News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

micheal_can said:
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.
Click to expand...
The thing is, those businesses aren't picking up the tab.

In the real world, we have limited resources and have to make decisions about where to allocate them.
 
T3G said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do not think that cut and cover would mean 'a scaled back version of the project'.
 
micheal_can said:
This is very important. GO RER has the possibility of transforming the transportation in the GTA. Connecting the stations to the various subways will make for better mobility of riders.



Cut and cover will make for worse traffic during construction



This will be a key thing to figure out.



Does this include knock out sections for longer trains?



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.
Click to expand...
Cut and cover is fine for this project. Intentionally using a tunnel boring machine when we have a cheaper and more sustainable solution is insane, especially when parts will be underground and parts will be elevated. The more you raise the price of the project, the more likely it is to get cancelled. Plus, our provincial debt is high enough already. As for the businesses, well, it's tough, but that's the reality of construction projects. Protecting businesses at an astronomically ridiculous price tag itself would be over the top.
 
micheal_can said:
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.
Click to expand...
How about those of us who want the project to not be built in a 10 year time period, and who would want a shallow subway where it takes 30s to get from the platform to street level like in Downtown Toronto.

Like this might seem like a huge generalization but here goes: Cut and Cover Subways are OBJECTIVELY better for the rider than bored subways in almost every single metric. They (typically) get built faster due to stations being far less deep, aren't limited by the speed of the TBM meaning more work can be parallelized, and shallower stations means they're far more accessible and easier to access from the street level.

No, I do not necessarily trust local businesses and residents to make an informed decision about which mode is better and more beneficial for them, this is the type of attitude that led us to boring tunnels in suburbs in the first place, and is (partially) responsible for this continents inability to build subways cheaply (just look at the disaster that is BART SVP2).

I am very much not interested in this "let the locals decide platitude", and have very little interest in entertaining this notion.
 
afransen said:
The thing is, those businesses aren't picking up the tab.

In the real world, we have limited resources and have to make decisions about where to allocate them.
Click to expand...

Uhm, as taxpayers, they are. They pay all sorts of taxes, so their input should matter to some degree. More so than any of us who are not locals, or local businesses.

ARG1 said:
How about those of us who want the project to not be built in a 10 year time period, and who would want a shallow subway where it takes 30s to get from the platform to street level like in Downtown Toronto.

Like this might seem like a huge generalization but here goes: Cut and Cover Subways are OBJECTIVELY better for the rider than bored subways in almost every single metric. They (typically) get built faster due to stations being far less deep, aren't limited by the speed of the TBM meaning more work can be parallelized, and shallower stations means they're far more accessible and easier to access from the street level.

No, I do not necessarily trust local businesses and residents to make an informed decision about which mode is better and more beneficial for them, this is the type of attitude that led us to boring tunnels in suburbs in the first place, and is (partially) responsible for this continents inability to build subways cheaply (just look at the disaster that is BART SVP2).

I am very much not interested in this "let the locals decide platitude", and have very little interest in entertaining this notion.
Click to expand...

Do we have any recent projects that have used cut and cover with any success?
 
ARG1 said:
How about those of us who want the project to not be built in a 10 year time period, and who would want a shallow subway where it takes 30s to get from the platform to street level like in Downtown Toronto.

Like this might seem like a huge generalization but here goes: Cut and Cover Subways are OBJECTIVELY better for the rider than bored subways in almost every single metric. They (typically) get built faster due to stations being far less deep, aren't limited by the speed of the TBM meaning more work can be parallelized, and shallower stations means they're far more accessible and easier to access from the street level.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. You're advocating cut & cover because it can be built faster, yet you're saying you don't want it to be built within the next 10 years?
 
micheal_can said:
Uhm, as taxpayers, they are. They pay all sorts of taxes, so their input should matter to some degree. More so than any of us who are not locals, or local businesses.



Do we have any recent projects that have used cut and cover with any success?
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is that you want NIMBYism to take place, where locals can veto construction in their backyards or veto a cheaper form of construction at the cost of the entire province? Because that's all you are inviting by seeking the 'local opinion'. And if we consistently seek the opinion of local businesses or local residents, very little to nothing will actually be built, because they will veto construction in their backyards, or lobby to have more expensive construction forms of the same project, which will result in less projects due to high costs. I'd rather not have more of that. We already have too much of that to begin with.
 
mikey7767 said:
So what you are saying is that you want NIMBYism to take place, where locals can veto construction in their backyards or veto a cheaper form of construction at the cost of the entire province? Because that's all you are inviting by seeking the 'local opinion'. And if we consistently seek the opinion of local businesses or local residents, very little to nothing will actually be built, because they will veto construction in their backyards, or lobby to have more expensive construction forms of the same project, which will result in less projects due to high costs. I'd rather not have more of that. We already have too much of that to begin with.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that I want them to be heard enough that it gets built without them trying to stop it. If there are those who want it stopped, then they can be ignored. However, if they want less disruptions during the construction, then we should hear them out.
 
micheal_can said:
Uhm, as taxpayers, they are. They pay all sorts of taxes, so their input should matter to some degree. More so than any of us who are not locals, or local businesses.
Click to expand...
And on what authority do local businesses have to speak in what they think is best. Historically they're most interested in building nothing at all.
micheal_can said:
Do we have any recent projects that have used cut and cover with any success?
Click to expand...
The Canada Line in Vancouver. It took 4 years to build (2005 - 2009), and around 10km of which is tunneled, mostly Cut and Cover.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top