Train windows

It really bugs me that TransAdelaide is so proud of itself for finally replacing the windows in the 3000-class train carriages. In a private enterprise, this sort of presentation and commitment to customer service would be paramount. When I worked at Hungry Jack's, if a customer left a tray on their table after leaving, we had precisely 2 minutes to clean it up, as a matter of policy. It was immaterial if they had been the only person in the store: the place must be kept clean. Case in point: windows were cleaned professionally twice a week, and maintained by staff all day, everyday.

The trumpeting of this "upgrade" is disturbing spin on what is actually a backlog of basic maintenance work.

Trams and Advertising

I have spent months considering this, and have come to a conclusion, which I back today, tomorrow and for ever. I like advertising on trams.

Which is to say, I do not have a problem with it. Since the decision was made to allow advertising on the new trams, letters appear regularly in the Advertiser deploring this crass commercialisation of the public transport system. The arguments include that it makes it difficult to see into the trams, that they are a tourist attraction, and that they mess up the streetscape.

I genuinely don't know which is the dumbest argument. Why do you need to see into the trams? What streetscape would that be: King William St with its tall grey squares, or Jetty Road with its (advertising-covered) buses? And for the love of all that is logical: trams are not a friggin' tourist attraction! They should be a basic part of every major city's public transport infrastructure- have been since they were invented. I can count on the fingers of one stump the number of people who have flown from Japan to Melbourne to marvel at this modern wonder, which, incidentally, are less comfortable and more covered in advertising than our own meagre offerings.

Further, that trams be exempt from interstate advertising, as Eldert Hoebee of Torrens Park would wish in today's Advertiser, is practically a trade embargo within a nation! A ridiculous idea, as anyone studying economics would be able to tell you.

Recent Discoveries

Since I moved to Ascot Park, I have noticed an old tram corridor which crosses Marion Rd at Mooringe St. I assume a lot of other people knew it was there, but sometimes you have to see these things for yourself before they make sense. While there are obviously other priorities, such as the electrification of current tracks, and expanding into lesser-serviced areas, I would like to see this tram line in use again in my lifetime.

I also have been thinking a lot about Adelaide Station, and how it's a dead-end. I'd like to see a Melbourne-style ring, but that could perhaps be part of a CBD subway. In any case, through-stations are much more efficient than dead-ends.

I love that they build Wayville Station each year for the Royal Show. But I wonder they don't build a permanent one and use it on all expo days. (Like Cheltenham Park Race Course used to be only on race days) I fully support the shuttle, though. Brilliant idea.

South Road Tram Flyway

It is a really, really stupid idea to have an on-demand pedestrian crossing rather than widen the tram flyway enough to have a bike path through it.

I, for one, will spend its second day crossing South Road incessantly. If they haven't programmed the lights properly, traffic might bank up further than during peak hour!

The Tram Extension

I fully support the tram extension, this is known. I wish they would build more to North Adelaide, Norwood and Unley. This is also not a surprise. But there is one thing they did wrong on the tram extension.

Pirie St stop is as far away from Waymouth St, yet it gets no mention. Rundle Mall stop is also Hindley St station, yet there is no mention. I think this should be rectified, and signs changed to show both names. If Victoria Squ can be known by its aboriginal name, then both streets should be equally noted further north.

TODs and the All-You-Can-Drink Theory

"Transport-Oriented Developments" are high-density developments within walking distance of rail (or other) public transport. They are the centrepeice of the government's new urban development policy, and are to be applauded. They are, in my view, the first steps towards a more European-style of development, higher-density living and a more public-transport oriented society.

Having said that, public transport will not be effective if it is used only during the two peaks- it will be costly and inefficient to use all that space and capital for a service that runs essentially twice a day. People need to begin to consider the possibility that PT will replace, to a large degree, the use of cars. Not just augment traditional traffic flows or assist at the margins, when poorer people drop out of the car market for lack of funds, but actually to replace, significantly, cars as a form of transport.

While on the subject, the state budget included an announcement that registration fees for vehicles are again going up. I would argue this is negative policy, and will, at least to a certain degree, counter-act the Government's good PT policy.

Cars ought to be cheap to own but expensive to run. Everyone should know how to drive, and everyone will have need, sometimes, to drive. Perhaps you slept in and there's an important meeting in 20 minutes. Perhaps it's a Sunday night and you want to go to Church. Perhaps it's a Wednesday night and you need to cross town to go to a friend's birthday gathering. For this reason, cars ought to be cheap to own. This means low registration, competition among sellers, low stamp duty etc., etc..

But the price of petrol ought to be high, representing the cost of each additional journey. Then people will begin to ask, "is this journey necessary, could I make it on public transport?" It might be worth saving the job to spend $20 to drive into and park in town that day. It might be worth $10 to visit your friend on her 30th birthday- just in time to watch her cut the cake. It's all about free choice and market forces. If the price of petrol is high, people will consider making the journey by bus or train, leaving more time.

But if people are committed, but way of expensive registration, exorbitant taxes and a variety of other costs, to a year's worth of driving, PT will be less attractive at any given price of fuel.

So, Mr. Foley. Drop your registration increases and instead slap a little extra on the petrol excise. Use the funds to pay for your PT improvements, and everybody wins.

The Budget

Last night was budget night. And a large, ridiculously so, sum of money has been set aside for transport.

I shall get back to you on this: it looks, on the surface, as though the government is hearing its people's cries for trains. I am looking forward to the future.