Subways -- underground or above-ground

[LordShiva]

Teh Bangalore Metro, finally being built after years of promises and bickering, will have several sections above-ground.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Above ground

Cheaper to build, more fun to ride, easier to get cell phone reception, more opportunities for cool architecture, better for emergencies, etc.

Underground

I don't think that cell/mobile phone reception should be a priority on a short ride. Can't people live without these bloody things for a few minutes?

The livelihoods of the people who live in the areas should be paramount, and living in a city characterised by the overground rail links of the 19th century, these things can blight neighbourhoods by cutting of adjacent streets and forcing people to go a long distance out of their way to make what should be a short journey.

The channel tunnel link went underground through central London for a good reason.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Hampstead is the deepest station. Great excercise potential if the lifts go ping there.

Moscow subway stations are deep as hell, too

[Cort Haus]

Don't the Moscow stations have some fabulous architecture?

[LordShiva]

Indeed.

[lord of the mark]

I for one, embrace the rule of our new Indian Metro overlords

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Don't the Moscow stations have some fabulous architecture?

They were supposed to be crown jewels showing off Soviet architecture and achievement to benefit the masses. I haven't seen them in real life but the pictures certainly look grand.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

The livelihoods of the people who live in the areas should be paramount, and living in a city characterised by the overground rail links of the 19th century, these things can blight neighbourhoods by cutting of adjacent streets and forcing people to go a long distance out of their way to make what should be a short journey.

The channel tunnel link went underground through central London for a good reason.

We're not talking a full rail viaduct that blocks streets. Even most old US "els" like those which used to exist in Manhattan, and still exist in Brooklyn and Chicago, are structures that run along a street, with pylons, whatever, that enable traffic to continue on that street, and on all cross streets. Ever see "The French Connection"?

Im trying to think of a modern equivalent - none in DC I think where all of the above ground lines ARE in rail type viaducts. Well there are the Bangalore pics LS posted.

In Tysons though, theyre talking about a structure right over Rte 7-Leesburg Pike, which will allow full traffic underneath.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I for one, embrace the rule of our new Indian Metro overlords

Yeah, the pictures are nice. Rails on stilts gets around the problem of cutting up communities that I mentioned.

I don't mind the noise of trains, in fact I loved it when I lived close to a line.

[Dinner]

You have to admit elevated trains and elevated freeways are rather ugly. I wish LA and Seattle would get rid of their elevated freeways/train sections and follow Boston's example of undergrounding roads and rail tracks while allowing the space above ground to be turned into parks.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
San Diego only has above ground medium/heavy rail. I wish we had a subway system but judging by how expensive LA's small subway network was to build I doubt we'll ever have the money.

Monorails, on average, cost 1/10 as much as subway systems .... and can be built 10 times faster.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You have to admit elevated trains and elevated freeways are rather ugly. I wish LA and Seattle would get rid of their elevated freeways/train sections and follow Boston's example of undergrounding roads

[Dinner]

The big dig was expensive but the greenways are awesome.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Monorails, on average, cost 1/10 as much as subway systems .... and can be built 10 times faster.

and carry what relative proportion of riders?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The big dig was expensive but the greenways are awesome.

It was a hugely costly thing (even without the overruns) that was only done cause of politics, and the way its turned out has probably killed all such projects for the next 20 years.