Gluren bij de buren: hoe gaat het met de Amstelveenlijn?Duco Vaillant : Metro en Tram 26 mei 2017
In onze rubriek ‘Gluren bij de buren’, gaan we vandaag langs bij de Amstelveenlijn. Voordat de ombouw van lijn 51 tot hoogwaardige tramlijn daadwerkelijk van start gaat, nemen we graag een kijkje achter de schermen. Adviseur Wendy van der Meulen vertelt hoe het gaat.
Hoe zat het ook alweer?
“De Amstelveenlijn – lijn 51 in Amstelveen – voldoet niet meer: vaak is deze overvol, het materieel is aan vervanging toe en hij rijdt niet vaak genoeg. Daarnaast zorgt het ‘twee in één’ metro- en het tramsysteem ervoor dat de lijn erg storingsgevoelig is en inefficiënt omgaat met de capaciteit. Daarbij worden Amstelveen en Amsterdam Zuid steeds drukker en is er nog steeds groei: meer bedrijven, meer bewoners, meer studenten. Diverse redenen om de Amstelveenlijn aan te pakken.”
Een jaar geleden waren jullie druk bezig met de aanbesteding, hoe staat het nu?
“Het contract is na een uitgebreide aanbestedingsprocedure gegund aan aannemer VITAL. Dit is een samenwerkingsverband van VolkerWessels ondernemingen Van Hattum en Blankevoort, VolkerRail en KWS. Deze aannemers hebben ook aan de Noord/Zuidlijn gewerkt. Zo was Van Hattum en Blankevoort verantwoordelijk voor de ruwbouw bij station Europaplein en zijn VolkerRail en KWS actief bij de afbouw van de Noord/Zuidlijn.”
Waarom kwamen zij als beste uit de bus?
“Ze hebben zich zeer goed verdiept in het project, wat voor ons het vertrouwen gaf dat zij het project goed kunnen uitvoeren. Daarnaast hebben ze een korte bouwperiode en slimme faseringen bedacht. Hierdoor wordt de hinder tot een kortere periode beperkt. Ook verdiepen ze het kruispunt Sportlaan in zijn geheel, in plaats van half-verdiept. Dit zorgt voor minder hinder, omdat fietsers en auto’s in oost-westelijke richting kunnen blijven rijden. Tegelijkertijd is een geheel verdiepte kruising ook een verbetering voor de buurt.”
Zijn er naast de voordelen voor de omgeving, ook voordelen voor de reiziger?
“Jazeker! Om op tijd klaar te zijn, dachten wij dat er in de lente van 2018 begonnen zou moeten worden aan de kruispunten. VITAL denkt de bouwtijd te kunnen verkorten en zal daarom pas in begin 2019 starten. Lijn 51 kan zodoende volledig blijven rijden tot 1 maart 2019. Daarna wordt lijn 51 vervangen door een tijdelijke bus. Daarnaast dachten wij dat er twee zomerbuitendienststellingen nodig waren voor de Amstelveenlijn, dit kan ook met maar één in 2019. Afgezien van deze 6 weken in de zomer en een aantal weekenden in 2019 en 2020 kan lijn 5 blijven rijden.“
Zijn er ook nadelen?
“Ja, de bouwperiode is weliswaar korter, maar zal wel heviger zijn. Uiteindelijk moet hetzelfde werk worden verzet in minder tijd. Zo zal tijdens de zomerbuitendienststelling van 2019, in 6 weken tijd 7 dagen in de week, 16 uur per dag worden gewerkt. Maar volgens ons wegen de nadelen hiervan op tegen de voordelen voor zowel de omgeving als reiziger.”
En waar zijn jullie nu mee bezig?
“We zijn nu bezig met de voorbereidende werkzaamheden en VITAL werkt het voorlopige ontwerp verder uit. Voordat de aannemer daadwerkelijk aan de slag kan, zullen kabels en leidingen worden verlegd en bomen worden gekapt. Daarnaast maakt aannemer VITAL komend weekend in de nacht van 27 op 28 mei met een zogenaamde Railhog – bekend bij de Noord/Zuidlijn als clean-sweepkarretje – 3D-scans op het spoor. Hiermee krijgt de aannemer in combinatie met beelden vanaf de weg een nauwkeurig beeld van de werkelijkheid.”
Heeft u vragen? U kunt ze hieronder stellen.
Ik vind de bijdragen van en reacties op Felix Thoma heel interessant, hoe lang ze ook zijn. Wie dit niet wil lezen, slaat die lange stukken dan maar over………
@j.siemons U bent zelf een opgeblazen reactie.
nou , nou . wat een opgeblazen reactie . maar goed , dit onderdeel van het geheel van uitwisselingen heet toevallig “gluren bij de buren” . en dat is nou één van die aardige elementen die deze website sieren . maar door uw opgewonden reactie sluit ik graag deze wisseling van gedachte hierbij af !
@j.siemons Ik sluit me aan bij Eric. En een webforum heeft helemaal niks met e-mail te maken. Het interesseert me geen zak uit welke tijd u een kind bent. Onze taal is leesbaar dankzij een aantal simpele regels (die u hopelijk ooit op school geleerd heeft). Als u vindt zich per se te moeten “onderscheiden” door daarin fouten te maken (omdat de inhoud zelf wellicht niet onderscheidend genoeg is): veel plezier verder!
Zoals u zelf bepaalt hoeveel onnodige spatie- en hoofdletterfouten u maakt, bepaal ik zelf wel wat ik post, zolang het onder de karakterlimiet blijft. Bovendien was mijn reactie duidelijk aan Felix gericht. Dus laat ik tot slot duidelijk maken dat u het niet HOEFT te lezen!
dat is ook precies mijn opzet . ik ben nog uit de tijd van telexen . iedereen is een kind van zijn tijd . ik beschouw e-mail als een soortgelijk product als een telex . een echte brief is een ander verhaal . dáár gebruik ik hoofdletters . hier niet 🙂 ( u bent trouwens niet de eerste ) . over kind van zijn tijd gesproken .
Over leesbaar gesproken, ga eens Hoofdletters gebruiken. Dit lijkt wel een telex bericht.
voor zulke lange teksten is dit medium niet opgezet . bescheiden bijdragen zou de norm moeten zijn . dan blijft het “leesbaar” . voor essays en alles wat daar op lijkt kunt u in het nrc of trouw terecht .
@Felix Thoma “I don’t know the exact numbers either, but think that a higher car share in Amstelveen is caused both by the longer distance of about 10 km to the Amsterdam city center, so that cycling is probably not an option for most people, and a worse public transport service in Amstelveen, as the current system is probably not attractive enough due to the detour of the sneltram via Amstel, the restricted capacity of the tram and stability problems.”
I disagree. Transit in Amstelveen isn’t worse than in Amsterdam, if you exclude some of the stability problems. In Amstelveen everyone has walking distance access to a separate light rail system that doesn’t need to wait for traffic lights.
But I think that there are economical reasons for higher car usage. In neighborhoods with more social housing, more transit is used. I myself live in a Noord neighborhood with a high percentage of car usage, similar to Amstelveen. There is no social housing here whatsoever. I’m curious to see if and how the NZL will influence car usage here after opening. Other surrounding neighborhoods with social housing have a lot more people using transit.
The “detour” doesn’t just apply to Amstelveen inhabitants, by the way. Line 50 also makes quite a detour around West, especially if you board on the south side of town. And plenty of Noord busses have detours, but that doesn’t stop people from using them.
I also think you should stop thinking of the Amstelveenlijn as a line to ideally connect to Amsterdam’s center. It connects most of Amstelveen itself already, and helps train travelers get to Station Zuid, which will become the new “central station”, with even international trains stopping there instead at CS in the future. That’s good enough, given the transit options from there on. Currently, Station Zuid already has the best connection to Schiphol Airport and a lot of closeby cities, except Alkmaar and Haarlem. But one can take the metro to Sloterdijk or CS for that.
“I explained quite detailed how the Noord/Zuidlijn can be extended to Amstelveen and why this is the best way to solve the Amstelveenlijn issues, so I don’t understand why you don’t see that!”
I don’t agree with this. The NZL has only 2 stops in Noord (maybe 3 in the future). It’s a line that Bus lines connect to the stations which have a regional function as well. Even on the center side the stops are pretty far away from each other. In the case of the Amstelveenlijn there are a lot of stations close to each other and not much other transit to switch to. The geography of Amstelveen doesn’t allow for or need much other transit (other than maybe a few regional bus lines). Maybe if Amstelveen only had 4 or 5 metro stops, it could be interesting. But adding a line with so many stops would only be slowing down the whole line that will be the backbone of Amsterdan transit. It seems like an irresponsible solution to me. To sum it up, the functions of the NZL are totally different from those of the Amstelveenlijn.
“The Noord/Zuidlijn will also offer some new connections for Amstelveners, but the travel time savings to Centraal of only 5 minutes comparing line 52 to line 51 will be eaten up by the necessary transfer in Zuid, so I doubt that the Noord/Zuidlijn and Amstelveenlijn projects in its current form will achieve a significant modal shift between Amsterdam and Amstelveen.”
This is simply unimportant as Station Zuid is much closer than CS. It’s just a few minutes away for some Amstelveners even. A trip to the Rokin however, from the stop Sacharovlaan will have a decreased travel time of about 15 minutes compared to the current situation, according to the GVB app making use of 9292OV data. Don’t forget that the NZL will have a frequency of every 6 minutes, most of the day (until 22:00 even).
“The connection of the Ringlijn with the Oostlijn at Centraal is certainly an important project. The Oost/Westlijn is also worth to discuss, but even if it’s started now, it will only improve the transport in Amsterdam in about 20 years. Furthermore, it’s not so clear if these projects really have a larger impact on the entire region, because these metro lines would still be located (mostly) within the Amsterdam city borders, where they have to compete with existing fast NS connections (e.g. between Lelylaan, Sloterdijk and Centraal), a dense tram network and a high bicycle share.”
New metro lines within the city like the Oost-Westlijn and the extended Ringlijn (which won’t take 20 years) will more significantly than any Amstelveen changes improve the transit network in Amsterdam. It is within the Amsterdam municipality borders, especially within the ring A10 that much time can be won for the most travelers. I don’t understand how you don’t see that 😉
Proximity of train stations as a reason not to add metro lines in those areas sounds like the opposite of logic to me. Having a train station connect to a metro line makes traveling between cities much easier, and will possibly even impact how NS lines develop. Also, think of the huge neighborhood that will arise between Sloterdijk and CS, “Haven-Stad”. That alone justifies finally “finishing” line 50.
Also, I don’t think that the line 50 extension to CS would compete with trains at all. In fact, it will help redirect train travelers to their most nearby stations. A lot of people would use Sloterdijk more if they had a metro connection to it.
You’re also forgetting that plenty of people would rather die before sitting in a tram for 20+ minutes. While metro is no problem for most of those people. The high bicycle share will definitely decrease when metro options improve.
There’s currently no metro or train stop near Westerpark and Haarlemmerplein, which is an area that would greatly benefit from either option. NS doesn’t seem so interested in opening a Westerpark Station, so it’ll have to be metro. Nieuw West inhabitants would also greatly benefit, because unless you live very close to Lelylaan or Sloterdijk, you’re not going to take the train to CS. Especially not on Lelylaan, where waiting times can be up to 20 mins during the day due to IC Direct trains having to pass by with there being only 2 tracks….
“By the way, a metro from Amsterdam via Amstelveen to Schiphol would make Amstelveen much more attractive for tourists and business travellers and could thus solve the problems that you mentioned!”
I have to disagree. Maybe if there were plenty of cheap hotels, more tourists would visit Amstelveen. Otherwise, there isn’t really anything there. But I don’t see the Amstelveen municipality approving that, given the high/mid income inhabitants and tourist-free “peace and quiet” that they seem to like.
“Apart from that, I don’t know any additional information or solutions to your impression that Amstelveen is somehow left behind, but only considering public transport issues, it seems to me that the interests of Amstelveen are now underrepresented within the capital region and that Amstelveen would be better off as a district incorporated into Amsterdam.”
No one visits a country to go to some big suburb, unless they have family or friends living there.
If developments like Kunsthalle Amsterdam or the large cinema around Station Noord would happen in Amstelveen, then it could become more interesting. And I agree that if Amstelveen would be absorbed into Amsterdam’s municipality that could be a good thing, for both Amsterdam and Amstelveen.
chapeau felix !
het zou mooi zijn als alle “nieuwkomers” zo keurig het nederlands schrijven . de hier en daar kleine spelfouten maken het geheel nog echter 🙂 !
@ Ger Vermij:
Ik wil hier ook niet meer schrijven dan nodig is. Dus beveel ik je aan mijn Nederlandstalige reactie aan johan siemons te lezen, waar ik de taalkeuze gemotiveerd heb. Overigens denk ik dat de meerderheid in deze discussie ermee eens is dat lange Engelstalige bijdragen geen probleem en misschien geschikter voor mij zijn. Op Engelstalige reacties antwoord ik natuurlijk in het Engels, maar op Nederlandstalige reacties antwoord ik in het Nederlands. Ik ben blij met elke mogelijkheid korte texten in deze mooie taal schrijven te kunnen!
Bedankt voor de linkjes (ik heb ook http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1524346 gevonden), maar helaas heb ik geen tijd voor lange en verwarrende discussies op tientallen verschillende pagina’s. Ik denk ook dat de “gemiddelde Amsterdammer” vaker op deze officiele pagina dan in een inofficiele forum kijkt. Er blijft natuurlijk een botsing tussen een brede publiek en een diepe discussie. Ik vind het belangrijker mijn ideeen compleet en juist opteschrijven en dat kan beter in het Engels. Maar ik mag natuurlijk wel verstaan dat niet iedereen zelf lange Engelstalige reacties schrijven mag en dat deze onderwerp ook in het Nederlands discuteert worden moet. Dus vind ik een tweetalige discussie een goede compromis.
De reden waarom hier “boeken” geschreven worden is overings niet dat iemand zichzelf te geweldig vindt maar dat sommige verantwoordelijke mensen de vertramming van de Amstelveenlijn te geweldig vinden hoewel dit project grotendeels geen zin heeft!
Op slechts een enkeling na, welke zichzelf waarschijnlijk geweldig vindt, is het schrijven van Engelstalige boekwerken niet echt aan de gemiddelde Amsterdammer besteed. Ik lees (en uiteraard begrijp) jouw boekwerken op deze site. Waarschijnlijk kun jij jouw ideeen beter ventileren op de tread http://www.skyscrapercity.com/ of op de website http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=874116&page=61. Ikzelf zal het zeker niet proberen mijn ideeen op de Londense websites in het Nederlands te plaatsen. Bedenk dat er slechts een handvol mensen zijn die graag willen laten merken dat zij de Engelse taal machtig zijn. Dus alstublieft schrijf kortere verhalen en probeer dat uit beleefdheid in het Nederlands te doen, dat kost waarschijnlijk wat extra moeite maar je leert er wel een mooie Europese taal mee. Probeer het gewoon! Vriendelijke groet. Ger.
I don’t know the exact numbers either, but think that a higher car share in Amstelveen is caused both by the longer distance of about 10 km to the Amsterdam city center, so that cycling is probably not an option for most people, and a worse public transport service in Amstelveen, as the current system is probably not attractive enough due to the detour of the sneltram via Amstel, the restricted capacity of the tram and stability problems. The Noord/Zuidlijn will also offer some new connections for Amstelveners, but the travel time savings to Centraal of only 5 minutes comparing line 52 to line 51 will be eaten up by the necessary transfer in Zuid, so I doubt that the Noord/Zuidlijn and Amstelveenlijn projects in its current form will achieve a significant modal shift between Amsterdam and Amstelveen. Note that the efforts of Amsterdam to reduce car traffic and improve the air quality will be foiled if commuters still use the car in the absence of attractive alternatives! The capacity and stability issues also won’t improve as much as expected with a tram. I explained quite detailed how the Noord/Zuidlijn can be extended to Amstelveen and why this is the best way to solve the Amstelveenlijn issues, so I don’t understand why you don’t see that!
The connection of the Ringlijn with the Oostlijn at Centraal is certainly an important project. The Oost/Westlijn is also worth to discuss, but even if it’s started now, it will only improve the transport in Amsterdam in about 20 years. Furthermore, it’s not so clear if these projects really have a larger impact on the entire region, because these metro lines would still be located (mostly) within the Amsterdam city borders, where they have to compete with existing fast NS connections (e.g. between Lelylaan, Sloterdijk and Centraal), a dense tram network and a high bicycle share. So the new coalition in the Gemeente Amsterdam quite rightly agreed on discussing not only these two projects, but also extensions of the Noord/Zuidlijn on both ends together with the Vervoerregio Amsterdam. Sooner or later, detailed studies will reveal that a direct metro from Zuid to Schiphol doesn’t make sense, as there are already parallel railway tracks and the money is better spent in constructing additional tracks for high-speed trains from Schiphol to Amsterdam in order to relieve the Schipholtunnel, currently the major bottleneck of the national railway network. As I’ve already written, Amstelveen is denser populated than the area between Zuid and Schiphol, although indeed not as dense as Amsterdam, but this fact is compensated by the linear bundling of the major traffic flows towards Amsterdam. By the way, a metro from Amsterdam via Amstelveen to Schiphol would make Amstelveen much more attractive for tourists and business travellers and could thus solve the problems that you mentioned!
Apart from that, I don’t know any additional information or solutions to your impression that Amstelveen is somehow left behind, but only considering public transport issues, it seems to me that the interests of Amstelveen are now underrepresented within the capital region and that Amstelveen would be better off as a district incorporated into Amsterdam.
@Felix Thoma – Most people I know who live in Amstelveen travel by car mostly. Amsterdam has a higher population density than Amstelveen, has fewer cars per capita (as far as I know), has more issues with air quality and is of much more economic and cultural importance by far than its small suburban neighbor. No one goes to the CoBrA museum any more (which is kind of sad). Amsterdam is also currently modernizing how it deals with motor vehicle traffic and parking, while Amstelveen pretty much stays asleep politically, along with the rest of the country.
The issues of the Amstelveenlijn of course have to be dealt with, but I don’t see how the Noord Zuidlijn should be a part of that. If we look at expensive projects that would greatly benefit the entire region instead (and the entire country even), in my opinion those would be the proposed Oost Westlijn (Schiphol to Zeeburgereiland via Osdorp/Lelylaan/Overtoom/Vijzelgracht/Muiderpoort) and closing the Ringlijn to Centraal Station. Imagine using a transit system in Amsterdam where using the painfully slow tram is no longer necessary for a big percentage of the population.
Here is also the promised comment on political aspects. This is probably the most difficult part to write for me. First, I don’t accuse anyone now of deliberately having acted wrong, because most people which had to do with the project just did their best: they had to fulfill decisions, had legal incentives to act as they did or truly believed in their decisions for lack of other information. However, it seems to me that all have to be very open now in order to get the most out of the project! Second, I’m far from understanding the political system of the Netherlands and particularly the organization of public transport in Gemeente and Vervoersregio Amsterdam as a whole. So, if you think I might be wrong, please write me!
There are many reasons for the whole misplanning, but I think that incentive misalignment and incomplete information has contributed a lot. Traditionally, the Gemeente Amsterdam and its company GVB are responsible for metros and trams in Amsterdam, so most urban rail transport expertise is still located there, although some strategic metro planning expertise was probably lost when the original Projectbureau Amstelveenlijn was dissolved. Gemeente Amsterdam presumably didn’t feel responsible for the Amstelveenlijn, which mostly runs outside its city borders, and took the chance to save money by mostly transferring funding and responsibility to the Stadsregio (now Vervoerregio) Amsterdam, which indeed finally pays about 200 out of the 300 million euros for the tram conversion. The Vervoerregio Amsterdam has some experience in regional bus planning, e.g. painting bus vehicles and shelters in the R-net colours, but apparently not in urban rail planning, so they finally came to the wrong decision in favor of a tram conversion. In the end, however, the Amstelveenlijn will be constructed by Gemeente Amsterdam and operated by its municipal operator GVB, so they are probably left with some risks, for example if construction works extend and/or passenger numbers drop. Especially in the Dutch OV-chipkaart system, where the normal fare depends from the kilometers and the operator, a lower number of passengers would immediately result in lower ticket revenues for the operator. Remember the Fyra disaster, where the total damage not only came from high investments, but also from the missing revenues. But different to the Fyra project, the Amstelveenlijn project can still be adapted or cancelled before the first trains run!
There are also many possible reasons why the Rijk doesn’t pay more than 80 million euros for the Amstelveenlijn: the high costs of the previously planned tunnel, the low benefit-cost ratio of the currently planned tram or whatever. I don’t know! But I don’t think that the Rijk wants to fund a metro after the regional authorities realized a tram with partial funding from the Rijk and after its completion found out that a metro actually remains necessary. So the question must be how already allocated money can be redirected in an optimal way before the actual start of the construction. Actually, the stake of the Rijk is higher than 80 million euros, because it pays almost 1 billion euros and thus the majority of the costs for Zuidasdok, which includes the refurbishment of the station Zuid. The money intended for relocating the metro platforms to the west should better be used for relocating them to above and perhaps even for constructing the first part of a metro viaduct to Buitenveldert.
Still, my proposals cost a bit more than the current projects, but if the constructions for a metro can be included in the current contracts, this could even have the positive side effect that the construction companies don’t lose money and thus don’t go to court.
If all parties just took a breath and came together, it would be a win-win situation for all!
Unfortunately, I’ve only limited time for this discussion, as I’ll go back to Berlin in order to finish my master studies shortly after the Noord/Zuidlijn opens end July. Of course, I can write a comment once in a while and send this discussion to some railway professionals I know in the Netherlands, but I’m not sure how much this approach will bring.
As regular citizens of the Netherlands you’re probably more efficient in that. So if you think that this discussion has revealed some reasonable arguments, please share them in other discussions on wijnemenjemee.nl, on amstelveenlijn.nl or on social networks. But note that it isn’t sufficent to only share them with people who are anyway interested in railways.
Railway-interested people tend to think that political decisions about railway projects and public transport funding in general are given and can’t be changed. The truth is more that they can’t be changed by railway-interested people alone! Probably, many other railway experts have already known the drawbacks of this project, but haven’t communicated them (convincingly enough) to the politicians, who can only decide on the basis of their information and therefore still truly believe that the decision in favor of a tram was right.
Unfortunately, this project can only be adapted or cancelled on a high political level. But fortunately, the Netherlands is a democratic country, so you can speak with municipal, regional or national politicians whether they are in government or in opposition, inform a newspaper, write a petition, start an initiative or whatever. It’s your city/province/country!
But the most efficient way would be that @Team Metro en Tram enters the discussion and uses their influence within the Gemeente Amsterdam, where the most critical points of a metro to Amstelveen are located, and their contacts to the Vervoerregio Amsterdam to get the most out for a later metro to Amstelveen, if necessary with additional public money.
@Wendy van der Meulen, Metro en Tram: I totally understand that it’s difficult to write an official answer to this already long and still growing discussion, so I first want to focus on a specific topic based on your previous comments below this article. At the first glance, I appreciated that three level crossings will be grade-separated and some efforts will be made to prepare a later metro. At the second glance, however, I see that the selection of the merged and removed stops, which I’ve already described as a problem of the planned tram conversion, would additionally worsen in case of a subsequent metro conversion. You write that, because a later metro conversion is unlikely, the grade-separated stops won’t be prepared to be metro stations. But as Kronenburg and Zonnestein are adjacent stops, at least of one of them should remain open. A new location for the metro stations wouldn’t be convenient, as most sneltram stations are already located optimally at street crossings or points of interest, particularly Zonnestein for the Kostverlorenhof and Sportlaan for the Groenhof. After removing Marne and Gondel without substitution during the current tram conversion, also removing Sportlaan without substitution during a later metro conversion would result in a station distance of almost 2 km between Ouderkerkerlaan and Meent. Finally, the sentence also holds the other way round: If the grade-separated stops won’t be prepared to be metro stations, a later metro conversion would become even more unlikely!
A metro viaduct is actually only needed at Zuid in order to cross the Ringlijn. However, it should better be extended 1-2 kilometers southwards along Buitenveldertselaan in order to remove the level crossings in the quite densely built-up area Buitenveldert. For cost reasons, viaducts were already quite popular when the first metros were built 100 years ago and they still exist in some inner-city districts of e.g. Berlin and Paris. The Rotterdam metro also has a long viaduct through densely populated districts south of the Nieuwe Maas.
Beneluxbaan in Amstelveen is partly already constructed grade-separated like a motorway, so that a ground-level metro seems possible almost everywhere. At the three stops Kronenburg, Zonnestein and Sportlaan both Beneluxlaan and Amstelveenlijn are planned to be brought into an open tunnel and thus made grade-separated, so that only two level crossings along Beneluxlaan remain, which would have to be removed in order to achieve full grade separation: at Handelsweg where current line 5 leaves the Beneluxlaan towards Binnenhof and at Gondel where current line 51 leaves the Beneluxlaan towards Westwijk.
The existing line in the south of Amstelveen and the future line in Uithoorn cross denser neighbourhoods again, so short open tunnel or viaduct sections could be necessary at some points to achieve grade separation, but closed tunnels are not required at all.
I also think that 300 million euros are the total cost of the Amstelveenlijn project, while 136 million euros only refers to a specific lot. Note that the official benefit-cost-ratio referring to the 300 million euros is 0.9-1.4, which roughly speaking means that in the worst case the revenue is smaller than the costs! The Uithoornlijn costs 60 million euros and is probably not included in the previous costs, as its construction was decided later than the conversion of the sneltram, so the total cost of the ‘Amsteltram’ would be even 360 million euros! Finally, the relocation of the metro platforms at Zuid is not part of the Amstelveenlijn but of the Zuidasdok project, which is in total worth more than a billion euros, so the railway share is difficult to estimate, but constructing the new metro station Zuid including the Brittenpassage probably costs more than 100 million euros, especially as it should be done with ongoing railway and metro operation. So the three rail projects together cost about a half billion euros and thus not much less than a sneltram or even metro to Amstelveen!
Good transport planning shouldn’t be based only on the emotions of the people, because they can quickly change: After the realization of the Amstelveenlijn project they will probably soon forget the punctuality and safety problems of the old sneltrams and complain about the capacity, directness and remaining safety problems of the new trams.
The general feeling that a tram is safer could even have the inverse effect that people are lazier at the level crossings and thus more accidents occur. Note that the new trams will run with the same speed as the old sneltrams or even faster because of the removed stops. By the way, the junctions which will be grade-separated are located at busy street crossings, but the corresponding sneltram stations by tendency belong to the less used ones.
I’ve read that the sad accident of the young girl occurred at the cycle path crossing the ground-level Amstelveenboog, which is planned to disappear soon, but a lot of remaining level crossings will remain. If the Amstelveenlijn project really aims at a higher safety, it seems almost unbelievable that not even some of them will be protected with barriers. When I go to amstelveenlijn.nl and search for ‘slagboom’ or ‘slagbomen’, I get 0 results!
Thank you for reminding me of this interesting, but also slightly complex aspect which I forgot to answer last time. The tram line to Uithoorn will be completely aligned on a former Haarlemmermeerspoorlijnen section which used to be the extension of the section in Amstelveen that I mentioned in my original comment. You probably mean that the Hoekse Lijn had been used as a NS railway line until 2017 while Haarlemmermeerspoorlijnen has been out of service for a half century. First, this is only partly an argument in favor of a tram to Uithoorn, because the costs of the actual track construction are almost the same for a metro and a tram. Higher costs for a metro mostly come from additional features like signalling and the above-mentioned junction design. However, somewhat different to the old Amstelveenlijn, there won’t be many level crossings on the new Uithoornlijn, as it partly runs through the unpopulated area between Westwijk and Uithoorn and partly within Uithoorn where even the already existing bus lane has bridges and tunnels at some junctions. Second, former railway lines which can be reused as metro or tram lines only reduce the construction costs but not the running costs for both infrastructure and operations, of course. Furthermore, even the impact on the construction costs is unclear, which can be seen at the Hoekse Lijn, where still a lot of construction work for stations and signalling was necessary for the conversion. Particularly, the remaining freight traffic to Maassluis and perhaps later to Hoek van Holland requires gauntlet track within stations and a complicated train signalling and protection system, while there will be no freight traffic on the Uithoornlijn. Furthermore, the distance von Schiedam to Hoek van Holland is much larger than the distance from Westwijk to Uithoorn. Together with the recent delays of a few months, which is however quite short considering the short realization time and compared to other projects, there are many reasons why the Hoekse Lijn also costs about 500 million euros, but they partly don’t apply for the
Uithoornlijn. In the long term, I believe that the Hoekse Lijn is similarly expensive but more logical than the three discussed rail projects in the south of Amsterdam together. Finally, I would say that Uithoornlijn and Hoekse Lijn are hardly comparable regarding their once-only constructions, but that metros to Maassluis and to Uithoorn are quite well comparable regarding their long-term usage.
I think that it is a highly relevant current topic. But I agree that it’s also a nice discussion! 🙂
There was a typo in my last comment: Of course, the Projectbureau Amstelveenlijn was closed by Eric Wiebes, the current Minister van Economische Zaken en Klimaat.
@Felix Thoma, just continue in English, ik vind het uiterst leerzaam and it read as a thriller.
Internationally, the ‘safe haven principle’ is certainly not a necessary standard, as there are several examples of metros, with and without automatic operation, where a train enters the station shortly after the previous train has departed. In my personal opinion, a formal rule partly contradicts the idea of metros as a high capacity transport mode. But when you mentioned it, I remembered that it’s also practiced in the U-Bahn system of my home town Berlin, where it’s called ‘Fahren im Bahnhofsabstand’ (riding in station distance). However, it doesn’t matter much because at U-Bahn Berlin the running time between to adjacent stations is always lower than the normal daytime headway of 4-5 minutes! Since a few weeks, there is again a longer route section served by
two lines with a resulting headway of 3-4 minutes, but the station
distances are still short enough to operate in station distance.
However, I think that the ‘safe haven principle’ doesn’t necessarily exclude with a sneltram operation on the Noord/Zuidlijn. The Oostlijn is currently served by 3 lines running every 7.5 minutes in the peak hours, resulting in 24 trains per hour. The Noord/Zuidlijn has a slightly higher maximum station distance than the Oostlijn, but on the other hand there is no triangle operation like at Spaklerweg/Van der Madeweg/Overamstel and it does not have to turn at platform tracks at its northern end Noord like the Oostlijn at its northern end Centraal. Actually, the critical point of the Noord/Zuidlijn is currently at Zuid, where the Noord/Zuidlijn has to turn on only one platform track. This only allows 16 trains per hour or a train every 3.75 minutes! If the track layout at Zuid is slightly adapted, one line 52 metro to Zuid every 7.5 minutes and one sneltram to Amstelveen and Uithoorn every 7.5 minutes are absolutely realistic, depending on the turning facilities in Zuid and the running times between
two stations (Sixhaven could be relevant hereby) perhaps even more trains!
In the meanwhile, I’ve found a more plausible reason why GVB doesn’t want to use the current sneltram vehicles on the Noord/Zuidlijn and not even on the Oostlijn anymore. The Noord/Zuidlijn is operated semiautomatically (grade of automation 2+) and also the other parts of the metro network are stepwise shifted to this train control system. Equipping either all sneltrams or some metro routes for both a manual and a semiautomatic system would be possible, but probably too expensive and late for the current sneltram vehicles, which will anyway be replaced soon. However, it remains possible for future sneltrams!
First of all, I also wondered if Zuidas makes sense at all if the railway and the metro tracks are not brought underground. But particularly if there is no tunnel station for the Ringlijn at Zuid, a deep tunnel station for the Noord/Zuidlijn is also not desirable because the transfer times between Ringlijn and Noord/Zuidlijn would increase much compared to the almost ideal cross-platform interchange and because the Noord/Zuidlijn needs a track connection to the Ringlijn at least for non-revenue rides! If the deep tunnel between Zuid and VU really was part of the cost estimation of the metro extension, I now understand why they came to the high value of 800 million euros. An alternative elevated structure is of course still possible – just imagine that the current ramp from Zuid to the Amstelveenboog rises instead of falls, which might require that the current height difference between the higher railway tracks and the lower metro tracks has to be reversed at least partially, but I would guess that this is not much more expensive than moving the metro platforms to the west. In total, I estimate that an elevated structure would be 100-200 million euros cheaper than a tunnel, so that the metro conversion would only cost twice as much as a tram conversion.
However, changes in the quite close future might make an elevated Amstelveenboog much more expensive or even impossible! I already mentioned the relocation of the metro platforms in Zuid, for which I see hardly any necessity. But even more problematic, because hardly reversable, would be possible developments south of the motorway on both sides of the Parnassusweg. I found a map online according to which the site at the corner between Parnassusweg and Arnold Schönberglaan, which is right now still used by the Amstelveenboog, will be redeveloped. In a previous discussion below this article, @Patrick claimed that the corresponding property has already been sold. I’m not sure if this is true and if an elevated Amstelveenboog could alternatively use the sites west of Parnassusweg. Of course, once houses are built, it’s not possible anymore to tear them down again. But before, I think that even buying a high-end property back would still be cheaper than building a tunnel between Zuid and VU including a track connection to the Ringlijn!
All in all, there are some arguments why it might be necessary from the operator point of view (although not desirable from the passenger point of view) to separate the Amstelveenlijn from the metro network for a few years until new vehicles can be used. Note that even an immediate conversion to metro would require some years of interruption to upgrade the route and to bring the Amstelveenboog on an elevated structure. But arguments which are only based on operational problems during the next few years should not be relevant for a political decision about the long-term status of the Amstelveenlijn!
I’ve thought once more about a solution for both short term problems and long term problems and I think that I found one. The already ordered 15G trams could temporarily be used on the whole Amstelveenlijn, stopping either at existing low-floor platform sections of line 5, which only have to be extended by a few meters to serve the slightly longer 15G trams, or at temporary low-floor platforms, which would also simplify the reconstruction of the regular platforms for the wider metro trains. During the construction of an elevated Amstelveenboog, a connection to line 24 instead of line 5 or a temporary terminus in Buitenveldert might be necessary. Within less than 10 years, new sneltram or full metro vehicles could be used on the Amstelveenlijn and the 15G trams could be transferred to other lines. Of course, my idea is still fresh and hasn’t been completely analyzed yet.
If this compromise works, the project not necessarily has to be cancelled, but possibly only has to be adapted. The plannings for the three grade separated street crossings can just remain as before, while the plannings for the other stations can quickly be adapted to temporary or temporarily low-floor platforms, but above all it should be made sure that an elevated Amstelveenboog remains possible. Not stopping the project is preferable not only for @Team Metro en Tram personally but also in order to keep their experiences. The dissolution of the former Projectbureau Amstelveenlijn in 2011 by Eric Wiedes was most probably the moment when some strategical metro planning expertise was no longer used for the Amstelveenlijn anymore. I think that such expertise is exactly what is missing now.
The discussion might indeed seem moot if you have followed all the previous discussions during the last years, coming from the decision for a metro via the decision for a tram until to my proposal to change it once again for a metro. But as an “alien”, who appeared in Holland one year ago, is not much interested about past discussions and decisions (apart from some few sources of information) and concentrates on the future, I’m convinced that
– at least adaptations of the Amstelveenlijn project are still possible at the moment – perhaps even a complete cancellation (which however can have negative side effects)
– the discussion about a metro to Amstelveen must happen now or only in some decades – in case that an elevated Amstelveenboog would be made impossible in the coming years, it’s probably even about now or never!
Remarks to political aspects and an answer to @n-evo will follow later on this long weekend …
felix ; eind goed , al goed . 🙂 !
Ik mag meer dan 90% van de Nederlandse woorden wel verstaan. Als je liever in je eigen taal schrijvt, kun je mij dus gewoon in Nederlands antwoorden. Maar railbouwkundige vaktermen van het Engels in het Nederlands te vertalen vind ik veel te lastig, want deze vaak niet in normaale woordenboekjes staan en zelfs de meeste colleges aan de TU Delft in Engels gehouden zijn. En nieuwe ideeen bijdragen voor een project, over die al jarenlang overleg gevoerd wordt, kan echt niet met slechts een of twee zinnen.
Ik zal in de avond of in het weekend uitgebreider (en weer in het Engels) antwoorden …
A) The €800 million is what they apparently projected for full conversion to metro. From what I understood there wasn’t much support from Amstelveen residents for an elevated metro line. This means large sections of the line and its stations have to be placed at least partially underground, adding to the complexity of the project and increasing its price tag.
In my opinion the the Beneluxbaan and adjacent buildings aren’t much to look at so I don’t fully understand their issue. The Hague also shows us that it’s very much possible to build fairly good looking elevated tracks. If done right it could actually add to the scenery and keep costs in check. Oh well…
I think the €300 million price tag for the current Amstelveenlijn tram project is the correct one. I’m not sure if it includes the Uithoorn extension.
B) Whether or not low-floor city trams are actually saver than their modern high-floor counterparts, the general feeling seems to be that they are. Especially when you start mixing them in with other at-grade traffic. Emotions play a big role in the matter too. With the heavy high-floor “sneltrams”being involved in a fair share of serious accidents – one resulting in the death of a young girl from what I recall – the general feeling became they got to go. I personally doubt the girl would’ve survived the same collision only with a low-floor tram instead, but it’s kinda difficult to proof one way or the other. And then there’s the case if people’d be open to the results.
E) Again, the difference with Rotterdam is they’re largely converting existing train tracks to metro operation. On top of that the conversion is being done at-grade seriously cutting costs. So having a train run only every 20 to 30 minutes on the end-sections becomes more acceptable. Neither of those things are an option or considered an option in Amsterdam, Amstelveen and Uithoorn.
I agree with Alain that much further discussion about the subject is moot. The decision has been made and the project is already being executed as we speak. It makes a nice conversation though. 🙂
Ik vind de discussie tussen Felix, n-evo en Alain zeer leerzaam!
Het zou fijn zijn als er niet zo panisch gedaan werd over de incidentele Engelse reactie die hier geplaatst wordt. Amsterdam is nou eenmaal een internationale stad en niet iedereen die met de N/Z-lijn te maken krijgt is de Nederlandse taal (goed) machtig. Deal with it.
het blijft een gegeven dat stellingen in eigen taal te lezen ,qua nuance , beter overkomen .
Alain, mee eens. De bijdragen van Felix zijn interessant om te lezen, kan me voorstellen dat hij zijn punten duidelijk wil maken in zijn eigen taal. Niks mis mee.
En trouwens (laat ik dit even in het Nederlands doen): ik vind het prima dat er een inhoudelijke discussie met lange bijdragen in een voor de meeste Nederlands prima begrijpelijke taal wordt gevoerd. Als je het niet aankunt: zap to another channel. Je hoeft het natuurlijk niet te lezen.
As much as I can appreciate your deep-dive analyses into the whole predicament of line 51, the main reason why the current conversion to a tram was chosen over a conversion to ‘anything-else-but-a-tram’ was mainly policital in nature. There are two main contributors to that decision:
1) The ‘safe haven principle’. I haven’t seen this applied anywhere else in the world, but it might have been implemented under different terminology. This principle dictates that a train should always be able to reach a platform in case of an emergency (think: fire), so that passengers can be evacuated via the station. This, in turn, means that a train cannot enter a tunnel if the next platform is still occupied by another train.
‘Always’ is a certainty that’s not possible in the real world, of course. But you can minimize the chance that a train cannot reach the next platform because it’s still occupied, by implementing a very strict timetable. The Amstelveenlijn in its current state is one of the most unreliable lines of the metro network, which is caused by its street running (a high chance of other traffic interfering and thus messing up the timetable) and the interweaving with tram line 5. Of course one could eliminate tram 5 and replace it by a line running through the Noord/Zuidlijn tubes instead. But that still doesn’t eliminate the risks of service disruptions caused by other traffic.
Politically, this mode of operation was deemed ‘too risky’ to be implemented for the Noord/Zuidlijn, which is why early plans of through service between this line and the Amstelveenlijn were quickly cast aside.
2) The ‘Zuidasdok’ plans. Since the early 2000’s, plans have been made to bring all infrastructure around station Zuid underground. The surface above could then be redeveloped. Complex and costly, these plans have been pushed forward in time time and again. Eventually, the decision was made to start with bringing the A10 highway underground, which straddles the railway lines (NS and metro) on both sides. There are no plans for doing the same for the railway lines, which effectively eliminates all redevelopment options aboveground (highway tunnels are not allowed to be built upon, for some reason).
Bringing the A10 underground would also mean the highway tunnel would have to be crossed by a link between the Noord/Zuidlijn and Amstelveenlijn. This can only be achieved by a deeper tunnel. And that also entails deep underground metro stations at Zuid and VU. These are the main contributors to the 800 M cost estimation. I’m not aware of any aboveground alternative studies. However, these wouldn’t come in cheap, either, as the NS railway would also have to be crossed on a higher level, which involved the construction of stations high above ground and a long viaduct.
Policitally, the price tag was found to be too much to swallow, and since ‘The Hague’ wasn’t too forthcoming with funding either, the plan for metro conversion was cancelled.
So here we are. Chances of the decision to convert the Amstelveenlijn to tram being reverted are near zero. It isn’t likely the line will eventually be directly linked to the Noord/Zuidlijn either, as long as the line itself isn’t converted to full metro standards.
This means any discussion about what could have been is moot at this point in time. But who knows, maybe around 2050 we might pick it up where we left it.
hé felix !
this is not , i repeat not normal you are doing …stop with that long writing !!!
@n-evo Sorry, my use of the word ‘line’ was imprecise here. If you used ‘line’ in the sense of an operational service which is labelled by a number, you’re probably right that line 52 will have the most passengers in total. The quite high passenger number of line 50 contributed by @Peter might be plausible because of the fact that line 50 is twice as long as the line 52. In my last comment, I used ‘line’ in the sense of an infrastructural route which is in Dutch often called with the ending ‘lijn’, because the passenger numbers on a specific point of the infrastructure seem to be a more significant indicator in the context of robustness. The passenger numbers on the central section of the Oostlijn, which is today and also in the future used by three separate lines (51, 53, 54), are probably similar or even slightly higher than on the central section of the Noord/Zuidlijn, which is only used by line 52. Already the passenger estimation in the Metronet study 2007 came to this result refering to a scenario with line 52 to Zuid and line 51 to Amstelveen like it will be operated between July 2018 and March 2019. Do you know more recent official passenger estimation sources?
A) 800 million euros, i.e. about 100 million euros for 1 kilometer of a ground-level metro, seem to be quite high in international comparison. For the same costs, 1 kilometer of a sub-surface metro can be built in other countries. Are the costs for infrastructure construction really so much higher in the Netherlands despite the European common market? Anyway, the 800 million euros refer to the optimal variant that the whole Amstelveenlijn is converted to a full metro line. I also mentioned several intermediate variants whose total costs would be somewhere between the 800 million euros for the conversion to pure metro and the 136-300 million euros for the conversion to pure tram. I’m now very confused about the infrastructure cost of the tram option, because the official website says 300 million euros, while some recent press releases say only 136 million euros!
B) In the German agglomeration of Karlsruhe, some tracks are even used by both big ICE high-speed trains and small light rail vehicles! However, this is no problem because the routes are equipped with train signalling and protection. The Noord/Zuidlijn will also have a train control system, so that a crash between two vehicles is quite unprobable. The risk is much higher on the Amstelveenlijn, which isn’t equipped with signals. Particularly, a sneltram and tram can stop directly after another on their respective platform sections. Indeed, most of the collisions I found online happened between a sneltram and a tram on a station at low speed, which also means that the damage is not that high. Probably the biggest dangers originate from the level crossings which mostly still aren’t equipped with barriers. Apart from the three grade-separated junctions which will be removed, I’m not aware of any substantial safety improvements as part of the current Amstelveenlijn project, as I doubt that low-floor vehicles are significantly safer than high-floor vehicles.
E) To Maassluis, Rotterdam metro line B will run every 10 minutes during daytime, which is (outside the peak) exactly the same headway as for the current Amstelveenlijn to Westwijk and the planned Amstelveenlijn to Uithoorn! To Hoek van Holland, the metro will indeed only run every 20 minutes or 3 times an hour, but this final section would be only comparable to a final section between Uithoorn and Mijdrecht, which isn’t planned yet and should be seen more as a possible option than as an integral part of an extension.
I thought M50 was carrying around 100,000 passengers each day.
@Felix Thoma Of all the metro lines (M50, M51, M52, etc.) the N/Z-lijn is projected to be the busiest with 121,000 passengers per day. I believe the current busiest line – the M50 – only carries half of that.
A) Converting the Amstelveenlijn to a full metro would have cost some €800 million. Money no party was apparently willing or able to pay when the decision was made.
B) Technical issues alone aren’t the issue. One of the reasons they don’t want light and heavy vehicles on the same set of tracks is because of safety. In case of a crash damage to the lightrail train/tram will be extensive and the chances of ending up with serious victims bigger. It’s what you currently see happing when a M51 train collides with a line 5 tram.
Other issues you have here compared to Rotterdam is the difference is the vehicle sizes. In Rotterdam all metro/sneltram vehicles share the same width. In Amsterdam they do not.
C) “Amstelveen is densely populated, but the Beneluxbaan is wide enough to accommodate a ground-level grade-separated metro.”
See point A.
D) I agree with you. Unfortunately the VRA went for a short-term budget option.
E) The metro to Hoek van Holland won’t run that frequently at all. To the point where you can ask yourself whether or not an extended metro line is truly warranted. Personally I don’t want a situation in Amsterdam where you have a metro line – or sections – that at some points during the day run only 2 or 3 times an hour. In Rotterdam the costs are relatively low because they’re converting an existing railway line. In Amsterdam, Amstelveen and Uithoorn you don’t have that luxury.
I’ve also seen amstelveenlijn.nl, but there the recent discussion over this project spreads over very much different pages, while here it is concentrated on this page. Furthermore it is only here possible to ask for notifications, although it doesn’t work probably for me and I haven’t received any mails yet. Probably it doesn’t matter at all as both pages seem to be moderated by the same team. I’ll wait some days for an official reply. Otherwise I’ll try it on amstelveenlijn.nl or by mail.
I’m not aware of the most recent passenger estimations for the Noord/Zuidlijn, but it’s highly questionable that the Noord/Zuidlijn will indeed be the busiest railway line in the Amsterdam metropolitan area. In the Dutch Wikipedia article on the Noord/Zuidlijn, there is a long section describing that its expected passenger numbers dropped again and again, mainly because its extension to Amstelveen was scrapped! Another plausible reason is that between Centraal and Zuid many parallel metro and tram lines will remain, most notably line 24, which will finally serve 5 out of 8 Noord/Zuidlijn stations. This also means that on most connections there is an alternative means of transport available in case that the Noord/Zuidlijn was severely disrupted. Finally, my proposal for a mixed operation should only be seen as one possible compromise in order to save money. There are also other cheap alternatives such as shortening line 5 from Amstelveen to Zuid or temporarily splitting line 51 while leaving it high-floor. However, the only solution with optimal service for both Amsterdam and Amstelveen is a full metro.
To your other comments:
Usually the problem isn’t that money is lacking, but that it’s spent for the wrong projects. This also seems to be the case here, as the Netherlands are one of the wealthiest countries in Europe and Amsterdam even thinks about an Oost/Westlijn, which would probably be longer and more expensive than the Noord/Zuidlijn, while a surface full metro to Amstelveen and Uithoorn would only cost a small fraction, but nevertheless result in substantial improvements. You argue that the conversion to a tram ‘costs less’, but it still costs some 100 million euros more than preserving the status quo. It might make sense to save the money or do some preparations for a conversion to a metro with a big impact instead of spending it for a conversion to a tram with a small or even negative impact, which would make a later metro conversion more expensive than
Intuitively, I would also be sceptical towards a mixed operation with both wide metro vehicles and narrow light rail vehicles because of their different capacities. However, the passenger density in the trains on the mixed traffic section could be easily equalized by letting the light rail vehicles run shortly after the metro vehicles, while there is a correspondingly longer gap after the metro vehicles and before the light rail vehicles. Considering the power supply, I don’t see any fundamental reason why a dual-mode system should be possible only in Rotterdam and not in Amsterdam.
If a train runs into someone at full speed, the chance is even slightly higher if it’s a high-floor train with some space below the floor. A slow tram is of course safer than a fast railway, but contradicts with the goal to reduce the travel time on the Amstelveenlijn. The only solution which is both safe and fast is a grade-separated railway such as a full metro. Amstelveen is densely populated, but the Beneluxbaan is wide enough to accommodate a ground-level grade-separated metro.
I experienced a major disruption on Amstelveenlijn myself last week. Unfortunately, I don’t see any easy solution which provides both a short-term improvement of the service stability and a long-term improvement of the regular service. I guess that the current problems of the Amstelveenlijn are mainly caused by the ageing vehicles, but it doesn’t make sense at all to design infrastructure for decades in order to solve problems with vehicles which are anyway due to be replaced within the next few years. Far-sighted transport planning rather means to deal with the problems for another few years (if necessary by replacing sneltram rides by denser intervals on tram line 5 to Amstelveen or an replacement bus to Westwijk, which is anyway planned for more than one year during its conversion to a tram), but to provide an optimal service afterwards.
I also recognize that the Uithoornlijn is at least some progress, although only a very small one for passengers travelling from Uithoorn to Amsterdam Centraal, because their necessary transfer is not removed but only moved from Poortwachter to Zuid. That the Uithoornlijn has only planned been together with the conversion of the Amstelveenlijn doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be realized as sneltram or metro, as it won’t run as a streetbound tram, but on a former railway alignment. Uithoorn (30.000 inhabitants) and Mijdrecht (15.000 inhabitants) have comparable sizes to Maassluis (30.000 inhabitants) and Hoek van Holland (10.000 inhabitants), where the Rotterdam metro will soon be extended along the previous railway, so a metro could be justified in Uithoorn and Mijdrecht as well, but certainly with lower frequencies than on the central part of the Noord/Zuidlijn. But even if a tram was preferred in Uithoorn, I’ve already written that it could combined with a metro to Amstelveen.
Maybe the already closed contracts might make the politicians think that cancelling the project is impossible, but I would cite one of my favourite Dutch phrases: moet kunnen 🙂
@Felix Thoma You’re probably better off commenting here: http://amstelveenlijn.nl
“However, also the problem of delay propagation is diminished by connecting the Amstelveenlijn to the Noord/Zuidlijn instead of the Oostlijn, as the impact of perturbations from the tram network would the be restricted to the Noord/Zuidlijn only.”
I’d say what you’re proposing right here is pretty much unacceptable because the M52 service will be the busiest line within the Amsterdam metropolitan area. Simply too many people from different municipalities are depending on it to be as reliable as possible. The service simply won’t be by your own admission.
A few other issues with what you’re proposing:
A) Money unfortunately. Converting the Amstelveenlijn tot a regular tram service simply costs less.
B) The people in charge don’t want a mixed system anywhere on the metro network. Which means no light rail vehicles mixed in with heavy rail metro trains such as the M5 and future M7.
C) On the flip side they don’t want heavy rail metro trains running at-grade within a dense urban area. Motorist, cyclists and pedestrians simply don’t stand a chance when an M5 or M7 runs into them.
D) The current M51 service already suffers from extremely high fail rates today. I really don’t see how you can expect its users to put up with that until 2024 and possibly beyond if the project suffers setbacks.
E) I’m pretty sure the Uithoorn extension would never came to fruition with metro trains running on the Amstelveenlijn. At least that’s a silver lining on the current plan.
Anyway, the decision has already been made and things have been set in motion. The Amstelveenlijn and Uithoornlijn will be converted to a regular tram line. So that’s that. 🙂
@Felix Thoma I am afraid that most of your arguments do make much sense and have been discussed extensively. As far as I can judge most people with interest in the public transport of Amsterdam do agree with you that (even today) the current line should be converted to a full blown metro line as extension of the Noord/Zuidlijn. Sadly enough the powers that be have decided that the new line should be a normal tramway line. I hope that in the future a brave councillor or ‘wethouder’ decides to make a U-turn and will decide to build the well-deserved metro line.
… (see comment 1)
that the Amstelveenlijn has a limited frequency or is vulnerable for
perturbations because of the shared operation with the metro as well as the
tram are not a convincing argument for its conversion to a tram. First, it is
unplausible that a new tunnel law implies that there is no capacity anymore for
line 51 on the Oostlijn, as the line will still run from Centraal to Zuid and
even further to Isolatorweg. Between Zuid and Amstelveen, the theoretical
capacity limit is not nearly reached with a medium-sized sneltram every 7.5
minutes and a short tram every 6 minutes in the peak. In the current plannings,
the higher capacity of the new trams only partly compensates the lower capacity
of the sneltrams and the frequency to Westwijk only slightly increases in the
peak, but remains 10 minutes at other hours. The frequency on the
Amstelveenlijn is not bounded by the capacity limit of the Oostlijn, because
additional or even all trains from Amstelveen could use the Noord/Zuidlijn, a
service which was initially planned as line 58. Indeed, operational connections
between metro and tram network (and even between different metro lines) are not
desirable in case of disruptions, which could then spread from one network
(part) to the other. However, also the problem of delay propagation is
diminished by connecting the Amstelveenlijn to the Noord/Zuidlijn instead of
the Oostlijn, as the impact of perturbations from the tram network would then
be restricted to the Noord/Zuidlijn only. This might already result in a
sufficient operational robustness, as a similar mixed operation between the
Rotterdam metro and the Den Haag tram seems to work quite fluently, after
several measures to improve the punctuality on the connected tram branches had
been taken. If the robustness was still too low or if the sneltram vehicles
were not sufficient to offer an attractive frequency on line 58, the
Amstelveenlijn and the Noord/Zuidlijn could temporarily be split at the metro
platforms of Zuid, with each line using one of the inner tracks. But of course,
an optimal operation of the Amstelveenlijn can only be provided by a complete
grade separation and a connection with the Noord/Zuidlijn, which has already
been described in the Metronet study 2007.
problems of light rail vehicles with dual-mode power supply are also not a
convincing argument for the conversion of the Amstelveenlijn to a tram. In
Rotterdam, metro vehicles switch from third rail to overhead wire on their way
to Rotterdam Alexander and to Den Haag so fluently that the same technology was
also chosen for the almost finished metro line to Hoek van Holland. Metro line
E even crosses the Kleiweg before switching from third rail to overhead wire at
Melanchthonweg station. In Oslo, metro line 1 used to have mixed operation as
well, but instead of being converted to a tramway, Holmenkollbanen was equipped
with third rail, although a full metro standard is still not given because of
short platforms, a high stop density and a lot of level crossings. These
examples show that a conversion from full metro and light rail could be done
gradually with some possible intermediate steps in order to reduce costs,
although it is clear that only a full metro with longer and wider platforms, a
lower stop density and grade separation provides an optimal service.
Particularly, the conversion from overhead wire to third rail does not require
the immediate removal of all level crossings, although the goal to separate the
line from other traffic, like it is currently planned at the stations
Kronenburg, Zonnestein and Sportlaan, should still be maintained in order to
improve the traffic flow and the security. In order to avoid conflicts with
street traffic on Parnassusweg and to allow the planned extension of tram line
24 to the Arnold Schönberglaan at Zuid, the underground Amstelveenboog should
eventually be replaced by a viaduct beginning at the western end of the metro
platforms in Zuid and spanning over De Boelelaan, which can be realized along
the current alignment, if and only if the metro platforms at Zuid are not moved
to the west. However, the change to third rail immediately implies that the
normal trams with overhead wire power supply cannot use the Amstelveenlijn
anymore, so that line 5 would have to terminate at Zuid.
conversion to a full metro however does not exclude new tram lines in
Amstelveen and Uithoorn. Instead of abandoning tram 16 from Centraal via Marie
Heinekenplein, Museumsplein to Stadionplein and parallel to line 24 along
Amstelveenseweg from July, it could be extended on the old Haarlemmerspoorlijn
to serve the west of Amstelveen, which is partly more than 1 km away from the
Amstelveenlijn and thus not properly covered by rail transport. From Amstelveen
Dorp, a branch or loop to the bus station Amstelveen Stadshart and the metro
station Amstelveen Centrum could be built. The existing sneltram from
Sacharovlaan to Westwijk and soon to Uithoorn could be connected either to the
new metro or to the new tram. Tangential light rails from Schiphol via
Amstelveen to Bijlmer or from Hoofddorp via Aalsmeer and Uithoorn to Mijdrecht
would remain a long-term option.
removing or merging stops is generally a good idea to reduce the station
distance and increase the travel speed, the specific stop selection is
questionable. With the removal of the station Amstelveen Centrum, the Stadshart
will become less accessible, as the stop Binnenhof is only be served by tram
line 5 in northern direction, but not by the Amstelveenlijn also running in
southern direction. By closing the consecutive stations Marne and Gondel, a
more than 1 km long gap between Sportlaan and Meert will emerge. The removal of
Spinnerij is maybe acceptable, because it is located in an industrial area and
quite close to the adjacent stations Poortwachter and Sacharovlaan. When
merging De Boelelaan and A.J. Ernststraat, it is important to ensure that the
walking distances from the new stop of the Amstelveenlijn to the Vrije
Universiteit campus and to the stop of tram 24 do not increase too much, so
that it is not necessary to travel to Zuid and back to change to this line.
the project is still possible! The existing sneltram vehicles of the types
S1-S3 can be used at least partly until 2024. During this period, the
Amstelveenlijn could either be connected to the Noord/Zuidlijn or end at the
current metro station in Zuid, maintaining a track connection to the other
metro lines for operational purposes. The remaining 6 years are enough time to
order new vehicles. If new high-floor light rail vehicles with dual-mode power
supply were chosen, they could be used on both the Amstelveenlijn and the
Noord/Zuidlijn with hardly any infrastructural changes. In order to increase
capacity, it would be desirable to extend the platforms for trains with 3
multiple units. Nevertheless, the purchase of new sneltrams with a life span of
30 years would mean that the service on both the Amstelveenlijn and the
Noord/Zuidlijn will still be suboptimal in the foreseeable future. Instead,
full metro vehicles could be ordered using the recently concluded contract for
type M7 with an option for 30 additional vehicles. This requires the conversion
to third rail power supply, the widening of the clearance and the adaption of
the platforms on the Amstelveenlijn. However, a completely new grade separated
alignment is not necessary, so that the conversion of the Amstelveenlijn would
be much cheaper than the construction of the Noord/Zuidlijn despite its similar
length. The trams of type 15G which were ordered for the Amstelveenlijn could
be transferred to other tram lines in Amsterdam or used as an additional
reserve. If the contracts with the construction companies are not reversable,
it would really hurt to see the construction costs of more than 100 million
euro, which should be better spent elsewhere, just thrown away, but they have
to be considered as sunk costs, so only the remaining costs in relation to the
utility of the conversion are still relevant. But as described in the previous
arguments, a low-floor Amstelveenlijn would most probably have a much lower
utility than a high-floor Amstelveenlijn, so that it would be better to cancel
the project before hardly reversible constructions are made, regardless of how
much money has already been spent for planning or to construction companies.
12. Even if
the Amstelveenlijn project is continued despite these concerns, a conversion to
metro will most probably be discussed again in the future. This could already
happen in July when the Noord/Zuidlijn opens, in March 2019 when Amstelveen is
disconnected from line 51 or in 2020 when the customers notice that the new
service is actually not better than the old service. But unless the platforms
including the staircases and elevators are prepared for a later conversion to
high-floor operations, e.g. by constructing a high-floor platform and filling
the track bed with ballast, and the branching remains possible at Zuid, a
second conversion back to metro will be quite expensive again, adding up to the
cost of the first conversion to tram. Furthermore, the relocation of the Zuid
metro platforms is even more difficult to change back. Thus, I recommend to
review the whole project once more in advance.
I look forward to your answers to my arguments,
but would also understand if your team is not the right contact partner, as it
just has to execute a political decision. As a foreigner, however, I am not
aware of all previous discussions and responsible persons, so you are free to
forward my comment (mentioning my name and e-mail address) to politicians,
managers or other stakeholders. Anyway, I am glad that I have been able to
share my thoughts and hope that my feedback contributes to improve public
transport between Amsterdam and Amstelveen!
Dear “Metro en Tram” team,
as an exchange student at TU Delft (thus better
writing in English, despite having basic knowledge in Dutch) deeply interested
in transport systems worldwide I am impressed by the quality of integrated urban
and transport planning in the Netherlands. Moreover, public information and
discussion is exemplary, like your websites for the Noord/Zuidlijn and the Amstelveenlijn.
But unfortunately I have to say, that the Amstelveenlijn project as such, i.e.
without considering the largely positive effects of the Noord/Zuidlijn project,
is one of the few in Europe actually downgrading and worsening the public
transport service. Below, I give some arguments, partly already mentioned in
previous comments of this discussion, against the conversion to a tram and for
a conversion to a metro:
deserves a metro and not only a tram. With 85.000 inhabitants, Amstelveen is
the largest city (and second-largest municipality after Westland, which is
composed by several towns) in the Netherlands not connected to the national
railway network. Furthermore, the passenger flows are bundled towards
Amsterdam, increasing the need for a high-capacity urban railway, so that a
metro service seems obvious. In fact, Amsterdam Noord has only slightly more
inhabitants, but tremondous efforts have been taken to build the Noord/Zuidlijn
under the IJ, although the two new stations only cover a small part of the
district and most passengers will still have to use another means of transport
on a significant part on their journey. On the contrary, the Amstelveenlijn
already exists and not only covers large parts of Amstelveen, but also crosses
the Buitenveldert neighborhood (20.000 inhabitants) with the campus of the
Vrije Universiteit (25.000 students) and could be extended to Uithoorn (30.000
inhabitants) or even further to Mijdrecht (15.000 inhabitants). By converting
the Amstelveenlijn to a full metro and extending it, about 100.000 inhabitants
and thus more than in the whole borough of Noord would get a rapid transit
Noord/Zuidlijn should be extended to Amstelveen rather than to Schiphol as it
has been proposed recently. In contrast to the neighbourhoods built-up linearly
along the Amstelveenlijn, hardly any people are living along the motorway and
railway corridor between Amsterdam Zuid and Schiphol. While Amstelveen is not
connected to the national rail network, Schiphol itself already has frequent
and fast trains to Amsterdam Zuid, RAI, Duivendrecht, Lelylaan, Sloterdijk and
Centraal as well as direct buses to the popular Museumskwartier. Thus, an
extension of the Noord/Zuidlijn to Schiphol would only bring advantages for the
few passengers travelling directly from Schiphol to De Pijp, Vijzelgracht or
Noord. Despite using the existing railway corridor, additional tracks between
Zuid and Schiphol and a new tunnel under the airfield would have to be built,
as the separation of the Noord/Zuidlijn from the main line trains as well as
from the Ringlijn is important to ensure operational robustness. A northern
alignment via Sloterpolder and Badhoevedorp or a southern extension to the
center of Hoofddorp could bring more passengers, but would be even more complex
to construct. All in all, the extension to Amstelveen delivers a higher utility
for lower cost and should thus be prioritized. Then, a metro to Schiphol could
also be realized as a branch from Spinnerij or as a branch from Amstelveen Centrum via Amstelveen Stadshart
with its important bus station, Amstelveen Dorp with the KLM headquarters and
Schiphol-Oost. Each of the variants would require
about the same length of new tracks and tunnels as the alignment from
Amstelveenseweg, but offer additional direct connections from Schiphol to
Amstelveen. All these proposals were already
mentioned in the Metronet study 2007, but are still possible and worth
necessary transfer in Zuid for passengers to the Amsterdam city center is not
desirable in the long term. From the currently two direct urban rail lines
between the city centers of Amsterdam and Amstelveen, none will remain when
line 51 is redirected to Isolatorweg and line 5 to Westergasfabriek. The
argumentation that the Noord/Zuidlijn reduces the travel times so much that the
shortest journey will in any case involve a transfer in Zuid, so that line 5
does not have to go to Centraal anymore, assumes that all passengers prefer the
journey with the shortest travel time. However, some passengers would prefer a
slightly longer direct journey, e.g. those using the ride for reading or
working and especially disabled people. Unfortunately, the travel time savings
achieved by the Noord/Zuidlijn are partly lost again by the transfer in Zuid,
where the passengers have to use a staircase or elevator, underpass the main
line tracks and wait for their consecutive ride. However, it is a good idea to
move tram line 5 from the northern to the southern side of Zuid and extend line
24 to there – an extension of tram line 4 from RAI to Zuid should be considered
as well. Having more than one travel alternative between two stations can make
sense in order to cover different costumer groups and will thus also be offered
elsewhere after the opening of the Noord/Zuidlijn, most notably between metro
52 and tram 24 on the section from Centraal to De Pijp.
the sneltram with the Noord/Zuidlijn is still very easy, because the
Noord/Zuidlijn ends at Zuid between the tracks of the Ringlijn, where also the
Amstelveenlijn branches off and descends to the Amstelveenboog. This would even
allow an optimal cross-platform interchange between the corresponding
directions of the Noord/Zuidlijn and Ringlijn.
It is a common misunderstanding that the Amstelveenboog is made
impossible by widening the motorway A10 and putting it underground, because the
Amstelveen curve underpasses the main line tracks and crosses the Parnassusweg
at street level, which would remain equally possible when the motorway is in a tunnel. Operating the Amstelveenboog while constructing the motorway
tunnel below is certainly not trivial, but tram bridges over tunnel
construction sites have already been largely used during the last century.
However, the planned relocation of the metro platforms at Zuid to the west
parallel to the main line platforms, which seems questionable as the platform
widening and the station refurbishment could also be realized at the current
position after the motorway disappears from the surface, and the construction
of the new Brittenpassage, which ironically serves as the connection with the
planned terminus of the Amstelveenlijn, would indeed make a metro or sneltram
line to Amstelveen much more difficult, because either the reconstruction of
the whole station would have to be completely redone or the curve to Amstelveen
would have to be constructed as a viaduct along a completely new alignment over
Sportpark Buitenveldert or even over Van der Boechorststraat.
vehicles have hardly any advantages on the Amstelveenlijn. The trend towards
low-floor trams in Europe is mostly driven by the fact that they allow an
almost step-free boarding from low platforms, so that no high platforms or even
tunnels in densely populated areas are needed. However, the Amstelveenlijn runs
along the wide Beneluxbaan and is already equipped with wheelchair-accessible
high-floor platforms. Despite the low-floor tram boom, high-floor light rail
vehicles are still available on the market, e.g. the Flexity Swift high-floor
version used in Rotterdam, Köln, Frankfurt and other cities, and have similar
purchase prices as equally long low-floor light rail vehicles, but perhaps even
slightly lower life-cycle costs due to an easier maintenance and a longer life
conversion from a high-floor metro to a low-floor tram is a bad strategy to
achieve the desired capacity increase. Low-floor trams always have the
disadvantage of an uneven floor, permitting longitudinal seating to increase
standing capacity as in the M5 metro trains. Because some stations have central
platforms, the Amstelveenlijn has to remain operated with two-directional
trams, so that a possible increase in seating capacity by one-directional trams
does not apply here either. The ordered low-floor trams of type 15G with 2.40 m
width are even narrower than the sneltrams of types S1, S2 and S3 with 2.65 m
width, resulting in a drastical capacity reduction: The old sneltrams still had
60-70 seats and 170-200 standing places per multiple unit, but the new trams
only have 50 seats and 125 standing places per multiple unit! Different to the
metros and the current sneltrams, bikes are not allowed in the new trams.
Considering the widespread use of cycling in the Netherlands and particularly
the long distances between Amsterdam, Amstelveen and Uithoorn, this is a major
drawback. As the old sneltrams and the new trams both are about 30 m long and
both can be coupled to trains of maximum 2 multiple units, it seems that the
chance to extend the train length by merging the existing high-floor platform
with the existing low-floor platform to a longer low-floor platform and
extending the platforms on the southern section appropriately to achieve a
train length of 3 multiple units or 90 m will not be used on the
Amstelveenlijn. However, the capacity could also be increased by just extending
the high-floor platforms on the end pointing towards the open track. Finally,
adapting the Amstelveenlijn for metro trains with a width of 3.00 m like on the
other lines would increase the capacity even more.
… (see comment 2)
Cor, het wordt een tram. De nieuwe tramstellen zijn veel geluidsarmer dan de huidige herriemakers. Ook komt er in de onderdoorgangen (onder kruispunt Sportlaan) geluidsdempend materiaal op de tunnelwanden.
Goedemiddag, het kappen van bomen gebeurt dit langs de zijde Sportlaan naar oudekerkerlaan? Daar staat een complex laagbouw daarachter Alpen rondweg.
Als dit zo is hoe ga je dan om met de geluidsoverlast van de METRO.
Die ben je op Jupiter wezen zoeken…
@Egbert Six: niet meer zo jonge hond, de fossiele vos, Egbert Eight…
@Wendy van der Meulen, Metro en Tram Dank voor jouw reactie. Wat mij betreft wordt er op een zinvolle manier rekening gehouden met een toekomst als metrolijn. Ik vrees alleen dat de volgers dit als hoogbejaarden zullen meemaken. 😉
Wendy van der Meulen, Metro en Tram
@Aron: Dank voor je reactie aan Henk Angenent. Zo is het inderdaad.
Wendy van der Meulen, Metro en Tram
@Patrick en @Egbert Six: Met het aanleggen van de nieuwe kunstwerken bij de ongelijkvloerse kruispunten maken we de metro niet onmogelijk. De profielen (profiel van vrije ruimte) van de toekomstige kunstwerken zijn zonder meer geschikt om een metro er doorheen te laten rijden. Ook houden we bij de nieuwbouw rekening met aslasten die overeenkomen met een metrobelasting. Wat niet mogelijk is, is om dan de haltes in stand te houden op de huidige locaties. Dit komt door de lengte van de rechtstand op die locaties in combinatie met het langere metromaterieel (zoals Alain in zijn reactie hier ook al aangaf). In theorie zouden we daar ook nu al rekening mee kunnen houden. Bij een metro vindt echter een heroriëntatie van haltes plaats, waarvan we nu al weten dat een aantal haltes te dicht op elkaar liggen (waaronder Zonnestein en Kronenburg). In die zin is de investering om bij de ongelijkvloerse kruispunten rekening te houden met een ‘ooit mogelijk’ aan te leggen metrohalte maatschappelijk niet verantwoord. De kans dat op de huidige tramhaltelocaties ook metrohaltes komen is namelijk relatief klein. Daar waar we echter met beperkte investeringen een reservering voor een metrosysteem kunnen realiseren, doen we dat.
Nou, blijkens de reactie op de website van de Amstelveenlijn ga je op je wenken bediend worden. We zijn benieuwd.
@Egbert Six. Hellaas is de huidige amstelveenboog al jaren geleden verkocht. (Verbinding tussen de metro en de buitenvelderselaan). Dus ik betwijfel of de kunstwerken in Amstelveen geschikt gemaken voor ombouw tot metro in de toekomst.
De (menu)structuur is ruk. Er staan veel te veel elementen onlogisch door elkaar. De dingen die je meteen zou moeten zien (nieuwsberichten) staan verstopt achter twee keer klikken.
@Alain:Dat vroeg ik me ook af wat Aron zo’n probleem vind niet wat jij een probleem vind hoor!.
Problemen kunnen meestal opgelost worden toch?
Niets hoor, gewoon benieuwd naar wat Aron zo vreselijk vindt aan de website van de Amstelveenlijn.
@Alain: Ja wat is het probleem?
Wat is er zo vreselijk aan?
Planmakers wiens beroep het is. Zij hebben inzicht hierin en berekeningen doorgevoerd. Uit onderzoeken blijkt dat de meeste Amstelveners en Buitevelderters de 5 nemen voor het Museumplein. Als je verder richting Centrum wil is de Noordzuidlijn straks veel sneller. Dat en meer is te lezen in het Concept Vervoersplan 2018. Dat vervoersplan is er om zo veel mogelijk passagiers zo efficient mogelijk te vervoeren (geen dubbele lijnen a la 14 etc.), inclusief bezuinigingen in het budget doorgevoerd door de Rijksoverheid.
En wanneer beginnen ze met het ombouwen van hun vreselijke website?
@n-evo: Ik snap je niet helemaal. Besef je je wel dat vanaf Van Boshuizenstraat tot aan de kruising bij Gondel je straks één lang stuk in de middenberm hebt waar je in het midden maar 1 kruising (met voldoende alternatieven) tegenkomt? Voor dat hele stuk heb je geen tunnels of palen meer nodig na het aanpassen van de kruispunten wat ze nu gaan doen. Juist reden om rekening te houden met toekomstige metroficering. Het argument van ‘maar een metro heeft veel minder haltes’ wat ook vaak tegen die metro gebruikt werd is nu ook meteen van de baan.
In mijn ideale toekomstplan wordt de lijn omgebouwd tot metro en gekoppeld met de Noord/Zuidlijn. Vanaf Marne volgt die dan (verhoogd op palen) de middenberm van de Beneluxbaan tot aan eindhalte Bovenkerk. Daar komt dan een overstaphalte van de Uithoorn(tram)lijn die vanuit Uithoorn via Westwijk noordwaards rijd en daar aansluit op het oude haarlemmermeerspoor en vervolgens bij het Amsterdamse Bos de Amstelveenseweg op gaat en bij de VU wordt gekoppeld an het huidige tramnetwerk. De 5 wordt vanzelfsprekend dan in Amstelveen geschrapt.
Wie is er op het vreemde idee gekomen om lijn 5 te verleggen naar het Westerpark? Zullen reizigers daar nu echt naartoe willen? Die willen toch naar CS? Of is dat om het gebruik van de NZ-lijn te bevorderen?
@Alain “Het is een wijdverbreid misverstand dat een metro alleen maar
ondergrondse lijnen kent.” – bij uitstek die tekst op een website
met het Amsterdamse metronetwerk als thema. Ik kon er wel om lachen. 😉
@Han Schomakers Ik ben bekend met het concept “metro” en ik durf zo te wedden Egbert Six ook. Toch bedankt. Overigens zegt niemand dat een metro op het maaiveld helemaal niet kan, het is op dit traject gewoon niet echt praktisch tenzij een kermisattractie het einddoel is.
Ik vermoed dat beide heren dat wel door en door weten, hun zo inschattende 😉
@ Egbert Six en n-evo
Het is een wijdverbreid misverstand dat een metro alleen maar ondergrondse lijnen kent. De definitie van een metro is: een railsysteem dat totaal onafhankelijk rijdt ten opzichte van ander verkeer én alleen ongelijkvloerse kruisingen kent. Een metro kan dus zowel ondergronds in tunnels als bovengronds op viaducten en/of het maaiveld aangelegd worden.
Het woord ‘ metro’ is overigens de afkorting van ‘Metropolitan’, dat voor het eerst in London werd gebruikt voor kruisingsvrije railverbindingen, zowel van Britsh Rail als London Underground. Ook in London zijn heel veel bovengrondse metrolijnen.
Vast, maar gaat niet gebeuren. Kijk bijvoorbeeld naar het ontwerp van de verdiept aan te leggen haltes: het vlakke stuk is 60 meter lang. Een M5 ga je er dus al nooit kunnen laten halteren, een M7 zou nog wel gaan maar gelet op de gewenste doorkoppeling met de Noord/Zuidlijn zal dat treintype als te kort worden ervaren.
Het heeft ook vanuit financieel oogpunt geen enkele zin de baan alvast voor te bereiden op toekomstige metro-exploitatie. Ten eerste is het helemaal niet zeker dat het ooit nog zo ver gaat komen; ten tweede had je voor het extra bedrag dan misschien net zo goed een volledige metrolijn kunnen aanleggen.
@n-evo Het lijkt me voor de hand te liggen om uitgerekend bij de Amstelveenlijn wel rekening te houden met zo’n ombouw. De Beneluxbaan is gebouwd met voldoende ruimte voor een metrolijn. Te denken valt aan de situatie tussen station Noord en Noorderlaan. Elk kunstwerk dat niet gebouwd hoeft te worden is meegenomen.
@Egbert Six Met welk nut? Als er ooit een metro komt gaat die toch niet op het maaiveld rijden en moet alles onder de grond of op palen. Kan me niet voorstellen dat veel van de huidige infra hergebruikt kan worden om die reden alleen al.
Ik hoop dat de Amstelveenlijn gebouwd wordt met een ombouw naar volwaardige metrolijn in gedachten. Ik denk dan met name aan het profiel van vrije ruimte, de boogstralen, zowel verticaal als horizontaal, de maximale belasting van met name de kunstwerken en ongetwijfeld nog andere zaken.
De ontwerpnormen van het gewone Amsterdamse tramnet zijn berucht bij tramontwerpers. In feite komt het erop neer dat een tram ontworpen voor Amsterdam kan overal terecht.
Bijdragen Metro en Tram