[ARG1]

Cut and cover will make for worse traffic during construction

UGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH

Like you're technically not wrong, but consider the fact that C&C construction will also take a lot less time. Like it will be worse than Eglinton is right now, but consider the fact that Eglinton had to have the roads torn open and locked businesses out of much traffic for 6 or so years, namely because stations are quite deep, thus extending construction timelines. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure the Cut and Cover BD extensions to Islington and Warden took like 2 years total to build.

In short, if its a lot of disruption over a short period of time, vs a medium yet significant amount of disruption over a long period of time, I'd take the former in a heartbeat.

Does this include knock out sections for longer trains?

Probably

Cut and cover may limit buildings that can be built on top of the line if it is not in the middle of an existing roadway.

1) Yonge Line suggests otherwise.
2) It will probably be built in the middle of the roadway.

 

[micheal_can]

So to clarify... you want a deep bore tunnel line? For what possible reason, other than to avoid a temporary disruption to traffic? That doesn't seem like a compelling reason to spend even more money. Are our cut and cover lines somehow incapable of doing the job asked of them? Are New York's? You have to at some point be pragmatic and accept a scaled back version of the project that doesn't completely break the bank.

If we are deep boring suburban extensions, we might as well go all the way and line the tunnels with gold. After all, in Ford Nation land, money is an infinite resource.

It is not what I want. But if it was,I would want the best options for it. Cut and cover may be good for some parts.

UGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH

Like you're technically not wrong, but consider the fact that C&C construction will also take a lot less time. Like it will be worse than Eglinton is right now, but consider the fact that Eglinton had to have the roads torn open and locked businesses out of much traffic for 6 or so years, namely because stations are quite deep, thus extending construction timelines. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure the Cut and Cover BD extensions to Islington and Warden took like 2 years total to build.

In short, if its a lot of disruption over a short period of time, vs a medium yet significant amount of disruption over a long period of time, I'd take the former in a heartbeat.

So, go tell all the businesses along the different options that what happened on Eglinton will happen to them. Most would not want it.

Probably

1) Yonge Line suggests otherwise.
2) It will probably be built in the middle of the roadway.

If it is built in the middle of the roadway, then cut and cover could be the better option. Look along Danforth. There is a clear line back of the road.That is the subway.

 

[ARG1]

So, go tell all the businesses along the different options that what happened on Eglinton will happen to them. Most would not want it.

Great Idea

If it is built in the middle of the roadway, then cut and cover could be the better option. Look along Danforth. There is a clear line back of the road.That is the subway.

Thank god this isn't danforth, and the land use/construction conditions/housing prices are significantly different than it was in the 60s.

 

[afransen]

Cut and cover will make for worse traffic during construction

Not sure this can be taken for granted, based on Crosstown. Shallow stations built using cut and cover might be easier to complete quickly so the road can be reopened. It's also possible that the cut and cover can be on the side of the ROW, as some parts have quite wide ROW.

 

[micheal_can]

Not sure this can be taken for granted, based on Crosstown. Shallow stations built using cut and cover might be easier to complete quickly so the road can be reopened. It's also possible that the cut and cover can be on the side of the ROW, as some parts have quite wide ROW.

If the costs were the same, would cut and cover be the best option? Some places, yes. Here, might not be as good.

 

[afransen]

If the costs were the same, would cut and cover be the best option? Some places, yes. Here, might not be as good.

It's very likely not the same. Cut and cover in most cases is cheaper than deep stations, as the cost of stations is proportional to the underground volume.

 

[micheal_can]

It's very likely not the same. Cut and cover in most cases is cheaper than deep stations, as the cost of stations is proportional to the underground volume.

What I am getting it is we cannot just do the cheapest option. We should also not be doing the most expensive option either. We should do the best option.

 

[ARG1]

What I am getting it is we cannot just do the cheapest option. We should also not be doing the most expensive option either. We should do the best option.

Man with zingers like that you should run for prime minister, I think you'd fit right in.

 

[micheal_can]

Man with zingers like that you should run for prime minister, I think you'd fit right in.

No, because I cannot openly lie to people. I wouldn't last an hour in the HoC.

 

[ARG1]

No, because I cannot openly lie to people. I wouldn't last an hour in the HoC.

Sure, but your insight is about on par.

"We need the best option"? Mate really? Such insight, such wisdom.

 

[micheal_can]

Sure, but your insight is about on par.

"We need the best option"? Mate really? Such insight, such wisdom.

Better than the "we need the cheapest option" attitude.

 

[Rainforest]

Yards: There is not enough yard space to serve trains needed for this extension, staff are unsure of how to exactly solve this problem at the moment.

I though Wilson yard can be expanded to serve all additional trains, provided that Concept 2A or 2B is selected (direct link between Yonge and Sheppard West).

Is that not the case actually (not enough space left in / next to the Wilson yard)?

 

[duty free]

Cheaper does not make it better.

It’s not only much cheaper, but also much faster to build. More disruptive sure, but for a lot less time and money. You decide if the trade off is good or not.

 

[Northern Light]

I though Wilson yard can be expanded to serve all additional trains, provided that Concept 2A or 2B is selected (direct link between Yonge and Sheppard West).

Is that not the case actually (not enough space left in / next to the Wilson yard)?

Wilson has room for about 6 more storage tracks.

That's not quite enough for Sheppard in an extended form.

If there were no east end yard, that would be managed (in theory) by building extra space on the new Yonge North yard, and by shifting some trains currently stored at Wilson to the new yard.

 

[micheal_can]

It’s not only much cheaper, but also much faster to build. More disruptive sure, but for a lot less time and money. You decide if the trade off is good or not.

It isn't for me to decide. It is for the businesses and residents of the area. If they feel cut and cover is the best, then that is the decision. If they feel that option will be too disruptive, then another option should be looked at.