Trouble in Tram Paradise by the Antipodean Light?

Melbourne City Snapshot

While the rest of the public transport universe sees the world’s largest tram network in Melbourne as a public transport success, the reality is more complex. Having recently discussed the rebirth of trams in Sydney, Melbournian Dr Chris Hale looks at the underbelly of the tram network, what the city is doing to improve it, and the prospects of real improvement occurring.

If you want to understand Melbourne – understand the difference between the places where trams run, and where they don’t. Where they do run is the CBD and the inner city. This is Melbourne’s heartland for a mostly university-educated middle class, with remnants of the working-class migrant communities who were fortunate enough to buy-in when inner city properties were affordable.

But if you really want to understand Melbourne – try also to understand the tram system itself, with its several strengths but many weaknesses. And in understanding the challenges facing Melbourne’s trams, we may begin to understand something of light rail more broadly.

Like most tram systems world-wide, Melbourne’s network has gone through booms and busts. It began life in the city’s 1880s economic growth period, initially as a cable-hauled network which connected rapidly growing boomtowns with the central business district (CBD). These areas now comprise Melbourne’s ‘inner suburbs’, with 20^th and 21^st century growth having subsequently vaulted far beyond the reach of the tram network. Despite the growing prominence of electric tram lines, Melbourne’s first electric line, an antipodean version of London’s Metroland concept, was a failure. It wasn’t until the early 1900s that that cable lines began transitioning to electric, with system-wide planning only emerging with the formation of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board (MMTB) in the 1920s.

Transport fads afflicted the Chairmen of the MMTB, and while a visit to Europe had prompted the MMTB’s first Chair to electrify the cable lines, his successor Hector Bell fell in love with the double-decker bus after a trip to London in 1938, prompting a pause on the conversion of the cable tram through Bourke Street, the city’s main drag, and instigating a push for buses instead. This decision was soon regretted, as passengers complained of poor reliability, slow services, and excessive fumes. Within 5years, a return to tram development was mandated and electrification restarted.

The timing of this failed experiment was perhaps fortuitous. In the post-war period as trams grew out of vogue internationally and many cities began removing their networks, the Victorian State government began a series of inquiries and reports to replace the tram network. The new MMTB Chairman, Robert Risson fought hard to retain the network, arguing successfully that the Bourke Street debacle had demonstrated the shortcomings of abandoning a large pre-existing tram network for buses, trolley or otherwise. Despite this, the majority of state capital resources for transport were spent on new road projects over the next few decades. But Risson not only prevented the closure of the tram network, he also managed to obtain funding for real network improvements and even some new extensions. It has been, and is the world’s largest tram network, with 250km of track, and is currently served by almost 500 trams operating at peak times.

After Risson’s retirement, the tram network stagnated, and only a very few short extensions have been constructed since franchise-style privatisation in the late 1990s. Melbourne’s tram network now is probably the most neglected single public transit asset in the developed world. It is the world’s largest tram network, with the least amount of care, attention, and forethought per kilometre. While the tram network suffers from the same problems as most public transit operators, namely congestion and patchy service reliability, a lack of strategic overview and forward-momentum from city and state governments, and a succession of private operators, has compounded the frustrations felt by passengers.

Melbourne’s free downtown tram zone

A relatively recent initiative to provide ‘free’ downtown travel on the tram system is indicative of a fragmented and low-rent policy posture toward trams. ‘Free’ trams have delivered over-crowding and travel reliability issues on already stretched downtown routes. While the policy discussion on ‘free trams’ has occupied scarce intellectual space – otherwise required for a strategic rethink of the role and future of the tram network as a high-quality 21^st century offering.

The current tram fleet is a hodgepodge of classes built from the 1970s through to present times (not including the heritage 1930s W-class trams which still ply the city circle tourist route). But the fleet remains dominated by 1970s and 1980s era high-floor vehicles, no longer fit for a 21^st century image or passenger experience. The dominance of older vehicles creates maintenance costs and problems, along with poor functionality for air-conditioning and on-vehicle air quality (an important issue in Melbourne’s extreme hot-cold climate). Even as we speak, government is re-renovating trams as old as I am. Nobody ever intended 1970s and 1980s Comeng clunkers to be running around 40-50 years after being built, and the high-floor step-up configuration breaks every universal access code on the books. State laws have already long mandated level of Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance which the tram system has not attained. And even with the DDA goalposts now apparently shifted-out to 2032, these multiple-renovation trams may have fewer than 10years left in service anyway, raising basic questions as to the cost-effectiveness and common sense of continually running, re-investing in, and putting up with outdated fleet. Although, as mentioned above, the general pollical and public service posture of Victoria sees public transport users as ‘cheap losers’ in desperate need of government hand-outs – rather than the white-collar middle-class office workers that actual demographic analyses indicate.

The bright stars on the horizon are new E-class Melbourne-built vehicles. These are arguably the world’s best tram at this time – although running on a network that does not befit their potential advantages and quality customer experience. The first of another 100 new G-class trams are due from around 2025 onwards.

More broadly, there hasn’t ever been a major policy paper from government on how they see the future of Melbourne’s tram corridors and the overall network. A number of new lines and major extensions have been mooted over recent decades, but most have never progressed to the point of construction – even if they offer relatively quick, straightforward and cost-effective expansions of much-needed mass transit coverage.

An on-again-off-again ad hoc route upgrade process is underway. I live on a ‘demonstration’ route – so I get to live the strengths and weaknesses of current strategic thinking. And that makes me worry. The 96 route upgrade program did the classic ‘not really thinking’ thing – and while the stops were rebuilt to aid accessibility, they were also largely relocated to the middle of most street blocks. Now, there’s a reason light rail prefers at-intersection stopping – and it’s called “integration between modes”. The mid-block relocation gambit has successfully added 20 – 30 metres walk for anyone transferring between bus and tram. The gatekeepers in government will argue not many people transfer between bus and tram in Melbourne. But I’ve looked at the stats, and they do in large numbers (and would moreso if supported).

While we welcome the level boarding upgrade on a route like 96, there has to be concern around the lack of stop rationalisation, lack of lane separation from cars, long wait times at intersections, and other core issues related to travel speed and corridor quality. At a corner near me, huge amounts of tram delay is caused because the upgrade project neglected to remove just two on-street car parking spaces at a road lane pinch-point.

Plenty of people agree that the current industry/government outlook sees tram route upgrades purely as construction projects. For my part, I’d be concerned if the standards embodied by the 96 demonstration project were embodied in other route upgrades – and best guess is they will be. Route 58 was next in line and is currently undergoing a similar upgrade. Time will soon tell if mistakes have been learnt.

Understand Melbourne’s tram system and you begin to understand something about Melbourne, but much more than that – you begin to understand how Australian governments and bureaucracies in charge of transport outcomes view substantial transit assets, and transit passengers.

Dr Chris Hale is the founder and CEO of Hale Infra Strategy, which does infrastructure planning for East Coast Australian cities. This is one of a series of his City Snapshots of public Transport networks on LR, updated from his posts on LinkedIn.

Thanks also to Snowy for editing.