I imagine it's also a bit difficult to separate it this cleanly, as most bigger projects will probably use a mix of technologies: cut and cover where possible (if it leads to savings), TBMs or other technologies like NATM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Austrian_tunneling_method) for the rest. Even if TBMs are used for the tunnels, cut and cover will probably be used for things like stations, emergency access points and intermediate TBM starting points (of course, the TBM starting points might be future stations).
> I imagine it's also a bit difficult to separate it this cleanly, as most bigger projects will probably use a mix of technologies
Case in point – the Karlsruhe tram tunnel (listed in that dataset as simply "Tunnel Boring Machine") used a tunnel boring machine for the main east-west tunnel, but a combination of NATM and cut-and-cover for the north-south branch. The stations and the associated road tunnel project were all cut-and-cover, too.
Combining is an option. However a large part of the cost of TBM in the initial get it into place and then when you are done taking it out (sometimes you just leave that expensive machine down there). Thus if you must use a TBM the farther you can go in that one dig the overall cheaper the tunnel.
