>>1990594OP pic isn't awful, but trying to use it to paint all pedestrian tunnels as good is disingenuous, and even in that best case scenario they still have problems.
To state the obvious, American governments never give adequate funding for pedestrian infrastructure, so if one even gets approved it's not going to be a nice underground mall, it's going to be a dark, dilapidated shit pit to get mugged in.
Second, they slow down pedestrian travel by convoluting the direction of travel, not to mention they aren't very accessible for people with disabilities and bikes.
Yes, it's faster than trying to move through the roads normally, but it's slower than if car traffic was moved around pedestrians.
With the speeds cars can reach, a small diversion makes a minimal impact on travel time, while it's far more pronounced for pedestrians, which is why they should be given priority for the more direct route.
Assuming that the path does have development for commerce or other uses, you face the immediate problem that if you want to scale the infrastructure, it gets expensive fast because you have to dig up more land without disturbing the existing tunnel.
In contrast, building pedestrian infrastructure on the surface is much easier because those buildings can just be made taller to improve density.
The idea that pedestrians have to be diverted around traffic is just a reinforcement of the mindset that cars rule the land, but what difference does it make if you're on the surface or in a tunnel when you're spending all your time enclosed in a car? Meanwhile, having access to sunlight and open air is far more significant to the quality of pedestrian travel.
In summary, the surface is much more efficiently used on the pedestrian space and businesses, so the roads are what should be moved underground. Moving people underground to make way for more road sprawl is stupid and narcissistic, and even if you do the people are going to get a hobo murder tunnel, not an 'underground city'.
