Negative thoughts on metro in general

[Hoque, Kazi]

Great but can really view this as an effective solutions to larger cities.
What if London or NY stopped its metro network and had tram based system. It
would be absolute hell. Take a look at Bangkok's metro system

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Car Busters [SMTP:carbusters at ecn.cz]
> Sent:	Friday, March 03, 2000 8:01 PM
> To:	sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> Subject:	[sustran] Negative thoughts on metro in general
> 
> 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>