We might dig up fucking bombs if we go underground
Gierek had plans for metros in many cities. But then, Poland practically bunkrupted. Since then the only large public infrastructure projects not in Warsaw are financed by the EU. If not for the EU, we would look like Russia. The other two reasons are: cities build infrastructure for automobile communication since the 90s and most cities in Poland loose population. Hence it makes little sense to invest in metro systems (even if there was a political support, which unfortunately is completely absent).
I think the main problem is lack of vision of the future. Nobody looks further than few months ahead.
My home city of Cracow for example.
Every time the discussion about metro starts nobody really discuses it properly. They apply having metro to today’s issues and some idiot alway says something like “let’s expand tram lines” or “let’s put more bus lanes”.
Those solutions are ok for “today” that solve the issue of bus 139 being constantly late but it fails to focus on why the city needs or doesn’t need a metro.
Before you start talking about metro you need to ask yourself a question. What kind of city Cracow should be in 100 years?
Shall it keep growing to keep it’s 1st tier status or should it stop at around one million inhabitants and maybe fall to a 2nd tier category while being overtaken in terms of importance by cities like Łódź, Gdańsk, Poznan or Wrocław (speculation but you know what I mean).
To;Dr Building a metro is a several decades long process but politicians think in terms of weeks or months.
Tram
Not that many cities in Europe populated comparably to Kraków, Łódź or Wrocław (biggest after Warsaw) have metro system and most of these are rather modest in terms of length or service range, often consisting of single line being part of bigger network of different transport modes.
It’s rather complex topic, as the term “metro” is used loosely. For example, Tricity has its own urban rail with separate tracks and densely packed schedule, but technically it’s not located underground – but so are many stations belonging to the biggest metro systems around the world. It’s not called metro, but by design serves the same purpose. All you need to have the metro is to either dig the track underground, which is very expensive and serves little purpose or simply rebrand it, which would make definition purists unhappy.
Plenty of metro lines in Western Europe were built in the second half of 20th century, when the car craze was at its peak. Tram systems were removed to make space for the cars, while the public transport went underground to not disturb it.
In comparison, Eastern Bloc countries (and for some reason, Switzerland) didn’t proceed with mass conversion, leaving the tram networks, as the cars in those countries were still a luxury. It left much less necessity for metro systems because of that.
We’d rather build hundreds kilometers of unsustainable car infrastructure than than several kilometers of underground train
In most cities metro wouldn’t make sense since there’s enough space for trams, buses etc., which are way cheaper to adopt and maintain.
The projections of transport volumes probably don’t justify the costs of building metro infrastructure.
Public transit tends to rely on buses. Some cities also have tram lines, while others have gotten rid of them. Remember that building metro lines involves extensive excavation, most cities don’t think that’s worth the trouble.
11 comments
Money.
Already a good tram system.
bc we’re poor
We might dig up fucking bombs if we go underground
Gierek had plans for metros in many cities. But then, Poland practically bunkrupted. Since then the only large public infrastructure projects not in Warsaw are financed by the EU. If not for the EU, we would look like Russia. The other two reasons are: cities build infrastructure for automobile communication since the 90s and most cities in Poland loose population. Hence it makes little sense to invest in metro systems (even if there was a political support, which unfortunately is completely absent).
I think the main problem is lack of vision of the future. Nobody looks further than few months ahead.
My home city of Cracow for example.
Every time the discussion about metro starts nobody really discuses it properly. They apply having metro to today’s issues and some idiot alway says something like “let’s expand tram lines” or “let’s put more bus lanes”.
Those solutions are ok for “today” that solve the issue of bus 139 being constantly late but it fails to focus on why the city needs or doesn’t need a metro.
Before you start talking about metro you need to ask yourself a question. What kind of city Cracow should be in 100 years?
Shall it keep growing to keep it’s 1st tier status or should it stop at around one million inhabitants and maybe fall to a 2nd tier category while being overtaken in terms of importance by cities like Łódź, Gdańsk, Poznan or Wrocław (speculation but you know what I mean).
To;Dr Building a metro is a several decades long process but politicians think in terms of weeks or months.
Tram
Not that many cities in Europe populated comparably to Kraków, Łódź or Wrocław (biggest after Warsaw) have metro system and most of these are rather modest in terms of length or service range, often consisting of single line being part of bigger network of different transport modes.
It’s rather complex topic, as the term “metro” is used loosely. For example, Tricity has its own urban rail with separate tracks and densely packed schedule, but technically it’s not located underground – but so are many stations belonging to the biggest metro systems around the world. It’s not called metro, but by design serves the same purpose. All you need to have the metro is to either dig the track underground, which is very expensive and serves little purpose or simply rebrand it, which would make definition purists unhappy.
Plenty of metro lines in Western Europe were built in the second half of 20th century, when the car craze was at its peak. Tram systems were removed to make space for the cars, while the public transport went underground to not disturb it.
In comparison, Eastern Bloc countries (and for some reason, Switzerland) didn’t proceed with mass conversion, leaving the tram networks, as the cars in those countries were still a luxury. It left much less necessity for metro systems because of that.
We’d rather build hundreds kilometers of unsustainable car infrastructure than than several kilometers of underground train
In most cities metro wouldn’t make sense since there’s enough space for trams, buses etc., which are way cheaper to adopt and maintain.
The projections of transport volumes probably don’t justify the costs of building metro infrastructure.
Public transit tends to rely on buses. Some cities also have tram lines, while others have gotten rid of them. Remember that building metro lines involves extensive excavation, most cities don’t think that’s worth the trouble.