Embedded Files
I have divided mass transit stations into different typology, based on the relationship with ground:
At-grade (ground level),
Elevated (above ground), and
Underground.
Within these three typologies, there are many sub-types. Say the Underground systems could be 'cut and cover', mined, TBM platform, etc. All of which have a differing planning requirement, etc.
Underground typologies are always popular in cities due to their potential higher capacity, ability to avoid disrupting street network, reduced visual impact, etc. However, the initial cost can be higher compared to the two typologies. Hence at grade or elevated stations are usually more economically attractive.
Importantly, station configurations, or sub-types, exhibit substantial variation across countries and within cities. These variations depend on many factors such as government direction, transit operator needs, local conditions, etc. Meaning that even underground system could fundamentally differ.
We'll delve deeper into these nuances in a later chapter.
Stations, now be it of any typology, needs to address numerous criterias, which would have not been in the core thrust of the original transit design. Some of which are disabled access, human factor, etc. Some of which are discussed in the following chapters.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse