London Banter - View Single Post

Recliner[_3_] · April 27th 17, 08:42 PM posted to uk.transport.london

wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:46:24 -0500
wrote:
In article , d ()
wrote:
Personally I think the best solution for small cities is a pre-metro as
is popular in some parts of europe. Its a tram in the suburbs running
along the street but dives into tunnel in the city centre to avoid the
traffic. Tunneling is expensive obviously but it pays long term.

The main reason why I think heavy rail would have been better is for access
to Cambridge station. We are hopeless at tram-train operation in this

The only problem with cambridge station is that its a rather long walk
from the town centre. However it would IMO still have been a better option
than a busway as the train would have been a lot faster point to point and
with a dedicated shuttle bus to the town centre the former problem is
solved.

country so, deciding ten years ago, it would be the only way to get an
uncongested north-south corridor across Cambridge. If were doing tram-train
with the aplomb shown on the continent then I agree light rail would have
been best.

Sadly the powers that be in this country don't seem to believe in public
transport. If the tube didn't exist it certainly wouldn't get built today in
its current form. Maybe 1 or 2 lines plus an on the cheap tram system like
manchester or nottingham but that would be about it. How newcastle got the
funding a fully fledged underground metro in the city centre 80s is anyones
guess especially when Brum or Manchester were far more deserving. An attack of
benevolence by the government at the time perhaps, or maybe Thatcher trying to
keep the north east on side for a short time given the problems with the
miners.

Very little (10%) of the Newcastle Metro is underground. It's much more of
an S-Bahn than a U-Bahn.