Why Your City Should Think Deeper About That Megaproject
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лис 2024
- Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/vide...
Underwater tunnels can be some of the most complex and transformative transit projects out there - but a bigger project needs to include deeper planning. Let's talk about that!
Caltrain-HSR Compatibility Blog: caltrain-hsr.b...
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=PATREON=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): share.epidemic...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
Map Data © OpenStreetMap contributors: www.openstreet...
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: rmtransit.com
Substack: reecemartin.su...
=ABOUT ME=
Ever wondered why your city's transit just doesn't seem quite up to snuff? RMTransit is here to answer that, and help you open your eyes to all of the different public transportation systems around the world!
Reece (the RM in RMTransit) is an urbanist and public transport critic residing in Toronto, Canada, with the goal of helping the world become more connected through metros, trams, buses, high-speed trains, and all other transport modes.
In the US, since massive transit projects basically only get greenlit when the political stars line up every so often, there is the feeling that you can and should go "all-in" for the most you possibly can because come future need or not, there's a good chance you may never get the funding if political winds aren't favorable to transit (and they often aren't). Additionally, there's a case to be made for doing big projects now as opposed to later, since costs always seem to increase over time and never decrease.
We've thought of tunneling our Pyongyang Metro under the Taedong but considering that the city's both tram and trolleybus network serve the eastern side of the river, we think we're good for now. Would rather spend the money on new rolling stock for all the networks and improving bike lanes. While there's nothing wrong with thinking big, sometimes the answer has always been right in front of you. Meanwhile, the longest subway tunnel (in general, not underwater) currently in operation is between Wangcong Temple and Lanjiagou which has a length of 68.2 km. This is the entirety of Line 6 on the Chengdu Metro. Coming close is Line 11/11A or the Bolshaya Koltsevaya Line of the Moscow Metro at 61 km.
Loved your tram system. Always clean and almost no one on board. Really quiet.
can you give back my family?
It's no lie about the Faroe Islands! Beginning in the 1960s, the Faroe Islands has built NINETEEN tunnels to go through their steep terrain. The most notable of which is Eysturoyartunnilin which opened in December 2020. It's their biggest infrastructure project by far with a length of nearly 37,000 feet. It connects the island of Streymoy to the island of Eysturoy. It stands out among every other undersea tunnel because it has the world's first undersea ROUNDABOUT! And said roundabout even has ARTWORK installed by Faroese artist Tróndur Patursson. For a remote archipelago in the Arctic, they know how to put themselves on the map!
This is something we have to combat all the time. There are unfortunately many people in power that have no idea how rail transit actually works, what is possible and what not.
The last (and sadly still current) "mega" project here in Cologne is the Nord-Süd-Stadtbahn, which was planned and talked about for 30 years beforehand. The first tunnels built in the late 1960s already included space for the new tunnel to be attached to!
For really big projects, you NEED to have a long planning and thinking phase
Absolutely, planning should be a long careful process -
Absolutely. But sorry folks, pardone me for my absolute ignorance about San Francisco (and the US in general) ,but as an European I see critical to only use two tracks for both S-Bahn and underground, even for a very short distance and with the most modern signaling systems the technology offers. It's just... Both underground and S-Bahn are high capacity systems and therefore it would be great not to have any kind of conflict between different services. Even if this tunnel could handle 70 thp like some parts of the London Underground, it's still not very future-proof to me. Rail services do need a most precisely planned schedule. Sometimes, there is even "no other option" than giving that given path to that given service in order to have things work properly. I can't imagine, as a timetable planner, to having to deal with a metro service on the same tracks while planning S-Bahn or Regional railway timetable, it just sounds like the hell to me. But please keep in mind I don't know anything about San Francisco and the Bay Area so please explain me why sharing the tunnel makes sense
I hope the ost west stadtbahn will still be built.
My ultimate fantasy for Cologne is that they'll one day build 2 extra tracks between Dom and Appelhofplatz, splitting the high floor network into a core route from Poststrasse to Reichenspergerplatz and another one from Bonner Wall to Westbahnhof. This way, service frequency can be maximised in the city centre with the 5 and 18 staying as they are, 16 can go to Thielenbruch and the 4 can go to Sebastianstrasse, then extended to Niehl, from where it can take over the branch currently served by the 12, then cross the bridge to serve downtown Leverkusen, before ending up back in Schlebusch, becoming a loop line!
Oregon and WA are discussing a new very high bridge over the Columbia River incl. a MAX line. Some people suggested a tunnel instead. That would help with grade and make the stations on both sides more accessible. Will you cover tradeoff between bridge vs tunnel some time?
That’s a great idea! I’ve noted it!
Nyc the only place were bridge and tunnel are an insult
If they're going to build a high-level bridge for the I-5, they should include a MAX line or provisions to enable adding one for which a contract should be awarded as soon as the highway bridge is complete. Better if this new MAX line is a light metro like Vancouver's Skytrain.
@@RMTransit I'd also be interested in a video on managing overall line elevation. Like, when to build really deep stations to keep the line level, when to elevate, and when to dig. Examples could include New York line 1, Paris line 6.
@@Hogtownboy1❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤11🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉AMS
Always had a similar idea about the lower Hudson tubes between Jersey City, World Trade Center, and Atlantic terminal in Brooklyn. Convert PATH and one of the subway lines to Brooklyn to be regional rail capable. Allows trains to run off the northeast corridor from Newark into Jersey city, directly into World Trade Center, then beyond to connect with LIRR tracks in Brooklyn. The connections created between Jersey City, lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, EWR and JFK airports, and beyond to Long Island and Jersey would be game changing
will reigional rail trains fit in the ancient path stations?
@@griffin3607 just make smaller regional trains for those routes
@@griffin3607 idea would be to upgrade everything to handle large regional rail trains
Unfortunately it’s basically impossible to convert Path to regional rail, the tubes are iron so you can’t incrementally expand
@@griffin3607 Right now the PATH trains are like the Staten Island Railway trains, both of which basically are FRA-compliant New York City subway cars.
In addition to the tunnels you mention is a long proposed tunnel between Tallinn and Helsinki including its use for HSR.
Who else wants Reece as mayor?
Hmmm transport secretary sounds better.
How about U.K. Prime Minister ?
More like Premiere...
For Auckland!
Haha, politics isn’t in my future
Myopic was excellent word choice. So often projects are based on upgrading "this section" or expanding "this mode" without any network effects. I think this fall to two failings in our democratic process, short time cycles to pump out results, and an inability to articulate projects that are more complicated than "subway upgrades" to the population.
Conveying information can be improved though; there's an enormous body of knowledge about that. And big projects do get greenlit, not so infrequently. Sometimes, though, incremental progress works out better than sprawling, comprehensive projects that take a decade or two.
@@bearcubdaycare I agree big projects get green lit, "sub way improvement" was meant to refer to those. My point was that big projects have to be narrow scope. You never see Big projects as "an extension of line 1, two new trams along main streets, a new subway line, and regional rail improvements". This is, intentionally, what the plans for Toronto roughly are. But the jumble make it hard to convey to people the plans if they aren't watching a tramsit UA-camr, so politicians want 1 golden ticket project.
10 seconds into the video, I'm guessing he's throwing shade at Auckland transport planning again. (We deserve it.)
😅
Typical Auckland planning is
Step 1. Find a problem
Step 2. Take 15 years to decide to do something
Step 3. Decide on a option that would have been viable when the problem first arose
Step 4. Take 15 years to build it
Step 5. You are now 30 years out of date with your new infrastructure.
Auckland could do so much more with a visionary mayor and a supportive public (like that will ever happen with the number of NIMBYs we have). There is so much potential and need here for good transit options that work together as a network. Trains, buses and ferries all need to work together to provide options for more people.
You're missing a major issue that prevents the dual use. TURF. Currently BART operates under FTA (Federal Transit Administration) regulations, and Caltrain under FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) regulations. As soon as you combine the two, BART would have to follow all FRA regulations, for safety, car design, signaling, crew size and training. When Muni built south of Mission Bay, it crossed a Union Pacific spur to the Port of San Francisco at grade. The FRA tried to force all Muni operators to meet it's crew training and operating regulations. After the local congress member got involved, only the operators on the line had to be trained. Comes down to the FRA claiming any line that has a permanent connection to the nation's rail network is theirs to regulate. That's why Light Rail and Metro Systems do not have connections to the rail network.
Edit Spelling
While I may agree that projects mustn't be overbuilt (though keep reserves), I'd suggest NEVER UNDERBUILDING EVER.
They did with the RER B and D in Paris that share a track between Châtelet and Gare du Nord. Today there are so many trains going through it that it's basically impossible for them to build a new tunnel considering the havoc it would unleash on those 2 lines, right in the center of Paris. People have debated about this project for at least 3 decades (since the tunnel opened really) and it's still not going anywhere soon.
Don't overbuild too much (considering the US has almost inexistent public transit compared to its scale, they need those funds for useful things) but DO NOT underbuild (if you know what you're doing).
With the money they’re investing in GPE, a few % should allow them to build a whole new section and platforms without a ton of disruption. They could add something like SACEM to the RER B and D too… But RER is the ugly duckling of Paris transportation. No investment will be made unless the thing is literally catching on fire.
I think the project has a big impact on whether “under building” is high risk. It is for RER!
The City Tunnel of Frankfurt suffers from similar congestions, especially since you can separate its S-Bahn into three distinct meta lines (the east-west lines S1, S2, S8 and S9, the north-south lines S3-6 and the lone S7 which doesn't enter the tunnel at all). The only difference to the RER is that the network as a whole came to be about the same time, though the single tunnel still should have been dealt with sooner than latter.
Speaking about underbuilding, I'm a bit nervous about Singapore's Circle & Downtown Lines being built with wide tunnels (>3m, so tunneling would be expensive) but only 70m long platforms
A video on Auckland’s City Rail Link would be great!
He did do one previously I think it is being re-made
I have one from years ago!
An upgraded Transbay tunnel would also be vital for intercity rail travel. It would allow Amtrak California to finally serve SF. It would be a great link that would allow Amtrak trains to go between SF and Sacramento since the CAHSR line will probably not have that kind of service. It would also allow for a slower alternative to CAHSR when traveling to Bakersfield. A project like this could be so beneficial for transportation in the Bay Area 👍
Green line extension in Boston. Not big, but represents some commitment.
Amsterdam struggles with this and always has! rail here is seemingly stagnating with small exceptions here and there like metro expansion which has the downside of going super slow and lacking coverage overall. Even the trams fail to serve there is soo much potential but people here seem lax in advocating for transit since were used to having it. Yet people both citizen and in power just complain
I'd like to see a video about the Cologne North-South Line, the collapse of the city archive and its consequences and its current state, or the Cologne Stadtbahn in general 😄
I've read into the Link21 project, and it seems there's actually a real possibility that the second transbay tube will be standard guage only, with all future lines and extensions being built in standard guage. This is because BART not only has an unusual guage, but is also a unique system from a technological perspective that means many components are specific to BART alone, driving up maintenance and operating costs to much higher figures than what would be possible with standardised rail tech. Having the existing BART system remain as-is and building on standard guage from now on is expected to save a lot of money.
Also, because of BART's flat rail flanges, it's not possible to build a dual guage line with both standard and BART/Indian gauge due to clearance requirements on the rail flanges. There are a few workshops that have dual guage tracks, but they had to have a mechanical installation installed that actually moves the rails around to create the required clearance. Installing such a system across an entire trans-bay tunnel would introduce additional maintenance risks, and such a system is slow to operate (~3-5min to switch the guage) leading to reduced capacity for the tunnel itself. If I remember correctly, this is also one of the factors that lead to the decision that the second transbay tunnel will only be accommodating one guage.
Sometimes I really wonder why they built BART to such stupid non-standards...
@@felixtv272 wooo space age metro blah blah
@@jonathansy4552 I mean yeah it looks cool I guess, but that would be possible as well with standard gauge tracks.
@@felixtv272 I wonder about that all the same. It looks like BART was designed by a couple young engineers who wanted to reinvent the wheel, rather than look at what was already out there.
As a result, the BART system is more expensive to construct, operate, and maintain. There's only one supplier of BART infrastructure parts, which only manufactures parts as they're ordered, leading to high part prices and long delivery times, and only one manufacturer that sells the trains and parts for the trains, with the exact same problems.
In my opinion, re-gauging the existing BART network to standard guage would be the best option, but that's a costly and time-consuming operation that I don't see happening any time soon.
@FeliXTV27 It was a political compromise to get approval. At the time, people were worried that any new rail lines would be used for freight trains, and they didn't want that. By designing the system with an incompatible rail guage, it guaranteed there would never be any freight traffic.
Link21 is that major planning. Its taking a whole view at regional rail and BART throughout the greater bay area. BART with CBTC can do 30TPH.
Dual gauge is insane and not on the table. It was hard enough to get euro stock to run with US mainline equipment taking decades. There is no way the FRA and FTA will let a metro mix with mainline rail. It would be far easier to rebuild platforms for 22in or 48in instead trying to get BART train to meet mainline standards.
the tunnel itself being 4 tracks should be a minor cost increase if its immersed tunnel like done last time. What would be expensive is the links at each end. You could put a 4 track box below but only connect 1 set now and connect the 2nd pair later.
One tunnel that's definitely needed is on the mainline under the Welland Canal:
--Ships have right of way during canal's seasons. All rail is stopped often, because...
--...there are two canal lanes, so one or the other bridge could be up at any time.
--As an international freight hub, a two-track bypass tunnel (at least) in that location is more important for our overall economy than ever. Maybe that's how Federal Govt could come in on it
--Via could have a better shot to and from Niagara Falls, but especially benefitting their Amtrak-crossing deal
--Go Train could finally schedule regular trips to Niagara Falls (which has been a problem since Go's inception)
--If those two bridges were repurposed elsewhere along the canal, it would help local areas that need them now, not 100 years ago when the canal was being built.
(If not a tunnel, raise the tracks and put in a permanent rail bridge that'll clear all passing ships)
Great video thanks Reece Auckland needs such clear thinking!
It does! Big projects have high stakes!
Immersed tube road/rail tunnel from Toronto to St. Catherines would be awesome.
Its always food to plan ahead 20 years & revise the plans every 5 years on a rolling basis. Good transit systems are long-term projects that can never be approved for financed ib one shot. You have this about right.
Hi mate, cool video... Btw I wanted to ask if u're going to make a Turin video. There's lots of trams, suburban rail and a Metro.
Thank you for bringing this up again Reece! As an Auckland resident who actually has a say on the future of our harbour crossing, I will be sure to communicate some of these ideas as feedback to their stupid light rail option. The AT network is pretty good right now considering, and I enjoy using the trains on a daily basis, but I think that when CRL opens, if there was also heavy rail connection directly into a harbour tunnel and up to the North, it would be very efficient for commuters and potential regional train services.
In Belgium we have the opposite problem, while not under water, the Brussels North-South Axis is the most important rail line in the country but it is also heavily congested, 6 tracks was not enough combined with curved platforms and low speeds.
A new tunnel will be needed but as far as I know nothing is planned yet. The tunnel would have to go deep and connect at least to Brussels Midi and North, it also seems better to futureproof with a 4 track tunnel rather than a 2 track one, considering the congestion and expected growth, but no politician is willing to pay for it, so it keeps getting delayed.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on Auckland Light Rail. To me, it looks like New Zealand's first and only real attempt at decent PT.
I'm glad my home city (Sydney) is building the City Metro underneath Sydney Harbour right.
I am convinced 4 tunnels is ALWAYS better, 2 for passangers and 2 for freight.
Completely agree, freight is very important
Some government owned railroads in the US would have just 2 tracks for both freight and passenger service. They just do freight only at night.
There aren’t the freight connections for now, so I don’t think the expenditure makes a ton of sense
@@RMTransit If oneday they want to add freights, its going to be way easier to then just change 2 of them for freight instead of then having to convince the public again, to built another 2 tunnels. They might be able to do it now but not in the future. Just think of the struggle californian cities have these days, convincing the people to change zoning into higher densitiy. If people were usually rational and smart the world wouldn't be so fucked up today.
@@transit-future I thought that was Reeses point in this video, build two tunnels and make sure they are usable for all rail transport such that each 24 trains per hour slot per direction can be scheduled for use by any train, regional, subway, freight.
I think one thing to consider is... The FRA and the FTA need to allow this to happen. As BART is a Metro and ... The cars are not built to the same standard as conventional rail equipment.
@4:56 THANK YOU!
You should absolutely cover the South Shore Line sometime! They're a token example of transit success in the United States, and between their double track project and the West Lake Line, there's plenty of new developments to cover.
@RMTransit and of course the tunnels in Amsterdam under the channel and Rotterdam under the river the Maas for the metro and the tunnel and station Schiphol Airport lies in a tunnel because it is in the airport
Obviously that will not work on the south coast of British Columbia. A fixed link between Vancouver Island and the BC Mainland has been talked about for decades, but all of the options put forward for such a link, including a deep bored tunnel, have been dismissed as unfeasible.
One thing to point out is that Valley Link rail would build commuter rail from Dublin/Pleasanton to Tracy and Stockton. Converting the Dublin line to standard gauge (or dual gauge) would honestly be a pretty great idea. Running trains from Stockton direct all the way to SF would truly connect the Bay Area with the San Joaquin Valley.
That Dublin/Pleasanton line needs to be expanded eastward. I used to live there and oh my goodness is that ever needed and was supposed to happen decades ago.
Another good example of a multipurpose 'cross-water' rail line like the Marmarey line at Istanbul is the Oresund line linking Copenhagen and Malmo. This line, which is part bridge and part tunnel, carries frequent local and regional passenger trains, plus the occasional intercity train from Copenhagen to Stockholm and the Stockholm to Hamburg overnight sleeper train. There is also extensive freight traffic.
There have been proposals made for a second tunnel link between Copenhagen and Malmö, specifically to connect Malmö to the Copenhagen Metro network. The two cities have a joint committee seriously discussing the feasibility of it.
Yeah. The problem is that this fixed link however is at capacity and the Öresundståg regional trains on it are overcrowded. Like PapaQ said the 2 cities are looking at an underwater Metro but I'd seriously call this a really bad investment. The distance between the 2 cities is so great that a Metro wouldn't cut it. Plus one of the biggest things holding the current link back is freight trains. The current fixed link has too little capacity for the freight demand and a Metro won't fix that unless existing services get cancelled! All because of some flashy political pipe dream! What we should do is expand the rail corridor on either side to 4 tracks along with building parallel normal rail tunnels, so that way we can have Öresundståg trains as frequently as every 5 minutes or more on one set of tracks, and have the other set be used for Freight trains, High speed trains, and other trains without disrupting the main service. It is worth noting after all that quite a large chunk of passeners on these trains also come from further out in Skåne than just Malmö, and forcing them to transfer onto a cramped lightmetro that'd spend nearly 30 kilometers below the ocean would just not work. ESPECIALLY if it is to be connected onto any existing lines in Copenhagen.
@@drdewott9154 Thank you for this detailed response. Would a tunnel from Helsingborg to Helsingor help the situation? It could be used primarily or even exclusively by freight trains. (I suspect that the Hasselholm to Helsingborg line would have to double-tracked.)
Yeah, this is an excellent example and in retrospect I would have liked to talk about it more! Especially how it’s brought Malmo and Copenhagen so close together
@@drdewott9154 metro could work between two cities with a large distance. e.g rotterdam metro goes to the hague
Actually, a subaqueous tram tunnel has been built. That's how the East Boston Tunnel started out, opening in 1904, although it was built to a profile to handle rapid transit cars(*). It was upgraded a few years later (over the course of a weekend in 1924) to rapid transit service of (at least approximately) the same profile as PATH, and later renamed the Blue Line. Of course, that was back in the time when Boston could actually do stuff without running massively over budget and behind schedule.
(*)This goes to show that overbuilding is in fact a good thing, and that underbuilding would have been bad.
Reese going for the Steve Jobs look
I think it's better for the Bay Area authorities to build a futureproof 2-track tunnel, that is, build 2 tubes large enough so the tunnel can be converted to 4-track operation later (i.e., HSR and Caltrain regional rail in one tube, standard gauge BART in the other).
I was thinking about what if there was a tunnel from Tampa Union to St. Petersburg for a regional rail loop line for the gulf coast towns in the immediate Tampa area with 4 other branches (Lakeland, Bartow, Land O'Lakes [parallels loop line from Union to the stop closest to Busch Gardens, and Bradenton/Sarasota). Excluding the Sarasota branch, all other rail service would terminate at a 2 deck terminal at the airport. Brightline High Speed service to Fort Myers and (eventually) Miami via Fort Myers or Orlando and Jacksonville plus intercity service to Orlando, Fort Myers, and Naples (which is a whole topic of its own)
Build a good tunnel to begin with. Rails and trains can be changed if needs dictate.
A good idea would be to construct a 2-track transbay tunnel now, but build the portals on either end to support 4 tracks. If more BART capacity is needed in a few years, it'll be a lot easier to add 2 new underwater tracks if most of the infrastructure is already in place. A lot of rail lines include clear space on either side of the tracks for future expansion, and many old NYC subway stations included tail tracks or branches for future extensions. BART should consider that approach - you may not need 4 tracks now, but you will likely need it in the future.
Hello, congrats on the great work, i’ve been very interested for some time in your videos. I feel like there are not many videos on Central/Eastern Europe transit systems, which can be quite developed for some of them and face different challenges than western europe or northern america. I personally would be very interested in videos about these cities !
I'm generally against multi usage infrastructure even if it works at the beginning. Once it is in place, politics usually don't want to invest to build another tunnel even if traffic increase demands it.
Overbuilding at first if you are not sure to follow suite with new investments is also a bad idea because you'll have to maintain de infrastructure for decades or let it rot until you can invest to make it useful which would need expansive restructuring or maintenance.
So if you are not sure of the future investments, build just what you need, nothing more, make space for future expansions if you must but unless you have a carefully set in stone plan, overbuilding or compromises won't be good in the future.
Mutual infrastructure is tempting on short term but is ultimately a bad idea except for a few places where traffic doesn't grow that much.
Karlsruhe tram trains were first running on city center tram tracks but when traffic became so heavy that the track was overcrowded with trams, they finally decided to burry the tram trains and keep the urban trams on the street, turning the tram train into an S Bahn of sorts.
Hybrid infrastructure will only work short term. If you live in a country in big economical crisis, that can't know for sure if it will be able to invest later, hybrid infra won't be a nice thing once it is pushed to the limits.
It doesn't just apply to underwater tunnels but to all infrastructure in general.
Running HSTs and heavy rapid transit in the same tunnel is easier because they use the same electrification and the same gauge, so whether you build it just for the rapid transit or add HSTs is ultimately irrelevent apart from the electrical feeding substations size.
Good comment! Really thoughtful! It’s a careful balancing act!
This makes me think of the Stadtbahn in Berlin which has four sets of tracks (two for the S-Bahn and two for the other trains) since the beginning which shows how much the planners thought in advance. It also shows the general flaw of the German railway network since a lot of places are dual tracked (which on its own has got quite a bit of capacity compared to single tracking) but also heavily used by regional, intercity and freight trains and removing one set of trains from them would massively free up the capacity for the other types (lest because of the different stopping patterns on these services).
I want this guy on every tranist planning board in the country
Not for nothing that when Austin had to cut back its light rail plans, the subway (incl a section under the river) was the first thing to go.
Reminds me of the Fehmarnbelt tunnel
I'd really love to see a video on the Gothenburg tram system. It's the only tram system of it's scale in Sweden, and has become an iconic symbol of the city. However, it's not the most high quality, and some constructive criticism put into a video would be a useful resource for those advocating for better trams in all of Sweden.
Could you make a video about your thoughts on the South Wales Metro project?
It’s a long time coming….
REECE ON HIS STEVE JOBS ISH LETS FUCKING GO
The Vancouver Island Railway! :)
Hi Reece, I would love to hear about your two cents about Basel‘s Herzstück project (S-Bahn tunnel connecting the existing S-Bahn legs, rendering many changes as well as waiting times in those overused stations unncessary, creating an international throughfare network).
Hey there! Would love to see a video covering the Big Circle Line opening in Moscow! The line is certainly not without some problems, but its trully an epic megaproject IMO. Any chance of mentioning it in the near future?
Have you seen the comments on any video about Russia put out in the last year? Not sure it's safe yet, content creators that aren't focused on geopolitics will avoid touching Russia with a barge pole. Sad, but reality.
I saw you on TVO The Agenda last night talking about Presto integration across the GTA. Hope to see you again on TVO the next time they talk about transit.
"Do you mean that building tunnels with a small profile to deliberately exclude a city's large regional system of double decker trains at a cost of billions is shortsighted?" asks Sydney's metro planners.
Well, as you say, it was a deliberate choice. Interoperability would have been good, but apart from the bigger tunnels, they would also have needed to have shallower gradients for the heavier double deckers. The tunnel under the harbour would need to follow a much different route in order to get double deckers into the CBD at a reasonably shallow depth.
This idea might be far-fetched, but why couldn't we just take a few lanes on the Bay Bridge and run Bart and Caltrains on them? This would add far more passengers per hour capacity than it would take away, while also reducing car traffic and pollution, which is a big issue in the region. I feel like this could be a lot cheaper than building a new tunnel, but I'm not sure.
Yes..reopen the Old Key Line which Bart essentially destroyed...auto people would object vociferously...!
I think there would be some structural concernes with that as trains are hevier than cars, but I do support converting some lanes into brt lanes.
Hey Reece, been a new viewer to the channel recently after your bangkok video and was wondering if in the future you could make a video on public transport in Kuala Lumpur (Klang Valley) Malaysia. It's not the best network in the world and I know it has countless flaws but I use it daily and would love to see it :)
One side: 4 tunnels 4 tracks! Other side: 2 tunnels 2 tracks! Reece: 2 tunnels 4 tracks! Everyone: wut?!
Tunnels make me think about Dallas's D2 "subway" project. Billions of dollars to serve the same blocks that the existing transit mall serves
Reece loves an Auckland mention. I'm all for it 😄
Like you TVO last night
I still believe for their distance and well not as much adverse climate; they could just build an elevated bridge through that small stretch! Look at mumbai in 90s. Dont always need a tunnel! One can understand for bay area, but why Auckland? It just feels a bit uneconomical. The Mumbai-Thane hsr line has 7km underwater cause theres no economically viable real estate plus environmental concerns, which not only would affect the precious wildlife but also increase cost tremendously, add more time (acquisitions, politics stuff), indirect route taking huge detour and curves.
Also has the economy to support it.
Plus current plan constructs Mumbai-Ahmedabad HSR and the stations but they also have provisions for building more lines in plan with more connections in future.
I agree, bridges are underused these days haha!
Thanks!
Thank you!
Personally I wonder the cost difference in digging larger vs smaller tunnel. They could easily make tunnels big enough to allow 4 tracks in the future, but only use 2 tracks for now.
To make your tunnel double the diameter, you need to shift 4 times as much rock / soil / whatever. It is probably going to be one tunnel per track, so just put 2 in now, and dig another two next to them later.
If anything building 2 2 track tunnels would be the way to go. You save the costs of a scaled up tunnel boring machine, which are huge, while taking advantage of a continuous engineering team and equipment.
Although if RM says this route (which I have no personal investment or knowledge of) doesn't need that level of capacity, I'll probably believe that..
tunnel size depends fully on the TBM.
If there isn't a TBM big enough theres gonna be issues unless your doing cut and cover.
@@davidty2006 You won't be doing cut & cover under water.
@@katrinabryce the original bart tunnel was done by prefabricating tunnel sections above ground, and then sinking them underwater and welding them together. I assume that’s what they were referencing.
one interesting system that would definitely be fun to cover would be Boston’s (my home city) MBTA system. It’s the oldest subway in the western hemisphere, and even though it has a lot of current issues, it’s got great bones. I would be happy to provide train clips for any video you plan to make on it.
How long is the tunnel how deep, the angle of down/up shift?! Security system? In case of disel engine how much cost to add more ventilation? Instead dual elettrifcation are multi modal locos more efficent?!
A video about Israel's new light rail line would be awesome. A video about the metro plans would be amazing as well
The only project in the world where security plans were drawn before engineering
Possibly eventually 😂
@@RMTransit Israel is heavily investing in public transport now (after years of neglect). Currently only 1 ~14km light rail line operates in Jerusalem that manages to transport close to over 150,000 people each day but two more are under construction and an extension of the existing line should open in the summer, in Tel Aviv the first light rail line should open in May (24km, 12 underground) and two more are under construction, rail is undergoing electrification, move to ETCS, 2 major new lines under construction and extension of other lines and a tram/rail from Haifa to Nazareth but so there is a lot to talk about but maybe waiting for some of it to finish will be better.
The next phase will be the mentioned metro (underground) in Tel Aviv with 3 lines, 150km and 109 stations, high speed lines (250kph) connecting Haifa-Tel Aviv and Beer Sheva and more rail lines to the north and south.
@@AL5520 Ashdod to Eilat? Beersheba to Eilat?...to be continued...
One of the issues with putting heavy rail on the North Shore is the greater cost of expanding the heavy rail network. Although there are some issues with the light rail with the mixture of street running and grade separated sections, it's going to be much easier to build a city wide light rail network than it will be to expand heavy rail to those same corridors. Heavy rail on the North Shore would require a lot more tunnelling than light rail. There's also the problem with plugging more lines into the city rail link. Since we'd need a new city centre rail route either way, the case for heavy rail is weaker in my opinion.
Why do planners overbuild on tunnels? Why would Seattle build a parallel tunnel downtown instead of expanding in other parts of the city first?!?
Easier to build a tunnel before you need it than when you need it. Less disruption, less development, fewer utilities in the way.
Sometimes I do think the perceived ease of building tunnels with TBMs leads to the “everything is a nail” problem
all i want is AMTRAK's capitol corridor to actually go into San Francisco
I love your videos. ❤
Qingdao, China line one has a subway tunnel. Longest in the world I think. I feel it was built quite quickly.
Sydney Harbour Metro tunnel, 21 billion aud or 14 billion usd. More expensive than the Gottard Base Tunnel under the Swiss Alps.
Ok, I think that regarding transport there are three approaches: future shortsighted, future proof and future fool.
Future shortsighted is when you start with the idea that the goal of your infrastructure is to relieve congestion.
In this case you start with a network running one or two decades overcapacity, you plan an infrastructure that will get at completion probably around three decades behind the actual demand for mobility and will not be sufficient enough to provide spare capacity to provide some reliability on the existing network and by the time there will be enough political support for the next project it will be two decades behind the transport demand of the time.
You have the future proof method where you do a double forecast a medium term forecast and a long term one.
In this case you build heavy infrastructure (planning, digging, tunnelling, station building) for the maximum capacity, while you build light infrastructure (rails, signalling, station accesses) for a fraction of the total capacity up to a level that makes the service reasonably sustainable. When the time will come for an upgrade the upgrade of the light infrastructure is a fraction of the whole project and the users will be already familiar with the service pattern that they can expect.
The last ones unfortunately we are all know what it means infrastructure too big for the service and actual, users unfamiliar to the service, the service is ultimately unsustainable gets cut back and progressively and decays.
id like to hear about edmontons newly constructed valley line
It would make more sense to just build dual gage/electrification at once rather than leaving room for it later right? Because otherwise you have to add it in after services are already running and it makes it easier to just not do it since the infrastructure doesn't exist yet
If you want a cover story to talk about tunnels or bridges that are primarily used by road based transportation, remember that even the worst car sewer bridges and tunnels can and often do have bus routes on them.
What about safety regulations prohibiting putting FRA and BART rolling stock on the same track? Maybe this has changed recently I read that this has been considered as a barrier.
Do you plan on talking about the regio tram system in Kassel (Germany)?
can you talk about the modernisation fo the viennese main s bahn line?
There is really only one option for the second tube and it really is to restrict access to BART. If they built perpendicular underground platforms under Beale Street for a BART line that turned into a Geary Street Subway that curved down 19th Avenue and replaced the M Line service in the southern half of the city connecting around the Daly City station, the existing infrastructure would work and they would massively boost BART ridership with San Francisco money from taking people off of buses on the East-West axis. They could build the planned tunnel between 4th and King and TBTC to run Caltrain/HSR into the existing concourse (hopefully). Making a commuter rail out of East Bay Amtrak is a really unattractive solution because the right of way has basically no existing grade separation worth mentioning in the East Bay and the residential real estate development is taking advantage of the BART corridor. The Western edges of Oakland and Berkeley also have some of the most annoying citizens groups in the state who are desperate to preserve their shanty towns and opium dens, so building a lackluster CalTrain expansion would just discourage peninsula residents from using CalTrain. If the major benefit of that tube would be to connect San Francisco and Sacramento, it would make more sense to have a big transit center in the East Bay to siphon an enhanced Amtrak service from Sacramento to make a quick trip across the bay in BART, similar to the function of Atlantic Terminal with the LIRR. If in half a generation, the enhanced Sacramento Oakland Corridor was generating enough ridership, then it would justify the cost of a big project to eliminate Beale Street (the street itself) and build a big T-shaped extension of the TBTC with potential through running to turn it into something like the new Grand Central Terminal with tunnels coming from two directions. But in California, if you build it, they will vote. You have to give the residents something first before they will vote to tax themselves for something new. Measure M would not have passed in Los Angeles if we hadn't just opened up the Explo Line to Santa Monica. California voters will vote for your project if they get envious of something another neighborhood has, not because you promise them their own line in your ballot measure. In other words, the future of BART depends on building a Geary Street Subway, not on improving commute times within the East Bay. We shouldn't even be discussing a second tube without making BART more useful in SF.
would love to see a video on Honolulu's rail project :)
I'd really be interested in you doing an analysis of SEPTA in Philadelphia. They need some serious help in planning and execution of their system. Please give them some insight.
talk about the Athens metro tram and suburban rail
Can you do a video on Rail Baltica?
Eventually I’d really like to!
@@RMTransit ok
Day 3 of begging NZTA Waka Kotahi to replace the light rail with suburban rail.
Sending trains north would also help to balance capacity through the CRL as the Southern line could be extended north and the Eastern and Western lines could be interconnected.
Seriously, Light Rail from City Centre to Airport was bad enough, and now they want to extend it up North, some 47 kilometres long total? Honestly they'd just be better off building it as a light metro and have it serve the industrial areas of Penrose then go down through Mangere to the airport. That would actually serve more people, and the express to the airport part would be better off with suburban rail.
As for the North, Suburban rail all the way. It's a lower density area where speed matters, so suburban rail would actually be competitive.
(Also, WHY are the auckland suburban trains limited to 100km/h, they probably can go much faster)
Fully understood . Thank You! You have to have services on either side existing or planned to connect so as to make things seamless between the two.
Might some such metropolitan tunnels be a case where the steep grade advantages of rubber tyre trains are actually necessary? If it's the only option to allow some cities to improve the connectivity of their metro systems, then why not use a system that would usually be a gadgetbahn?
It's definitely possible, although gadget bahn is a strong word we have rubber tired subways in Montreal and Paris and they aren't fundementally very different..
There are a few places where that might actually be true, but modern (steel on steel) vehicles can often even climb grades of up to 6%. That should be enough for most places
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 they are definutely less energy efficient than regular steel on steel metro just because of friction losses. Not to mention the tyres need to be replaced very often. The only reason not to convert those into steel on steel systems is to appease the Michelin rubber tyre lobby that has a stronghold on France. Michelin is one of the worst polluters on earth.
@@jan-lukas Yeah, naturally the list of places will be very small, but those places still need transit solutions and these are at least better than normal roadgoing buses in terms of capacity.
@@SkeledroMan In Paris maybe but Montreal has mountains and is exactly what you just asked.
I don't know why everyone always busts a nut over "the higher efficiency of steel on steel". It's like 15% losses, it's an electrified system (and in France that means clean nuclear), and it's public transit. The energy efficiency is going to be orders of magnitude better than cars regardless. I'd bet coal powered buses reduce emissions if they are taking people out of cars.
But anyway yes Paris shouldn't have rubber tired metros expect to ahow they exist and work and can be used where you are describing.
A subject of interest could be the building of a complete light/metro/rail network regional and national level in Israel over 20 years. Catching up years of public transport infrastructure.
Tell Aviv is building 3 LRT lines (one of which opens in May 2023) and 3 metro lines
@@gevans446 true plus a high speed rail between major cities Beersheva/Haifa/Tel Aviv/ jerusalem together with doubling the rail length, while building a complete network for containers transport grid linking Jordan to the 2 Israeli ports.
With 3 inland logistics ports (hub) for distribution.
Eventually I will cover it!
If we're talking tunnels then I have to mention the Fehmarnbelt Tunnel. Absolute monster. 2029 can't come sooner enough.
MTA mrn and LIRR lasertrain
you know what. you talk about underwater tunnels, that reminded me of waterway tunnels and waterway infrastructure in general. there are many elements in this branch of transport infrastructure, such as locks, tunnels and even bridges, and the connection network itself is interesting. maybe it would be interesting for others too if you made a video or two about that topic, I know I would love it!
RMLocks? RMWaterways?
@@RMTransit if these are channel names, I can't find them. or maybe that's the way you want to tell me that your channel is about railways, you're doing a good job with the videos, but I wanted a video on the topic of waterways infrastructure!
When BART was constructed, I thought that using a broad gauge rather than the standard 1435mm was ridiculous, both for stock purchase and maintenance costs, and also restricting access to the outside world. If it had been built to standard gauge, there would have been no problem in dual use of the tunnels as you proposed without the need for dual gauging.
Overdesigning, overengineering and overbuilding is extremely costly- Britain's HS2 being a case in point. It has bled the coffers dry, so worthwhile improvements around the rest of the country have been sacrificed for this vanity project.
As you said, SF should build a tunnel with 2 tracks- you can get a lot of trains through that.
I would also convert ALL of BART to standard gauge when the stock is due for replacement.
I have a question why bus lines why not bus loops? Would a bus loop be good for town that’s about 5 square miles and about 20,000 people?
There is times with loops where if you want to go from one side of town to the other you gotta take the ENTIRE loop round instead of going on a more direct line through the center.
That’s a matter of geometry and operations! Maybe it deserves a video at some point
Niagara to Toronto under water. PLEASE
So in SF we may, in my lifetime, see High Speed Rail from Socal, arrive at the SF Transit Center...the station is already there. They just need a tunnel to funnel the train across SF, but it will also become the Downtown Station for Caltrain...I will assume these will use the same tunnel, but will their guages coincide? What about the height of the train entrances??? Have they even chosen which company to use for the High Speed Rail trains yet? Honestly these things are rarely if ever covered in our local news.....!
No, CaHSR and caltrain are the same track gauge and HSR has the same door hight as the upper height on caltrain's new trains. A Siemens-style train has been used in some renderings, but it has not officially been decided yet. I am annoyed that the only thing that the media wants to cover is that the cost has gone up again.
@@m--a Agreed..by the way trains (The Key Line) used 2 lanes on the lower deck of the Bay Bridge from the day it opened in the late '30's these were then changed over for autos in the 50's or 60's when Bart was designed to replace the Key line system...before the bridge was built the Key line cars came down from the East Bay Hills and traveled onto a special ferry which brought them directly into Downtown. so I assume the lower level of the Bay Bridge is still strong enough to hold new rail. Also there was a lower level planned, built but not used on the Golden Gate Bridge for rail connection to the North...Planners were quite prescient in the '30's!
i wish Norway would build the new e39 fixed link with possibility for adding rail later since we build motorways all over while rail remains neglected, slow, unreliable and with limited coverage
Democratic process is a natural enemy of efficiency once it comes to public infrastructure. Not saying that I dislike Democracy at all, but the short periods of leadership, the constant changing of staff members and overall pollicization of every minor issue makes it hard for a large project to be constructed.
That's why countries like China build more railroads than the State of Pennsylvania fixes potholes
Thank you for making this video! You should consider making a video about transbay transit center and the related downtown extension project.