Are Elevated or Underground Metro Systems Better?
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 12. 2023
- Get your $100 donation matched with Givewell! To claim your match, go to www.givewell.org/citybeautiful and don’t forget to select “CZcams” and “City Beautiful”. Thanks!
Chicago is one of the only cities in the world with elevated metro lines running through downtown. Why is that? Are underground lines better than above ground?
Resources on this topic:
www.architecture.org/learn/re...
www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1... because most of it,actually runs above the Overground
journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...
australasiantransportresearch...
www.thestar.com/news/gta/high... transit is generally considered,It also avoids traffic delays
ny.curbed.com/2018/6/27/17507...
Produced by Dave Amos and the fine folks at Nebula Studios.
Written by Dave Amos.
Select images and video from Getty Images.
Black Lives Matter.
Trans rights.
As a rider, I prefer trains with a view. As a resident, I’d prefer they be underground due to the noise. There are pros and cons to each, but I’d rather have rail transit than none, so whatever gets built and used is fine with me.
Yeah; this is where having a network of two halves might be more effective. You have trains that serve longer transits so they travel at higher speeds but don't stop at every stop; so it might stop at the airport, the city center/convention center, and major transfer points. And then trains that serve the shorter transits and so they travel at lower speed (and so less noise) and hit more stops - so not just the airport and major transfers but regular stops along the line.
Both can use mostly the same lines and stations, while serving different slightly overlapping needs. Some stations might serve both on the same track, some might have multiple tracks, some might have bypasses.
It also means that service can be adjusted more finely - local trains can run longer in the day and may have increased schedule outside the work day because residents have post-work things to do. The longer transit trains can be very busy during rush hour with frequent service but might have a reduced service outside the work day.
i live less than a block from an elevated BART line and i can barely hear it honestly
There’s no pros for above street. None.
@@xr6lad cost, scenic view from the train, geographic challenges to building underground.
@@xr6lad Man, did you even watch the video?
Its worth noting that on the noise front, a new concrete elevated line will be much much quieter than the 100 year old lines with steel supporting structures that we have in Chicago and NYC
True. Modern metro systems are very quiet.
Much quieter is an understatement. Modern viaducts are basically silent from below, and still pretty quiet above
(Personally I enjoy hearing the roar on the old structures, but I understand its better for health to have less noise)
Concrete insulates noise better than exposed steel.
In the Bay Area, BART’s elevated tracks are on single concrete pylons. The only noise you hear is the sound of the wind and the notorious BART track grind 😂, but none of the bass heavy rumbling that the Chicago L makes.
@@jyw0000as someone who’s ridden BART hundreds of times, you’re far more likely to experience hearing loss WHILE riding it rather than being near its elevated track 😂
Guess what's even quieter....
The answer is that no one cares as long as it's grade separated. Elevated, Tunneled, Trenched, Fenced - it really doesn't matter. Those methods of metro constructions are just tools to utilize. Personally, I think it's best when cities construct their metros to address the geography it's running through. In Richmond, the Canada Line is elevated, as it's built on alluvial soil. In Vancouver, the Canada Line becomes a Subway as it runs through the mountain of the Burrard peninsula and Downtown Vancouver. Near the Airport, the Canada Line runs on the ground fenced off of traffic, as there's nothing there. The Canada Line also only cost us $2 billion for the whole system, and it's a 20km long automated metro system that connects Vancouver, Richmond, and the Airport, so if you utilize effective design, you can have a modern efficient system without spending $10 billion a line.
Metro Vancouver also has an advantage that not all other cities have - an existing right-of-way due to rail. The Expo and Millennium Lines roughly followed the route of old rail lines. That gave the city a lot of experience with grade separated lines, which probably made it an easy sell when building the Canada Line. I remember when the Canada Line (then called RAV Line) was in the planning stages, where there was a debate about the Richmond portion, particularly whether it should be grade separated or LRT-style with traffic (since there was already a busway there, with the 98 B-Line). Public opinion was strongly in favour of grade separated, probably because we had so much experience with SkyTrain and saw the benefits of grade separation. And we're seeing something similar play out right now in Surrey, where the idea of a non-separated Guildford-Whalley-Newton line isn't getting much approval from residents. I think the Vancouver area is pretty much dead-set on grade separated routes, for good reason.
@@buckyhermit The curse of Translink is that once you go Skytrain, you really can't go back. They set the bar so high with the Expo Line that Metro Vancouverites will never accept LRT as a regional rapid transit solution. The most that we accept is LRT on Arbutus and False Creek, where there's more than enough room for an at-grade right of way, and where it's not a major trans-municipal corridor (it's isolated to the city of Vancouver, so it doesn't need to be Skytrain fast). People are far more accepting of bus lanes than they are of track going down the centre of the road, knowing how bad Vancouver drivers are, and how much chaos that would cause. Our BRT is faster and more frequent than the vast majority of tramways, so we really don't want to see them upgraded to some mediocre mid-point between the ideal and the functional. The only other rail that local Vancouverites will seriously consider is mainline rail, such as regional, intercity, and suburban lines. We don't expect mind-blowing frequencies, but if they can run at least two trains an hour out to Abbotsford while maintaining an average Travel Speed of 60kmph, they'll take a huge chunk of cars off of Highway-1, which I refer to as Parking Lot-1. Of course, the long term dream for the Metro Vancouver would be electrified express regional mainline trains connecting Hope, Vancouver, Whistler, and the Cascadia HSR system. If we had all of that with the Skytrain and BRT that's being planned and the new TOD laws, Vancouver would become truly global city akin to Toronto or New York within a few decades.
Rip Canada line though for being overcrowded, can’t really add in extensions or more infill stations unless they rebuilt the platforms and curves or have a relief line like the arbutus right of way
@@TheRandCrews Without any major changes to the infrastructure, they can actually fit a third segment onto the Canada Line. On top of that, peak headways are currently three minutes on the main trunk, but that can easily be reduced to one minute on the trunk, with two minute headways per branch. Those upgrades would increase peak capacity on the line from 6400 passengers per hour to 25,500 passengers per hour. So there is very much quite a bit of room to work with on the Canada Line. That said, Richmond needs a relief line followed by an overhaul of the system to allow for 6-car trains, as the catchment areas of the ROW are developing at an absurd rate, and I can easily see it having Yonge Subway level ridership in the future.
@@RoboJules I mean I largely view not accepting LRT as a good thing as it's a trap that seems to draw in a lot of cities into building somewhat expensive services that don't attract many riders instead of a more expensive service that attracts lots of riders. Skytrain ridership numbers make it abundantly clear which is the right choice there.
I think the real curse is in your hopes for mainline trains. Because of our terrain Vancouver has some rather difficult alignments ( ever try to trace the rail across Burrard Inlet? The route is a bit crazier then you'd think ) and Canada's busiest port which means to get even a passable mainline service we're going to have to invest in some expensive rail bridges. I really want there to be some nice regional rail service but I can't see it happening without billions of dollars on the table.
One thing I like about elevated trains are the views... You get to see and understand the city you're passing through. In contrast, with underground systems you go down one hole and pop out another, rather like a mole, with little sense for the distance or direction in which you've travelled, or what you've missed seeing in-between.
Also, modern elevated trains seem to be much quieter than the EL, presumably in large part due to the mass dampening and sound-blocking properties of the solid concrete bases on which they rest...
As a mainly elevated transit system, I love riding the Skytrain in Vancouver. Especially on clear, sunny days with breathtaking views of the mountains dotted with the dense, urban construction at and around some of the stations.
WORD. Sometimes I'll just hop in the Skytrain and look out the window and the city and landscape.
@@appletree13man my long commute to Surrey is not as bad when the views are beautiful especially going urban, rural, suburban, riverfront, forest mix
Agree, gotta love the view when riding the SkyTrain and any other elevated metro.
One of my favorite things on a morning/evening commute is catching the flash of a low sun off glass towers in the distance.
@@appletree13 the expo and millenium lines are my go tos for joyriding, doing that since 2007 baby!
As a Chicago rider I love when the train comes out of the tunnels and it’s elevated, the tunnels just feel dark and loud vs sunlight and a view of everything.
When I visited Chicago I felt the opposite. The elevated rails block a lot of sunlight from the streets underneath, which I didn't like when walking around on the streets
@@maniacmartin that’s the streets under the tracks, I’m referring to riding the train not walking.
In Madrid some subway lines are able to operate at 90 kph (56 mph). You won't ever see Loop wagons that fast in Chicago unless you want them to fly off the tracks.
@@BlackHoleSpain yeah it’s a old design, but what else do you do when all these lines converge here.
As a New Yorker, I absolutely love the classic look of an el train. Nothing beats it! Wish more cities in the U.S. had it
As a Chicagoan, I also love the look of the ‘L’. I like New York’s but Chicago feels more coordinated
Build modern ones like Mumbai
It'd have been nice if they'd kept the 3rd Avenue el at least.
It looks cool but I hate how absolutely noisy they are. Glad that they’re majority underground now
Yeah, you guys have also got architecture that would make an elevated train a real treat.
I live in Honolulu and have been following skyline extensively. There is nothing inherent about that project that required it to be so expensive. They’ve been dealing with lawsuits, expensive land, and it really is mismanaged (as everything is in Hawaii). Our constructions costs for anything is routinely way higher than anywhere else. Even road maintenance or construction is ridiculously expensive. The H3 highway, even though was built as a higher up bridge, was the most expensive highway built per mile in the US I believe.
If Honolulu would have tunneled the project, my guess is they would’ve spent over a billion dollars per kilometer. The train is now being constructed in the city and they are spending 496 million dollars to move the utilities down only one road. The costs for everything here is just insane.
Interesting. I had never thought of that, but it makes so much sense. Shipping everything needed for public works there has to be soo expensive.
@@faenethlorhalien Despite what people say about shipping or the Jones act, the cost of materials is negligible due to shipping. These materials are sent in massive bulk which brings down cost. I work in real estate and the cost of lumber and concrete is a bit higher than the mainland but not by much. The biggest obstacle is the fact that the price for labor when compared to production is insanely high. There’s a huge deficit in human capital in Hawaii. Also, every government body is mismanaged and at odds with each other so there is no streamlined permit process. This drives up costs dramatically.
This isn’t exactly hard evidence by I know the owner of a union tile company that did work at the stations of skyline and even though they accepted his bid which would be higher than anywhere on the mainland, he ended up losing money on the jobs because the plans were not detailed (meaning things needed to be redone) and his guys also needed to be sent home early due to lack of coordination.
corruption, probably
Honolulu can't build a subway because the tunneling work would have been ridiculously expensive due to its unique geological features
I am so tired of literally everything in the US. We are a disease. We can't do anything right and we fuck up everything that falls within our borders, and often, vast regions beyond them.
You missed an important consideration: hydrology. Although there are subways in Chicago, The area was naturally a marsh not much higher than lake Michigan and the Chicago river. Flooding can be a major concern. Also the soil needs to have strong shear strength, preferably bedrock, otherwise construction gets really onerous to shore up the soil. Makes subways more expensive relative to build. This is why elevateds are prominent in Bangkok, Manila, and in tropical cities in general.
True, and on the other hand you have terrain considerations -- trains can't climb steep hills (unless you're talking about cable cars), so in mountainous areas, the lines have to be underground so they don't have to follow the terrain like an elevated line does!
Yes.. “geology” is the word that might be more important than hydrology. Hard to make tunnel walls out of sand, silt, or muck. Mountains usually portend the existence of rock nearby. But for Chicago, downtown street level is actually 1-2 stories above ground level to get above the boggy ground level.
I think what's even more fascinating is that both of Chicago's subway lines (Blue & Red) can reroute to the elevated section and continue on as normal if the tunnels ever corrode and/or flood.
Service wouldn't be hindered besides a few stations being skipped
Good point.
For the same reason in London there are few underground lines South of the Thames (and in some case they're not even under-ground).
Over all at the time the system was developping, tunneling there was challenging and expensive. Though they mainly built above ground railways (at grade or elevated) that never became part of the metro system
Well, Manila is currently building a subway and it's one of the most anticipated and ambitious transportation projects in the country so far. Although it is indeed hella expensive, 33km for almost 9 billion USD.
Most metros in India that opened in the 2010s and 2020s are elevated but some of them like Bangalore, Pune, Lucknow and Ahmedabad had a limited number of underground stations in the city center. Other systems like Chennai and Delhi have extensive city center tunnels.
mumbai metro have lines that are underground too the line 3 is underground
Kolkata metro blue line is almost completely underground, it runs through the main parts of the city
while it’s true that bangalore doesn’t have a completely underground line. many portions of the upcoming blue and pink line are underground, especially the blue line stations near the airport.
and of course many of the stations in the city centre are underground but many aren’t too
i love a good combination of both. there’s something cool about going through tunnels and popping up right at your destination, while you just can’t beat the view of trains riding above the street
More to the point, this allows the lines to be built downtown with a minimum of disruption, and then extended into the suburbs at much less cost!
As a Chicago-born transit nerd, I love elevated trains and will take them above subways any day. It also means that drivers can see exactly how much faster a train can be (thinking of Blue Line and the Eisenhower) and that can spur more transit construction.
All that said, if a subway is what gets built, so be it. A metro is a metro.
edit: wrong highway thanks @A-M4
But the CTA should definitely sound insulate the highway median stations as they are super loud. I would also love floor to ceiling platform screen doors in the subways to cut down on noise but I imagine it would be very expensive and disruptive especially considering how long the platform is in the State Street subway
"It also means that drivers can see exactly how much faster a train can be "
Damn.. now THAT is an ORIGINAL point! I never considered that!
@@kpopgrrl Platform doors are for safety, not for noise reduction -- and safety-wise, waist-high is better than floor-to-ceiling (although they won't prevent a suicide, they will prevent an accidental fall, and at the same time if someone is trapped between the doors and the train, he/she can usually climb back over to the platform)!
@@agentorange153 They can do multiple things at the same time. I've been to the Seoul subway so I know how the walls and doors help insulate sound.
I do think the shorter doors would probably work better on elevated or at-grade platforms, which is also what they use in Seoul elevated stations (and other elevated stations in Japan, other countries, and the new Honolulu Skyline)
@@kpopgrrl My point is that waist-high is better for safety than full-height, regardless of whether the station is underground, elevated or at-grade!
Miami's Metrorail and Metromover are both elevated and also go through Downtown Miami and Brickell
AS A DUTCH PERSON I think Rotterdam absolutely nailed this.
Basically the system is elevated most of the time, but underground in the city centre where above ground was impossible. The system is mainly used to connect suburbs to the city centre.
They treat it more or less like they do with trains. So sound shields whenever needed and a lot space around the stations anyway. (the metro stations often being major local bus stops as well)
Personally, I love taking the C line from Spijkernisse and slowly getting deeper and deeper into the city seeing the buildings getting higher and higher and higher!
I love the Rotterdam metro system, the public transport obsessed Netherlands has nothing like it! :P
I used to live very close to the Red Line in Chicago's Rogers Park. You'd be surprised how quickly you get used to it. Sometimes I had to pause a convo depending on where I was in the apartment, but it just becomes background noise.
Beyond the cost savings, a major advantage of elevated metro is that its infrastructure represents substantially less embodied carbon than tunneled metro, which can be so substantial that it may take decades for a new heavily tunneled metro line to save more CO2 emissions than was emitted during construction.
@@alexanderdvanbalderen9803 depends on the ground type - normally anything underground stays at a near constant temperature, but with enough activitiy and insulating ground, you can run into the problem that London's underground has with its super warm tunnels
@@alexanderdvanbalderen9803 the one and only underground system I experienced to get hot was the NYC subway ... not sure what they did wrong for stations to heat up like a tropical monkey house at the zoo.
Most subway systems don't require climate control or ventilation at all; They stay rather cool even on the hottest day in summer
@@EnjoyFirefighting I was in NYC and noticed this during the summer. On my life some of the stations were 10-20 degrees hotter than the air outside.
@@empireoftruth3291 not only hot, but also intense humidity at some stations
Why is CO2 even an issue??? It's not like it's toxic or anything!
I like elevated because I get to know a city better and as a result can navigate much easier. I love Chicago's L system and look forward to the CTA having leadership that takes transit seriously.
The elevated rail noise argument: It's worth mentioning that above ground lines are still significantly quieter than even a modestly size road.
Moreover, the noise may be louder but a train only passes once every few minutes on the most busy lines. Along major arterial roads, the traffic noise is CONSTANT.
@@GTAVictor9128 Plus your eardrums won't explode whenever it rains
Rain makes roads so much louder while trains are barely affected at all
I feel like the video was still a little too dismissive of the problem of noise, to be honest. Maybe this is just me speaking as someone with sensitivity to sound and who would really struggle living next to a rail track, but writing people off as NIMBYs for not wanting that stress and reduced quality of living doesn't seem particularly fair to me.
@@ph5.484unfortunately they’re not going to base a cities entire train infrastructure on a very small percentage of people with hearing sensitivity.
Falling under the cost to build for subways is the composition of the ground. Chicago used to be a swamp so digging tunnels is very expensive. So even though downtown Chicago is dense the L will never go underground as the swampy ground makes cost prohibitive and the caissons from the skyscrapers would have to be planned around.
Singapore is even more swamp and they built it
Chicago already has two subway lines, as pointed out in the video. The main issue is cost
@@pimpnamedslickback7780That would have required the natural materials below ground to be frozen using liquid Nitrogen, before tunnelling.
They both have their place. Underground is better in areas with extreme temperatures (such as Moscow or Singapore), while above ground is better in areas with high water tables (such as Miami or Honolulu). There are plenty of other reasons a particular track location might work better for certain areas, but geography is perhaps what influences above vs. underground the most.
Singapore's MRT (subway/metro) is mostly underground as its newer lines serve suburbs built up decades earlier & thus without space for rail lines & stations above ground
One great thing about elevated lines on the Subway systems in Berlin and Hamburg is also when they don't go directly above a street, there'll often go right over shops and restaurants. It's super cool being in a bar where the rooftop is basically a subway track. Also some of the best night clubs in Berlin are located within the elevation structure of the subway.
Typical German, only thinks about where to have the next beer ;-) 🍺 But yes, it's cool to have all those shopping areas with direct transit access (BTW, in New York they also have shops and cafes right inside some of the bigger station complexes, like Columbus Circle for example)!
I've seen footage in China where the elevated rail was built to go through some buildings too.
@@GTAVictor9128 exists also in Berlin
The scene in Blues Brothers with the noise from L trains constantly passing the apartment was not an exaggeration.
I visited Chicago a few years ago, it's such a cool place. It reminded me a lot of Melbourne, Australia (my hometown). The street grid, elevated tracks and huge number of skyscrapers really reminded me of home.
As someone who lived above a subway line in Brooklyn and later next to an elevated line in Queens; you get used to the noise very quickly. The elevated line didn't lightly shake my apartment the way the underground did.
You didn't live literally next to one then. You can't even hear the person next to you in my apt. I'm literally at eye level with the train on Broadway in Astoria. It's a nightmare.
@@kittenmasakiIt depends on the building. I've been in the newer buildings in L.I.C and you can't even feel or hear the 7 train going by on 21st.
@@kittenmasakiI should add that I had the opposite experience in Philly where I was five blocks away from the subway there, inside of a newer building and it would shake the place🤣
I think New Yorkers turned against elevated trains in 1933, when King Kong attacked an el and killed a lot of passengers on it.
I used to live in a high rise building directly above an underground portion of chicago's red line. 13th floor and I STILL could hear it every time a train passed.
In Jakarta, we have three different train systems. One is one is on the ground, one is below, above and elevated while the other one is mostly elevated. It interesting to ride a train from below ground and suddenly we got elevated
5:22 I was waiting for the resident to say “it goes by so often, you don’t even notice it.”
Berlin has a couple of metros U1/U2/U3 and trains (sbahn) that run partially or totally elevated. those are my favorite ones. there's even a new elevated sbahn buing built and i cant wait to use it.
i think it shouldn't be such a dividing question. it should be a question for each part of each line. vienna has 6 underground lines. not a single one of them is entirely underground. 2 of them (u4 and u6) are mostly above ground. u1 and u2 are underground in the city center but as they go into the outer districts they come out of the ground and are elevated and sometimes also at grade.
Most cities actually have a mixture of elevated and underground lines!
I'd be interested to see a video comparing suspended railways (e.g. Chiba and Shonan in Japan) with conventional elevated railways discussing why suspended railways are better in certain situations (or at least, why they are chosen).
Are you referring to suspended vs. conventional monorail lines?
Suspended rails, which are basically Wuppertal Schwebebahn system, opened in 1901, are very peculiar and worth to build in very peculiar and rare cases (which is why in more than 120 years just few systems of this kind were built worldwide).
Basically if there is lack of space and you can't build underground. Wuppertal is a city along a river in a narrow valley. So they created this system hanging on the river itself, and over some city street.
Then, if you have even steep slopes (as in Chiba case) that system is fine. But in most cases you can build underground instead of going schwebebahn.
And 'conventional' monorail could face steep slopes too
@@urbanfile3861 So what are the advantages and disadvantages of schwebebahn vs. "conventional" monorail (like the one in Seattle)?
As a transit enthusiast, I'd kill to have a nice view of line 6 of Paris. Well, not too close, but ideally a nice view, I don't mind the noise.
Vancouver's SkyTrain is a great example of over/under/at-grade. Underground for three stations downtown (although waterfront was originally not really underground.
Elevated from downtown for three stops, dipping into a slightly below ground station, then elevated for all but one more of the Expo Line.
That's definitely one of the benefits of using conventional, steel-wheeled metro trains (I know the SkyTrain uses Linear Induction Motors, but apart from that it uses conventional railway infrastructure for the tracks and switches) as it can easily transition from at grade, to underground and elevated.
@@creaturexxii Vs. Montreal Metro, which uses rubber-tired trains, and therefore had to be built completely underground because these trains can't run if there's snow on the tracks!
Vancouver ; the overrated city of homless , drugs and crimes and rain.
@@jeanbolduc5818 I love rain, but I can definitely do without these other things -- however, this is a video specifically about transit systems, not about comparing cities as a whole!
@@agentorange153 IKR! Thankfully, Montreal's coming to its sense in building out its latest project, the REM.
5:11 ahh it is so cool that you filmed what was my stop for over 7 years! I probably watched one of your videos standing right at that platform. Love the focus on Chicago, here!
Miami also has elevated lines through downtown. (Although calling them "lines" plural is kinda cheating.)
My city (Stuttgart) is built right into the hills so the metro is constantly swapping between being above and below ground lol.
We're currently in the heated process of expanding our ground level light rail in Phoenix and this video really makes me feel like an elevated rail is what's needed. The previous expansion down Central through downtown was super contentious as most people saw it as removing vital road lanes for a rail system that, considering how our city is designed, won't see much use at the moment. Building over would certainly solve that and we don't even have much of a skyline for it to work around, the rail would be the tallest thing in most parts of the city.
True -- ground-level light rail is a non-starter, it's really the worst of both worlds (combining the slow speed of road transit with the inconvenience and inflexibility of rail transit)! If you want REAL public transit which people actually USE, rapid transit (whether elevated or underground) is THE way to go!
One place where light rail can be a viable solution is if almost all of it is separated, the passenger volume is relatively low and the part where it does interfere with roads is not too busy. When demand gets higher and the sharing of roads becomes too disruptive, the shared part can be put underground and eventually the entire track could be upgraded to a metro one. On the other hand, car dependent places would probably just opt for one more lane in those cases...
@@Kenionatus **cough** **cough** light metro, and then upgrade it with higher demand **cough**
@@agentorange153
Or you could add Transit Signal Priority, but that's contentious
@@HallsofAsgard96 Not a solution -- the tram would still have to slow to a crawl when crossing a street in case someone runs the red, the ONLY way this could possibly work is if you also add automatic crossing gates like for a real railroad!
As a rider of the L it’s also helpful for me to be able to see the train platform as I’m approaching it; I can see if the train is arriving and I need to hustle, and when I’m exiting I can get a better sense of where I am on the street. Just a small thing, but helpful when navigating in a hurry!
I'm not sure how this keeps coming up but I am reasonably certain the Chicago 'L' do not have "streetcar origins" like what RM Transit said or what you just mentioned at 4:10 that "the original loop was a trolley loop" . As far as I am aware, that was never true. The loop was an intentional combination of the already existing South Side and Lake Street 'L's, with the Metropolitan being completed soon after. Even the originally constructed portion of the Loop was just the extension of the Lake Street 'L' to Wabash, branching away from its initial water street terminus
There was a street-level loop for streetcars that existed before the current L structure was built (Chicago used to have a massive streetcar network until it replaced them with buses in the 1950s). I think that's what the "streetcar origins" is referring to.
I think another advantage of an underground railway is that there is more flexibility when building lines that cross, making interchange stations easier to build and maintaining capacity. This is especially important the centre of many cities where many lines cross
I like elevated or at grade (as long as it's not mixed with traffic) because it's nice to see where you're at and is basically free advertising of the transit compared to driving in traffic. And as someone who's wife gets motion sickness from cars and stuff, having the option to look out the window helps compared to being in a tunnel where you can't see anything.
It's cheaper to have it elevated.
@5:30
"How often does the train go by?"
"So often that you won't even notice."
I grew up in Inwood, in Northern Manhattan half a block from where the IRT lines come up from underground into an "El". (I remember people standing under the El during air drills we used to have when 8 was young.
But my point is that the amount of noise associated with the El wasn't really that bad - we were all very very used to it. As I say - half a block away
Delhi metro is elevated in most places but also has significant underground portions in different parts of the city. The views (and daylight) from elevated lines are a big plus for riders and modern metros are a lot quieter. Some lines often go from elevated to underground and vice versa on the same route, its fun to travel around.
I feel like with the dense urban nature of Manila, tunneling would’ve been more or less harder with being hit with a lot rainfall and flooding throughout the year, back when it was built. Leading to systems being more so overhead wires and elevated, though with newer lines having third rail and tunneled sections at more developed areas. Also it also shows that the proposed commuter railway is being built on top of current Philippine National railway right of way due to having many grade crossings and elevated expressway following the same ROW
Manila will have a subway to be finished in 2028, constructed by Japan
Miami also has an elevated metro Downtown
Awesome, saw my old stop on the brown line. Making me homesick!
As a student who lives in lakeview that goes to UIC, you unintentionally mapped my morning commute in video
before watching the video: underground ones greatly reduce the noise impact for the surrounding area and residents; Also it's not an eyesore or blocks the view and sunlight in front of residential buildings, historic buildings etc and you simply have more space above ground ... more space for anything from trees to space for ladder trucks from the fire department.
The further you get to the outskirts it makes sense to let the underground lines get up onto ground level. Below ground lines aren't exposed to the weather conditions above, unless it's like on the NYC subway which gets flooded in case of a hurricane.
Minor correction, the first loop wasn't trolley cars, it was cable cars
The two lines in the Santo Domingo metro both have underground and elevated portions. They're extending line 2 and eventually line 1 with what appears to be mostly above ground tracks. Like you mentioned in the video it seems the downtown portions were made underground to not disturb those important streets while further out the elevated parts are used more.
Most metro systems have both underground and elevated portions, although usually a system would predominantly use one or the other -- it's uncommon for a metro system to be 100% elevated, and even more rare for it to be 100% underground!
I think it is worth adding that the law at the time didn't allow for lines above ground to be built in the London city centre, hence why the London Underground was first built below ground.
I live in Taibei, in Beitou off the Xinyi-Danshui line, aka the red line. out where I'm at the line is above ground, before going underground near the edge of the Shilin District and central Taibei. The above ground line is honestly not very noisey, it seems they did a great job with noise protection on the above ground lines here. The whole system uses a mix of the two, with most the above ground sections being more on the edges of the city, with the exception of the Wenhu Line which runs above ground near the city center. It's a great system nothing much to complain about!
"Let's follow this TRAIN of thought" . Well done sir, well done.
Here in the Philippines, the current metro rail has a combination of elevated, at-grade, and underground stations. The ones that are underground are in the more developed parts of the metropolitan area while the elevated ones are over the busier parts of the avenue the line runs through. The light rails meanwhile only have one station underground.
The views on the elevated parts aren't really that good-looking but some of them act as terminals to malls.
That was neat. Not train related, but I didn't realize that back then, Chicago was as big a city as NYC
The Berlin Stadt-Bahn that runs right through the city centre east and west is beautiful for passengers. It passes right through the museums on its way to Alexanderplatz. Even as a commuter, I sometimes plan my routes to have more overground trains, since it's more scenic.
Love love love when you get out 'on scene' !!
My favorite metro is the Vienna U-bahn... it's got a mix of underground, elevated & 2 lines that operate on the old historic Stadtbahn.
I have such a childhood glee and love of transit that directly comes from traveling underground via subway, specifically the State Street subway funny enough. So I’m incredibly biased in its favor, I love subway stations. But that said, a good view from an elevated line is lovely too
Really well done video! As a Chicagoian we are literally one of the least talked about cities in urbanism in the usa despite being the only ones other than new york to have actual city urbanism. The cta is the only transit system in the usa thats comparable to new york and it shows haha, im glad the L gets a good rap here. People really think they must be super loud or something, and they can be, but they're no louder than a lifted truck trying to go 20 miles an hour, and they also fucking SPARK. No cooler looking metro system in my opinion
For reference, the London underground railways weren't yet 'the tube system' at the time, as they didn't yet include any of the deep level tubes from which they got that name, which were added later (after tunnel boring was a thing. All the earlier 'sub surface lines' were built using cut-and-cover: Dig a whole to where you want the bottom of your tunnel, then build a roof over it and cover it back up).
Properly speaking only the actual deep level tube lines are 'the tube', at least in theory... but in practice no one actually cares about that distinction outside of contexts like this (where it's an anachronism issue), trivia quizzes and the like, and the occasional pedantic twit, so the entire tunnel system gets called 'the tube' anyway.
Cut and cover construction also meant that the London underground (though not the later deep level tube lines) mostly had to conform to the streets, because diverging from the streets involved demolishing the buildings the line would pass under. Which usually wasn't exactly practical.
(edit: Ahh, you mentioned some of this later).
Note that most of the London underground lines are in fact deep-level tubes (only the original Metropolitan and District lines are cut-and-cover, and for good historical reason -- they were originally steam-powered, and so they couldn't be built as deep-level tubes because the ventilation would have been impossible, the smoke was bad enough as it was!)
Also, the underground developed from several different competing companies and some of the above ground sections were originally mainline services. The DLR has a mixture of elevated, at grade and underground sections, with part of the elevated section being the route of a previous railway.
Chicago also has the fact that parts of the city were built over wetlands as a consideration. Below street level means dealing with drainage, making elevated appealing for eliminating that particular issue.
Speaking to the noise... Depending on the frequency of the line, it might be loud every few minutes or every 30 minutes for only seconds at a time. I live basically on a highway and it is loud all day at all times with no break
There were several plans to eliminate the elevated structure in the central city and construct more subway tunnels. However as the State Street Subway was delayed by the Great Depression, then WWII, the Dearborn Street Subway was pushed back and plans for the LaSalle Street Subway became so expensive by the 1950s, that the city abandoned the plans.
Very good video! Elevated and underground sections of metro networks both have their own benefits and downsides. Good comparision.
Chicago's L has unfortunately not recovered from the pandemic, while also suffering from the same flaws all US transit systems do in existing solely for feeding into downtown
The METRA needs to get upgraded to high frequency service
@@qjtvaddictUnion Station should be directly connected to CTA lines, the fact that it isn't is kind of baffling when you look at how well integrated urban rail and metros are in other cities around the world. Metra needs to increase ridership first to make it viable to bring prices down and increase frequency, and I think the way to do that is to make it easier to access any point in the city via public transit from Metra stations.
Definitely the most disappointing part of the el. All those miles of track but not much of a network.
ya, CTA is super helpful to get around most places in a pinch, and great for commuting to and from downtown, but in general, if I haven't planned my trips specifically around L stations, I usually just end up driving for most things. Chicago transit is basically screwed for the next 60+ years by the 75 year privatization of our streets (parking) that basically means we can't build better walkable streets for half a decade. Possibly the best reason to move out of here at some point in the next decade, if other US cities become more walkable and less car centric.
I lived near an el line for 5 years in Chicago, and what the video says is true - you get used to the sound. Honestly, it's regularly enough that police and ambulance sirens were actually worse, and general car traffic could be just as obnoxious as a train passing. Admittedly, I only heard any of this when the window was open.
My favorite view of the city from the el is on the brown or purple line after it makes its turn east between the Armitage and Sedgwick stations - gives a gorgeous view of the skyline for a brief few moments. The view from the river crossings are a close second.
Train noise is only loud up close, it doesn't carry far!
It still saddens me that they got rid of the elevated train line in Liverpool. I imagine we'd have a beatles song about it too if it had still existed.
Great video. Thank u.
5:23 the Chicago resident quote should have said, “so often you won’t even notice it.”
Another nicely researched and done video -with nothing artificial added- from one of the top CZcams urbanism experts.
You are really underselling how amazing modern windows are at canceling all the noise. I stayed in a hotel right next to the EL, less than 5 feet and didn't hear a single thing because of the windows were modern
Mumbai will open its first underground line in 2024!
Fellow planner here! Working in Japan and have worked with the Yui Monorail system in Okinawa Japan. One of the reasons for going elevated had to do with tourism factors as well as other intrinsic aspects! if you'd like to chat about it some time let me know!
Really nice comparison
Apropos the noise of elevated lines, I was expecting a Blues Brothers clip 😅
here in vienna every line has underground and above ground sections, a new line is getting built right now that is completely underground, it's cost are between $200m-$300m and it'll add 5 mi. of new tracks, it's also going to be the very first autonomous subway in vienna!
you really should visit us!!
I recommend to have a look on the Hochbahn in Hamburg. It was built around 1900 and is also lifted in some parts like the one with view on the harbour. That's probably the most beautiful way to come around in a city.
I live right beside an elevated metro line. Over time we just got used to it. Also having trees around the metro line can help reduce the noise by a lot.
lived in japan for a bit and all of their rail is above ground for the most part and it was pretty great imo... moral of the story is any mass transit system is better than none at all.
"How often does the train run by?" (Jake Blues)
"Often enough you won't even notice it." (Elwood Blues)
Note to the video poster regarding content at 6:10 -
In New York, the 7 train's route runs on the IRT FLUSHING line, not the FLUSHING AVE line.
The line is named for the outer borough terminal of the physical rail line, which is the neighborhood of Flushing, Queens. Flushing Ave is a street in Brooklyn that comes nowhere near the IRT Flushing Line.
When you're referring to the line's underground portion under Manhattan's 42nd Street, you could probably just describe that as such.
Otherwise, really good video.
For about 30 years, I lived by Kennedy Airport which included having the Concord flying over head, which we couldn't hear the TV's and conversations
Lived in Berlin and Vienna, which both have a substantial network of both underground and above ground lines, and interconnected metro and train lines. I much prefer above ground. I also really liked the sky train in Bangkok
In my City Kolkata India, here both Underground and Elevated Metro system functioning at the same time
I live a block away from the elevated part of the one train in NYC, and I barely notice the noise.
A major downside of subways is that the ride can be quite... depressing. But on an elevated line you get to sight see.
Here in Salt Lake City our trains are all street level. The road to the airport used to have major traffic and now has barely any on it at all now that the train goes right there. As cost is a major factor in transit I think street-level light rail is the best. You can just walk right on to a station, no stairs, no elevators. I live right on a line and I love watching the trains go by and hearing the bell ding, and even though it's probably not as fast a subway I get to watch the city go by when riding.
Maybe you could look into two of Singapore's oldest lines, the "North-South Line", and the "East-West Line". Both has around half that runs underground, and half that runs elevated, and has brief sections where they may run "at grade".
In Tampa, Florida underground is not a option and acquiring property in already developed areas is difficult given the shear number of different interested parties. So if we do expand on city wide metro we will likely have to go elevated like in Miami, and develop with easement permissions rather than outright ownership. Will also help deal with flooding
Also, the tube was more expensive to begin with but in hindsight with how much has been used it's pretty cheap
In live in Daegu, South Korea. This city already had 2 subway lines when I moved here, but about 10 years ago, they opened a monorail. The monorail is very quiet. I don't know how expensive monorails are to build, but if noise is a concern, I think monorails are a better alternative to actual trains.
Elevated all the way! I love the train noises so much that I purposely got an apartment next to a train line.
Edit: Also, with subways, it gets depressing being underground with nothing to look at.
You should ride the Moscow Metro some time, this might change your mind about the "nothing to look at" part!
4:56 It's ironic that the footage to show "At Grade" railway is from the only section of Bangkok Sky Train which looks like it's at grade while in fact, it crosses the river along the bridges which are as high as the Sky Train track xD
There’s no right answer to this question. Cities should build the transit that is most suitable for the location and situation at hand, period. Whether it is elevated or underground matters very little so long as it is accessible, frequent, reliable, cost effective, and generally gets the job done in the best way possible.
I LOVE the L (and Chicago in general). It’s so easy to use and I love a ride with a view. I’d kill for good transit here in Florida but with the way we’re all so spread out here it’d be EXTREMELY costly to get any city here up to par with other metropolitan areas in the country 🥲 anywho, in Florida it would have to be at grade/elevated anyways cause we can’t dig 6 inches without hitting water haha
Interesting about Berlin. Now you mention it Berlin does have quite a lot of elevated lines, the main west-east heavy rail line inside the s-bahn ring, parts of the ring, the Hamburg line in the Spandau area etc
At the end of the day it depends on your preference. Do you like freezing cold wind or hot stuffy humid tunnels. Both are great, i love the bca of elevated tho!