Negative thoughts on metro in general (and on from there)

[Jain Alok]

> d. Does this mean that we should get rid of all metros?  No, 
> of course not.
> But it does lead us to this bottom line conclusion on metros: 
>  If you happen
> to have one, well great. But if you don't, Third World city 
> or other, there
> are now a huge number of compelling reasons to give it a pass.
> e. Goodbye new metros.

Disagree. If you have the volume of passengers and you put the railway in
the right place, the railways still more people than any other form of
transport. And because it has dedicated right of way, the reliability of
performance is unmatched. In Hong Kong, railways are run to their signalling
capacity and are always full. They are not only profitable (no subsidies)
but one of the safest in the world. And it is Government's vision to put in
more and more railways and tie in landuse with the location of stations, so
that railways can get 50% market share among all public transport trips (the
public transport here already has about 80% trip share of the total). If
anybody says, metros don't work, come to Hong Kong and you will probably
change your opinion.

Regards,
Alok Jain
Hong Kong