Wow, me playing devils advocate somehow managed to cause the biggest sh!tstorm on this platform in a while, so let me clear the air.
1. I did not say Tunneling was the cheapest method, I said there are advantages to tunneling that are not being considered by members in this forum. Said advantages have the potential to increase efficiencies and reduce risk. Part of the engineering process is to consider options, even if they seem cost prohibitive to begin with.
2. Winter is a huge issue in the construction world, especially for construction in an open environment. It severely limits overground construction work, adds risk, is far less safe, increases the amount of work that needs to be done, etc. Have you ever noticed that many construction sites seem to be shut down in the winter, or that work at said sites has slowed down significantly? There are very good reasons for this.
3. My preference is actually for the EWLRT to be elevated, as I've stated numerous times on this thread and in others.
Literally 1.5 billion dollars could be saved if they didnt tunnel the section from Martin Grove to Renforth....
Source? Pretty sure that figure was for money saved by not tunneling any of the Eglinton West LRT. Also, these numbers are all preliminary. Any actual tendered budget will certainly have inconsistencies. It should also be noted that contracts for tunnelling work have far larger contingency and risk budgets associated with them simply because it's difficult to tell what's actually underground.
Seems like he is defending the status quo: that Toronto is doing everything right building some of the worst value-for-money transit in the world. Sometimes tunneling is the best solution, but it should not be the preferred solution. There are engineering challenges in any project, you could make an at least as compelling list of reasons why tunneling presents engineering challenges. I have never heard the argument that tunneling is the fastest way to build transit--it's a new one for me.
I never said it was the fastest way to build transit. I said that it's the one where resources can be allocated better due to scheduling. Cost/km is a completely different metric that moreso has to do with the amount of infrastructure actually built, and nothing to do with crew allotment/available working time/efficiency.
Its not only new, its wrong.
Tunneling is by far the slowest method to build transit. Period.
I never said it was the fastest way to construct a line, I just said there are some advantages to tunneling. Also, your statement is 100% false. The slowest method for building transit depends on the area you're building in, and the limitations the contractor is given. Tunneling can be super fast — look at China, but you don't have to deal with things like property rights and damage compensation.
Tunneling itself isn't actually the slowest part of building a subway, it's building the stations. The same is true for Elevated lines actually. The guideway construction is fairly straightforward. Building the Stations? That takes most of the time.
Not just tunnelling but deep bore tunnelling which is the slowest and most expensive type of tunnelling. We could probably save some money and time going with cut-and-cover but that's never happening.
Theres far more work that has to be done in the preplanning and prework stages of cut-and cover. That's not to say it won't necessarily be a faster process, but you have far more engineering work to do, more utility relocations (some of which may take years to complete and involve insane amounts of risk). That has to be considered when dealing with some areas of the city.
Why specifically is that? What is it that iON did to overcome the supposed difficulties of building surface transit you described in your comment? They clearly got far, far better value for money than we’re getting.
Note that iON was the first LFLRT line in Canada, so there was a huge learning curve for the constructors. I cannot disclose the exact reasons, however, I can state this:
The P3 process has led to a huge increase in lawsuits, accepting losses, and overbidding other projects to make up for said losses. All the risk is on the contractor. Do you think they're going to accept these types of arrangements anymore if they can't make money? Look at the bids & contractors for iON, then look at the bids & contractors for Hurontario and Finch West, then look at the contract values and the length of the lines. Notice anything?
In terms of actual challenges of building surface LRT, one significant challenge is relocating live utilities along the entire corridor. It's slow, inefficient, expensive, and dangerous work.
