Elevated vs Underground Rail Stations: Which do you prefer? (Dallas, subways, freeway)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The disadvantage though is with capacity and interchanges. Building complex interchanges overground just takes a lot of real estate to work well (like in Tokyo).
You neglected the noise factor. Elevated = more ambient noise for the surrounding area. Subways = more noise and discomfort for passengers unless the trains have tons of sound-deadening. Having ridden in Chicago's subways made me wonder how the motormen don't go deaf.
You can put sound insulation in the rail cars to mitigate the underground noise problem. Newer rapid transit cars in Philly, New York, Boston and Washington (ever since the system opened in Washington's case) have ambient interior noise levels not all that much higher than outside.
Mitigating the ambient exterior noise level requires some extra engineering - but I've noticed that trains running on modern concrete elevated structures make far less noise than those that run on the older steel-frame elevateds. And when the ballasted roadbed of the steel-frame Frankford Elevated got replaced by a concrete box roadbed with rubber pads beneath the rail seats, noise levels fell there too.
That's only true where the elevated structure doesn't run directly over a street.
In most US cities, elevated structures do run over streets. Chicago is the major exception - most els there run over back alleys a half block off the thoroughfares they serve. One line there - the only four-track elevated line in the country outside New York (where most els have either two or three tracks) - runs on an embankment that you'd have to undermine to get leasable space.
About the only places where what London does is possible in the US are under the Flushing Line el along Queens Boulevard in New York and along stretches of elevated BART lines in Oakland. Since the trains in Oakland run on concrete pedestal-support viaducts, you'd have to build structures beneath them.
Call me a freak, but I enjoy scoping underground architecture as much as I do taking in the view from an elevated. Count me in the "prefers subways" crowd both because of that and because they leave almost no fingerprints on the surface. But the cost difference means we will get more els than subways when it's time to build.
ilovelondon: What's the name of the station in your first photograph? I thought I was looking at a newer Moscow station initially until I noticed the Underground roundels in the tilework.
Riding both the Moscow Metro and the London Underground are on my bucket list. My time remaining on this planet is getting shorter, so I think I need to get to it.
ilovelondon: What's the name of the station in your first photograph? I thought I was looking at a newer Moscow station initially until I noticed the Underground roundels in the tilework.
Riding both the Moscow Metro and the London Underground are on my bucket list. My time remaining on this planet is getting shorter, so I think I need to get to it.
That's in Southgate station way up in North London. There's several more around the city.
Also try to visit Tokyo if you can. I believe every urbanist should make a pilgrimage to Tokyo at least once in their life.
I know this may sound odd to some people, but I'm actually quite fond of the old iron/steel El tracks in Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia despite their flaws. They provide shade on sunny days, impart a strong feeling of dense urbanity when they stand over streets, and are historical relics that will never be replicated by modern planners and builders. I particularly like the Loop Elevated stations with their wooden platforms and headhouses. Modern concrete elevated structures just aren't as special, partly because they're so common.
As others have said, elevated stations and tracks provide great views and are cheaper to build, but El tracks can be noisy to nearby residents, and it can be unpleasant to wait at elevated stations in the winter (and slightly unsettling on very windy days.) Underground stations are fine no matter how the weather is and are optimal for land use because they free up the surface for other structures, but they're more expensive to build and don't offer a good view of the city for riders. They do have more potential for great art and architecture, though.
In earthquake zones I prefer to be above ground. I get nervous when I've ridden underground in either San Francisco or L.A., particularly going through the Tube from Oakland to San Francisco!
In earthquake zones I prefer to be above ground. I get nervous when I've ridden underground in either San Francisco or L.A., particularly going through the Tube from Oakland to San Francisco!
The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge was shut down after a section of its eastern span collapsed in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The eastern span was then replaced with a new span at a cost of billions, and there were some issues with the quality of its construction that might make me a bit wary when the next Big One hits.
BART service through the Transbay Tube was only briefly interrupted. The tube itself was undamaged.
Obviously elevated and underground are better than at-grade because the trains dont get stuck in traffic and aren’t constrained to run shorter trains due to block size or forced to go slower due to speed restrictions.
Choosing between elevated and underground is more difficult - both have advantages and disadvantages. Here’s how I see it-
Elevated Advantages:
Cheaper to build
Nice views
Usually faster to access for riders
Elevated disadvantages:
Can look ugly and ruin neighborhood character
Can interfere with other modes like freight or bicycle/pedestrians
Riders more exposed to the elements when waiting at stations
Underground advantages:
Out of the way - doesn’t affect neighborhood aesthetics/character
Riders not exposed to elements
Doesn’t interfere with other modes
Underground disadvantages:
More expensive
Sometimes takes longer to get to platform
No views
What are your thoughts?
Regardless of preference the last time a city tried to build something underground, and not entirely underground, was LA?
I don't see a lot of cities undertaking underground stations due to the cost and logistics of planning one out.
Underground. Elevated lines are ugly and noisy and block out light at street level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Easy
