6 responses to “#Trams: a short pictorial study by State Records #NSW”

1. Tweets that mention #Trams: a short pictorial study by State Records #NSW « Maximos’ Blog — Topsy.com

   December 24, 2010 at 5:57 am

   […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Russell Darnley, Randy McDonald. Randy McDonald said: @ActsofAndrewB, I think you might be into this. RT @maximos62: #Trams: a short pictorial study by State Records #NSW: http://wp.me/pyLY9-jp […]

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Rodney

   December 26, 2010 at 12:09 am

   I was a tram conductor in Sydney. I well remember rattleing along Anzac Parade in my wood pannelled drawing room.
   Public transport, at least in Sydney, is a way of ripping off the blue collar workers out west for the benefit of the wealthy. Most of the wealthiest suburbs have heavily subsidised public transport. Most poore suburbs have none.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   maximos62

   December 28, 2010 at 12:20 pm

   Rodney, that’s probably somewhat of an over statement. Yes, people who live further from the centre don’t have comprehensive access to such public transport as exists and have a high degree of reliance on cars. ABS Data shows that car ownership in the western Sydney Region in 2006 compared to the Sydney Statistical Division shows that 80.1% of the households owned at least one car, while 11.5% did not, compared with 78.1% and 12.6% respectively in the Sydney Statistical Division.

   Your comments aren’t an over statement if applied to trams. Sadly they’re now a luxury in Sydney. In Melbourne trams run out well into the suburbs

   LikeLike

   Reply
   1. 

      Rodney

      December 31, 2010 at 4:06 am

      Sorry Russell but your stats do not tell us much. Rich people in rich suburbs often own cars because they can. Poor people in poor suburbs often own cars because they must, just to get to work. If they have a family they often need 2 cars.
      There are no proposals to provide public transport to most poor suburbs. There are incessant demands from rich people to have more subsidised public transport in rich suburbs.
      Public transport should not be subsidised though poorer users should be. This should not include all these affluent Whinging Seniors Card Bludgers.

      Public transport is neither green nor economic except where population density is high. Note how many public transport advocates are opposed to urban consolidation.

      The practical effect of the Public Transport Lobby proposals is generous
      subsidies for Barristers and advertising executives and the like paid for by higher taxes on blue collar workers and other much poorer people.

      It is true that trams serviced both poor and rich suburbs alike but that was a long time ago.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      1. 

         maximos62

         December 31, 2010 at 4:46 am

         Yes, the stats are brief but any superficial glance at allied ABS statistics will show you that car ownership in the areas closer to the CBD is lower.

         While many lower income households are near the periphery, in Sydney the north/south harbour divide also separates rich from poor, employed from unemployed, highly educated from less well educated. I suggest you download the census maps from the 2006 census and caste your eyes over them.

         http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/2030.12006?OpenDocument

         If you do this you’ll see where the lower income earners are located. For example, there’s a concentration of lower income earning migrants from SE Asia and E Asia along railway lines where cheaper higher density apartments from the 1920s through to the 1970s are quite common. Then look more generally at the distribution of rich and poor in Sydney.

         Space doesn’t permit a comprehensive review but for a more thorough coverage of distribution of low income households, check out that Social Atlas. When you’ve done this compare it with some maps of Sydney’s public transport system, say buses and trains, and see for yourself.

         Don’t overlook the extensive provision of public transport to lower income areas.

         You throw in a few red herrings re urban consolidation and barristers. The base line is that urban consolidation is an inevitability and public transport will grow along with it as densities do increase. The poor will struggle to be located close to good public transport links and nodes, that’s basic land rent theory for which we owe much to Ricardo and Von Thünen (see Economic Theory and Land prices in Land Use Modelling for a brief account of their theories, in a much wider discussion), but it’s certainly not an argument for abandoning the development of public transport. Solutions could be found in such measures as subsidising low income earners’ housing or access to public transport.

         On whether or not public transport is green, well that’s another discussion entirely. Certainly the free market provision of public transport in places like Jakarta where thousands of poorly tuned diesel mini-buses roam around the city, belching clouds of black smoke, would suggest that public transport is anything but green. Sydney’s train system on the other hand is at least powered by coal burning power stations, located outside major urban areas for the most part, that have some semblance of environmental controls. We even have some hybrid buses, and the vast majority of taxis in NSW rely on LPG to fuel their combined journeys which amount to more than 1 billion kilometres per year, but there’s a long way to go. In short I agree, public transport isn’t green just because it’s public.

         LikeLike

4. 

   maximos62

   January 13, 2011 at 12:36 am

   Some interesting observations on public transport in Jakarta and it’s neglect as the city grows http://indonesiaurbanstudies.blogspot.com/

   LikeLike

   Reply