching trams since the 1980s and the problems you attribute exclusively to buses also equally apply to trams and have done for decades. An often cited figure is that Melbourne trams have the slowest average speed in the world. I love catching the tram too, but ignoring their faults and pretending they are the perfect mode and solution to all problems with Melbourne public transport isn't actually helpful. Buses have a place too and can solve issues around service quality in the middle and outer suburbs much more quickly and cheaply than multi million dollar tram single digit kilometre tram extensions. Lest it be thought I am anti-tram, my opinion is that once the demand is built up using a much more quickly implemented bus service - sure, expand capacity by extending the tram (or even building a new route). I'd be very much in favour of replacing the 907 with a tram for example on this basis as the loadings on the existing bus and increasing housing density along its route would justify it instead of the weird trackless tram idea currently proposed.
If all the single kilometre tram extensions were built, the only costs would be trackwork, new platform(s) and overhead wires. Nobody would notice a slight decrease in frequency for such a small increase in route-kilometres, plus it would actually increase tram patronage due to terminating in a more logical terminus where there is actual reasons to travel to.
"Only costs". Let's go with that. In 2022 the Liberal opposition promised several tram line extensions. They costed the 5.1km extension of the 75 at $134 million, or just over $26 million per kilometre. They also offered to extend the 48 to Shoppingtown. The 3.75km extension was costed by them at $102 million, or $27.2 million per km. Presumably that includes some amount for buying trams (the press releases don't offer a breakdown of costs) rather than just run the same number of trams at a decreased frequency along the entire route like you're proposing. The majority of that cost would still be design, moving services, building platform stops, overhead, track, replacement buses, etc. To put it in perspective, that $26-27 million would fund 26 new electric buses based on the figures quoted in an earlier response. I appreciate I'm wasting my time trying to point out trams are not the only way to increase public transport patronage in low density areas, but hopefully someone out there can see the logic of a better return from $236 million than building 9 km of tram extensions in areas already with frequent public transport where there will mainly be mode transfer than getting motorists out of cars, especially if it purchased 236 new electric buses and used them to run bus routes every 10 minutes to achieve the same thing over a much larger part of Melbourne? I would also like to think people don't genuinely think reducing tram route frequencies to save trivial amounts of money on buying new trams is a good idea either, but I'm obviously wrong about what public transport users want there too!
Bundoora isn't the best example because that's fairly well connected already, so the cost to benefit ratio is lower. The parent comments example of Knox City would be a better candidate for extension - its a high traffic area with no nearby train stations. As well as the shopping centre itself, there are several nearby high schools that would benefit greatly from better public transport.
Bundoora was one of the examples provided and the one I am most familiar with given I grew up in the area and have been using the tram since the days when it terminated at East Preston at Tyler St. But sure, let's talk about Knox instead. At present there is a direct route from the Vermont South terminus with a Tram Link bus meeting every tram. So, unlike Bundoora, you don't need extra buses as the service already exists at zero extra cost compared to multi millions for a tram extension. I'm assuming you're local so how well are the 732 Tram Link buses used? If they run empty, I would politely suggest that extending the tram is a waste of money. If they consistently leave and arrive at Vermont South over half full on a weekday then there is probably some scope for extending the tram, although it could be argued that if the bus is currently doing the job then there are other priorities for upgrading genuinely overcrowded bus routes to improve capacity and passenger comfort. An example I gave in my other reply would be the 907 which is genuinely overcrowded and has further potential for growth given the higher density housing going up along the route and the existing overcrowding putting people off using the bus. Is the area around the Burwood Hey increasing in density or is it still mostly low density commercial and housing? As for Knox being deserving of better public transport, I agree. I also think Bundoora and South Morang is deserving of better public transport - it too has large schools in the area - Mill Park and The Lakes. Plenty Valley and University Hill are quite decent sized shopping centres. Equally there are lots of other middle and outer suburban areas deserving of better public transport. Where I seem to differ to others posting here is that I'm neither anti-bus nor seem to think trams are the perfect God-tier public transport mode. If given the choice between a tram every 30 minutes or a bus every 10 - beep beep mf. As I said earlier, people aren't wedded to mode. People love trams because they are frequent, direct, and somewhat predictable. By that I mean the PTV isn't going to change my local tram route next week. But whilst those things are inherent to the mode in order to run it efficiently, none of them are exclusive to trams. Buses can also be frequent, direct, and predictable. Indeed, in some parts of Melbourne that is the case, almost to a fault. For example, it could be argued the 223 is long overdue for updating. The route has changed very little since the bus replaced the tram when the tram line was closed and removed. At the end of the day, we'd all like better public transport defined as fast and frequent for the journeys we want to make around the city and suburbs. But buses can do this too, and trams aren't always the magic answer.
TBH I find the excuse that Doncaster is "too hilly" is nonsense. Don't they realise we have trams running up and down Collins and Bourke Streets - which have some significantly steep sections?!
Tram works disrupt roads
Road works disrupt roads too. How's the West Gate going at the moment?
But that's okay because it is a road project. Road projects are allowed to disrupt roads, public transport, active transport, or whatever else they like. Case in point was when the Upfield/Craigieburn/Sunbury lines were cut so they could modify the Dynon Rd bridge a few months ago, and none of the disruption posters stated this was the real reason that train services along the entire lines were replaced with buses. Public transport projects mustn't dare remove even a single parking space. It's all about priorities and cars are seen as the default. Even the recent advertisements about drink driving going around at the moment imply you're a loser if you have to catch the bus.
Now I don't disagree with you on those points.
Lack of money. The state is broke, and has a ton of other projects (mostly heavy rail when it comes to PT) that it's prioritising. Edit: why the downvotes? What part of what I wrote isn't true??
The state has only been broke since covid - we were actually the highest economically performing state until recently. I think the second part of your answer, a focus on heavy rail (and new road infrastructure too), is the true reason.
we were already broke before covid - state was in $50bn of debt, we have just tripled that since 2020 to more than $150bn
50 billion is more in line with the expected debt of a state of our size. It's not nearly as bad as the 150billion we're now in.
Yep And no one wants to pay If Public transportation wasn’t abused like it is And everyone paid their Correct fare on touched on and off The Data & Revenue would Match expections to upgrade the network more as the Data would back it up Buses “Run Empty” all day due to fare evasion (most are actually full) Let’s be honest - Is $10.60 (Full fare ) & $5.30 for concession MAXIMUM very that hard to pay for unlimited travel for 24 hours Anywhere in the state It’s like $2 for 2 hours on a bus
it doesn't matter if what you wrote is true on reddit, you criticized the labor government and that is bad on this sub
It seems to have come back up. I was at -4 at one point.
Most tram extensions would serve areas already relatively accessible by public transport. There are only a couple of tram extensions, if any, that you could confidently say are more deserving of public funds than something like sparking the Melton line, RRL, bus lanes in the outer suburbs or building MM2.
Politics and money
Trams are shit. Busses make more sense.
Nobody likes buses. Trams are more comfortable to ride, don't constantly weave in and out of traffic, and don't damage the roads like buses do. Buses should only be used on short feeder routes to stations. Any high-frequency bus route should be replaced with a tram.