33 ms·

Deep stations are also unbelievably expensive. Deep tunnels are not that bad, but the resulting stations explode the budget for transit to the point getting the

Deep stations are also unbelievably expensive. Deep tunnels are not that bad, but the resulting stations explode the budget for transit to the point getting the project green lit in the first place is nearly impossible. Plus with the same set of dollars you are building a lot less transit.

hinkley 3y ago
The deepest station in Seattle has smelled like someone tried to make cheese from moldy gym socks since the day it opened. I believe it opened and immediately shut again so they could try to deal with the water problem [though responder says no]. I went through when it was briefly open and again after. They made it less bad, but it was still pretty awful. A club I belonged to met at a library near the station so it was easiest for me to just hop on the light rail after work and then take it back to the bus terminal after but gods did I want to hold my breath the entire time.
- oasisbob 3y ago
  > The deepest station in Seattle has smelled like someone tried to make cheese from moldy gym socks since the day it opened. Maybe it's just a matter of opinion, but I never found the Beacon Hill light rail station to smell like anything other than raw concrete, similar to DC metro or any other deep tunnel system. I lived in the neighborhood at the time, and don't remember the station shutting down due to water ingress. Opening was delayed due to issues with overexcavation, but that threat was with sinkholes opening to the public above, not issues with the tunnel itself.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    My nose is pretty good at picking up mildew smells. I've been in plenty of rooms where half the people can't smell anything. After years of rhinitis my sense of smell is half-shot, but I can still walk into a room and find the forgotten towel moldering away under a chair or table. Why couldn't I have lost that power and kept something more pleasant?
jessriedel 3y ago
Deep stations also add a bunch of hassle for the users. It just takes longer to get down 5 stories underground.
- interestica 3y ago
  It's absurd to talk about transit times to destinations when just getting to track level and back can take longer than the trip
  - bombcar 3y ago
    This is one of those things that people overlook. Travel times should be "door to door" or some similar comparison; sure it makes cars look a bit better but it can make things like trains and walking look even better. A two hour flight might be bounded by 1+ hours on either end (including security, etc), whereas a two hour train ride might literally be two hours + five minutes walk on each end.
  - bregma 3y ago
    You need to factor in the fact that adjoining landowners are often rich campaign contributors, whereas the patrons of public transit are often the poors or the invisible help. As is often the case, the answer is "follow the money".
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Exactly. When I get to a cut and cover station, it's often just a single flight of stairs down. It's often only 15 seconds or so to reach the track and wait for the train. Stations along bored tunnels sometimes take as much as 5 minutes to go from street to train. One I used to regularly use had three separate multi-story escalators, in addition to long walkways between them. So even if cut and cover disrupts businesses and car traffic, I can't help but wonder if decades of extra delays to reach the tracks from many thousands of people a day doesn't wind up outweighing that.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    Is there a reason bored tunnels need to be substantially deeper? Does boring lead to structural stability issues that the installation of the tunnel structure doesn't mitigate?
wolverine876 3y ago
Why are deep stations expensive but tunnels cheap? I'd guess the opposite, tunnels being larger.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  In an urban subway line, stations may cover ~25% of the line. The platforms are long, while the distances between stations are often short. And while tunnels are standardized and their construction is largely automated, each station is a unique project that needs to be adapted to the specific location.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Because you need to dig out all that dirt, and this is normally done cut and cover. Even if you are only digging for stairs and elevators (building the station in the tunnel as Madrid does) that is a long way down. For shallow stations you can tell most people to walk down the stairs, but for deep stations nobody will so you have to build enough expensive elevators to handle everyone (and you still need the stairs for fire escape). Deep stations also mean people will be on the elevator longer so you need even more of them. (people may be running late so they need to load fast and it better not be long for the elevator to come when someone needs to get someplace)
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > elevators How are the elevators any more of a problem than in buildings, where they are commonplace, often for much taller structures (i.e., many more floors), and not considered a major expense? Edit: Thanks, good points about the volume/throughput.
    - throwaway22032 3y ago
      Metro stations have enormous throughput in comparison to a building.
    - steveBK123 3y ago
      A subway station needs to be able to handle, during rush hour, bursts of 100 people arriving every 2-3 minutes. A building generally does not. This is why even deep subway stations usually go with multiple levels of escalators to keep the flow of people moving continuously.
wasmitnetzen 3y ago
Could be of note that Stockholm is building the world's second-deepest subway station right now[1]. Though there's no real alternative to that because it needs to go under water (well, in the ground under water) towards the next station. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEYvywnJy78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEYvywnJy78 (Swedish)
- theluketaylor 3y ago
  When there isn't really a choice, fine build a deep station. Montreal is building a station 72m down, but it's driven by surrounding geography. What's a bad decision is deep tunnelling just because, like Toronto on the York subway extension. Deep bore under suburbia is really wasteful spending and that same transit budget could be building a lot more transit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Édouard-Montpetit_station#REM_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Édouard-Montpetit_station#REM_...
- pchristensen 3y ago
  I lost 25 lbs in 6 months running down and walking up the looooong escalators in Stockholm because it took way, way too long to stand and ride.

hinkley 3y ago

The deepest station in Seattle has smelled like someone tried to make cheese from moldy gym socks since the day it opened. I believe it opened and immediately shut again so they could try to deal with the water problem [though responder says no]. I went through when it was briefly open and again after. They made it less bad, but it was still pretty awful. A club I belonged to met at a library near the station so it was easiest for me to just hop on the light rail after work and then take it back to the bus terminal after but gods did I want to hold my breath the entire time.

oasisbob 3y ago
> The deepest station in Seattle has smelled like someone tried to make cheese from moldy gym socks since the day it opened. Maybe it's just a matter of opinion, but I never found the Beacon Hill light rail station to smell like anything other than raw concrete, similar to DC metro or any other deep tunnel system. I lived in the neighborhood at the time, and don't remember the station shutting down due to water ingress. Opening was delayed due to issues with overexcavation, but that threat was with sinkholes opening to the public above, not issues with the tunnel itself.
- hinkley 3y ago
  My nose is pretty good at picking up mildew smells. I've been in plenty of rooms where half the people can't smell anything. After years of rhinitis my sense of smell is half-shot, but I can still walk into a room and find the forgotten towel moldering away under a chair or table. Why couldn't I have lost that power and kept something more pleasant?

jessriedel 3y ago

Deep stations also add a bunch of hassle for the users. It just takes longer to get down 5 stories underground.

interestica 3y ago
It's absurd to talk about transit times to destinations when just getting to track level and back can take longer than the trip
- bombcar 3y ago
  This is one of those things that people overlook. Travel times should be "door to door" or some similar comparison; sure it makes cars look a bit better but it can make things like trains and walking look even better. A two hour flight might be bounded by 1+ hours on either end (including security, etc), whereas a two hour train ride might literally be two hours + five minutes walk on each end.
- bregma 3y ago
  You need to factor in the fact that adjoining landowners are often rich campaign contributors, whereas the patrons of public transit are often the poors or the invisible help. As is often the case, the answer is "follow the money".
crazygringo 3y ago
Exactly. When I get to a cut and cover station, it's often just a single flight of stairs down. It's often only 15 seconds or so to reach the track and wait for the train. Stations along bored tunnels sometimes take as much as 5 minutes to go from street to train. One I used to regularly use had three separate multi-story escalators, in addition to long walkways between them. So even if cut and cover disrupts businesses and car traffic, I can't help but wonder if decades of extra delays to reach the tracks from many thousands of people a day doesn't wind up outweighing that.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  Is there a reason bored tunnels need to be substantially deeper? Does boring lead to structural stability issues that the installation of the tunnel structure doesn't mitigate?

wolverine876 3y ago

Why are deep stations expensive but tunnels cheap? I'd guess the opposite, tunnels being larger.

jltsiren 3y ago
In an urban subway line, stations may cover ~25% of the line. The platforms are long, while the distances between stations are often short. And while tunnels are standardized and their construction is largely automated, each station is a unique project that needs to be adapted to the specific location.
bluGill 3y ago
Because you need to dig out all that dirt, and this is normally done cut and cover. Even if you are only digging for stairs and elevators (building the station in the tunnel as Madrid does) that is a long way down. For shallow stations you can tell most people to walk down the stairs, but for deep stations nobody will so you have to build enough expensive elevators to handle everyone (and you still need the stairs for fire escape). Deep stations also mean people will be on the elevator longer so you need even more of them. (people may be running late so they need to load fast and it better not be long for the elevator to come when someone needs to get someplace)
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > elevators How are the elevators any more of a problem than in buildings, where they are commonplace, often for much taller structures (i.e., many more floors), and not considered a major expense? Edit: Thanks, good points about the volume/throughput.
  - throwaway22032 3y ago
    Metro stations have enormous throughput in comparison to a building.
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    A subway station needs to be able to handle, during rush hour, bursts of 100 people arriving every 2-3 minutes. A building generally does not. This is why even deep subway stations usually go with multiple levels of escalators to keep the flow of people moving continuously.

wasmitnetzen 3y ago

Could be of note that Stockholm is building the world's second-deepest subway station right now[1]. Though there's no real alternative to that because it needs to go under water (well, in the ground under water) towards the next station. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEYvywnJy78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEYvywnJy78 (Swedish)

theluketaylor 3y ago
When there isn't really a choice, fine build a deep station. Montreal is building a station 72m down, but it's driven by surrounding geography. What's a bad decision is deep tunnelling just because, like Toronto on the York subway extension. Deep bore under suburbia is really wasteful spending and that same transit budget could be building a lot more transit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Édouard-Montpetit_station#REM_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Édouard-Montpetit_station#REM_...
pchristensen 3y ago
I lost 25 lbs in 6 months running down and walking up the looooong escalators in Stockholm because it took way, way too long to stand and ride.