[allengeorge]

They’re asking you why (1) the rolling stock being different and (2) it not being an extension are valid concerns regarding cut-and-cover or require businesses to have an override in how a line gets built. That’s very valid.

To my understanding there is nothing that says that if rolling stock is sized like TTC heavy rail, or if one is building an extension - then cut-and-cover is out. Is there? Can you point to specifics?

 

[JSF-1]

Something being left out of this debate is cut-and-cover also makes it easier to bring the line to the surface since the tunnel is shallower. If Metrolinx is serious about building this line with a mix of tunnel and elevated construction than tunnel depth is important to consider. Especially when you factor in the line using the heavier TR trains which require a gentler gradient, so the deeper the tunnel, the more space is required to bring the line to the surface. This isn't an issue for lines like the Crosstown or the Ontario Line since they use lighter trains.

 

[cplchanb]

Something being left out of this debate is cut-and-cover also makes it easier to bring the line to the surface since the tunnel is shallower. If Metrolinx is serious about building this line with a mix of tunnel and elevated construction than tunnel depth is important to consider. Especially when you factor in the line using the heavier TR trains which require a gentler gradient, so the deeper the tunnel, the more space is required to bring the line to the surface. This isn't an issue for lines like the Crosstown or the Ontario Line since they use lighter trains.

I have a feeling that many of the public are shuddering at this method given the negative impact it has been for yonge/eglinton.
Sure it's not quite the same but to the general uneducated public they all see everything from the same lens

 

[T3G]

I do not think that cut and cover would mean 'a scaled back version of the project'.

I don't, either, but clearly Michael does.

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?

Do you have any projects that have used deep tunnel boring with any success? New York's Second Avenue subway and Flushing line extensions were both frought with delays even though they didn't use cut and cover. Or, never mind, how about our homegrown success that is the Eglinton Crosstown?

It's a cheap, dishonest rhetorical trick to suggest the success, or lack thereof, of a subway project is based on whether it uses cut and cover technology.

 

[allengeorge]

Repeating, and appropriately quoting:

If you are going to say so what to 2 things, then what is the point?

They’re asking you why (1) the rolling stock being different and (2) it not being an extension are valid concerns regarding cut-and-cover or require businesses to have an override in how a line gets built. That’s very valid.

To my understanding there is nothing that says that if rolling stock is sized like TTC heavy rail, or if one is building an extension - then cut-and-cover is out. Is there? Can you point to specifics?

 

[Northern Light]

If we can cut to the chase here.............

Sheppard will likely include bored tunnel, but the bulk of it can be built cut-and-cover {whether that choice is made or not being a different issue)

The very first portion of Sheppard will go under the 404/DVP, that will be bored tunnel, I can't imagine attempting that as a cut-and-cover.

For similar reasons, the line is likely go under the Stouffville GO line, rather than over (never say, never, but there are lots of issues w/that), going deep should eliminate the need to underpin. If they do go deep there, and IF they stick to Sheppard alignment they would likely stay deep until they get past the CP mainline on the other side of Midland.

The rest, if tunneled is well suited to cut and cover.

***

There is nothing special about an extension vs a new build in respect of tunnel-building technique.

There is nothing special about rolling stock that affects this either.

 

[afransen]

If we can cut to the chase here.............

Sheppard will likely include bored tunnel, but the bulk of it can be built cut-and-cover {whether that choice is made or not being a different issue)

The very first portion of Sheppard will go under the 404/DVP, that will be bored tunnel, I can't imagine attempting that as a cut-and-cover.

For similar reasons, the line is likely go under the Stouffville GO line, rather than over (never say, never, but there are lots of issues w/that), going deep should eliminate the need to underpin. If they do go deep there, and IF they stick to Sheppard alignment they would likely stay deep until they get past the CP mainline on the other side of Midland.

The rest, if tunneled is well suited to cut and cover.

***

There is nothing special about an extension vs a new build in respect of tunnel-building technique.

There is nothing special about rolling stock that affects this either.

Couldn't a pushbox, like that used for HuLRT at Lakeshore Line be used to get a cut and cover line under the Stouffville line? Seems like launching a TBM would be considerably more complex.

 

[ARG1]

Couldn't a pushbox, like that used for HuLRT at Lakeshore Line be used to get a cut and cover line under the Stouffville line? Seems like launching a TBM would be considerably more complex.

If we want to do a funny (not an actual suggestion), the median of the Sheppard Ave underpass was built with a future LRT in mind. We could just reuse that as part of the subway extension, and have two portals on either side of the underpass.

It's probably not realistic from an engineering/cost perspective, but it would be funny.

EDIT: I took a look at the underpass again and there probably isn't enough room to fit the tracks in. Oh well.

 

[micheal_can]

I don't, either, but clearly Michael does.

Do you have any projects that have used deep tunnel boring with any success? New York's Second Avenue subway and Flushing line extensions were both frought with delays even though they didn't use cut and cover. Or, never mind, how about our homegrown success that is the Eglinton Crosstown?

It's a cheap, dishonest rhetorical trick to suggest the success, or lack thereof, of a subway project is based on whether it uses cut and cover technology.

Cut and cover is not inferior or superior to a TBM. No different than any other construction method for anything. They both have their upsides and downsides.

If we look at the design aspect, parts could be both.

Repeating, and appropriately quoting:


They’re asking you why (1) the rolling stock being different and (2) it not being an extension are valid concerns regarding cut-and-cover or require businesses to have an override in how a line gets built. That’s very valid.

To my understanding there is nothing that says that if rolling stock is sized like TTC heavy rail, or if one is building an extension - then cut-and-cover is out. Is there? Can you point to specifics?

No, they were being dismissive.

 

[T3G]

Cut and cover is not inferior or superior to a TBM. No different than any other construction method for anything. They both have their upsides and downsides.

That is not what the question "Do we have any recent projects that have used cut and cover with any success?" suggests. It is a loaded question, in search of a particular answer, that very heavily suggests that cut and cover is not a successful or viable form of construction.

You still haven't provided any arguments in favour of deep tunneling, other than traffic disruptions. Not good enough. Everyone wants top quality transit, but they're never willing to make the slightest sacrifice for it. It's not as though this is a narrow cobblestoned street that needs to be saved here; Sheppard is a wide stroad. There will be disruptions, and then there won't be. Just like with anything else. Maybe the "locals" in whose name you appear to be playing devil's advocate for no compelling reason should be glad they're not getting an LRT, and deal with it.

No, they were being dismissive.

When you bring up irrelevant points to argue your point, it is safe to dismiss those points. Neither the choice of rolling stock, nor the fact that it's a new line, instead of an extension, have any bearing on the form of tunnelling chosen, except in the dimensions of the actual tunnel. If you don't want people to be dismissive of your arguments, don't make arguments that need to be dismissed.

 

[micheal_can]

That is not what the question "Do we have any recent projects that have used cut and cover with any success?" suggests. It is a loaded question, in search of a particular answer, that very heavily suggests that cut and cover is not a successful or viable form of construction.

I asked that because by knowing what projects they want to mimic,it allows me to temper my answers to show whether it is superior or inferior. IIRC in Toronto, except for some of the streetcar tunnels, everything since the 1960s has been bored tunnel. Even the most recent Line 5 debacle has been bored tunnel.

You still haven't provided any arguments in favour of deep tunneling, other than traffic disruptions. Not good enough. Everyone wants top quality transit, but they're never willing to make the slightest sacrifice for it. It's not as though this is a narrow cobblestoned street that needs to be saved here; Sheppard is a wide stroad. There will be disruptions, and then there won't be. Just like with anything else. Maybe the "locals" in whose name you appear to be playing devil's advocate for no compelling reason should be glad they're not getting an LRT, and deal with it.

One big one is it can avoid certain geotechnical problem that cut and cover would be problematic to deal with. It can also pass under any water body that is along the route. It also can pass under the 401 without any disruptions. It can pass under existing rail tracks without any disruptions.

Cut and cover is cheaper. Cut and cover can be done quicker. What other benefits, besides cost make it the better option?

When you bring up irrelevant points to argue your point, it is safe to dismiss those points. Neither the choice of rolling stock, nor the fact that it's a new line, instead of an extension, have any bearing on the form of tunnelling chosen, except in the dimensions of the actual tunnel. If you don't want people to be dismissive of your arguments, don't make arguments that need to be dismissed.

None of them were irrelevant.

 

[T3G]

I asked that because by knowing what projects they want to mimic,it allows me to temper my answers to show whether it is superior or inferior. IIRC in Toronto, except for some of the streetcar tunnels, everything since the 1960s has been bored tunnel. Even the most recent Line 5 debacle has been bored tunnel.

That in itself is a loaded inquiry, because many bored tunnels were done so from political and not pragmatic reasons. How, therefore, can you possibly come to an accurate conclusion about which one is better? Do you really think it was necessary to bore tunnels under the inhuman industrial wasteland south of York University station?

If I used rhetorical tricks like you do, I could point to the debacle of line 5 and declare bored tunnels to be the wrong solution altogether. Funny how that works out, no?

One big one is it can avoid certain geotechnical problem that cut and cover would be problematic to deal with. It can also pass under any water body that is along the route. It also can pass under the 401 without any disruptions. It can pass under existing rail tracks without any disruptions.

What do you think cut and cover projects do?

Cut and cover is cheaper. Cut and cover can be done quicker. What other benefits, besides cost make it the better option?

In a world where money is infinite, cost is in and of itself a compelling argument for why it's the better option. Obviously, common sense dictates that you don't build cut and cover under problematic infrastructure or bodies of water above, but there is no reason why, on a "vanilla" street with no sensitive buildings, railway lines, or rivers, we should bore tunnels when cut and cover is a physically available option.

None of them were irrelevant.

All of them were irrelevant, and it has been explained to you by both myself and Northern Light why this is. Let it go.

 

[ARG1]

Cut and cover is not inferior or superior to a TBM. No different than any other construction method for anything. They both have their upsides and downsides.

TBMs are best used in dense urban areas where you have to cut under buildings, and where roads are impossible to deal with. The prime example are European Downtowns where streets are narrow and a complete mess: You won't be able to build anything cut and cover under Rome for instance.

Sheppard is a massive 5 lane stroad, the absolute perfect condition to build C&C.

If we look at the design aspect, parts could be both.

Yes, we will have to TBM under the 404. That's it.

No, they were being dismissive.

If you still don't get it, I was being dismissive because you just blurted out words without even trying to back it up.

How exactly does Sheppard being an extension change ANYTHING? Please for the love of god give 1 example. Yes Sheppard uses a different rolling stock, but please give AT LEAST ONE reason why the difference in rolling stock matters here.

You can't just say words and expect them to work as arguments.

I asked that because by knowing what projects they want to mimic,it allows me to temper my answers to show whether it is superior or inferior. IIRC in Toronto, except for some of the streetcar tunnels, everything since the 1960s has been bored tunnel. Even the most recent Line 5 debacle has been bored tunnel.

BD Phases 1 and 2 (1966 and 1968 respectively) were cut and cover.

Yonge North extension to Finch: Mix of TBM and Cut and Cover (TBM between Eglinton and Sheppard, Cut and Cover from Sheppard to Finch). TBMs were used here because they needed to tunnel under the Valley at York Mills (and even then in hindsight this was probably a bad idea, you could've easily bridged over York Mills).

Spadina Subway: Almost entirely cut and cover except for the section between Dupont and St. Clair West where it must run under Casa Loma, you know, a giant historical castle.

BD Extension to Kennedy: Was built Cut and Cover

SRT: The tunnel under the Stouffville Line wasn't bored.

Line 1 Extension to Downsview (Sheppard West): Built Cut and Cover.

LITERALLY the first time we built a project exclusively using TBMs was the Sheppard Subway in 2002, and that was probably a bad idea.


So no, you're just flat out wrong, period.

One big one is it can avoid certain geotechnical problem that cut and cover would be problematic to deal with. It can also pass under any water body that is along the route. It also can pass under the 401 without any disruptions. It can pass under existing rail tracks without any disruptions.

Nobody is arguing that a TBM won't be used under the 404. We have literally talked about how it will be a TBM pages ago. But just because that one section needs to be TBMed doesn't mean we need to tunnel bore the entire line. Practically we can extract it at around Consumers, and build the rest elevated or C&C.

The jury is still out on how Agincourt will be handled.

Cut and cover is cheaper. Cut and cover can be done quicker. What other benefits, besides cost make it the better option?

Do you want to know why I'm very dismissive of the stuff you say? Because you have a tendency to just completely ignore and pretend you didn't read what people have ALREADY WRITTEN YOU.

But, let me reiterate again. Because Cut and Cover results in shallower stations, it means the stations are significantly more accessible. It means it can take 30s to get from the surface to the platform, and not 2 minutes. It means it can take as few as 15 steps to reach from surface to platform, compared to the super long escalator rides.

Like I can't stress this point enough: go to Union Station, and see how long it takes you to get from the street to the platform. Then Ride Line 1 to any station on the TYSSE, and do the same measurement. Accessing the TYSSE stations are so much worse and annoying its not even funny.

None of them were irrelevant.

Explain How. Just give us SOMETHING to work with.

 

[micheal_can]

LITERALLY the first time we built a project exclusively using TBMs was the Sheppard Subway in 2002, and that was probably a bad idea.

Had you said that,this would have ended at least a page ago.

 

[kEiThZ]

Had you said that,this would have ended at least a page ago.

And if you were banned, we wouldn't waste space on all these useless trolling discussions