|
|
| Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? (269680) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 12:55:43 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 11:55:21 2006. "The point is that you couldn't run the same thing on the East and Slow Lines out of Piccadilly...."James.... sorry to burst the bubble, but Metrolink exists to serve passengers, not a railfan's sense of what is traditional and what is the 'proper' way to do things. More people benefit from having it run through the city centre - so what if it can't operate out of Piccadilly? The point is precisely that Metrolink fails to serve over half the passengers that the Picc-Vic tunnel would have. Yes, it gives the one busiest line east out of Victoria (but none of the others) access to the City Centre, but it does absolutely nothing for improving access to the City Centre for passengers on the lines out of Piccadilly. It's at best a one-third solution that has caused more problems. Take off your rose-tinted spectacles and see that the passengers have been short-changed by the Metrolink scheme. I am making no 'excuses' for street running. Why would I want to? Just because you don't seem to like it doesn't mean it's a wank way of doing things. I don't know why you want to, but you clearly do seem to like it so much that it's horrendous incompatibilities don't seen to bother you. It works for Metrolink in its limited application, as you would see if you ventured into flat-cap territory and had a look. The point is that it condemns Metrolink to being a limited application forever. |
|
|
|