[sustran] Re: More on Portland and metros

[Wendell Cox]

Yes.. London is certainly more interesting from the second deck of a bus
than from the Underground. From undergrounds, most cities look the same.

DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
----- Original Message -----
From: K Tsourlakis <ktsou at tee.gr>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 November, 2001 14:14
Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Portland and metros


>
> 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.
> >