Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 275 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,198 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
No, there is no metro project in Riga - and there is not planned any in coming 15 years at least. There was planned one back in 1980ies - but it is history now. Some reading stuff in Latvian is here:
http://www.a4d.lv/raksti/726/

But there is need to create such thread IMHO - otherwise we are spoiling Vilnius infrastructure thread with our Riga things.
- - -
So - here we should find out finally - should Riga start development of metro project before 2020 or not? Or at least build suburban trams in Centre?

For me personally it would seem just wonderful if this is done. I would be proud of Riga if it would manage to do this without much implication on overall city development, in a financially and economically viable way.

But I don't believe that we can do it in coming 15 years. I know that this thinking is very wrong and that in our life we should rather think - "how" but not "why it is not possible". But reality is harsh - we never can do everything at once. When we receive medium salary, we can't buy new apartments, good new car and everything else at once.

Riga currently is receiving "medium salary" (we are not rich but aren't very poor either) and is "consuming" rather carefully and conservatively - but still with some budget deficite. Is there any place for major extra expenditure in coming 15 years?
- - -

Some figures for consideration:

Riga City budget expenditure in 2007 = 651,3 mio EUR
- Subsidies for current public transport system = 56,3 mio EUR (8,6%)
- Road infrastructure, maintenance and investment = 24,5 mio EUR (3,8%)
- Payments of loans = 5,1 mio EUR (0,8% - this is heavily regulated by state and we can't go deeper in loans)
- - -

Main things why Riga metro project can't start soon
- Lack of finances. Currently city can't cover basic needs - kindergardens, basic quality of roads, lack of bridges for transport (f.e. metro will not solve the problem that Riga harbour is not connected to major road network). In order to cover the basic needs city has full pipeline of investments for coming 20 years at least.
- Lack of political will - coming from the first. There are no studies comparing metro and other means of transportation - thus nobody knows what it could mean for Riga. But who knows whether there is sense to spend taxpayers money on studies which can't be implemented anyway.
- - -

How it can be started
- There could start some early preparation works - pre-feasibility studies - not earlier than around 2015. By that time city will have very heavy burden of loan payments and it will be clear what can we afford.
- there could be reserved suburban land plots around future metro stations to be sold afterwards - their price will increase multiple times after the implementation of project and this can cover some minor part of expenses.

OK, floor is yours :) Time to run for a meeting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
Riga City budget expenditure in 2007 = 651,3 mio EUR
Riga city budget expenditure in 2004: ~315 million €
Assuming 6% yearly inflation since then, the same figure in today's prices: 375 million €.

Hence we have seen almost twofold increase of budget expenditure during the last 3(!) years. Even if the trend slows down to twofold increase every 7 years, that's still a massive increase.

I think that in 4-5 years if the economy doesn't collapse :dunno: , Riga will be more than ready to talk about metro.
 

·
RS
Joined
·
410 Posts
So let the fantasy begins if there is this thread :lol:


All I can sey - it would bee awesome if we can start to build metro after 15 years.

Talking about public transport:

The first priority I think is "S - Bahn"

Does there is any plans when construction of stations and special trains can bee started ?

About trams:

Agree with mee that this mega tram project for Riga is no necessery for sure (look at develoupment plan 2018). Take a look to the Zagreb, they have new trams on old rails, this is what we need I think. Couse about this money what is for several tram lines, could bee spend directly for S bahn project.

Does there 100 % will bee trams on Dzirnavu street and Elizabetes street ?


About metro:

At first the priority is to see where can build it maximum overground, and it can also bee not full metro, but underground tram (Hannover, Stutgart, Frankfurm am Main, e.t.c.)

Other thing: to build it with cut and cover method (except city center).


And then start calculate haw $$$$$$ per 1 km.

But also why not full metro if bouth can build overground (where is no need for underground), then where is this reason to build the underground tram or full metro, except level crossing, where is no third rail ??
 

·
I Love Ice
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
Historical background

Riga tube

The idea of the Riga underground emerged in mid seventies at the time when local town planners were drawing up the sketch of how to integrate the traffic systems into the capital. Several concepts were proposed e.g. to reconstruct the rail way or to install the high-speed tram lines. However officials regarded both proposals as inefficient. Since there was a principle or an unwritten law in USSR to build a metro in every city exceeding the population of one million people and Riga had the third highest number of trips per person in public transport in USSR it was Riga’s turn to get the tube. The commission of USSR planning experts decided to ignore the fact that Riga was short of 150 thousand people to conform to the criteria and decided on pressing on with the project. The reason given was that the natural growth and the immigration as well as the migration of workforce to implement the metro would increase the number of people living in Riga to 1 million. Initially there were three lines planned. The first one would be the ZASALAUKS-VEF borough with eight stops planned – ZASULAUKS – AURORA – DAUGAVA – CENTRALA – KIROVA (now Elizabetes) – RAINA – OSHKALNI (now Zemitani) – VEF. At the end of the 80-ies the project received keen criticism and the planned construction at the 90-ies didn’t start.

Two lines

The Metrogiprotran institute in Moscow had to design the layout of the underground, work out the economic basis of the tube and come up with detailed design of the project itself. Technical and economic basis of the project was going to be completed by 1978; another three years were scheduled for the elaboration of the project itself and another nine years to construct first eight subway stops. Hence the first underground line was supposed to be launched in 1990.
According to the 1977 public plan there has to be built two metro lines: one from Pleskodale/Zolitude up to Purvciems/Dreilini and another from Milgravis to Ziepniekkalns. The construction works were to begin on VEF – Zasulauks section having following stops: Zasulauks-Aurorra-Daugava-Centrala-Kirova-Raina-Oskalni-VEF. The flow of passengers were planned to be the most intensive here.

Another line

If we were to believe the press of that time the construction of the underground was welcomed by many citizens and the heads of the city were about to rave about it. Riga could become the “honored” first of the Baltic republics to have a tube. However the processes of coordination were dragging on. Engineers had to come out of the problem of the unstable ground. It resulted in technical and economic grounds of the project being finished two years later – in 1980 (it was approved by the head of the metropoliten in USSR Ministry of Transport and some other officials of Riga and Moscow). Though only five years later it was when the officials stated that they have got the technical design of the projected VEF – Zasulauks line. To start up the project the preparation works had to be done – the depot, the offices and the station construction sites needed to be built and few buildings needed to be demolished. The plots on Granita Street in Bolderaja were chosen and the “grand” base was planned to be in Mezaparks. However the work on construction of metro itself could not commence before the preparation works were finished. So the construction of the metro was postponed till 1990 together with the launch of the first line till 1997. It appeared that even this rescheduling did not allow the designers to fit in given time frame. According to the available information as the result of regular delays the project was ready in 1988. But now instead of two lines there were three now: Imanta-Centrs-Jugla-Dreilini; Mezaparks-Centrs-Ziepniekkalns; Centrs-Bulli.

Battling for millions

The same year the press was writing that Riga has got 250 mil rubli to implement the project. It is worth to mention the fact that the first Baltic subway was to be most expensive one in USSR. It was estimated that the cost of one kilometre would be 25-26 mil rubli. At the time the metro in Minsk was being built at cost 15 mil rubli per kilometre.
Truth to be said that Riga top dogs did not bother much about it – the funding would come from Moscow anyway. The expenses form the Latvia SSR budget would build up from building the depot - 10-12 mil rubli, 2.5 mil for engineering block, 4-5 mil building the exits to the street level. It would result in Riga spending less than 20 millions to get the underground. Riga at its free will would not give up on this because Odessa and Omsk were keenly competing for getting finances for their underground. However the whole nation of Latvia stud up against the proposal.

The fear from global flooding

Just before the final design proposal of Riga metro saw the daylight the objections were raised against it. They were referring to the usefulness and effectiveness of such a massive and challenging project by scientific community at first place. They were arguing that this project would bring more harm than benefits to the city because the ground waters in Riga are very high, the currents are migrating and nobody could tell were are they going to be after a decade. If ground waters would come across metro lines the metros and the buildings would get flooded. The opposition of the project used this argument in their speculations while similar challenge did not put off St Peterborough city to carry out the subway project. As the attitude towards the “free word” got off in mid 80-ies the press were filled with geologic and geodesic articles.
However the course of the scattered metro project discussion was inconsistent. Initially people were talking about the potential flooding, after the authors of the project were blamed for having inconvenient planning of stations and at the end there was an argument that the idea of metro is outmoded. After it was clarified that all the arguments were not valid the patriotic slogans were used saying that the project is a cover up to bring in another portion of Slavs and that would threaten the identity of Latvia and its language.
The wave of patriotic state of mind brought in the line of unusual events – the opposition disputed the decision of Riga officials and the competence of specialists from Moscow. The green activists organised the act of protest (1987) after which the decision was made to start the work on the second technical and economical basis of the metro project. Local specialists were asked to do that (though they did not have the necessary skills and expertise) – they did not trust the specialists from Moscow.
After two months commission came to the conclusion that there is no economic or technological basis to continue withe this project. That was the end of it – 12 years of bureaucratic flattering had not given way to any useful outcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,198 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks to @nomels. Some pictures should be found too at some time.

Answerng to post of @RS:
The first priority I think is "S - Bahn"

Does there is any plans when construction of stations and special trains can bee started ?
In the Webpage of Ministry of Transport you can look at Operational Programs - they outline where will be used the financing of Cohesion Program in 2007-2013. Open a document "Development of Sustainable Transport System" and read it (if you've got plenty of time):
http://www.sam.gov.lv/./images/modu..._DPP_3_2_pasakums_(KF)_labots_05.01.2007..doc

Already on the 2nd page there is activity 3.2.1. which aims to develop a kind of "S-bahn" in Riga and it's suburbs. This activity will be implemented jointly by "Latvijas dzelzceļš" and "Pasažieru vilciens", no state financing involved. Costs - 122,4 mio EUR. Realisation time - 2007-2013.

Works to be done:
- reconstruction of passenger stations in Riga and suburbs. Jeez, lots of works - there are some 40 stations.
- construction of platforms rised 550 mm above the rails in all these stations.
- purchase of low-floor train sets.

Agree with mee that this mega tram project for Riga is no necessery for sure (look at develoupment plan 2018). Take a look to the Zagreb, they have new trams on old rails, this is what we need I think. Couse about this money what is for several tram lines, could bee spend directly for S bahn project.

Does there 100 % will bee trams on Dzirnavu street and Elizabetes street ?
Don't know much about tram project - but there are on-going some activities now. City is reconsidering this project. It is clear that there are at least two priorities for extension now:
- airport link
- link to the new Rumbula district.

I doubt that city will go for full scale rebuilding of tram system - this is really very expensive.
 

·
I Love Ice
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
In 2005 LDZ carried 2.25 million passengers and in 2006 2.38 million passengers by electric train. The routes are to both sea sides, Jelgava and Aizkraukle. Add 300mil per year passengers using Riga Tram, Trolley and Bus services. Join new quality Riga Metro to the electric rail network and get overwhelming passenger numbers using it and get off the streets numbers of public transport and cars. Charge them 1 EUR for the the short rides, 2Eur for the Jurmala trips and get turnover of 500mil EUR per year.
 

·
a.k.a. The King Arthur
Joined
·
1,680 Posts
I like that station on blue line up north ... in the middle of forest :D :D :D :D :D ok I know that there were plans to build a new district but on such map it looks kinda funny :D
 

·
I Love Ice
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
Sorry, for Latvian speaking community only (sounds discriminative?:))
www.apollo.lv
Metro Rīgā: utopija vai realitāte [15]
Līvija Zēberliņa, Antra Gabre, «Rīgas Balss»
Ceturtdiena, 8. novembris (2007) 14:29

Sēžot sastrēgumos, doma par metro nepieciešamību būs iešāvusies prātā gan tiem, kuri atceras milzu protestus pret šo būvi Atmodas laikā, gan tiem, kuri pa pazemes dzelzceļu pārvietojušies citās pilsētās ārzemēs. Apsverot metro plusus un mīnusus, vajadzīgs vismaz ekonomisks un pilsētbūvniecisks pamatojums. Vai Rīgai tāds ir?

Jaunu pētījumu nav

Vai Rīgā metro būtu izdevīgs? Tagad nevar atbildēt ne ar stingru «jā», ne ar «nē», jo nav pētījumu, kā tas ietekmētu pasažieru pārvadājumus, cik dārga būtu būvēšana, ņemot vērā pilsētas ģeoloģisko situāciju un citus aspektus, saka Rīgas Tehniskās universitātes Dzelzceļa transporta institūta lektors Jānis Eiduks. Padomju transporta plānošanas sistēmā pastāvēja viedoklis, ka metro var būvēt pilsētā, kur ir vismaz miljons iedzīvotāju. Bet metro ir Rīgai līdzīga lieluma pilsētā Stokholmā, kurai ir līdzīgs metro tīkls kā Pēterburgā, kura savukārt pēc lieluma līdzinās lielajai Parīzei, un tai ir tik liels metro tīkls kā Maskavā. Tātad iedzīvotāju skaits ir relatīvs kritērijs metro plānošanai.

Tā neuzskata inženierzinātņu doktore Ija Niedole, kura šobrīd strādā transportplānošanas firmā, bet padomju laikā pārzināja arī tolaik iecerēto metro būvi: «Metro ekonomiskā efektivitāte būs tad, kad plūsma varētu būt vairāk par 25 000 cilvēku vienā virzienā stundā. Un metro nevienā pilsētā nevar izdzīvot bez subsīdijām. Mums tātad vajadzēs kapitālieguldījumus un subsīdijas, lai būtu metro. Kad bija nopietna runa par metro Rīgā, tad iedzīvotāju skaits bija vairāk nekā 900 000 cilvēku, šeit bija lieli rajoni ar blīvu apbūvi un pāri Daugavai brauca apmēram 25 000 cilvēku. Tagad samazinājies iedzīvotāju skaits pilsētas rajonos, bet tas palielinās pie Rīgas robežām. Tik lielas cilvēku plūsmas tagad vairs neveidojas. Arī iedzīvotāju skaits Rīgā samazinājies par 200 000, un tas ir nopietni. Metro nav pašmērķis, es domāju, ka metro tagad nav vajadzīgs.» Viņa atceras, kā metro projektētāji rēķinājuši gan attālumu starp stacijām Rīgā, lai vagoni varētu attīstīt ātrumu, gan saņēmuši Maskavas projektētāju atteikumu uz lūgumu atļaut ieplānot vēl vienu metro staciju, jo konkrētajā vietā varētu rasties problēmas ar grunti.

Reklāma

Kā dzelzceļa transports metro 21. gadsimta pilsētas pasažieru pārvadājumu sistēmā ir perspektīvs. Bet tas ir dārgāks nekā dzelzceļš, jo jārokas pazemē. Ja vien satiksme ir plānota iepriekš – pilsētai augot, paredzēti transporta koridori, tad lētāks un izdevīgāks ir dzelzceļš. Ja virszemē nav vietas jaunām līnijām un pasažieru pārvadājumus citādi organizēt nevar, nekas cits neatliek kā rakties pazemē. Arī I. Niedole norāda, ka dzelzceļš varētu atslogot galvaspilsētas satiksmes problēmas, ja dubultotu pasažieru pārvadājumus pilsētas robežās. Tagad tie esot ap 30% no visa pārvadājumu skaita, bet jautājums buksē pie finansējuma. «Man nav cerību, ka dzelzceļš paņems uz saviem pleciem vislielāko slodzi,» atzīst I. Niedole.

Lai spriestu par metro vai virszemes sliežu transporta izdevīgumu, jāanalizē ne tikai šodienas situācija, bet arī ieguvumi un zaudējumi pārredzamā nākotnē. Tādu analīzi Rīgas pašvaldības institūcijās RB neizdevās atrast. J. Eiduks pieļauj, ka Latvijā nemaz nav speciālistu, lai izveidotu darba grupu, kas kvalitatīvi spētu veikt šādus pētījumus. Cik zināms no secinājumiem 80. gados, kad radās metro projekts Rīgai, Latvijas galvaspilsētā tā būvēšana nebūtu tā lētākā, ņemot vērā pilsētas mīksto grunti, jo līnijas būtu jārok dziļi. Stokholmā, kas atrodas klinšainā vietā, metro atrodas samērā sekli. Cik zināms, Eiropā dziļākā līnija atrodas ap 180 metru zem zemes. Daudzviet, kur iespējams, metro līniju posmi iznāk arī virszemē.

Rīgas domes Pilsētas attīstības departamenta konsultants, arhitekts Gunārs Asaris uzreiz noskalda, ka metro Rīgai nav izdevīgs ne ekonomiski, ne no pilsētbūvnieciskā viedokļa. Metro vajadzībām nāktos rakties pazemē 30–50 metru dziļumā, bet ātrgaitas tramvajam, pat ja kādos posmos tas kursētu zem zemes, pietiktu ar sešu metru dziļumu. Viņš norāda, ka Rīgai nav arī pietiekams iedzīvotāju skaits?– lai metro būtu izdevīgs, vajadzētu kļūt par daudzmiljonu pilsētu. «Metro ir ārkārtīgi dārga un Rīgas apstākļos pilnīgi nepamatota būve. Visi transporta speciālisti ārzemēs, ar kuriem esmu runājis, smejas, ka divu triju paaudžu ilgumā šāda būve ir nepamatota,» viņš saka.

Jāizmanto tas, kas jau ir

Pilsētas attīstības departamentā neko par iespējamu metro plānošanu uzzināt neizdevās. Arī jaunajā pašvaldības SIA «Transporta infrastruktūras attīstība» pie pazemes transporta analīzes nav ķērušies – neviens nav devis tādu uzdevumu. Bet par nozari atbildīgajā domes Satiksmes departamentā uzskata, ka Rīgai tagad vajadzīgi gan finansiāli, gan tehniski pēc iespējas ātrāk realizējami risinājumi sabiedriskā transporta pakalpojumu radikālai uzlabošanai un maģistrālo ielu tīkla pilnveidošanai. Metro izbūve tāda noteikti nav. Vienlaikus gan metro, gan citu sabiedriskā transporta veidu un ielu infrastruktūras pilnveidošanu Rīgas pilsēta šobrīd finansiāli nevar atļauties, pavēstīja Satiksmes departamenta pārstāve Ieva Prauliņa. Metro būvēšana un uzturēšana ir nesalīdzināmi dārgāka par virszemes satiksmes infrastruktūras objektiem, un tas varētu praktiski apturēt visu citu projektu īstenošanu.

Ņemot vērā Rīgas finansiālos resursus un tehniskās iespējas, šobrīd daudz efektīvāk būtu turpināt darbu pie dzelzceļa integrācijas pilsētas sabiedriskā transporta sistēmā, tramvaja infrastruktūras pilnveidošanas un «park&ride» sistēmas ieviešanas, uzskata departamentā. Atšķirībā no daudzām citām Eiropas pilsētām Rīgā ir ļoti labs dzelzceļa sliežu pārklājums, ko var izmantot arī pilsētas transporta sistēmā. Arī J. Eiduks piekrīt, ka dzelzceļa izmantošana pilsētas sabiedriskā transporta lomā ir labs risinājums.

G. Asaris toties atgādina par ātrgaitas tramvaja ieviešanu, kas bija paredzēta pirms daudziem gadiem. Pilsētā pat sliedes tika ieliktas, piemēram, pie rūpnīcas VEF. «Ātrgaitas tramvajs ir vispieņemamākais tādām pilsētām kā Rīga. Par to runā visu laiku, bet nekas netiek darīts. Tagad tiek spriests tikai par zemās grīdas tramvaju, kas ir pirmais solis ceļā uz ātrgaitas tramvaju. Tagad runā, ka pa tramvaja sliedēm nedrīkstēs braukt mašīnas, bet tie ir, es atvainojos, primitīvi bērna šļupsti par šo jautājumu. Jo šodien vajag perspektīvu attīstību, sabiedriskā transporta trases jāiezīmē šodien un ar iespējami platāku joslu, lai būtu droša braukšana, bet pastāv zemes īpašuma jautājumi, visu atdod un nedomā, kas notiks. Nav perspektīvās plānošanas diemžēl. Šitie pilsētas deputāti ievēlēti uz četriem gadiem un rauš, ko var, nevis domā par pilsētas ilgtspējīgu attīstību!» savu viedokli izsaka G. Asaris.

Arī I. Niedole uzsver sabiedriskā transporta prioritāti: «Varam sabiedrisko transportu attīstīt, un mugurkauls būs tramvajs, kas var attīstīt divdesmit kilometru stundā, un tas ir pietiekams ātrums Rīgai. Kādreiz bija izpētīts, ka astoņdesmit procentos gadījumu uz darbu var braukt mazāk nekā četrdesmit minūtes un to mēs varam izdarīt ar sabiedrisko transportu. Bet tad vajag padomāt, kā sabiedriskajam transportam nodrošināt prioritāti – joslas, «park&ride» sistēmu, lai ir daudz vairāk vietu, kur atstāt mašīnas. Tagad ir problēmas ar satiksmes plūsmu pie Gaisa tilta, Deglava tilta, Zemitānu tilta, tāpēc pilsētas centra ievados vajag nodrošināt sabiedrisko transportu kā prioritāti. Ja valsts un pilsēta nevar nodrošināt pārvietošanās brīvību, tad vajag visus spēkus veltīt sabiedriskajam transportam, lai cilvēkiem pieturvietās nav jāgaida pusstunda.»

Pasaulē būvē un pagarina

Metro ir vai katrā lielākajā Eiropas, Amerikas vai Āzijas pilsētā, kur ir vismaz pusmiljons iedzīvotāju. Gandrīz visur esošās līnijas plāno pagarināt, aptverot jaunus pilsētas rajonus, kā arī piepilsētu, pasažieru ērtībai tuvinot metro un dzelzceļa līniju stacijas. Tikai pirms pieciem gadiem pie sava metro tika Kopenhāgena, pirms 12 gadiem – Varšava. Tā ierīkošana ir dārga, būvniecību finansē gan pašvaldība un transporta uzņēmumi, gan ar valsts palīdzību.

Bet metro ir visātrākais pārvietošanās veids satiksmes pieblīvētā pilsētā. Kā izrēķinājuši Helsinku pilsētplānotāji, metro ir izdevīgāks nekā tramvaji?– salīdzinot izmaksas viena pasažiera pārvadāšanai uz vienu kilometru, metro izmaksas bija 0,032 eiro, bet tramvajā?– 0,211 eiro. Arī elektrību metro tērēja mazāk nekā tramvajs, rēķinot uz vienu pārvadāto pasažieri. Tomēr šī transporta būve ir dārga. Pēc «Helsingin Sanomat» ziņām, pirms pāris gadiem izmaksas bija šādas:

=kilometru gara tuneļa rakšana pazemē?– 8,5 miljoni eiro, līnija virszemē – 4,5 miljoni eiro,

=jaunākās metro līnijas stacijas Kalasatama būvi plānoja ap 12 miljoniem eiro.
 

·
Surviving the crisis...
Joined
·
14 Posts
very interesting.. personally i think it would be great to have a metro in Riga.. really hate ppl talking about that park and ride think, do they really think its gonna get that popular or change traffic jams during peak hours?
well anyway if helsinki has is, riga needs it too..
 

·
I Love Ice
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
This article is just highlighting current problems by speaking with different stakeholders in the transport industry in Riga in attempt to evaluate the viability of Metro through comparing it with other transport means, passenger flow and population in Riga and other cities.

Dark viewless environment?
Personally I think that in order to reduce running and construction costs, casualties (trams are huge killers) and environmental impacts future belongs to monorail systems like ones in Tokyo, Las Vegas and Kuala Lumpur. Other cities (Cairo, Jakarta, Tehran, Dhaka, Liverpool and Mumbai) are pushing forwards with the implementation of the technology. Reasons:
- relieability - always on time
- safety - above head - no accidents with cars, buses or people
- visual impacts - consider it versus shadows of rail guide ways and tram and trolley cables
- ease of construction - faster than sub or rail mains less expensive
- a potential for profitability - metros, trams....are subsidized - Tokyo and Seattle Monorail bring profit

As some of you know it already, it was publicly announced in the Riga Airport Magazine that Riga might have a monorail from the airport to the centre
 

·
always on
Joined
·
4,824 Posts
This article is just highlighting current problems by speaking with different stakeholders in the transport industry in Riga in attempt to evaluate the viability of Metro through comparing it with other transport means, passenger flow and population in Riga and other cities.

Dark viewless environment?
Personally I think that in order to reduce running and construction costs, casualties (trams are huge killers) and environmental impacts future belongs to monorail systems like ones in Tokyo, Las Vegas and Kuala Lumpur. Other cities (Cairo, Jakarta, Tehran, Dhaka, Liverpool and Mumbai) are pushing forwards with the implementation of the technology. Reasons:
- relieability - always on time
- safety - above head - no accidents with cars, buses or people
- visual impacts - consider it versus shadows of rail guide ways and tram and trolley cables
- ease of construction - faster than sub or rail mains less expensive
- a potential for profitability - metros, trams....are subsidized - Tokyo and Seattle Monorail bring profit

As some of you know it already, it was publicly announced in the Riga Airport Magazine that Riga might have a monorail from the airport to the centre
:lol::lol::lol: Wont happen :I
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
I read today some other article where some important officer of Riga Council said that Riga wil have greater chances to build metro, if the Northern Crossing will be built as a tunnel not bridge because in the case of tunnel construction, the city will need to buy a special tunnel-drill. After the Northern Tunnel work will be done, this machine otherwise will become useless. Why not use it to dig metro? In Moscow, they have such experience.
 

·
I Love Ice
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
I read today some other article where some important officer of Riga Council said that Riga wil have greater chances to build metro, if the Northern Crossing will be built as a tunnel not bridge because in the case of tunnel construction, the city will need to buy a special tunnel-drill. After the Northern Tunnel work will be done, this machine otherwise will become useless. Why not use it to dig metro? In Moscow, they have such experience.
:yes: Good thinking, John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,568 Posts
They could sell the drilling machine to Danny Ocean....

But seriously talking, I believe Riga's metro would be profitable, but there isn't enough political will to take actions.
 

·
I Love Ice
Joined
·
2,440 Posts
They could sell the drilling machine to Danny Ocean....

But seriously talking, I believe Riga's metro would be profitable, but there isn't enough political will to take actions.
We could rent it to drill tunnels in Tallinn, Kaunas and Vilnius:cheers:
 
1 - 20 of 275 Posts
Top