Negative thoughts on metro in general

[Jain Alok]

And you add energy efficiency, reliability (i.e. running on schedule), speed
etc. into the assessment. The metros would start making sense (but again
they should not be considered panacea. The key thing here is that you have
enough passenger demand required to support a metro line).

Alok Jain
Hong Kong
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Diesendorf [mailto:Mark.Diesendorf at uts.edu.au]
> Sent: March 10, 2000 9:43 AM
> To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> Subject: [sustran] Negative thoughts on metro in general
> 
> 
> It is not necessary to talk about cooking the books. It is also a 
> question of which costs one counts and which one ignores.
> 
> The comparison between the costs of busways and light rail, measured 
> in cents per passenger per km travelled, depends sensitively upon the 
> costs of land. In general a busway requires about 50% more land than 
> a light rail easement, assuming that both are at ground level. In 
> cities where land is expensive, this can give the advantage to light 
> rail.
> 
> In addition, as Eric Bruun has pointed out, rail (I would add, light 
> as well as heavy) has a higher passenger capacity. So, provided the 
> passengers are there, it is not obvious that busways are necessarily 
> cheaper in cents per passenger per km travelled.