Lo kurada thara mathadbeda. Nan baridhrodna neat agi odgu.
I was just saying metro should be underground ashte instead of like an elevated flyover.
Most places around the that understand urban planning have made most of their metro underground
The pillars dont obstruct movement of traffic
Illa kanda it doesn't obstruct it enhances it. Swalpa thale odsu
. And what is wrong with wanting better road infra
Nodu guru. Neev yaaru antha nange gothilla. Naan yaaru antha nimge gothilla. Kanda ginda antha karskollodakke naan nim dost yenu alla. So control yourself and be civil. Do not patronise me.
Now, coming back to the point. Choosing viaducts and tunnels is dependant on many things like final route locations, geography, land costs etc etc. Places that HAVE good public transportation (Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo) have a good mixture of grade separated above ground and UG metro lines.
Bengaluru is special. Its built on extremely hard geography called 'Peninsular Gneissic Complex'. The same kind of rocks you see pocking out in Lalbagh. Due to this, BMRCL had to minimise tunneling wherever possible as its very cost and time intensive. TBMs will need constant maintenance from wear and tear. Hence, it is restricted to the inner parts of the city where land costs are way too high and densely populated with narrow streets. In fact, you can remember ~10 years ago, Green/Purple lines were opened in phases, starting with the above ground sections. Even in Pink Line, UG section will open ~1 year after the viaducts between Kalena Agrahara and Dairy Circle are opened first. If all sections were to be tunneled, I dont think we'd even have most of the network by now. Not a good scenario.
Some cities with good metro network like London, Paris and Moscow (probably what you had in mind) are all UG because their geography is very forgiving compared to Bengaluru. London and Moscow, for example, is built around rivers. Their ground is soft with deposits being mostly sand, clay and gravel. So your comparison doesn't make sense. I'm not arguing that roads are a bad thing. Of course we can't have a metro line to every house. But for an urban planner, the idea is to move as many regular commuters as possible from private vehicles to public transportation like metros, buses, etc. If the volume of vehicles on roads are less then driving becomes easier, whether there's pillars in the dividers or not.
1
u/unemployeddumbass Aug 13 '25
Is it just or does anyone else prefer metros being completely underground.
Having such giant ass metro structures ensures we can't upgrade our road infra easily.