> "Martin Edwards" yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dUbWj.3$Y34.1@newsfe14.ams2...

>> Martin Rich wrote:

>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:42:03 -0700, "Jack May" comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> Instead they find that a very high percentage of the people are already
>>>> using transit and just switch to other transit systems when they open
>>>> because of an advantage in getting to work cheaper, faster, better than

> the

>>>> transit system they were using. So building new transit systems tends

> to

>>>> not decrease car traffic.

>>> Wading into this late but still...
>>>
>>> The statement above presupposes that the only measure of success of
>>> public transport investment is whether it gets people to switch out of
>>> their cars. In practice, in a place where cars account for quite a
>>> small minority of travel (such as Inner London) investing so that
>>> people switch from one mode of public transport to another cheaper,
>>> faster mode, sounds a good deal, especially if it results in
>>> alleviating congestion. As I understand it, a lot of the cost-benefit
>>> analysis for transport investment in London, going right back to the
>>> Victoria Line in the 1960s, recognises this, though I'm very happy to
>>> be corrected on the specific point.
>>>

>> In the same way, the Midland Metro has not reduced car use,

>
> Croydon Tramlink, as expected, has captured a lot of its passengers from
> buses, but it has also achieved a worthwhile modal shift from car to tram -
> this was expected particularly from New Addington, where car or bus journeys
> into Croydon at peak times were very slow because of congestion, so the tram
> is much quicker.
>
> Fastrack, the segregated bus network in Dartford and Gravesend, has also,
> and less expectedly, achieved a significant modal shift fromn car to bus -
> possibly because of the time and cost of finding somewhere to park.
>
> Peter
>
>