Melbourne trams run on-road in the largest tram network in the world. Photo / supplied
Melbourne trams run on-road in the largest tram network in the world. Photo / supplied
Here's a statistic to conjure with: During one 14-month period in the 1920s in Auckland, they laid 27 miles of tram track. That's nearly 44km: about the same distance as downtown to the airport AND to Westgate AND to Henderson.
Imagine doing that again. Easy enough, surely: our arterial roadsare already wide enough because they were built for trams in the first place. Although, to be fair, as an article on the Greater Auckland website drily noted in 2013, perhaps laying tracks is harder now, because "these days we may not have the superior technology of the 1920s".
Honestly, why are we not going full speed with mass transit? Wikipedia lists hundreds of cities that have built or upgraded their tramlines, aka light rail, in recent decades. I stopped counting, I'm sorry, because I'm not a tramspotter. And the best of all? Melbourne.
They've had them for 138 years. In the 1950s, when petrol rushed to the heads of "city fathers" around the world, including in Auckland, Melbourne held firm. While our tram tracks were all ripped out, Melbourne bought more trams.
Melbourne's first cable tram, 1885. Photo / supplied
Today, they have heritage trams, sleekly futuristic light rail units and everything in-between. There are 250km of double track, 500 trams, 24 routes and 1763 stops. To the delight of tourists, commuters and everyone else, Melbourne designed and built itself the largest tramway in the world. All surface, mostly on-road.
Why are we letting Melbourne have all the fun? Come on. Compared to Auckland it's an ugly city with nothing going for it except – oh, wait, that's right – a deep desire to be fabulous. Best culture, best sport, best transit. We could do that.
National's transport guy Simeon Brown and the mayoral candidate Viv Beck have both proposed more buses instead of light rail. They're right that compared to the slow track for light rail we're on now, more busways and more buses would be faster and cheaper.
But the newer Melbourne trams carry three times as many people as buses. They're quiet, provide a smoother ride, are easy to get on and off and can carry bikes and prams. They don't poison the air, release greenhouse gases or clog up the city. Auckland already has too many buses on Queen St and Symonds St. Why make that problem worse?
Besides, why is light rail the slower and much more expensive option? What nonsensical approach has led the Auckland Light Rail project team - and therefore the Government - to conclude that building just one line will take at least a decade and cost $14.6 billion and probably more? Oh yes: tunnels.
As Melbourne has always known, on-road tracks are the key. When the trams are right there in front of you, it's impossible not to see how efficient and valuable they are.
And how much fun. People like them, so they ride them. And get this: much of inner Melbourne is a Free Tram Zone, which critics say has made the trams too popular. Oh dear.
Sir Peter Gluckman has suggested Auckland could become a "city of innovation". An instant on-road tram network would be a great proof of concept for that. We already know what can be done in 14 months with picks and shovels, so just imagine …
Why aren't mayoral candidates talking about this? Why are we letting Melbourne have all the fun?
Old and new, they have room for them all. Photo / supplied
Design for Living, presenting bright ideas that make cities better, appears weekly in Canvas magazine.
