HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6801  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2024, 9:16 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
It's not the actual tunnel boring that's the issue as modern TBM's have turned that into an efficient and usually speedy thing of beauty. You do have ventilation, fire safety and egress requirements which above ground does not, but ultimately it's mostly the damn stations, which still require the street to be cut-and-cover excavated and/or mined(in rock), which for obvious reasons is wildly expensive and time consuming. But few will doubt the obvious benefits of a fully underground railway. New and exciting solutions are on the horizon though including exploring fitting the stations within the diameter of the bore so all you need to do is mine surface access without needing to dig a battleship sized hole in the ground (or mine it out of rock). This is most notably being explored in one of the Sepulveda single bore heavy rail options.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6802  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2024, 10:30 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
It's not the actual tunnel boring that's the issue as modern TBM's have turned that into an efficient and usually speedy thing of beauty. You do have ventilation, fire safety and egress requirements which above ground does not, but ultimately it's mostly the damn stations, which still require the street to be cut-and-cover excavated and/or mined(in rock), which for obvious reasons is wildly expensive and time consuming.
Also, relocating utilities adds to the time and cost of tunneling, especially in old neighborhoods and CBDs. I know SF's 2-mile Central Subway light rail extension was significantly delayed by the need to cap and relocate steam pipes, gas lines, water and sewer, electrical, etc.

Quote:
But few will doubt the obvious benefits of a fully underground railway.
No argument here. The Los Angeles metro is 100% underground--are there any others in the US?
__________________
Donald Trump is America's Hitler.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6803  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2024, 10:54 PM
jbermingham123's Avatar
jbermingham123 jbermingham123 is offline
Registered (Nimby Ab)User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At a computer, wasting my life on a skyscraper website
Posts: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
No argument here. The Los Angeles metro is 100% underground--are there any others in the US?
I believe DC is fully underground

Boston is mostly underground
__________________
You guys are laughing now but Jacksonville will soon assume its rightful place as the largest and most important city on Earth.

I heard the UN is moving its HQ there. The eiffel tower is moving there soon as well. Elon Musk even decided he didnt want to go to mars anymore after visiting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6804  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2024, 11:10 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
DC Metrorail system is less than half underground overall, but the majority is underground within the DC limits. The big exception being the red line between Union Station and the DC limits near Silver Spring where it runs along a surface mainline rail corridor.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6805  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2024, 11:15 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbermingham123 View Post
I believe DC is fully underground

Boston is mostly underground
The MBTA has a lot of surface and elevated heavy rail outside the central city. I used to take the Orange Line from Somerville to Forest Hills, and most of that was not underground.
__________________
Donald Trump is America's Hitler.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6806  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2024, 4:53 AM
jbermingham123's Avatar
jbermingham123 jbermingham123 is offline
Registered (Nimby Ab)User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At a computer, wasting my life on a skyscraper website
Posts: 742
welp, 0/2 for me then

good to know!
__________________
You guys are laughing now but Jacksonville will soon assume its rightful place as the largest and most important city on Earth.

I heard the UN is moving its HQ there. The eiffel tower is moving there soon as well. Elon Musk even decided he didnt want to go to mars anymore after visiting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6807  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2024, 6:32 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromSD View Post
But I definitely think the street running portion of the A line along Washington south of DTLA would benefit from being elevated, as would the E line from USC to Crenshaw. And Metro really needs to do something to grade separate the junction of the A and E lines south of downtown. That is a real bottleneck.
Elevating this section of the line would mean having to climb over the I-10:




It's definitely possible, even if the at-grade Pico station remains as-is, but it would probably be pretty unsightly. They'd want to do a flying crossover at the junction, so that would also be pretty ugly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6808  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2024, 6:03 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
Montreal's Metro is 100% underground due to being rubber tired and rubber doesn't works so well in snowy climates. Montreal's new REM {light Metro} is mostly above ground due to using standard LRT trains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6809  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2024, 9:29 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
New and exciting solutions are on the horizon though including exploring fitting the stations within the diameter of the bore so all you need to do is mine surface access without needing to dig a battleship sized hole in the ground (or mine it out of rock). This is most notably being explored in one of the Sepulveda single bore heavy rail options.
VTA is doing this for the BART San Jose extension. It is *more* expensive than a traditional sequence with cut/cover stations, due to the increased volume of soil removal and the (much) deeper stations.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6810  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2024, 3:42 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
VTA is doing this for the BART San Jose extension. It is *more* expensive than a traditional sequence with cut/cover stations, due to the increased volume of soil removal and the (much) deeper stations.
This might be the case for BART, since the platforms are 700 feet long - pretty much the longest rapid transit platforms in the world. By contrast, the LA light rail platforms are 250 feet long.

Any new-build subway system can build much more of its lines as cut-and-cover. When subsequent lines are built, they typically must be built deeply to pass beneath earlier lines. The next phase of the Second Ave. subway in NYC, for example, will have a very deep station at 125th St. because it will be built perpendicular to the existing existing 125th St. Lexington Ave. subway station...which is directly below Metro North's elevated station.

Similarly, the addition of elevated transit lines to cities that have expressway networks means that the lines might have to pass very high above the existing expressways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6811  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2024, 2:48 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
This might be the case for BART, since the platforms are 700 feet long - pretty much the longest rapid transit platforms in the world. By contrast, the LA light rail platforms are 250 feet long.

Any new-build subway system can build much more of its lines as cut-and-cover. When subsequent lines are built, they typically must be built deeply to pass beneath earlier lines. The next phase of the Second Ave. subway in NYC, for example, will have a very deep station at 125th St. because it will be built perpendicular to the existing existing 125th St. Lexington Ave. subway station...which is directly below Metro North's elevated station.

Similarly, the addition of elevated transit lines to cities that have expressway networks means that the lines might have to pass very high above the existing expressways.
If you can build the platforms within the tunnel bore, then platform length isn't a huge driver of cost. That's actually a selling point, since future platform extensions are very feasible to add capacity.

But regardless of platform length, you still need two exits from an underground station by code, and when the tunnel is very deep then both exits are extremely expensive to build with multiple escalators, high-speed elevators, and complicated structural systems, plus ventilation needs increase as well.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6812  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2024, 4:18 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
If you can build the platforms within the tunnel bore, then platform length isn't a huge driver of cost. That's actually a selling point, since future platform extensions are very feasible to add capacity.
The tunneled section for a 700-foot platform would need to be straight and level for a longer length and perhaps diverted in one direction or another, slowing travel speed of the trains for the next 100+ years, in order to position the platform ideally for entry points.


Quote:



But regardless of platform length, you still need two exits from an underground station by code, and when the tunnel is very deep then both exits are extremely expensive to build with multiple escalators, high-speed elevators, and complicated structural systems, plus ventilation needs increase as well.
Incidentally, from what I've observed from online videos (I haven't been there), it appears that some or perhaps many of Moscow's very, very busy subway stations (far busier than NYC or any other system in Europe) only have one entrance/exit point. Aside from safety issues in the event of an emergency, it appears to require full-time staff in some stations to mange all of the foot traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6813  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2024, 8:44 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
^^^ Moscow's great Metro system was built by Stalin using, effectively, slave labour. Hundreds died in its construction so I think Moscow isn't the best analogy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6814  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2024, 8:54 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,003
I visited Moscow in 2020 and was struck by how few entrances each Metro station had. Many only had one or two, though of course the larger transfer stations often had more. The stations were also often spaced further apart than similarly dense Asian and European capitals. Kyiv had similar station spacing and entrance designs. However, in Practice, I found it didn't bother me much. If anything, having to walk a few extra blocks encouraged me to explore the city further. The Moscow Subway also had incredible headways, with trains arriving every few minutes, or less. It didn't hurt that the stations themselves are architectural marvels, and are easily the nicest I have ever been in. Honestly, they may be the nicest in the entire world. I am currently in Seoul, which is riddled with subway entrances, though the system has a few surprising faults. The stations are plagued with poor wayfinding, and the headways are surprisingly low. Often times, the trains only come once every six or so minutes, and I have experienced a few delays. Tomorrow I head to Shanghai, and am extremely curious to see how their famed subway system fares. I will of course report back!
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:55 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.