What’s up with the metro?
Underground or elevated? It is surprising that a big-important city as Bogotá does not have a metro. Other capitals city inaugurated their metro lines years ago: New York City, 1904; Santiago, 1975; and Medellín, 1979. The capitol has prolonged the construction of the metro system because there are too many discussions about how should it be. Depending on the places it would be better an elevated or underground metro because the architecture and the main streets of the city are important factors in the developing, and this is an issue that will not be solved so easy. In the following pages it will be an explanation of what are the reasons for choosing an underground or an elevated metro depending on what is the best for the city.
The capitol has wasted a lot of time making a decision about the creation of a metro, the current major of Bogotá has said that the best option is the elevated metro. Is that true? The daily El Espectador (2016) compared the both options according to the studies of Systra (an international company of engineering of public transport and rail transport). In terms of ambient impact, there would be fewer waterways affected, fewer trees in danger, and almost four times less cubic meters of debris. Also, it would be built much faster, and it has a better geotechnical score. The costs and maintenance are cheaper than an underground metro.
So, it seems that the elevated metro has a couple of contributing factors that could convince it is the best option, and these issues of best cost are apparently the basic arguments the capitol has even though there is a lot of disapproval by the citizens. The local major, Enrique Peñalosa, has said that the best way is the elevated metro because the time of construction and the risks an underground system would take. He also says that Bogota does not have underground maps of gas and aqueduct (Dinero, 2016).