[sustran] Negative thoughts on metro in general

[Car Busters]

Sorry to come in late on this one, or if I have missed some of the
messages, but I think I have something important to add, below.

Paula Negron Poblete wrote, two weeks ago:
>The question we can ask ourselves is this: is really the construction
of a subway >the only solution to the transportation problems in a
third world metropolis? or >can we find more suitable interventions in
the area?

The answers are (1.) no, and (2.) yes.

Quito, population 1.3 million, has gone the route of an electric
trolley system instead of metro in an effort to clean up the badly
polluted air. Because of the pollution concerns, Quito chose the
trolleys over buses even though the initial cost was 15% higher. Of
course the city is at about the minimum size for a metro system
anyway, but still, the example has been made, and the system has been
financially stable. Of course, paying 15% more is wise, since the city
saves in other ways because of the reduced pollution.

Here in Prague, which is about the same size as Quito but features an
extensive metro system, it is still possible to get almost anywhere
efficiently by using trams and buses instead of (and sometimes faster
than) metro. And certainly if the metro didn't exist, trams could be
expanded greatly. I can say the same thing for Lyon, France, where I
lived the last two years.

And often metro systems are expanded to serve as basically a Park and
Ride system -- serving suburbanites who drive to remote metro stations
to go to and from work, and remain car-dependent in every other aspect
of their lives. This is what the San Francisco BART system is, very
much to the detriment of cheaper public transport that could form the
foundation of a system designed to provide for efficient car-free
living (i.e., trams or buses every ten or fewer minutes to within a
short walk of all medium- or high-density locations, etc.).

I personally favor limiting metro, and having above-ground electric
trams/trolleys/light-rail form the foundation of the system. This way
you can slowly physically replace the car-based system by taking back
street space from the car and replacing it with car-free lanes with
tram tracks. But if you create a system that just offers an
"alternative" (metro or other) alongside the car-based system, you
leave the available road space to cars exactly the same and thus you
have no assurance that car traffic will be reduced (especially if the
urban population is growing, because traffic expands to fill the
available road space). So, to maximise your benefits, cars have to be
physically barred from driving in the lanes converted from car to tram
use.

An added benefit of trams: people are not forced to become moles
simply because the cars have forced all alternatives (literally and
figuratively) underground. But it is always possible to have, as San
Francisco has in addition to the BART system, a tram system that is
underground in the densest part of the city but goes at street-level
in all other areas. But again, if the cars were removed from just one
street, Market Street, there would be no need to deprive people of a
glimpse of daylight. Of interest to Latin American countries, the
latter option would also be much cheaper.

And have you noticed that no one talks to one another on metro,
whereas they often do on trams or buses?

Randy Ghent

PS - Is it possible to have each message sent to this listserve
automatically labelled as [sustan-discuss]? Without that, it's hard to
organise one's e-mails.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
CAR BUSTERS Magazine and Resource Centre
Kratka 26, 100 00 Praha 10, Czech Republic
Tel: +(420) 2-781-08-49 ; Fax: +(420) 2-781-67-27
<carbusters at ecn.cz> <www.antenna.nl/eyfa/cb>