[sustran] Re: Negative thoughts on metro

[Shrestha, Kishor]

I have a view that the feasibility of a metro system depends on the city's
characteristics and 
inestement potential provided the population density is high and the city is
comparatively larger. 
Even then the political will comes first before any engineers debate on it. 
Heavy rail becoming nowadays replaced by the popular LRT or old electric
tram system. 
For a relatively densed population the LRT network may prove better than
heavy rail in terms of frequency and 
station interval and networking with other modes of transport. So one cannot
stay on one side for or anti-metro. 
There are many factors to be considered before we accept the metro proposal
or reject it. 
Operation and mainteannce, governement subsidies, privatisation, technology
factors may be a part of constraints in many cities. 
Hence, I would rather go for a suitable general criteria to formulate for
the cities geographically spread over the world regarding rail system.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Piotr Olszewski (Assoc Prof) [SMTP:COLSZE at ntu.edu.sg]
> Sent:	14 March 2000 06:49
> To:	'sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org'
> Subject:	[sustran] Re: Negative thoughts on metro
> 
> I am somewhat dismayed by the amount of anti-metro sentiment expressed on
> this discussion list, of all places. "No more new metros!" ?? - this
> sounds
> more like a battle cry of the pro-car lobby!  Has the enemy penetrated
> this
> list? (;-)
> 
> Around the world the urban population keeps growing at an astonishing
> rate:
> there are already 20 megacities with over 8 million people and their
> number
> will keep increasing.  How can one possibly solve their transport needs in
> a
> sustainable way without heavy rail?  Rail transport uses 3 times less
> energy
> per passenger-km than bus and 9 times less than car. And metro is the only
> mode that can compete with cars on travel time, for an average commute
> distance (say, 10 km). 
> 
> This is not to say that metro is suitable for every large city, at any
> stage
> of development or that heavy rail is always better than LRT. Clearly,
> mistakes have been made in the past and often the limited funds available
> can be better spent on improving the existing tram or bus system than on 1
> more km of a metro tunnel. For a successful metro project, some criteria
> must be met: there should be a critical population mass (minimum size),
> sufficient development density, minimum GDP level and preferably an urban
> planning/control system that promotes development along metro corridors.  
> 
> We can argue about the values of these thresholds but there should be some
> agreement on the vision for a sustainable transport system for large
> cities.
> Building a metro system, viewed as a strategic investment, may be needed
> to
> push sprawling megacities in developing countries towards a more
> sustainable
> urban form: a polynucleated city, with corridors of higher density along
> metro lines. It has been shown that such an urban structure is the most
> energy-efficient.   
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> Piotr Olszewski           colsze at ntu.edu.sg
> Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
>