Re: buses or trams

[Charles Norrie <Charles@geodeon.demon.co.uk>]

In article <366C431E.23E1@ichips.intel.com>, Greg Gritton
<ggritton@ichips.intel.com> writes
>
>Isn't "metro" just a convenient word for a what is commonly
>called a "subway" (i.e. heavy rail) that isn't necessarily underground.
>LA's "metro" is a conventional subway, and was extremely expensive
>to build per mile.  Mexico City's "Metro" is a heavy rail system that is
>underground, grade level, and elevated in parts, with a design based 
>on Paris's "metro".   I believe Paris was the original city to call 
>its heavy rail system the "Metro".

That's as maybe. But the 'proper' name originally used was Metropolitan
(accented to choice). It is difficult to see how they were not
influenced by the Metropolitan and the Metropolitan District Railway in
London, although the style of service is somehat different.

At the time Paris began building the lines in London with the exception
of the Met and the MD would have been geographically specific to London,
with the exception of the Circle Line Service. 

When Londoners abbreviate Metropolitan the called it the Met, like NY's
Opera House, but not as tuneful.

>
>
>Does "metro" have a more specific meaning in some region of the world?
>
It is the name of a section of the Evening Standard newspaper in London
and frequently use in the names of radio stations and the like to
indicate cityness (no necessarily London).

The North London Line and other bits of rail in north London are known
as Silverlink Metro, where Silverlink is the name of the operator.

-- 
Charles Norrie