1/ The visitors of Rome remark that, for a 3.5m metro region, the subway network of the Eternal City is severely underdeveloped:
2 (and a half) lines
60 km
73 stations
A thread to try to explain why Rome has the worst rail transit among European capital cities
2/ This is a reparatory thread for Rome, ousted in round 1 in #RapidTransitBracket by @AlonLevy by London. Even if the defeat was deserved, putting the oldest metro network in the same bracket with the last European major capital city to get one, was an unfair pairing.
3/ Rome, despite its age, it’s a young capital city. When the Pope was finally kicked off in 1870 and the city became the capital of Italy, it was barely a large village of 212k inhabitants.
London had 3.8m, Paris 1.8m, Berlin 826k, Madrid 333k.
4/ Even if population growth accelerated in the following decades, it had barely reached half a million on the eve of WWI. It’s only in the 1920-30s that the population started booming, reaching 1,15m in 1936. And this is when planning for a metro network started.
5/ Some modern commuter railways were already developing by then, like the Rome-Ostia-Lido, opened in 1928, the Roma Nord, opened in 1932 with an u/g city terminus. Others were under construction, like the Porta Maggiore-Torre Spaccata, never finished b/c of the onset of WW2
6/ But the first real metro was the railway connecting Roma Termini to the E.U.R. 42 Exposition site, intended to celebrate the 20 years of the Fascist regime. Events turned differently and works of both the metro and the Expo were suspended during WWII
7/Despite the war, the first real masterplan envisioning the construction of a 3-line network was made in 1941. It shows the then u/c Termini-E.U.R. line (black), to be integrated into the future line B.
8/ Running underground within the city center and a/g along the Roma-Lido outside, doubling that commuter line with closer stops, it was built just under the surface near the majestic remains of ancient Rome and its terminus, at Roma Termini, boast a classic vaulted ceiling
9/ As works were resumed not long after the war, the line was finally opened in 1955, as the first proper metro line in Italy. But it remained the only one in Rome for decades, despite the dire need for more rail transit in the booming postwar city, that preferred to promote cars
10/ Even though the construction of the second line (line A) was approved in 1959, works started only in 1964. Planned to be built mainly in C&C, works were halted several times because of archeological findings and restarted with a tunnel boring machine in the early 70s
11/ The whole line A between Cinecittà and Ottaviano-San Pietro was finally opened in 1980. In the following years, despite grandiose plans, the network kept growing at an incredibly low pace, with the first extension of line B north of Termini opening only in 1990
12/ During the 1990s, grandiose plans are drawn again for new lines and extensions to be opened by the 2000 Jubilee, but only minor extensions for line A and the northern part of line B are finally opened (with a dull postmo rapidly ageing architecture).
13/ It is only in the late 1990s that a new plan based on a 4-line network is approved and Roma Metropolitane, an agency modeled after Metropolitana Milanese, is created and charged to supervise the design and construction of lines C, D + other extensions and LRT projects.
14/ Works on line C, an heavy rail with automated AnsaldoBreda trains, start in 2007. The line is planned to reach far out of the GRA, the ring motorway, reusing part of the infras built in the 1990s for the Roma-Pantano LRT. The outer section opened in stages from 2014
15/ But the problems begin with the central section.The San Giovanni-P.zza Venezia stretch through the Coliseum (blue) is experiencing delays and costs escalation. But the further stretch through the earth of the Baroque and Renaissance core of Rome (red) is even more challenging
16/ At first, the line was intended to use larger TBMs to accommodate both tracks and platforms, as there is no space for C&C and to avoid two dozen meters of archeological layers. Preliminary archeological investigation proved that even that option was extremely difficult.
17/ The project of the central section underwent several modifications, with station after station shelved for archeological risk, to the point that the constructor proposed in 2011 a non-stop tube under the densest part of the city. A complete non-sense, transport-wise.
18/ Mismanagement, skepticism about the actual feasibility, endless political changes at the municipal level have put the project on a nightmarish path of continuous changes, Stop&Go and endless project revisions, with the results one can expect: raising costs and delays.
19/TBMs are now stopped under P.zza Venezia, waiting for the umpteenth project revision and waiting for funding for the costly and delicate city center stretch. The destiny of the project is unclear, even if it's probably going to be finished sometimes at the end of the decade🤞
20/To finance line D, the cash-strapped municipality engaged in a complicate PPP scheme, with development rights (sometimes far from stations) traded in lieu of monetary contributions to the builder. A complete failure. The project is now halted, waiting for a complete reboot
21/This is how Rome ended up with such a tiny and insufficient metro network. A mix of real difficulties in dealing with the complicate environment over and under the ground,coupled with lack of political commitment, and a less than optimal management of construction and planning
22/ The result is a noisy and congested city with the highest per capita car ownership rate among European peers and even compared to other Italian cities, like Milan and Naples. And that is really a pity.
23/ A final positive note: the works for line C are turning out to be a bonanza for archeologists, that are discovering infinite treasures that will be on display at the new stations once finished. Hoping I will be alive the day they open to see them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's always interesting to note how, unsurprisingly, the history of transportation planning is nested in the shifting larger paradigms of urban planning.
The only two sizable "greenfield" outlying sections of Frankfurt U-Bahn follow two different paradigms of urban integration.
The only greenfield section part of the overall pre-metro scheme built in the initial phases run either underground or in a freeway median, within an area of interwar (Romerstadt) and postwar modernist development.
Grade-separation was the "gold standard" for everything back then
The 2000s addition to the U-Bahn network, serving the large greenfield development of Riedberg, whose own urban design reverts to the "traditional" perimeter block, run as a tramway on a street tree-lined median with signal-controlled intersections. Quite the change of paradigm.
One of the reasons why French tramways tend to be relatively slow is that they often have very curvy and zigzagging alignments. There are two main reasons for that, one linked to the history of urban development in France, the other to how and when French networks developed.
The historical reason is that France, outside of Paris intramuros, it's not a country of Grand Boulevards and large urban schemes. With one of the most property owners-friendly land regimes, French cities mostly grew with chaotic street patterns during both the 19th and 20th c.
Streets, even major radial arterials, tend to be narrow until the postwar era, outside of a few isolated redevelopment schemes, such as Grenoble's 20th c. boulevards or Bordeaux 18th c. Triangle. Provincial elites never indulged in the grandiose schemes of the capital city.
Not only Seattle (and many other cities) opt for mined stations in city-center areas, but they also do it in the most bloated way, with full-length mezzanines and wide off-street access shafts.
Let's look at a more sober approach to mined stations from u/c Vienna's U5
First, the Seattle approach (veru common in NA mined stations) is to go with a large cavern encompassing both tracks, a central platform and a "full-length mezzanine, that is a slab above the platform level allowing for horizontal circulation outside of platform space
The wide two-level single cavern is connected to the vertical shafts via two "transepts" (mined tunnels perpendicular to the cavern), as the shafts are built rigorously off-street. Additionally, a diagonal mined tunnel can host escalators.
Today, the much-awaited, 5, 5 km, 8 station, metro line 6 in Naples was finally (re)opened* (with limited service) after a 40+ years-long saga that is emblematic of how the bad choices and habits of the 1980s still haunt Italy today.
A 🧵
Naples' line 6 has a very troubled history. It was initially planned in the early 1980s as the "Linea Tranviaria Rapida", an LRT-like system mixing at-grade and grade-separated segments crossing the city East-West roughly along the coast.
It was planned following the approval of a national law encouraging the construction of "LRT-like" systems, to be built with local and national funds with the involvement of the state-controlled IRI conglomerate, via non-competitive 30 years "concessions of sole construction"
A recent exchange in here reminded me that historically there has essentially been two main paths toward level boarding of mainline rail.
The prevalence of one type or the other in a country depends a lot of when and how the railway became a commuter-oriented mobility tool.
A🧵
The 19th c. railways had very low platforms, just slightly higher than the tracks, either in wood, masonry, or simply a stone curb filled with gravel. Essentially, a glorified sidewalk.
That was ok for a railway with sparse traffic and generous dwelling times.
But platforms that require passengers to climb several steps to get into the trains, whose boogie-mounted floors are often >100 cm high above the track, are unfit for the need of the higher frequency, high traffic railway catering to the hinterland-to-city commuters.
How does Zurich achieve consistent running times and an elevated average speed on its legacy tramway network despite the fact that it's not fully running on dedicated lanes?
An example of urban integration and conflict management strategies along a segment of line 3
A🧵
Tramway line 3 covers the 4.3 km, 11-stop section between its terminus at Albisrieden to Sihlpost /HB in 16 minutes, with consistent running times throughout the say, averaging a pretty good 16 km/h speed.
How does it achieve these performances?
Let's start from line 3 western terminal loop, where the tram enters the general circulation protected by a traffic light and then continues along the central lanes of a suburban street. All lateral streets yield to the main arterial which is a "priority street"