I would add that standard station design doesn't mean "dull" or unpleasant. And another important aspect is that one must calibrate the design to the needs.
Brescia's metro costed 935M€ (including rolling stock) for 13.7km -> 70M€/km
It has nice standard stations w/o mezzanine
Brescia's metro costed 935M€ (including rolling stock) for 13.7km -> 70M€/km
It has nice standard stations w/o mezzanine
https://twitter.com/nilocobau/status/1336894786070986760
The "secret" to keep costs down is also to adapt the design to the technology. It is the same one of Copenhagen metro (AnsaldoBreda/HitachiRail), with 3-cars train, 39m-long. A tramway.
And most sections out of the city core have been built with C&C, at grade/trench or viaduct
And most sections out of the city core have been built with C&C, at grade/trench or viaduct
Even viaduct/at grade stations are simple, very minimalist but somehow pleasant. And with a train every 3', who cares.
In other contexts, stations have been integrated within ongoing developments, that paid for the realization of external public spaces, with mutual benefits
The only "special" design stations are the two within the old city core, because of the lack od space even for very little stations, and the one at the rail stations, that is directly connected to the station underpass for a smooth connection.
I have criticized this project on the ground that it could have had similar results with less money, building a tramway. The lines carries "only" 55k/day. This is some 18k€/user. Not very bad, but it could be better, as the line is used at only 45% of its current capacity.
What I mean is that good design is much more than just "nice stations". It's the capacity to adapt and fine tune technology, alignment, urban insertion and architecture to the overall context, maximizing the collective return on investment for every PUBLIC dollar spent on it
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
