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"
Both Naples' LTR and its twin system in Genoa were awarded to Ansaldo, that at the time was part of the giant state-owned IRI conglomerate, and were to be build in small lots as funds became available over a very long time framework, a common (bad) practice at the time.
Despite receiving funds from disparate sources, the construction advanced slowly and was plagued by geological problems (a TBM stuck forever underground) and by 1990 only a very short segment of the western part was briefly used for shuttle service during the World Cup.
Works were finally halted in 1993, as the project was hit by the general paralysis of public works following the Tangentopoli scandals, the 1992 financial crisis, and multiple geological problems that made cost ballooning, despite many civil works being in advanced state
The project was resurrected in 1997, as the city went through a more positive political period and what appeared as generalized "municipal renaissance" of Italian politics: a bold new transportation "plan of the 100 stations", calling for its conversion into a light metro.
The planned line 6 was intended to be shorter, fully underground and to connect with line 1 and ferries at a new large transportation hub at Piazza Municipio. the newer stations would follow the "Stazioni dell'Arte" paradigm, each one being a unique architectural masterpiece
In the late 1990s, work restarted and in 2007 a short segment, mostly paralleling lines 2 and the Cumana rail between Mostra and Mergellina was opened. Unsurprisingly, due to its shortness and duplication of existing lines having better service, the line had a very low ridership
Following the transit funds cuts of 2011-12, this segment was closed, in theory also to allow for its upgrade in preparation for the opening of the full line "only a few years later". Meanwhile, the four initial stations fell in a state of disrepair
Meanwhile, the rest of the line encountered multiple challenges: a building collapsed due to bad geology and design problems, funding, never-ending conflicts with the contractor that triggered a sort of termination of the 30-year concession, heritage disputes, etc.
The (re) opening of the line has been announced as imminent for many years, as every year it was postponed to the next year and so on until now, offering politicians multiple occasions for "fake" inaugural ceremonies that made the public even more cynical and disillusioned.
Meanwhile, following a planning tradition of beating around the bush, unfortunately common in southern Italy, the line still lacks critical components: more trains and a proper maintenance center, whose procurement has been finalized only very recently
For this reason, and because of the chronically delayed testing and commissioning by an overcautious and understaffed transit safety authority, the line will start with a reduced service and will not be able to deploy its full potential until 2026. If we are lucky.
The current rolling stock is the 1980s-built Ansaldo-Breda LRT vehicles first used in the 1990 World Cup shuttle service, then briefly in 2007-13, and then again now. They will soon be retired having mostly been sitting around unused. An enraging waste of public money.
The story of this project is so complicated that even the Court of Auditors gave up when they tried to reconstruct the actual final cost, as a lot of spending in the 1980-90s is hard to track. The most credible number is €1.4 bn for 5.5 km, €250 m per km, a record for Italy.
Tomorrow regular (reduced) service will start for the public. People will be able to admire the outstanding architectures and renovated public paces.
But its full utility as a transportation service is yet to come, despite 40 years in the making.
• • •
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.
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"
This 1 km stretch of mixed-traffic alignment of Ulm's tramway lines 1 & 2 along Romerstrasse is an interesting example of how a good level of transit priority can be achieved without a dedicated right-of-way.
Follow me in this virtual trip
Starting from west and going east, inbound toward the city center, the tram line gets out of its lateral dedicated alignment to merge into mixed traffic after the Gimmelfinger Weg stop
Going East, the street is large enough to have a dedicated lane protected with a small curb for the inbound track. The outbound track runs in mixed traffic. There is no on-street parking on what is a mostly residential street.