|
|
|
I think the main question will be what the lessons to take away from this will be. The one I'm hoping for is maybe incidents like this, plus the fact that despite the goal with TBMs being to "reduce disruption" it really didn't accomplish that on Eglinton, means that the leaders at Metrolinx and our politician can finally move away from using TBMs as the one way we build subways no matter what.
Given the disruption track record of bored tunnels, I'm not sure why this belief still exists. There's lots of good reasons to use a TBM, but the promise of less disruption is often a false one
vancouver.citynews.ca
The challenge we have is no one wants disruptions,yet no matter what method is used, disruptions will happen. Ironically, for some businesses, especially the ones closer to the stations, once the construction is over, they stand to gain more customers from the project.Given the disruption track record of bored tunnels, I'm not sure why this belief still exists. There's lots of good reasons to use a TBM, but the promise of less disruption is often a false one
Example: Business's in Vancouver demanded that they didn't use cut and cover for Broadway because it caused 3.5 years of disruption for the Canada Line
Instead they have what looks like 7 years of disruption
Concerns for Broadway businesses as subway construction drags
Some business owners along Vancouver's Broadway corridor aren't sure they'll survive the construction of the subway system.
I definitely see it as a case of a lot of disruption over a short time period vs less disruption over a long time period. Fact of the matter is, construction on Eglinton has been very disruptive, so much so that it has had a very significant and negative impact on residents and businesses. For another example, I know somebody who lives near Greektown, works in Markham, and complains about how construction has made Pape completely undrivable - and that makes sense because the difference between an undrivable street and a street with undrivable intersections is more or less the same: it results in gridlock and a sense of "I'd rather be anywhere else". Even if you ignore driving and focus on pedestrians and non-vehicular experiences, a street that is only torn open at key intersections isn't that much better or less disruptive than a street that is torn open entirely - especially since the intersections are usually the most important part of a street with the most things around it. So the only real difference remaining is how long disruption lasts, and this is something that TBM based construction fails miserably at.
There's a huge difference though in the level of interruption. When you go along West Broadway, you can go for blocks without seeing any disruption. It's clustered around the station locations. And the big interruption won't last for 7 years. I haven't found the stores inaccessible - it will discourage some business for a few places.
In Ottawa, what do you mean by "inaccessible to cars"?
Which station would this be a problem for? There's huge swaths of land available there to dig holes outside the roadway, and to divert lanes while they are digging.
While overhead may be easier for avoiding construction woes in the community, when operational,they do pose a bigger problem in winter.
Queen street is a much narrower street than Eglinton or Broadway. The station shafts for entrances and ventilation required full intersection closures at Queen and O'Conner and at Queen and Lyon, and after partial reopening allowed only a single lane, so forcing unidirectional travel.
