robmausser
Senior Member
I don’t think we can assume that cut and cover is any less labour intensive than bored.
Its also much more disruptive above ground. Which has other economic implications.
I don’t think we can assume that cut and cover is any less labour intensive than bored.
Or from Alberta or the East Coast where the economy aint doing so well. Win win for everyone?Why can't we bring in foreign workers?
I'd rather have experienced workers from China which could get this done faster with higher quality.Or from Alberta or the East Coast where the economy aint doing so well. Win win for everyone?
Remember the last time we used "experienced workers from China" to build a rail line for us?I'd rather have experienced workers from China which could get this done faster with higher quality.
Umm when? None that I know of.Remember the last time we used "experienced workers from China" to build a rail line for us?
Umm when? None that I know of.
Remember the last time we used "experienced workers from China" to build a rail line for us?
This is indeed something that was considered for the relief line project. There is considerably more liability due to surface movements on private buildings and residences than on public infrastructure (such as roads). However, one might expect there to be less surface movement when boring through rock than through soil, which would make any sections through rock an ideal place to shift the alignment from the road to allow for stations to be built with less traffic impacts. It would be a less attractive option in areas where the alignment would plan to be in soils. Does this mean depth should be increased to reach rock?Maybe the tunnelling shouldn't be done under the street, but deep under buildings away from the streets. The boring tunnels will be under the buildings at the curves, but currently the straight tunnels would be under the streets. Since the stations and emergency exits is where most of the disruption occurs, maybe the stations should be built away from the intersections, like they were done with Line 2?
The difference is Montreal's REM is getting them (testing has begun on the doors and the infrastructure is being built so that they can be installed). Toronto surely won't be devoid of them when the folks in Montreal have already got a taste. I'm sure the Unions would fight on it too.
That's about the pricing for the STM and there's less issues with the ventilation as most of it is done through ventilation substations and not the stations themselves. Line 2 preliminary cost estimates are about 1G$. Line 5 costings are being done, new stations on that line should have them from the opening date in 2026.as
Toronto's problem isn't really door related; is the platform asbestos and ventilation systems (smoke removal in most stations relies on the stairwells for airflow) that are the challenge.
AFAIK, only Finch station had the ventilation system upgraded (2010); and it was about 10x the hoped for price (the price the board was expecting before assigning engineering to actually design it). Platform doors for all TTC stations is a $2.5B project; about $2B is not really door related.
That said, I hope they're included in the $1B Bloor-Yonge remodel.
The TTC is not packed even at 7:30. Sure it's not empty but yeah you can get a seat on outer subway stations at that time. At 6:30 it's not busy.