Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee
This just isn't true. A lot of it comes down to aesthetic preference of the bodies involved. The City of New York obviously preferred a subterranean Queens Blvd line even though they obviously had a ROW to build a four track elevated line all the way out to what was then the hinterlands of Queens. The entirety of the original IND with the exception of the Gowanus viaduct and the capture of the Culver Line was underground.
Aesthetic concerns are a real issue, its not just all bean counting and whether a ROW can accommodate a "surface" elevated and if there is no other option then a subway is chosen.
|
Queens Blvd is a much narrower corridor with about 200ft between buildings on either side compared to about 300ft and has no vacant center median. NYC is a terrible example of the virtues of going underground since over half the network is above ground despite it being a much denser city.
I agree that there are other considerations beyond cost, but you're mischaracterizing the situation using terms like "bean counting" which implies fussing over trivial amounts. It would be stuff like trying to save $5 or $10 million on a billion + dollar project by eliminating public art or something. But we're talking about easily doubling or tripling the cost which equates to many hundreds of millions difference. Just the interest on the cost savings with a surface line would be enough to pay for any extra maintenance costs.
Perhaps there are other cases where cities have wasted money putting lines underground inappropriately (in fact that is the case with a recent extension in suburban Toronto). But the existence of other bad decisions does nothing to make future ones better.
Prev
Linear Mode
