>>1720136>cheaper to buildThe average cheapest to build by conventional wisdom is pipes or larger-diameter tunnels.
>can operate above and below ground so if there is a section which is impossible to tunnel they can use a surface route>smaller more frequent stations since the vehicles can move off to the sideTeach us how the station spacing works with station length, acceleration & deceleration, headway, line speed, and frequency.
You will need acceleration and deceleration lanes if you want to do that. Not "smaller" anymore.
>can operate above and below ground so if there is a section which is impossible to tunnel they can use a surface routeIs this supposed to be selling or unique? How do you overcome the gradient and intricate web of tunnels with the proclaimed depth?
>automated and on a closed circuit so less human error and 3rd parties causing delays and accidentsAgain not unique or selling.
>instead of larger vehicles with less frequency you get smaller vehicles with more frequency and the system can adapt to changes in demand and passenger flowAgain, this seems contradictory and conflicting on passenger capacity, headway, line speed, and frequency. Demand-responsive systems haven't been proven to work at scale.
>company is developing vehicle that can transport 12 passengers like a MarshrutkaYou add capacity by being big and long, not small and short.
>jet fans and fire suppression can easily be added to the system and the vehicles This is mandatory, not "easily be added". Vehicles don't have automatic sprinklers.
Before asking whether longitudinal or transverse ventilation is more appropriate, where do you place the ventilation shafts; and at what cost or quality/reliability is the extensive active fire protection, together with fire safety.
Deep tunnels don't go well with ease and time of evacuation and emergency services access. What fire resistance rating does this have to be then.
