Exploring the Challenges of Metro Construction in Major Cities

Why do some big cities like Stockholm, Berlin, and Milan lack metros while others like London and Paris boast extensive metro systems? What makes building a metro more difficult than constructing an above-ground railway line?

Understanding Metro Construction in Stockholm, Berlin, and Milan

It is important to dispel a common misconception that cities such as Stockholm, Berlin, and Milan lack metros entirely. Here are the actual figures: Stockholm has an extensive metro system spanning 105.7 km (65.7 mi), Berlin has 155.64 km (96 mi), and Milan boasts an 101 km (63 mi) metro network. These figures highlight the substantial presence of metro systems in these cities, even if they may not be as extensive as those found in London or Paris.

The Challenges of Metro Construction

Underground vs. Above-Street Construction

One of the key differences between metro systems and above-ground rail networks lies in the construction process. Digging tunnels for metro tracks is considerably more complex and labor-intensive than building lines above ground. This is particularly true in older cities, such as most of the cities in Europe, where there is simply no space left to place rails above the streets due to the land being fully utilized.

Urban Planning and Constraints

Urban planning plays a crucial role in determining the feasibility of metro construction. Older cities with established infrastructure and buildings often present significant challenges. In many cases, the necessity to preserve historical structures and cultural heritage sites limits the options for expansion and construction. Additionally, the existing residential, commercial, and industrial spaces make it difficult to find suitable areas for constructing new railway lines above ground.

Financial and Technical Obstacles

The cost of building a metro system is often prohibitive. The extensive underground tunneling required to create metro tracks is the most expensive part of the construction process. Moreover, the technology and expertise needed for such projects are highly specialized, making them subject to a higher financial risk. These factors contribute to the decision-making process in cities deciding whether to invest in metro construction.

Comparing with London and Paris

In contrast, cities like London and Paris have benefited from more favorable conditions for metro construction. London, in particular, has a rich history of underground infrastructure, which makes it easier to expand and integrate new metro lines with existing systems. Paris, with its extensive network of metro lines (thousands of kilometers long), has been able to leverage the advantages of a strong foundation in urban rail transport infrastructure.

Conclusion

The decision to build a metro system in a city is influenced by a combination of historical, financial, and technical factors. While cities like Stockholm, Berlin, and Milan have metro systems, their networks are often less extensive due to the unique challenges posed by their urban environments. On the other hand, cities like London and Paris have been able to develop comprehensive metro systems over time, thanks to a combination of favorable conditions and strategic planning.

Understanding these challenges is crucial for city planners and policymakers when considering the feasibility of metro construction in different urban settings.