>>>Sydney's streets are too narrow for trams (which was one of the main
>>>reasons for their departure in 1961) and the LRV route is pretty
>>>useless unless it is extended to Leichhardt and beyond.
>
>These problems as easily overcome by placing the congested sections
>underground.
Even better is getting rid of the 'congestion', meaning mostly private
cars whose (usually lone) drivers have no reason to be there because they
are going somewhere else or are just looking for somewhere to leave the
several tonnes of metal and plastic they brought to town with them.
Most of Amsterdam's streets are narrower than those of Sydney; most of
them cope very well with trams in them. Ditto cities worldwide, from
Dusseldorf to San Diego to Camoinhos do Jordao to Puerto Soller to
Calcutta to Istanbul...
The 'too narrow street' argument is part of the litany that led to
wholesale abandonment of tram systems in the 50s .
'the streets are too narrow' (nonsense as above)
'the overhead wires are very ugly' (uglier than a car traffic jam?)
'the trams are too old' (because they lasted forty years)
'the track is wearing out' (because repair is charged direct to the
tramway account, while road repairs were not charged directly to other
road users)
......
'it is old-fashioned to have trams and not diesel buses' (and which
suppliers of which transport mode promoted that one?)
'getting rid of the trams will make more room for cars' (it did, and we
are still living with the unpleasant results)
I do wish people hostile to tram systems would at least find some new
arguments....
Philip