Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "Are Elevated or Underground Metro Systems Better?" video.

  1. For reference, the London underground railways weren't yet 'the tube system' at the time, as they didn't yet include any of the deep level tubes from which they got that name, which were added later (after tunnel boring was a thing. All the earlier 'sub surface lines' were built using cut-and-cover: Dig a whole to where you want the bottom of your tunnel, then build a roof over it and cover it back up). Properly speaking only the actual deep level tube lines are 'the tube', at least in theory... but in practice no one actually cares about that distinction outside of contexts like this (where it's an anachronism issue), trivia quizzes and the like, and the occasional pedantic twit, so the entire tunnel system gets called 'the tube' anyway. Cut and cover construction also meant that the London underground (though not the later deep level tube lines) mostly had to conform to the streets, because diverging from the streets involved demolishing the buildings the line would pass under. Which usually wasn't exactly practical. (edit: Ahh, you mentioned some of this later).
    18
  2. The thing about complaints of trains being noisy? Electric trains are universally quieter* than the vehicle traffic on the street that no one cares about. You just notice them more because the road noise is Constant while the train noise only happens when a train is passing. And even then, if the trains come past regularly enough, residents quickly tune them out too, generally. *so long as you deal with issues such as corners that are too sharp for the rail gauge, poor maintenance, and overly short stopping distance causing wheel/break squeal, anyway.
    2