Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:54:09 -0000 Doctor Drivel wrote :
Most tram systems are a joke. Electric buses that costs an
absolute fortune.

Melbourne's tram system is progressively being extended. Trams
last a long time compared with modern buses - our A & B class
trams have been running since the mid 1980s - and can carry lots
of people: our newest five section trams can carry 240 people.

Trams are only feasible where roads are wide enough. Most roads
in UK cities are not wide enough.

This sort of thing was touted frequently by lefty press when I
lived near Cambridge - what about trams or overhead railway to
cross the city. Typical pie in the sky b/s that overlooked the
narrow streets and, in the case of overhead railway, what the
residents might think about having trains rumbling past ten feet
from their front bedrooms.

Modern tunnelling is cheap - boring or cut & cover. Say two tunnels
right under Cambridge, that meet in a croass the centre with a big
underground station that maybe linking with the mainline station.
Oh, cut and cover under Cambridge! What a novel idea!
if price were no object - and frankly with these huge
renewable/eco/white elephant/my towns green dick is bigger than
yours/misguided bus/ type projects it seldom is - its a VERY sane
approach to organising what Cambridge actually wants and needs -
essentially a parkland/pedestrian/cycling/disabled only/ surface, and
still the ability to get people in and out efficiently (and goods and
materials), and of course still have an airfield as well.

Possibly but cost *is* important.

Are you aware BTW that one reason for the guided bus was that the Labour
Govt said if you don't take this £95M towards it, you won't get the A14
improvement. Since the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon is a ****ing
death-trap, that amounted to Hobson's choice.

well that's Laber 4 U innit?