The Two Methods of Subway Construction

By Christopher MacKechnie
The Two Different Methods of Subway Construction
Subway construction can use two different methods: "cut and cover" and "deep bor
e".
Older subway systems, such as those found in Toronto and New York, were built wi
th a method known as "cut and cover". In "cut and cover" tunneling, the pavement
of the street is removed, a hole for the subway and stations is dug, and then t
he street is restored. The "cut and cover" method is much cheaper than "deep bor
e" but the alignment is restricted to the street grid. "Cut and cover" also resu
lts in the stations that are much closer to the surface - as little as twenty fe
et below the surface - which significantly reduces passenger access time. On the
other hand, "cut and cover" results in serious disruption to traffic along the
street for a significant amount of time; this disruption usually results in nega
tive effects to especially store owners along the corridor.
In "deep bore" tunneling, boring machines are inserted into a hole dug at a conv
enient spot along the proposed line, and then proceed through the earth little b
y little - up to eighty feet per day - until they have carved out space along th
e entire corridor. These boring machines are huge - the world's largest is fifty
feet in diameter. Boring machines generally can excavate only in one fixed shap
e, which is generally circular. Because these machines do not have to follow the
existing street grid, they allow for much greater flexibility in route design.
In addition, there is no disruption to life along the surface - except at the ma
chine insertion points, you would not even know a subway was being built. In exc
hange for these advantages are two major disadvantages. One is financial: "deep
bore" construction costs significantly more than "cut and cover"; the undergroun
d stations alone can cost $150 million. Because of the large number of variables
that make up the cost of subway construction, it is extremely difficult to quan
tify the cost differential between the two methods. The second is access: passen
ger access to "deep bore" stations is significantly more difficult than "cut and
cover" stations, making the subway much less useful for relatively short trips.
Often, the nature of the soil conditions and existing underground construction d
ictate one of the above strategies. In terms of the soil conditions, the height
of the water table and softness or hardness of rock may mandate tunneling at a p
articular depth. In terms of existing underground construction, the presence of
a large number of tunnels, basements, utility lines, and pipes may make "cut and
cover" construction impossible to attempt.
The nature of a particular metropolitan area's rapid transit growth strategy can
also suggest one or the other methods. Because the initial cost of constructing
and lowering the tunnel boring machine into the ground is so great, it seems as
though the "deep bore" method is conducive to the one-line-at-a-time-but-contin
ual-expansion approach. Building several "deep bore" lines simultaneously requir
es several of the expensive machines, and a boring machine is a very expensive c
apital investment to leave idle. On the other hand, the "cut and cover" method s
eems like it would fit well with a major expansion plan involving several lines,
as it is relatively easy to do and at least some of the political impacts may b
e ameliorated if the disruption can be limited in time but not in scope.
Because of the negative community sentiment that often accompanies "cut and cove
r" construction, almost all new subway construction is done using the "deep bore
" method. One exception was Vancouver B.C.'s recently opened Canada Line, and pr
oves to be an excellent example of problems caused by the disruptive nature of t
he "cut and cover" method. One merchant has already won a lawsuit for C$600,000
- since overturned on appeal - due to damages caused by construction disruption,

and 41 additional plaintiffs filed suit last year to recover damages. Interesti
ngly, the amount of money they wish to receive is equal to the savings realized
by building the line using the "cut and cover" method instead of the "deep bore"
. For more information, see here .
It is likely that uproar over the temporary disruptions that accompany "cut and
cover" construction will mean that almost all subway construction in the future,
at least in the United States and Canada, will be of the "deep bore" variety, w
ith the exception that soil conditions may mandate "cut and cover" construction.
This result is too bad, as the cheaper nature of "cut and cover" construction c
ould allow more proposed lines to be grade separated, which would allow for high
er speeds and probably higher ridership. "Cut and cover" construction would also
allow for more stations, which would make it easier to stop operating bus servi
ce along the rail corridor - instead of operating duplicative bus service the ho
urs could be redeployed to routes intersecting the rail line and make it easier
for people who do not live within walking distance of a station to access the li
ne.