Re: Taken For A Ride

["John Wayman" <trecker@optusnet.com.au>]

Richo <richardc@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:37f09b02@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
snip
> Why did we follow suit - we had government ownership and weren't obliged
to
> follow this supposed English-speaking trend. Why has Melbourne still got
> trams when no-one else has - and if I hear the "melbourne has wide
streets"
> argument again...I'll show someone Victoria St N Richmond in peak hour.
> The post WWII land use planning was and is a political issue, manipulated
by
> pollies for short-term gain. Their cronies in building and real estate,
the
> gullible working class who buy on the outskirts and the rail unions who
dug
> their own graves can also be thanked for the mess we are in.
>
Melbourne had mostly new electric trams and new tracks in the 1930's due to
the cable tram replacement program. The system was in top condition going
into the second world war. The final cable lines in Bourke Street and
Lonsdale Street were replaced by buses, an experiment that was declared a
failure!

Major Risson at the helm of the MMTB, fought against the replacement of
trams and the tram sytem was profitable until the mid 1960's.

In Melbourne the Bourke Street buses were replaced in  the mid 1950's.
Unfortunately some routes did remain bus.

Labor governments killed off tramway systems throughout the 1960's, while
Victoria had a Liberal government (that spent nothing on transport) that
kept the trams running as they traded at a profit. A bus conversion program
would have been costly and probably would have lost money.

That is why Melbourne kept it's trams

Cheers
John Wayman