May I suggest keeping the sponsor graphics on the screen for the entire segment, so those of us who aren't interested can easily see where the ad begins and ends? It was a bit frustrating to skip through it only to realise that the sponsored section is still going. Adding chapters to the video to separate it from the content would be even better! Thanks Philip and keep up the good work
@Andrew-df1dr ah, Burwood Hwy doesn't go to Lilydale, so I'm not sure how that would work. They should at least extend the 75 to Knox city as was originally promised
@@gerrym75 meant Ferntree Gully. My mistake. Thank you for pulling me up on it and I have altered my comment accordingly. I would love for tram to go up to at least the intersection of Burwood Highway and Ferntree Gully Road, if not further.
@@Andrew-df1drthey had proposed extending that to at least knox city a few times. If the current government stays in power long enough we might actually get the damn thing instead of taken off the table again.
Interesting point about the tram lines down Elizabeth Street. I always wondered why they never connected to the lines on Flinders - seems like it would have been a no brainer when the network was built, even if to increase the ability to move trams around the network or when maintenance machines were tram based. However, network wise I think there will be minimal if any infrastructure spend.
Melbourne’s tram system was initially built by separate “Tramways Trusts”, not a single planning body. As such, there was little point in separate trusts linking their routes with others.
They're all safe Labor seats. The only way to change this is to vote in Liberal Party candidates (not "independents" or Marxist Greens who always side with Labor).
@@edmundcarew7235 Maaaaaaaate.... you have to stop smoking those weird funny cigarettes.... as they are really warping your outlook......! "Liberal" Party Candidates! Nice one... what a joke! What a joker!!
There have been talks about Spencer St, North of Latrobe St becoming a busy main street for West Melbourne, so if the route 5 is rerouted via Spencer, then it is more than likely it would be extended up to Arden Station. Also there's still no discussion about an east west connecting line, north of Victoria St which is really sad given how fast the north is densifying.
Grattan St is being rebuilt outside the uni, and in the plans the bus lanes were explicitly labelled as potential future tram lanes. So at the very least, some planners in DoT are thinking about an inner north orbital. I think the first priority for the tram network will probably be an extension down Spencer all the way out to Arden and maybe even beyond, then the orbital route.
I think it’s good for the Elizabeth St trams to continue on rather than terminate at Flinders St. I hope they choose slightly more diverging routes though, given that the 57 and 59 share so much of the same route from Flemington Bridge. I think that sending them both out to the sporting grounds will mainly benefit those in the east getting to the city, rather than those who currently use those routes. I think it’d be much better to send one route down towards Spencer St instead, either via La Trobe or Flinders St. That will improve connections with trams along William and Spencer St. The best routes will really depend on what happens with tram frequency after the upgrades for the G-Class trams, and what happens with other routes
@@davidbayley9588 this is being done mid year this year,Victoria st will be relaid with a connection across Elizabeth st and new curves into Swanston st at Victoria st (check out the projects tab on the YT Website.
Thanks! I’d also be really pleased if they could put a simple arrow display at the Flinders Street 19 terminus to indicate which side the tram is leaving next. It’s a scrum every day and with the historic green shed there it’s a really tight squeeze for people to sidle past the trams.
Elizabeth St lines serviced by two depots; Brunswick & Essendon - half the time the drivers wouldn't know which tram is the next to leave, all dependent on when their own table card tells them to leave. Depending on how delayed/on time the tram is, you could plausibly see an on-time tram sit for there for up to 4 minutes, or a late tram leave as soon as it arrives- There would be no plausible way for a 'simple arrow display' to accurately display which tram is leaving first
If the 5 is moved to Spencer St which is a good idea, the tracks need to be extended up into West Melbourne and onwards to Arden to capture the large number of appartments in the area now.
Re the scramble crossing at Elizabeth St Flinders St, City of Melb is considering closing Flinders St to vehicle traffic long term. If that occurs it will solve the problem of trams turning through the intersection. Given EB Flinders has been closed to vehicles since 2019 it would be easy to retain this closure as everyone has adjusted to it.
A few other public documents exist with tram changes. You might want to check the reference VITM network in the latest Infrastructure Victoria bus discussion papers. It fills in a few missing link tracks, including on Victoria St Carlton, Maribyrnong Rd Essendon, Miller St Preston, and Park St Sth Melb. There's also the Fishermans Bend plans for Collins St trams continuing across the Yarra.
The fisherman’s Bend tram plan is my question. There’s huge roadworks at the end of Plummer St Port Melbourne. I’m curious as to whether that’s the start of the tramline infrastructure? Any info would be greatly appreciated 🙂
@@DrummingsFun Simply put no... The bridge / tunnel for the Yarra Crossing needs to be determined first, before they will even consider any forward works in Fishermens Bend. And there are no end of problems with it right now.
I remember when they wanted to extend the Bundoora Line all the way to Port Melbourne. With Tram Franchise ready for Renewal soon. This I guess will greatly effect where and how they link the Tram Network with the new Suburban loop. Definitely 57 route will see a possible extension into the Wellington St Siding. 58 will stay the same. Except G class will take over as all of the trams will come from the New Maidstone Depot. Then we have one of the only two suburban line's. The Moone Pond's too Footscray. This could be expected to Central Pier. Or With it's own Terminus on the North Side of Waterfront City. Or even onto the disused track on Harbour Espenalade. Giving the densely populated Docklands yet another Tram Service.
A few comments, if I may: - Straight lines rock. - 12 via LaTrobe would be a very sensible thing to do providing direct access from VicGardens to Melbourne Central. It would release Collins from too many trams and substitute 30 almost in its entirety. - I would absolutely keep 75 as is (Bridge Rd to Flinders is essential because it's a straight line), probably cutting it down at Central Pier because it is already long enough and there are many others going past that point. It is also massively convenient for passengers going to Camberwell that they can board 70 or 75 at Flinders and end up where they're going either way. (Massively helpful during disruptions, too). - For the same reason, I think 5 and 64 should maintain their togetherness (not sure whether to favour William or Spencer in that scheme).
Why would keeping 75 and 70 together along Flinders be better? Better to split them so people in Camberwell/Hawthorn can get to either the north and south parts of the CBD on a single tram.
@@simonlumb7523 the users can do so considerably faster by changing to any of the perpendicular routes in the CBD (e.g. 19/57/59 at Flinders) or simply walking. Either option is guaranteed to be faster than waiting for a specific tram out of those two, particularly so outside the weekday peak hours.
True, but those routes don't take you to the north east area of the CBD/museum/St Vincents etc. or change into trams that go out to the north east side.
@@simonlumb7523 true - but do they have to? Collins and Bourke routes are reachable within a very short walk (particularly from 75 which has a convenient stop at Spring St for that), and for those who are not comfortable with even short walks - I believe 35 should be brought back as bidirectional. Judging by how many people change or get off at Spring St and how many of them stay aboard, straight 75 as it is is perfectly fine, either. The only (small and easily fixable) problem here is outbound 48/75 don't have a shared stop at Spring St corner. Finally, you can also easily change from either 70 or 75 to 246 bus along Punt Rd (arguably the only reasonable bus service in Melbourne except for Doncaster group) if you need to get to places like Collingwood and not bother going via CBD at all. Diverted 75 won't be an improvement even over that, time wise.
Good video. You said your a transport planner, we need you in Ballarat to fix our atrocious Bus system. Our Good Mayor can't even get a meeting with PTV Transport
Great vid Philip, appreciate your regular vids updating us on changes to the network. I just thought I'd add that I think the new accessible parkville tram stop opened a couple of weeks ago. At least I saw an announcement saying so (hopefully I'm not mistaken) I plan to head there this weekend to check it out anyhow.
Thanks very much, and yes you're right! Last I saw it only part of the platforms were open, but trams are stopping there so technically I think that counts as being opened :)
Longer tram routes mean more delays and more chance disruptions on a route will affect more people. I think Elizebeth Street trams should continue to terminate there. There isn't much benefit to a minor extension around Flinders Street and I think it will simply slow down the Elizebeth Street trams and also make the busy pedestrian intersection more complex and less efficient.
If your new 64 route continued on past Flagstaff, you could add/link a left track turn from Peel St into Victoria St (so onto the existing route 57) and then extend the tracks on Queensberry St past Abbotsford St a couple of blocks to Arden station. That would be a relatively quick and inexpensive way to link the tram network to Arden.
They have to upgrade Flinders St station on Elizabeth Street. It's the most dangerous stop in the cbd. In my opinion just remove the road acces and make it pedestrian only.
Ok but will I still be able to tell people that Swanston St is the busiest tram corridor in the world after all this? Or at least do we retain the title somewhere else in the city?
Love to hear your thoughts on changes to tram tracks..points, extensions, turn backs. That would be ideal. The gov has been hopeless on small level and service changes on buses and trams.
Geelong to Melbourne - linking trams direct to Flinders St / Docklands / Southbank / MCG / Tennis centre / Theatres / Victoria Market - all the biggest tourist attractions with one Myki card - VLine & trams - keeping it simple! 😊
Great video, thanks for the map. I'm curious about the plans to bring trams to Fishermans Bend. The proposed bridge seems to be in doubt, but it's greatly needed.
I was sitting at a tram stop on Chapel St a couple of weeks ago in Prahran and overhead 2 people talking about one side was having parking removed to create "accessible" tram stops. That's a big change for Chapel St if true.
Route 5 to Spencer St would also need the Park Street track extension (Kings Way to Heather St). Much talked about but not done. (Or is that's what's meant by turning right from Park St into Kings Way?).
A Elizabeth St turn would be a safety nightmare in either direction plus a 3rd track would be needed otherwise a backlog (for trams turning into Elizabeth blocking flinders street ones) seems inevitable!
That whole intersection is wrong atm, the whole thing should be pedestrian orientated as the scramble crossing is always too busy on the flinders station side, with kerbing designed to prioritise cars
Yes agree taking trams from Domain Rd & Park Str was so wrong and needs to be restored. That spent a fortune on the tram track so trams could turn straight into Domain Rd. Then ripped up & trams now turn into Toorak Rd. BIG MISTAKE needs to divert back asap.
The latest update from DTP is that they are looking at it, more information here: web.archive.org/web/20230327094038/www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/domain-road-trams-may-be-gone-for-good-after-metro-tunnel-works-end-20230324-p5cv0n.html
Hi Philip, I noticed in a photo taken in the Elsternwick in the ‘50s that there was a tram line rounding the corner of Broadway and Glenhuntly rd. What happened to it? BTW, on the corner was a large dance hall / cabaret.
Another great video Phil, well done. The tram network is critical infrastructure and has been neglected for a long time. There is a lot of room for improvement. I look forward to these changes. It is currently a nightmare trying to provide any feedback. The services currently provided at Jolimont respond poorly to big events. We have an under-utilised super stop, with a service dominated by small trams. The system suffers from poor administration, dirty trams, bad drivers and rough tracks that need a lot of of TLC.
I do! I made a video on this topic earlier this year. You can also see the references I used in the video description for more information: th-cam.com/video/ZzdYWYDJVH8/w-d-xo.html
i think that the idea of having the the route 5 terminating at the existing spencer st terminus is a good idea as it sets up the posibility for it to be extended to arden station. Also is there any way to access the map since the link is not working. Edit: looking at the map, if the 64 was to terminate at flagstaff, would it make more scence to have it labeled as terminating at queen vic market since the terminating tracks are a few blocks away from flagstaff station.
@@itechcircle9410 yeah but i mean they could make a stop where the turnback is, a platform on either side and it would be easy since it is surrounded by a park and has not many instructions. It would probably work in a similar way to the st kilda terminus on the 96
Not sure what to think as I catch the 5 & 64 often to get into the city. I suppose I’ll have to change trams somewhere on St kilda RD Off topic but still vaguely relevant , is I’ve just noticed that on NYE Swanston street trams ( travelling along st kilda rd) will all the terminating at Anzac station leaving a 1 km walk into the city. I’m sure in previous years they used to terminate them at the arts centre. What is funny is signage at the art precinct and fed square trams stops proudly boasting that there will be more trams on NYE when in fact both those stops will be closed.
@@SandyCrack69 i mean it really depends on where abouts you go in the city, this proposed arrangement i think is much better as it gives passengers more options to what side of the city they need to go to, plus makes it easier for the entierty of st kilda road to access southern cross by easily changing at anzac, it also makes anzac more of a major interchange unlike now where all city bound routes go either via swanston st or william st
I suspect a more likely alternative could be route 75 via Collins Street and route 12 via La Trobe Street. The intersection of Collins and Spencer is the most problematic one remaining and this would simplify it further leaving only one route turning, while also increasing capacity along Collins which is sorely needed.
Capacity along Collins St has been caused by reductions in tram frequencies over the years. Restore those frequencies and Collins St congestion can be eliminated without rearranging routes.
Can you answer the question that has bugged me for years - Why does the Toorak Road Tram stop at Glenferrie road and not continue further down Toorak Road ?
My understanding is that it was because of the tramway companies competing the railway companies. Like the others in the area that terminate very close to but not at a railway station, the tramway companies wanted as many passengers for as much of their trip as possible. They figured that making it more convenient to just stay on the tram for the whole trip would make them more money.
Equally, why don’t they extend the 48 line out along Doncaster/Mitcham Roads & the 72 along Burke Road to Doncaster Road? That would make a lot of Doncaster able to access public transport and Camberwell shops accessible to people in the northern part of Boroondara & Manngham. Plus Whites Corner/Shoppingtown becomes accessible by tram from two directions. Parking there is often difficult and access by tram would be splendid.
I think you mentioned the linking of the tram routes near the Vic market ,,, they apparently only 50 meters apart ,,we live on the 1and 6 route in Brunswick .Be interested in understanding how this would affect the and benefit the system,, apart from us having better access to the other routes.
There is no room in kings way for a new tram line (unless you mean the part past Flinders street travelling south).That road is already the main cross city road and congested most of the time.
The curve at Flinders & Elizabeth will be very tight. How well will the D2's which are fixed bogie trams go negotiating that? They handle the current 19 route relatively well given it almost straight for its entire length
I can't see the curve being any different to the curve that the D2's already deal with when turning left from Sydney Rd > Moreland Rd and also Holmes St > Moreland Rd
Great video Philip, I really hope these changes will actually end up implemented when the Metro Tunnel opens. Quick question though - how will routes 5 and 64 get from St Kilda Rd to Clarendon St? Do these plans also include new tracks in the middle of Park St where there currently are none?
There is meant to be a new 300m section of new tram track along Park Street, between Kingsway and Clarendon Street. It was funded in the last state budget
Using the model PTV seem to want including additional routes on LaTrobe, Spencer and William Streets, these are my ideas: - Route 3 to terminate at Spencer & LaTrobe via Park and Clarendon Streets. This will give passengers on Balaclava and St. Kilda Roads choice to enter the city via Spencer Street or Swanston Street on 16/67. - Route 64 to terminate at Flagstaff station via William Street. After 7:30pm only Route 58 to service William Street, same as today. This will also give Dandenong Road passengers choice of either arriving in the City on William Street or Swanston Street on 5. - Route 12 to travel through the city on LaTrobe and Spencer Streets rather than Collins Street to increase services along LaTrobe Street. - Route 75 to travel the same route as 48 via Spring and Collins Street to terminate at Victoria Harbour to keep the current frequency of trams along Collins Street. Not sure if the terminating facilities at Vic Harbour could support three routes though. - Routes 19, 57 and 59 to extend along Flinders Street as described in this video.
It would be good to see St Kilda Rd tram routes like 5 & 64 transfer to Spencer Street, this way they can extend to Docklands Drive together with route 86 while route 70 gets rerouted to run along Elizabeth Street and combine with route 57 to make the two become one route (similar to what happened with route 58) and route 75 to extend all the way to Footscray?
What is going to happen with Melbourne bus network with all the retendering of all bus routes how they will devide the suberbs into north south east and west ? Love your work.
Thank you! I'm not across the details of retendering bus routes unfortunately. I'd recommend keeping an eye on the Melbourne on Transit blog which would definitely have more information: melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/
One has the feeling that our transport "planners" don't have a clue as to where our tram users actually want to travel or where the actual need is. Bridge Rd trams cannot carry the passengers at times so the proposed extension to Elizabeth Street trams stops at Hoddle St. Useless. Some years ago they doubled the wait time at Young and Jackson's to go to Bridge Rd when they rerouted the 48 tram. The plan to send the 75 up Spring St would then destroy the shortest and quickest way to the city from Richmond. Crazy stuff!
The 48 going up Collins St is idiotic. Bridge Rd used to have a daytime frequency of 4 mins by combining the 12 mins North Balwyn (48), 12 mins Burwood (75) and running an additional 12 mins Richmond shuttle (28). Transport planners are on drugs.
I’m concerned that Labor kill keep shooting itself in the foot and the LNP preference is for cost cutting reductions. Both parties won’t act logically as you propose. I hope everything you suggested goes ahead.
Im thinking a possible tram change could be to swap routes 11 and 109, which would allow e classes to go on the port melbourne light rail Also this could allow southbank e class to co-operate route 11 if there was a need to.
@@electro_sykes thats one idea although would e class be needed along chapel st? Im not familiar with that area of Melbourne so not sure. My thoughts with the 78 is combine it with route 30. It would turn left onto victoria road then continue along latrobe st where 30 currently does.
@@AshleyReynolds-vc6ly Agree! Far too many selfish motorists driving one kilometre to the shops, and holding up trams and other vehicles while they attempt to find a parking spot and reverse into it. Plus Chapel St has so many traffic lights (not that much of inner Melbourne is any better: the VicRoads obsession with lights even on relatively minor streets feeding in to main roads.
Between the transport planner rumour mill and the small tidbits of information that have come out to date, I would be reasonably confident that this is what happens in the end. But we'll have to wait and see!
They need to reinstate the tram stop on cnr of Swanston Str. & Lonsdale Str. Removing that stop was a hugh mistake Having to walk from Queen Vic Central to Bourke Street with shopping is no fun at all especially for the Elderly. Who's scensless idea was that Big Mistake.
Seems a bit unfair that both Dandenong rd trams have to go via CBD west instead of Swanston st. Removing the Elizabeth st terminus would be fantastic though.
@@soulsphere9242just an example, doesn't have to be like this. But to answer your question, 5/6 would now be clear at Richmond, move for example Glen Waverley and and or Alamein on to this pair, with a existing infrastructure already there. Just creates so many more opportunities, especially as the the station entry is the hardest part, going down another 10m for another track pair would be a smaller cost
@@74_pelicans because of the way it comes out at the south Kensington end. From there you’d only be able to do Sunbury, Werribee or Regional Rail Link tracks, not leaving you with a lot of options for electric suburban traffic; you can only go Werribee or Williamstown.
Get ready for a LOT of argument about how the trams will be prioritized around Flinders and Elizabeth... and how confusing it will be for everyone when the priorities change by time of day... let alone the competing demands between the trams (and their variable priorities), the Barnes Walk (scramble), general pedestrians, shop delivery vehicles, taxis, cyclists and buses (they'll want 'equal time' in terms of upgrades and certainly priority). Who will decide if 'more time' gets to pedestrians in a Barnes Walk when there are 6 trams routes, all running late... and a couple of buses which are trying to get through because of roadworks and construction on their routes... let alone when events are on at Melbourne Park, the MCG, the theatres (St Kilda Rd), the Exhibition Centre... Wot a can of worms....
Whatever happens with the Elizabeth Street terminus it really needs to be upgraded. If routes don't extend further then a 3 platform setup so each route has it's own platform would be a big improvement given the rest of Elizabeth St is all superstops.
@philipmallis I think you'll find that the alleged actual plans have been posted somewhere publicly, you've just gotta go .to a particular forum. 289085 might be of use as well. 😉 You're far off the mark with 75, and I'm not sure why you'd bother adding extra turns to the longest route, as well as loss of half of the capacity along Flinders St West, which would struggle with just 70 alone. Despite Camberwell going completely B2, you're cutting it by about a 1/3rd. Other things I'd expect to happen would be potentially 72 getting split (thanks to Burke Rd), and something involving 64/16, especially with depot capacity issues coming up with Malvern and retirement of Z3's in particular.
Other little hints hidden within other documents and comments others have said include; Expansion of Brunswick depot. (one would imagine this will move 6 completely to Brunswick, freeing up space at Malvern for larger stock, probably B2's) In the same vein, looking at the locations of new power substations give some clue as to where new trams might be ending up, or where capacity is going to be increased at some point. The fact Essendon is retained as a running depot. Whether this means the dregs of 58 is retained there or taken to Maidstone/Southbank remains to be seen. The fact 58 won't (most likely) be getting any of the G's, based off promotional material, which potentially leaves about 40% of them going to another depot. Options are also limited as to depot capacity, however I wouldn't be surprised if it's a depot with predominantly smaller trams (Z3 or A) that the extra G's end up at. The Arden planning documents having certain tram routes mapped out. This definitely hints at minimum one, if not two routes into Arden. One can only presume this is from Clarendon St, and by extension, St Kilda Rd. Combining this with the architectural drawings for Anzac showing a reconnection into Domain Rd/Park St, this poses a number of interesting city route prospects, probably using the potential Domain turnaround. And finally the now well outdated Fisherman's Bend planning documents, which hint at extensions for 11/48, and a new depot at Westgate. Given there's a new planning study funded federally in 2023/24, I wouldn't be surprised if we see changes to that. Capacity will need to be found somewhere, especially with a growing system, and growing lengths of trams. This combined with overcrowding breaches, could make the system look very different in 5-10 years, with different priorities. Tram Plan also does allude to this, and a fix in that the system might be moving to a tiered frequency. Whether this means more "short" routes", or just some sensible reroutings, it'll make some logical sense. Conclusions could very easily be drawn about where the system is going, without needing a crystal ball, it's more just piecing the map together with relevant documents.
I live on route 75 and noticed today small signs on the accesible stops saying "No low floor trams operating". I know this has already been reported elsewhere, but I do find it odd that we still only have B class on this route, given its length. I rode it home from the city all the way to the end recently and it was pretty full all the way to Deakin, then when those people got off a bunch of new passengers got on to head home from Uni so the demand is there. It would be great to see E classes running on the 75 one day.
@radiojake1757 yep, I understand that, but is that because they can't accommodate anything bigger? And therefore are we stuck with B's until they build a new depo, like Maidstone?
@@gerrym75 I know the new G class are earmarked for Essendon depot - they also don't have any low floor trams which is interesting considering how long Flemington Rd has had accessible stops (with no accessible trams) - Don't know which other (if any) depots are going to get the G's - but basically I don't think there is enough low floor trams across the network to accommodate each depot
Yes I've seen those to! I think the 75 would be a good bet for future rollout of trams. Given the length and (increasing) travel demand along the route, I would say it needs longer trams than the current G class design - maybe it will get the possible future G2 class trams, which would be five carriages long. Also the fact that it has quite a few accessible stops but no accessible trams at the moment.
Agree, we now pay extra for what ? Dirty, Crowded, always late trams. The old trams need a ramp on oneside for prams & shopping trolley's extremely hard to lift a pram & trolly up the steps. Wake Up Tramway Organisers get your act together and make Excecutive Decisions dust iff the Cobwebs and do something.
I'm hoping that PTV and the state government reconsider the proposed ANZAC station name underneath Domain junction. Considering that over 2,000 people voted for Domain, and only a few hundred voted for ANZAC, it would be nice if the government actually respected the public's wishes, instead of foisting a name change on us that nobody asked for. Eg, Spencer st to Southern Cross.
Your video just highlights the fact that public transport in Melbourne is run by incompetent peanuts. Tram crowding is caused by not running enough trams to meet demand. Yes, there is a limit to track capacity, but for the most part Melbourne is nowhere near that capacity. Up to the 1950s they ran trams as frequently as they were needed. Since the Bolte years they have been quick to cut services, but very slow to increase them. Look at Friday nights for example and how slow they have been to increase frequencies to meet demand, on many lines there has been no increase since the 15 minute service was reduced to 20 minutes in the 1960s. And that is just one example. Many of the crowding problems you mention could be solved simply by restoring services to the frequencies they once operated at years ago. Diverting the 5 and 64 to Spencer or William is going to be of limited benefit. There used to be direct William St peak hour services but they were discontinued due to little patronage. How many people on those lines want to go to those areas of the city? Have they even tried to find out? No, they are just moving lines on a map to make it look like they are doing something, a bit like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The Metro tunnel is not going to do much to relieve overcrowding on trams in St Kilda Rd because the location of the station won't be convenient for most workers, and the train frequency will be nowhere near the tram frequency. But by moving services to Spencer or William they can try and force people onto the trains by making the tram service worse. Frequency is freedom. Run frequent services and more people will use PT and there will be less cars on the road. But how are they spending our money? On more tram and train services? No. They are spending our money on level crossing removal that will benefit road users - they can already run as many trains as they want through level crossings, it just means booms stay down longer. I'm not saying the crossings should not be removed, but I am saying it is deceptive to market it as improving train services when it is solely for the benefit of road traffic. Let the road budget pay for it, not the public transport budget. But the biggest waste of money is the Metro tunnel itself. It is of little benefit. All it will do is take Sunbury trains out of the Northern loop. Dandy trains already have the Caulfield loop to themselves, the Frankston to Werribee trains already have sole use of the Through viaduct tracks, and the Sandy trains already have exclusive use of platform 13. Capacity on those lines cannot be increased more than what is available now. They have wasted over 11 billion dollars just to take Sunbury trains out of the Northern loop and to serve areas already served by frequent trams with less frequent trains. They could have spent a fraction of that money altering the portals of the existing city loop and achieved greater extra capacity. A city the size of Melbourne still runs trains only every 30 mins at night, trams every 20 mins. Many daytime train frequencies are 20 mins, trams 12 - 15 mins. Start running more frequent services and then we can fine tune the system to match the demand and effectively plan major projects where they will do the most good. We have big new trams and big new tram stops that are under-utilised because we run tram and train services to a frequency more suited to a sleepy outback town than a big thriving city of 5 million people.
The idea of the Metro tunnel is to give the Caulfield loop to the Frankston line and have the Sandringham line take over from Frankston line for going through to Werribee/Williamstown lines.
@@yiannisdanatzis2889 Yes, which does absolutely nothing to increase capacity. The Sandringham line already has FSS plats 12 and 13 to itself. The Frankston line already has the through viaduct to itself. The PKM/CBE lines already have the Caulfield loop to themselves. They are just shuffling things around without making any improvement.
How many trams will get their own dedicated tram line. If the trams become stuck with regular traffic, There is low incentive to take the tram. Even when there is congestion, it's more logical to have the trams a flow of movement so you can put more trams on 1 track and people dont pile up at the tramstop because the tram is late, again. also make the space of useless parking spots along major roads dedicated tram lanes and or to dedicated safe bike lanes. Trams can carry the most people per square meter through the city. more trams less cars.
The Commonwealth Government regulations and legislation state that both are correct: web.archive.org/web/20221206070746/www.dva.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/about%20dva/recognition/guidelines-use-of-the-word-anzac.pdf And in the case of this station, the official nomenclature is 'Anzac': bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/metro-tunnel/stations/anzac
Very informative. I'm a mass rapid transit fan. I think with Melbourne's population growth, and vehicular traffic growth, trams are rather slow and are limited in the amount of people they can move.
I would imagine train horns and safety will become more of an issue in the near future as it already is a nuisance for residents living near Metropolitain rail lines and stations. Philip do you have access to this The Train Horn Working Group? Can you find any information about how the working group will find ways to conform with RiSSB Code of Practice - Rail Traffic Train Horn Use? We the residents have had enough with train horns.
Then you shouldn't have moved by a train line. It's your own fault. Unless of course you lived there before the lines were built. You're like those idiots that move near the airport and complain about plane noise
@@shaunmckenzie5509 u r brainless and have no idea mate. I've been hear for 50+ years and in the pas 5 or so years they've introduced new xtrapolis trains with loud horns (much louder than the older trains) and a hell of a lot more services. so stop calling residents near rail lines idiots! in my view PTV and the State Gov and people with your view are the idiots
@@shaunmckenzie5509 and if you wish to educate yourself on rail then have a go at reading the "RiSSB Code of Practice - Rail Traffic Train Horn Use?", as more people move in closer to rail the more they'll complain about the horn use and train drivers, PTV and the State Gov will have to listen for a change to residents living near rail lines and they'll stop treating us like second-class citizens and being detrimental to our health and wellbeing.
@@philipmallis ah yeah...see! Missed the 2024 in your title. Good job mate! You melbournians should force the goverment hard to get accessible stops. Some stops on your network are absolutely non accessible....and I am talking about the stops and not the tram .
Do the new tracks in South Yarra mean trams will ho back to running along Patk St/Domain Rd as they used to? And if so, does that mean they'll remove the tracks at the western end of Toorak Rd?
Good question! Nothing has been confirmed yet. The latest from DTP is that they are currently looking at what to do once the Metro Tunnel opens: web.archive.org/web/20230327094038/www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/domain-road-trams-may-be-gone-for-good-after-metro-tunnel-works-end-20230324-p5cv0n.html
A lot of people currently using the trams on Swanston St have already paid as they have come in on the train and changed to the tram at Flinders or Melbourne Central. Now they won't need to get off the train at all if their destination is Parkville (Universities and Hospitals) or Domain interchange.
I was wanting to see such plan for a long time now, my idea is to extend route 75 and 70 to go all the way to Footscray and use route 86 for access to District Docklands?(turn left into Docklands Drive)
Once again, an authoritative and upbeat perspective. Arden station is in the middle of a ghost town. So expensive to build, but I can't see where all the passengers are going to come from. Changing transport modes in and out will take a bit of walking. Sure, there's been talk of all kinds of building projects. But that will take years to complete. If you haven't already, worth you going to have a look see sometime.
Currently the 12 and 109 are the same from the Crown Casino Junction to Victoria Gardens. Better use of the 12 would be to continue it up Spencer Street and build new tracks to Arden station, and then possibly connect to the 57 or 59 on Flemington Rd. This provides a tram from the western end of the city to the north.
@@74_pelicans Build it and they will come is more often than not, a fallacy where the wrong thing is created for an imaginary audience. The Upfield line is a 10+ minute walk, (one of) the least used lines on the network. It has plenty of spare capacity. You should go have a good look at the area, parts of North Melbourne are among the least densely populated areas in the inner city. Arden station and the plans for its surroundings, has a whiff of the Docklands failed promises of 20+ years ago. I guess time will tell.
Since we know the 12 will be getting Gs at some point (I think), maybe the 12 should go along Latrobe and the 75 along Collins? This would remove the awkward turn from Spring St to Latrobe and the 48 already has to go along Collins from the same direction. Alternatively, the 11 could also run along Latrobe and swap termini with one of the Waterfront City routes? Maybe a combination of these could work since Latrobe St is extremely congested at peak time
Get 4 months extra on a 2 year plan here: nordvpn.com/coffeepalace . It's risk free with Nord's 30 day money-back guarantee!
🤢 nord
May I suggest keeping the sponsor graphics on the screen for the entire segment, so those of us who aren't interested can easily see where the ad begins and ends? It was a bit frustrating to skip through it only to realise that the sponsored section is still going. Adding chapters to the video to separate it from the content would be even better! Thanks Philip and keep up the good work
@@locator566 Thanks very much, and thanks for the suggestion! I've added in chapter marks now, hope that helps :)
A line dissecting North Melbourne - Collingwood would be a game changer for so many people
ABSOLUTLEY
This is a perfect opportunity to look at extensions to our tram network. The last one was in 2005
Absolutely. They could easily extend the tram lines along the Burwood Highway to Ferntree Gully
@Andrew-df1dr ah, Burwood Hwy doesn't go to Lilydale, so I'm not sure how that would work. They should at least extend the 75 to Knox city as was originally promised
@@gerrym75 meant Ferntree Gully. My mistake. Thank you for pulling me up on it and I have altered my comment accordingly.
I would love for tram to go up to at least the intersection of Burwood Highway and Ferntree Gully Road, if not further.
@@Andrew-df1drthey had proposed extending that to at least knox city a few times. If the current government stays in power long enough we might actually get the damn thing instead of taken off the table again.
@@meikahidenori It would certainly get the numbers, especially as there is a council building, library, hotel ecta all nearby
Interesting point about the tram lines down Elizabeth Street. I always wondered why they never connected to the lines on Flinders - seems like it would have been a no brainer when the network was built, even if to increase the ability to move trams around the network or when maintenance machines were tram based. However, network wise I think there will be minimal if any infrastructure spend.
Melbourne’s tram system was initially built by separate “Tramways Trusts”, not a single planning body. As such, there was little point in separate trusts linking their routes with others.
@@paulorocky I believe this is also how it ended up as large as it is.
I would love to expansion of the tram network out to the western suburbs....
not enough demand
@@electro_sykes More like not enough supply.
Not enough demand? 😂
They're all safe Labor seats. The only way to change this is to vote in Liberal Party candidates (not "independents" or Marxist Greens who always side with Labor).
@@edmundcarew7235 Maaaaaaaate.... you have to stop smoking those weird funny cigarettes.... as they are really warping your outlook......! "Liberal" Party Candidates! Nice one... what a joke! What a joker!!
There have been talks about Spencer St, North of Latrobe St becoming a busy main street for West Melbourne, so if the route 5 is rerouted via Spencer, then it is more than likely it would be extended up to Arden Station.
Also there's still no discussion about an east west connecting line, north of Victoria St which is really sad given how fast the north is densifying.
Grattan St is being rebuilt outside the uni, and in the plans the bus lanes were explicitly labelled as potential future tram lanes. So at the very least, some planners in DoT are thinking about an inner north orbital. I think the first priority for the tram network will probably be an extension down Spencer all the way out to Arden and maybe even beyond, then the orbital route.
I think it’s good for the Elizabeth St trams to continue on rather than terminate at Flinders St. I hope they choose slightly more diverging routes though, given that the 57 and 59 share so much of the same route from Flemington Bridge. I think that sending them both out to the sporting grounds will mainly benefit those in the east getting to the city, rather than those who currently use those routes.
I think it’d be much better to send one route down towards Spencer St instead, either via La Trobe or Flinders St. That will improve connections with trams along William and Spencer St. The best routes will really depend on what happens with tram frequency after the upgrades for the G-Class trams, and what happens with other routes
Route 57 should have connecting track built at Victoria Street across Elizabeth Street so it can be connected to a Swanston Street route
@@davidbayley9588 this is being done mid year this year,Victoria st will be relaid with a connection across Elizabeth st and new curves into Swanston st at Victoria st (check out the projects tab on the YT Website.
Thanks! I’d also be really pleased if they could put a simple arrow display at the Flinders Street 19 terminus to indicate which side the tram is leaving next. It’s a scrum every day and with the historic green shed there it’s a really tight squeeze for people to sidle past the trams.
Elizabeth St lines serviced by two depots; Brunswick & Essendon - half the time the drivers wouldn't know which tram is the next to leave, all dependent on when their own table card tells them to leave. Depending on how delayed/on time the tram is, you could plausibly see an on-time tram sit for there for up to 4 minutes, or a late tram leave as soon as it arrives- There would be no plausible way for a 'simple arrow display' to accurately display which tram is leaving first
Ah thanks. Understood.@@radiojake1757
If the 5 is moved to Spencer St which is a good idea, the tracks need to be extended up into West Melbourne and onwards to Arden to capture the large number of appartments in the area now.
In that case, maybe route 64 should should also serve Arden station, rather than Waterfront.
Re the scramble crossing at Elizabeth St Flinders St, City of Melb is considering closing Flinders St to vehicle traffic long term. If that occurs it will solve the problem of trams turning through the intersection. Given EB Flinders has been closed to vehicles since 2019 it would be easy to retain this closure as everyone has adjusted to it.
A few other public documents exist with tram changes.
You might want to check the reference VITM network in the latest Infrastructure Victoria bus discussion papers. It fills in a few missing link tracks, including on Victoria St Carlton, Maribyrnong Rd Essendon, Miller St Preston, and Park St Sth Melb.
There's also the Fishermans Bend plans for Collins St trams continuing across the Yarra.
The fisherman’s Bend tram plan is my question. There’s huge roadworks at the end of Plummer St Port Melbourne. I’m curious as to whether that’s the start of the tramline infrastructure? Any info would be greatly appreciated 🙂
@@DrummingsFun Simply put no... The bridge / tunnel for the Yarra Crossing needs to be determined first, before they will even consider any forward works in Fishermens Bend. And there are no end of problems with it right now.
I wish they would build decent tram shelters.
The ones they have provide very little protection from anything.
I remember when they wanted to extend the Bundoora Line all the way to Port Melbourne.
With Tram Franchise ready for Renewal soon. This I guess will greatly effect where and how they link the Tram Network with the new Suburban loop.
Definitely 57 route will see a possible extension into the Wellington St Siding.
58 will stay the same.
Except G class will take over as all of the trams will come from the New Maidstone Depot.
Then we have one of the only two suburban line's. The Moone Pond's too Footscray. This could be expected to Central Pier. Or With it's own Terminus on the North Side of Waterfront City. Or even onto the disused track on Harbour Espenalade. Giving the densely populated Docklands yet another Tram Service.
A few comments, if I may:
- Straight lines rock.
- 12 via LaTrobe would be a very sensible thing to do providing direct access from VicGardens to Melbourne Central. It would release Collins from too many trams and substitute 30 almost in its entirety.
- I would absolutely keep 75 as is (Bridge Rd to Flinders is essential because it's a straight line), probably cutting it down at Central Pier because it is already long enough and there are many others going past that point. It is also massively convenient for passengers going to Camberwell that they can board 70 or 75 at Flinders and end up where they're going either way. (Massively helpful during disruptions, too).
- For the same reason, I think 5 and 64 should maintain their togetherness (not sure whether to favour William or Spencer in that scheme).
Why would keeping 75 and 70 together along Flinders be better? Better to split them so people in Camberwell/Hawthorn can get to either the north and south parts of the CBD on a single tram.
@@simonlumb7523 the users can do so considerably faster by changing to any of the perpendicular routes in the CBD (e.g. 19/57/59 at Flinders) or simply walking. Either option is guaranteed to be faster than waiting for a specific tram out of those two, particularly so outside the weekday peak hours.
True, but those routes don't take you to the north east area of the CBD/museum/St Vincents etc. or change into trams that go out to the north east side.
@@simonlumb7523 true - but do they have to?
Collins and Bourke routes are reachable within a very short walk (particularly from 75 which has a convenient stop at Spring St for that), and for those who are not comfortable with even short walks - I believe 35 should be brought back as bidirectional.
Judging by how many people change or get off at Spring St and how many of them stay aboard, straight 75 as it is is perfectly fine, either. The only (small and easily fixable) problem here is outbound 48/75 don't have a shared stop at Spring St corner.
Finally, you can also easily change from either 70 or 75 to 246 bus along Punt Rd (arguably the only reasonable bus service in Melbourne except for Doncaster group) if you need to get to places like Collingwood and not bother going via CBD at all. Diverted 75 won't be an improvement even over that, time wise.
Good video. You said your a transport planner, we need you in Ballarat to fix our atrocious Bus system.
Our Good Mayor can't even get a meeting with PTV Transport
Great vid Philip, appreciate your regular vids updating us on changes to the network.
I just thought I'd add that I think the new accessible parkville tram stop opened a couple of weeks ago. At least I saw an announcement saying so (hopefully I'm not mistaken) I plan to head there this weekend to check it out anyhow.
Thanks very much, and yes you're right! Last I saw it only part of the platforms were open, but trams are stopping there so technically I think that counts as being opened :)
You should do one for metro services changes when the metro rail tunnel opens
Longer tram routes mean more delays and more chance disruptions on a route will affect more people. I think Elizebeth Street trams should continue to terminate there. There isn't much benefit to a minor extension around Flinders Street and I think it will simply slow down the Elizebeth Street trams and also make the busy pedestrian intersection more complex and less efficient.
If your new 64 route continued on past Flagstaff, you could add/link a left track turn from Peel St into Victoria St (so onto the existing route 57) and then extend the tracks on Queensberry St past Abbotsford St a couple of blocks to Arden station. That would be a relatively quick and inexpensive way to link the tram network to Arden.
They have to upgrade Flinders St station on Elizabeth Street. It's the most dangerous stop in the cbd. In my opinion just remove the road acces and make it pedestrian only.
When do we get to the point that we just fully pedestrianise Flinders between Swanston and Elizabeth?
Ok but will I still be able to tell people that Swanston St is the busiest tram corridor in the world after all this? Or at least do we retain the title somewhere else in the city?
Love to hear your thoughts on changes to tram tracks..points, extensions, turn backs. That would be ideal. The gov has been hopeless on small level and service changes on buses and trams.
How about extending the diverted 5 all the way to Arden station?
Geelong to Melbourne
- linking trams direct to Flinders St / Docklands / Southbank / MCG / Tennis centre / Theatres / Victoria Market - all the biggest tourist attractions with one Myki card - VLine & trams - keeping it simple! 😊
Great video, thanks for the map. I'm curious about the plans to bring trams to Fishermans Bend. The proposed bridge seems to be in doubt, but it's greatly needed.
I was sitting at a tram stop on Chapel St a couple of weeks ago in Prahran and overhead 2 people talking about one side was having parking removed to create "accessible" tram stops. That's a big change for Chapel St if true.
3:49 doesn't the 58 already turn right from park into Kingsway?
Route 5 to Spencer St would also need the Park Street track extension (Kings Way to Heather St). Much talked about but not done. (Or is that's what's meant by turning right from Park St into Kings Way?).
A Elizabeth St turn would be a safety nightmare in either direction plus a 3rd track would be needed otherwise a backlog (for trams turning into Elizabeth blocking flinders street ones) seems inevitable!
That whole intersection is wrong atm, the whole thing should be pedestrian orientated as the scramble crossing is always too busy on the flinders station side, with kerbing designed to prioritise cars
What about the former tram line along Domain Road and Park Street in South Yarra?
Yes agree taking trams from Domain Rd & Park Str was so wrong and needs to be restored. That spent a fortune on the tram track so trams could turn straight into Domain Rd. Then ripped up & trams now turn into Toorak Rd. BIG MISTAKE needs to divert back asap.
The latest update from DTP is that they are looking at it, more information here: web.archive.org/web/20230327094038/www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/domain-road-trams-may-be-gone-for-good-after-metro-tunnel-works-end-20230324-p5cv0n.html
Hi Philip, I noticed in a photo taken in the Elsternwick in the ‘50s that there was a tram line rounding the corner of Broadway and Glenhuntly rd. What happened to it? BTW, on the corner was a large dance hall / cabaret.
Thanks for this video, I didn't expect it to be so interesting to be honest.
Another great video Phil, well done.
The tram network is critical infrastructure and has been neglected for a long time.
There is a lot of room for improvement.
I look forward to these changes.
It is currently a nightmare trying to provide any feedback.
The services currently provided at Jolimont respond poorly to big events.
We have an under-utilised super stop, with a service dominated by small trams.
The system suffers from poor administration, dirty trams, bad drivers and rough tracks that need a lot of of TLC.
Any info about getting rid of car traffic in the CBD this will help immensely
Hi Philip, do you have any information on the Trams that were on Tram road Doncaster? I think they were the first Electric Trams in Australia.
I do! I made a video on this topic earlier this year. You can also see the references I used in the video description for more information: th-cam.com/video/ZzdYWYDJVH8/w-d-xo.html
i think that the idea of having the the route 5 terminating at the existing spencer st terminus is a good idea as it sets up the posibility for it to be extended to arden station. Also is there any way to access the map since the link is not working.
Edit: looking at the map, if the 64 was to terminate at flagstaff, would it make more scence to have it labeled as terminating at queen vic market since the terminating tracks are a few blocks away from flagstaff station.
There is no stop at QVM before the Dudley street sidings, the last stop would be Flagstaff before running empty into the siding.
@@itechcircle9410 yeah but i mean they could make a stop where the turnback is, a platform on either side and it would be easy since it is surrounded by a park and has not many instructions. It would probably work in a similar way to the st kilda terminus on the 96
@@Revilok08 Good idea, they have the space for it so why not. Seems a waste that it isn't used more often...and it's about time that changed.
Not sure what to think as I catch the 5 & 64 often to get into the city. I suppose I’ll have to change trams somewhere on St kilda RD
Off topic but still vaguely relevant , is I’ve just noticed that on NYE Swanston street trams ( travelling along st kilda rd) will all the terminating at Anzac station leaving a 1 km walk into the city. I’m sure in previous years they used to terminate them at the arts centre.
What is funny is signage at the art precinct and fed square trams stops proudly boasting that there will be more trams on NYE when in fact both those stops will be closed.
@@SandyCrack69 i mean it really depends on where abouts you go in the city, this proposed arrangement i think is much better as it gives passengers more options to what side of the city they need to go to, plus makes it easier for the entierty of st kilda road to access southern cross by easily changing at anzac, it also makes anzac more of a major interchange unlike now where all city bound routes go either via swanston st or william st
I suspect a more likely alternative could be route 75 via Collins Street and route 12 via La Trobe Street. The intersection of Collins and Spencer is the most problematic one remaining and this would simplify it further leaving only one route turning, while also increasing capacity along Collins which is sorely needed.
Capacity along Collins St has been caused by reductions in tram frequencies over the years. Restore those frequencies and Collins St congestion can be eliminated without rearranging routes.
Can you answer the question that has bugged me for years - Why does the Toorak Road Tram stop at Glenferrie road and not continue further down Toorak Road ?
My understanding is that it was because of the tramway companies competing the railway companies. Like the others in the area that terminate very close to but not at a railway station, the tramway companies wanted as many passengers for as much of their trip as possible. They figured that making it more convenient to just stay on the tram for the whole trip would make them more money.
Equally, why don’t they extend the 48 line out along Doncaster/Mitcham Roads & the 72 along Burke Road to Doncaster Road? That would make a lot of Doncaster able to access public transport and Camberwell shops accessible to people in the northern part of Boroondara & Manngham. Plus Whites Corner/Shoppingtown becomes accessible by tram from two directions. Parking there is often difficult and access by tram would be splendid.
Please do a video on a tram extension into Avondale Heights/East Keilor and the transport black hole of these areas.
I think you mentioned the linking of the tram routes near the Vic market ,,, they apparently only 50 meters apart ,,we live on the 1and 6 route in Brunswick .Be interested in understanding how this would affect the and benefit the system,, apart from us having better access to the other routes.
I love Melbourne ❤❤
what do you mean by new tracks enabling trams to turn right from Park St onto Kings Way? Isn't that what the 58 currently does right now?
Ah yes, I meant to say Clarendon Street instead of Kings Way - thanks for picking it up!
There is no room in kings way for a new tram line (unless you mean the part past Flinders street travelling south).That road is already the main cross city road and congested most of the time.
The curve at Flinders & Elizabeth will be very tight. How well will the D2's which are fixed bogie trams go negotiating that? They handle the current 19 route relatively well given it almost straight for its entire length
I can't see the curve being any different to the curve that the D2's already deal with when turning left from Sydney Rd > Moreland Rd and also Holmes St > Moreland Rd
It's more what it does to the rail.@@radiojake1757
I would love tram 70 to be reinstated to its original root along the yarra
This seems interesting.
By the way, the link in the description for the tram map does not work.
Thanks, should be fixed now!
Great video Philip, I really hope these changes will actually end up implemented when the Metro Tunnel opens. Quick question though - how will routes 5 and 64 get from St Kilda Rd to Clarendon St? Do these plans also include new tracks in the middle of Park St where there currently are none?
There is meant to be a new 300m section of new tram track along Park Street, between Kingsway and Clarendon Street. It was funded in the last state budget
Using the model PTV seem to want including additional routes on LaTrobe, Spencer and William Streets, these are my ideas:
- Route 3 to terminate at Spencer & LaTrobe via Park and Clarendon Streets. This will give passengers on Balaclava and St. Kilda Roads choice to enter the city via Spencer Street or Swanston Street on 16/67.
- Route 64 to terminate at Flagstaff station via William Street. After 7:30pm only Route 58 to service William Street, same as today. This will also give Dandenong Road passengers choice of either arriving in the City on William Street or Swanston Street on 5.
- Route 12 to travel through the city on LaTrobe and Spencer Streets rather than Collins Street to increase services along LaTrobe Street.
- Route 75 to travel the same route as 48 via Spring and Collins Street to terminate at Victoria Harbour to keep the current frequency of trams along Collins Street. Not sure if the terminating facilities at Vic Harbour could support three routes though.
- Routes 19, 57 and 59 to extend along Flinders Street as described in this video.
Great summary of all the information provided in the public media. Excellent video!
It would be good to see St Kilda Rd tram routes like 5 & 64 transfer to Spencer Street, this way they can extend to Docklands Drive together with route 86 while route 70 gets rerouted to run along Elizabeth Street and combine with route 57 to make the two become one route (similar to what happened with route 58) and route 75 to extend all the way to Footscray?
The map link in the description doesn't work
yeah, i had the same thing too
Sorry about that, should be working now!
What is going to happen with Melbourne bus network with all the retendering of all bus routes how they will devide the suberbs into north south east and west ? Love your work.
Thank you! I'm not across the details of retendering bus routes unfortunately. I'd recommend keeping an eye on the Melbourne on Transit blog which would definitely have more information: melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/
How can we get the nutters off the 86 tram?
Not much can be done about the nutters sadly.
Not just the 86, how can we get the nutters off the planet?
finally those latrobe tram stops were SKINNY
One has the feeling that our transport "planners" don't have a clue as to where our tram users actually want to travel or where the actual need is. Bridge Rd trams cannot carry the passengers at times so the proposed extension to Elizabeth Street trams stops at Hoddle St. Useless. Some years ago they doubled the wait time at Young and Jackson's to go to Bridge Rd when they rerouted the 48 tram. The plan to send the 75 up Spring St would then destroy the shortest and quickest way to the city from Richmond. Crazy stuff!
The 48 going up Collins St is idiotic. Bridge Rd used to have a daytime frequency of 4 mins by combining the 12 mins North Balwyn (48), 12 mins Burwood (75) and running an additional 12 mins Richmond shuttle (28). Transport planners are on drugs.
You are correct Ashley.@@AshleyReynolds-vc6ly
I’m concerned that Labor kill keep shooting itself in the foot and the LNP preference is for cost cutting reductions. Both parties won’t act logically as you propose. I hope everything you suggested goes ahead.
I think you forgot at add flagstaff station on the map
Lets face it. The most important thing for the tram network is to better align traffic lights and trams. Especially in the cbd.
love your work.
Im thinking a possible tram change could be to swap routes 11 and 109, which would allow e classes to go on the port melbourne light rail
Also this could allow southbank e class to co-operate route 11 if there was a need to.
I would like to see route 96 to merge with route 78. I think this would be a great idea.
@@electro_sykes thats one idea although would e class be needed along chapel st? Im not familiar with that area of Melbourne so not sure.
My thoughts with the 78 is combine it with route 30. It would turn left onto victoria road then continue along latrobe st where 30 currently does.
@@electro_sykes Bad idea. Traffic congestion along Chapel St is acute, linking the lines will subject the 96 service to late running.
@@AshleyReynolds-vc6ly Agree! Far too many selfish motorists driving one kilometre to the shops, and holding up trams and other vehicles while they attempt to find a parking spot and reverse into it. Plus Chapel St has so many traffic lights (not that much of inner Melbourne is any better: the VicRoads obsession with lights even on relatively minor streets feeding in to main roads.
How confident are you that Route 19 will continue to Jolimont Station? (That means i could take one tram to the MCG!) Would be cool if true.
Between the transport planner rumour mill and the small tidbits of information that have come out to date, I would be reasonably confident that this is what happens in the end. But we'll have to wait and see!
I must point this the Route 58 happened in 2017
They need to reinstate the tram stop on cnr of Swanston Str. &
Lonsdale Str. Removing that stop was a hugh mistake
Having to walk from Queen Vic Central to Bourke Street with shopping is no fun at all especially for the Elderly. Who's scensless idea was that Big Mistake.
would route 58 and 59 still go pass royal children hospital
yes
The tram terminus in Elizaberh St might have made sense 100 years ago, but should have been eliminated long ago.
If it is eliminated, then pedestrianisation of Elizabeth street probably should come with that.
Seems a bit unfair that both Dandenong rd trams have to go via CBD west instead of Swanston st. Removing the Elizabeth st terminus would be fantastic though.
C’mon can’t adverts just be 15secs
I know this about trams, but why isn't metro tunnel 4 tracks like the city loop, like including Frankston and Craigieburn.
Only one line is going through it and the tracks are unidirectional. This, combined with CBTC means the track doesn’t need extra capacity.
If Frankston was to go through the metro tunnel then what would be left to use the Caufield loop?
@@billdoggonejoneswhy not have 4 tracks and more lines running through it?
@@soulsphere9242just an example, doesn't have to be like this.
But to answer your question, 5/6 would now be clear at Richmond, move for example Glen Waverley and and or Alamein on to this pair, with a existing infrastructure already there. Just creates so many more opportunities, especially as the the station entry is the hardest part, going down another 10m for another track pair would be a smaller cost
@@74_pelicans because of the way it comes out at the south Kensington end. From there you’d only be able to do Sunbury, Werribee or Regional Rail Link tracks, not leaving you with a lot of options for electric suburban traffic; you can only go Werribee or Williamstown.
And...... There are no trams from the new Fishermans Bend development to Anzac Stations, St Kilda, or St Kilda Road..........................
The tram map link in the description takes you to a page that says error 404
Thanks, should be fixed now!
Get ready for a LOT of argument about how the trams will be prioritized around Flinders and Elizabeth... and how confusing it will be for everyone when the priorities change by time of day... let alone the competing demands between the trams (and their variable priorities), the Barnes Walk (scramble), general pedestrians, shop delivery vehicles, taxis, cyclists and buses (they'll want 'equal time' in terms of upgrades and certainly priority). Who will decide if 'more time' gets to pedestrians in a Barnes Walk when there are 6 trams routes, all running late... and a couple of buses which are trying to get through because of roadworks and construction on their routes... let alone when events are on at Melbourne Park, the MCG, the theatres (St Kilda Rd), the Exhibition Centre... Wot a can of worms....
The problem is that the holes in the ground are sucking up all the money to do any of these things.
Every one of these projects is massively over budget.
Whatever happens with the Elizabeth Street terminus it really needs to be upgraded. If routes don't extend further then a 3 platform setup so each route has it's own platform would be a big improvement given the rest of Elizabeth St is all superstops.
Yeah it's got to be the worst tram stop in the CBD...
@philipmallis I think you'll find that the alleged actual plans have been posted somewhere publicly, you've just gotta go .to a particular forum. 289085 might be of use as well. 😉
You're far off the mark with 75, and I'm not sure why you'd bother adding extra turns to the longest route, as well as loss of half of the capacity along Flinders St West, which would struggle with just 70 alone. Despite Camberwell going completely B2, you're cutting it by about a 1/3rd.
Other things I'd expect to happen would be potentially 72 getting split (thanks to Burke Rd), and something involving 64/16, especially with depot capacity issues coming up with Malvern and retirement of Z3's in particular.
Other little hints hidden within other documents and comments others have said include;
Expansion of Brunswick depot. (one would imagine this will move 6 completely to Brunswick, freeing up space at Malvern for larger stock, probably B2's)
In the same vein, looking at the locations of new power substations give some clue as to where new trams might be ending up, or where capacity is going to be increased at some point.
The fact Essendon is retained as a running depot. Whether this means the dregs of 58 is retained there or taken to Maidstone/Southbank remains to be seen.
The fact 58 won't (most likely) be getting any of the G's, based off promotional material, which potentially leaves about 40% of them going to another depot.
Options are also limited as to depot capacity, however I wouldn't be surprised if it's a depot with predominantly smaller trams (Z3 or A) that the extra G's end up at.
The Arden planning documents having certain tram routes mapped out. This definitely hints at minimum one, if not two routes into Arden. One can only presume this is from Clarendon St, and by extension, St Kilda Rd.
Combining this with the architectural drawings for Anzac showing a reconnection into Domain Rd/Park St, this poses a number of interesting city route prospects, probably using the potential Domain turnaround.
And finally the now well outdated Fisherman's Bend planning documents, which hint at extensions for 11/48, and a new depot at Westgate.
Given there's a new planning study funded federally in 2023/24, I wouldn't be surprised if we see changes to that.
Capacity will need to be found somewhere, especially with a growing system, and growing lengths of trams.
This combined with overcrowding breaches, could make the system look very different in 5-10 years, with different priorities.
Tram Plan also does allude to this, and a fix in that the system might be moving to a tiered frequency. Whether this means more "short" routes", or just some sensible reroutings, it'll make some logical sense.
Conclusions could very easily be drawn about where the system is going, without needing a crystal ball, it's more just piecing the map together with relevant documents.
As the metro tunnel has gone over budget (trains interfering with the hospital equipment), they might not be able to build the Park Street tram link.
The leaks from The Age suggust this isn't happening, critical piece of infrastructure though
There is talk of the 16 and the 64 joining so if that happen the report would be correct in the route 3 permanently going via St Kilda.
The most useful part of the changes will be connecting St Kilda Road directly with Southern Cross station
i saw jalimont station
I live on route 75 and noticed today small signs on the accesible stops saying "No low floor trams operating". I know this has already been reported elsewhere, but I do find it odd that we still only have B class on this route, given its length. I rode it home from the city all the way to the end recently and it was pretty full all the way to Deakin, then when those people got off a bunch of new passengers got on to head home from Uni so the demand is there. It would be great to see E classes running on the 75 one day.
Camberwell Depot only has A and B class trams at their depot
@radiojake1757 yep, I understand that, but is that because they can't accommodate anything bigger? And therefore are we stuck with B's until they build a new depo, like Maidstone?
@@gerrym75 I know the new G class are earmarked for Essendon depot - they also don't have any low floor trams which is interesting considering how long Flemington Rd has had accessible stops (with no accessible trams) - Don't know which other (if any) depots are going to get the G's - but basically I don't think there is enough low floor trams across the network to accommodate each depot
Yes I've seen those to! I think the 75 would be a good bet for future rollout of trams. Given the length and (increasing) travel demand along the route, I would say it needs longer trams than the current G class design - maybe it will get the possible future G2 class trams, which would be five carriages long. Also the fact that it has quite a few accessible stops but no accessible trams at the moment.
The "new" no low floor trams sign has been rolled out to any accessible stop with no low floor trams. It is part of DSAPT "compliance"
Agree, we now pay extra for what ?
Dirty, Crowded, always late trams.
The old trams need a ramp on oneside for prams & shopping trolley's extremely hard to lift a pram & trolly up the steps.
Wake Up Tramway
Organisers get your act together and make Excecutive Decisions dust iff the Cobwebs and do something.
I'm hoping that PTV and the state government reconsider the proposed ANZAC station name underneath Domain junction. Considering that over 2,000 people voted for Domain, and only a few hundred voted for ANZAC, it would be nice if the government actually respected the public's wishes, instead of foisting a name change on us that nobody asked for. Eg, Spencer st to Southern Cross.
Your video just highlights the fact that public transport in Melbourne is run by incompetent peanuts. Tram crowding is caused by not running enough trams to meet demand. Yes, there is a limit to track capacity, but for the most part Melbourne is nowhere near that capacity. Up to the 1950s they ran trams as frequently as they were needed. Since the Bolte years they have been quick to cut services, but very slow to increase them. Look at Friday nights for example and how slow they have been to increase frequencies to meet demand, on many lines there has been no increase since the 15 minute service was reduced to 20 minutes in the 1960s. And that is just one example. Many of the crowding problems you mention could be solved simply by restoring services to the frequencies they once operated at years ago.
Diverting the 5 and 64 to Spencer or William is going to be of limited benefit. There used to be direct William St peak hour services but they were discontinued due to little patronage. How many people on those lines want to go to those areas of the city? Have they even tried to find out? No, they are just moving lines on a map to make it look like they are doing something, a bit like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The Metro tunnel is not going to do much to relieve overcrowding on trams in St Kilda Rd because the location of the station won't be convenient for most workers, and the train frequency will be nowhere near the tram frequency. But by moving services to Spencer or William they can try and force people onto the trains by making the tram service worse.
Frequency is freedom. Run frequent services and more people will use PT and there will be less cars on the road. But how are they spending our money? On more tram and train services? No. They are spending our money on level crossing removal that will benefit road users - they can already run as many trains as they want through level crossings, it just means booms stay down longer. I'm not saying the crossings should not be removed, but I am saying it is deceptive to market it as improving train services when it is solely for the benefit of road traffic. Let the road budget pay for it, not the public transport budget.
But the biggest waste of money is the Metro tunnel itself. It is of little benefit. All it will do is take Sunbury trains out of the Northern loop. Dandy trains already have the Caulfield loop to themselves, the Frankston to Werribee trains already have sole use of the Through viaduct tracks, and the Sandy trains already have exclusive use of platform 13. Capacity on those lines cannot be increased more than what is available now. They have wasted over 11 billion dollars just to take Sunbury trains out of the Northern loop and to serve areas already served by frequent trams with less frequent trains. They could have spent a fraction of that money altering the portals of the existing city loop and achieved greater extra capacity.
A city the size of Melbourne still runs trains only every 30 mins at night, trams every 20 mins. Many daytime train frequencies are 20 mins, trams 12 - 15 mins. Start running more frequent services and then we can fine tune the system to match the demand and effectively plan major projects where they will do the most good. We have big new trams and big new tram stops that are under-utilised because we run tram and train services to a frequency more suited to a sleepy outback town than a big thriving city of 5 million people.
Here here
The idea of the Metro tunnel is to give the Caulfield loop to the Frankston line and have the Sandringham line take over from Frankston line for going through to Werribee/Williamstown lines.
@@yiannisdanatzis2889 Yes, which does absolutely nothing to increase capacity. The Sandringham line already has FSS plats 12 and 13 to itself. The Frankston line already has the through viaduct to itself. The PKM/CBE lines already have the Caulfield loop to themselves. They are just shuffling things around without making any improvement.
Melbourne transport system is quite backward compared to Singapore.
Link not working
Thanks, should be fixed now!
All I want is more suburban trams!
It would've been better if the Elizabeth street tram intersection connected together with Flinder street
How many trams will get their own dedicated tram line. If the trams become stuck with regular traffic, There is low incentive to take the tram. Even when there is congestion, it's more logical to have the trams a flow of movement so you can put more trams on 1 track and people dont pile up at the tramstop because the tram is late, again. also make the space of useless parking spots along major roads dedicated tram lanes and or to dedicated safe bike lanes. Trams can carry the most people per square meter through the city. more trams less cars.
ANZAC is an acronym and should be upper case.
The Commonwealth Government regulations and legislation state that both are correct: web.archive.org/web/20221206070746/www.dva.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/about%20dva/recognition/guidelines-use-of-the-word-anzac.pdf
And in the case of this station, the official nomenclature is 'Anzac': bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/metro-tunnel/stations/anzac
Very informative. I'm a mass rapid transit fan. I think with Melbourne's population growth, and vehicular traffic growth, trams are rather slow and are limited in the amount of people they can move.
True but also since there are many roads its cheaper, to convert them for rail rather than demolish existing homes to make a rail line.
I would imagine train horns and safety will become more of an issue in the near future as it already is a nuisance for residents living near Metropolitain rail lines and stations. Philip do you have access to this The Train Horn Working Group? Can you find any information about how the working group will find ways to conform with RiSSB Code of Practice - Rail Traffic Train Horn Use? We the residents have had enough with train horns.
Then you shouldn't have moved by a train line. It's your own fault. Unless of course you lived there before the lines were built.
You're like those idiots that move near the airport and complain about plane noise
@@shaunmckenzie5509 you have no idea mate! stop being a schmuck and grow a brain
@@shaunmckenzie5509 u r brainless and have no idea mate. I've been hear for 50+ years and in the pas 5 or so years they've introduced new xtrapolis trains with loud horns (much louder than the older trains) and a hell of a lot more services. so stop calling residents near rail lines idiots! in my view PTV and the State Gov and people with your view are the idiots
@@shaunmckenzie5509 and if you wish to educate yourself on rail then have a go at reading the "RiSSB Code of Practice - Rail Traffic Train Horn Use?", as more people move in closer to rail the more they'll complain about the horn use and train drivers, PTV and the State Gov will have to listen for a change to residents living near rail lines and they'll stop treating us like second-class citizens and being detrimental to our health and wellbeing.
What about the New G-class?
They won't be operating until 2025 at the earliest
@@philipmallis ah yeah...see! Missed the 2024 in your title. Good job mate!
You melbournians should force the goverment hard to get accessible stops. Some stops on your network are absolutely non accessible....and I am talking about the stops and not the tram .
Do the new tracks in South Yarra mean trams will ho back to running along Patk St/Domain Rd as they used to? And if so, does that mean they'll remove the tracks at the western end of Toorak Rd?
Good question! Nothing has been confirmed yet. The latest from DTP is that they are currently looking at what to do once the Metro Tunnel opens: web.archive.org/web/20230327094038/www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/domain-road-trams-may-be-gone-for-good-after-metro-tunnel-works-end-20230324-p5cv0n.html
Do they really think people will actually use trains other than trams down Swanston Street even though the trams are free and the trains aren’t?
A lot of people currently using the trams on Swanston St have already paid as they have come in on the train and changed to the tram at Flinders or Melbourne Central. Now they won't need to get off the train at all if their destination is Parkville (Universities and Hospitals) or Domain interchange.
they should have built platforms at south yarra
No. For what point?
A lot of buildings would have to go to accomodate it, including The Jam Factory...residents and business owners would not allow it!
@@74_pelicans interchange with the Sandringham line without congesting Flinders Street
@@clawscrab3497 Its Underground and not near the Jam Factory. It would be built in the South Yarra siding reserve where the tunnel portal is
I wish the tram network would expand to Footscray
I was wanting to see such plan for a long time now, my idea is to extend route 75 and 70 to go all the way to Footscray and use route 86 for access to District Docklands?(turn left into Docklands Drive)
Now you’re a Linux guy, shout out if you get stuck!
Once again, an authoritative and upbeat perspective. Arden station is in the middle of a ghost town. So expensive to build, but I can't see where all the passengers are going to come from. Changing transport modes in and out will take a bit of walking. Sure, there's been talk of all kinds of building projects. But that will take years to complete. If you haven't already, worth you going to have a look see sometime.
I would like to see route 96 to merge with route 78. I think this would be a great idea.
should have built a station at South Yarra instead
Rather build a train station and plan around it? Or build the line, densify the area, then wonder why there isn't a train line?
Currently the 12 and 109 are the same from the Crown Casino Junction to Victoria Gardens. Better use of the 12 would be to continue it up Spencer Street and build new tracks to Arden station, and then possibly connect to the 57 or 59 on Flemington Rd. This provides a tram from the western end of the city to the north.
@@74_pelicans Build it and they will come is more often than not, a fallacy where the wrong thing is created for an imaginary audience. The Upfield line is a 10+ minute walk, (one of) the least used lines on the network. It has plenty of spare capacity. You should go have a good look at the area, parts of North Melbourne are among the least densely populated areas in the inner city. Arden station and the plans for its surroundings, has a whiff of the Docklands failed promises of 20+ years ago. I guess time will tell.
❤
Since we know the 12 will be getting Gs at some point (I think), maybe the 12 should go along Latrobe and the 75 along Collins? This would remove the awkward turn from Spring St to Latrobe and the 48 already has to go along Collins from the same direction. Alternatively, the 11 could also run along Latrobe and swap termini with one of the Waterfront City routes?
Maybe a combination of these could work since Latrobe St is extremely congested at peak time
Where is my number 8 tram 🎉
what Route 8 tram? It's been long gone for years now!!! LOL
route 8 has been gone for ages. the 55 and the 8 are just one route now, the 58