[sustran] Re: More on Portland and metros

[K Tsourlakis]

Other shortcoming of metros vs. buses is that the trip is less pleasant
(nothing to see inside the tunnels), the access is more difficult (stairs)
and the security concerns more serious (fire, criminality, terrorist acts -
remember Tokyo).
On the other hand metros may be used as bunkers (e.g. London in WWII), and
may be a very long term investment in periods of economic strength (would it
be possible e.g. to be built nowadays the Moscow metro?)

>
>Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:41:21 +0400
>From: Alan Patrick Howes <APHOWES at dm.gov.ae>
>Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Portland and metros
>
>Metros can be intrusive too, depending on whether they are elevated or in
>subway - and if the latter, construction can be horrendously disruptive. And
>there are various options for clean buses, including hybrid battery/diesel
>or flywheel/diesel.
>
>Each scheme really needs to be judged on its merits - the problem is that
>too people (including too many professionals) have a bias of some sort. My
>bias, if it is one, is that I fear that bus-based solutions, which are so
>much more flexible and scalable, are too easily dismissed by some.
>