I READ with interest the letter from David Holt concerning Metrolink.

The unfortunate thing is that Metrolink has been a great opportunity for the development of public transport in Manchester, that has been largely wasted, by the time it has taken for the lines to be built.

A prime case is the 2CC which has taken more than four years to complete the one kilometre or so of track.

The reason for this is that for every one man working there seems to be two, making sure that the man does not injure himself. Also that it seems no more than 40 hours are worked in a week, including breaks.

I have no doubt that Victorian Engineers with modern equipment would have completed the venture within a year. After all it only took under five years to complete the Manchester to Liverpool line, crossing Chat Moss.

The main problem with Metrolink is that the people concerned with its development seem to be people who do not use public transport.

They are unaware of what is necessary. What is really needed is a Metrolink service down Oxford Road to West Didsbury. This would not only provide a service for the University, MRI, St.Mary's, Whitworth Gallery, dental hospital,and the museum, but would alleviate the pressure on the lines through Cornbrook.

Turning to Mr. Holt's concern about Cornbrook: he might be aware that most London Underground Stations in the centre have tube trains every minute passing through, without a problem.

Each 'tube' is at least twice as long as a double Metrolink Tram. With 'intelligent' programming, such a flow should present little problem through Cornbrook, though judging the difficulties that the present operators have, with turning back trams at Timperley, it might be beyond their capabilities.

The answer is to employ programmers who understand the system.

What Metrolink might look into in the future is the expansion of the system, using more lines that were closed in the Beeching era and remaining trackbeds that are used for cycle tracks and walkways.

There was a line, running from Broadheath out to Dunham and Lymm. It would be far more useful to resuscitate this as a tramway, than as its present use.

This would provide easy access for visitors to Dunham Massey, and access to Lymm, for its highly rated school, from South Manchester.

The problem, sadly, is that Transport For Manchester have very little concept of what might be useful in the future.

They sit in their offices in the centre of Manchester and have a very blinkered approach to the needs of the public.

I will reiterate what I have said before: the planners do not themselves use public transport on a regular basis. All they see are the results of some random survey, which will not give a true picture.

David Olliver, Altrincham