CITY TESTING NEW NO-DIG METHOD TO FIX OLD PIPES

If lining is suitable for the pipe, I’d lean that way too: avoiding weeks of street disruption matters a lot. But I’d want some confidence the repair was holding up before treating less digging as an automatic win. What kind of follow-up on the city’s trial would make you feel the trade-off was worthwhile?

I’d want the city to report whether leaks or repeat repairs show up over time, not just how quickly the work was completed. Comparing that with how much street disruption they avoided would make the trade-off clearer to me.

Would it help to compare those results with similar pipe sections repaired by digging? Seeing both approaches over time could show whether lining’s reduced disruption comes with a comparable repair record, rather than judging the trial on lining results alone.

Yes - the comparison could include the disruption itself, not just the repair record: how long each street section is affected and whether residents lose access to driveways or nearby routes. That would make the benefit of lining easier to weigh against any difference in repeat repairs.

That comparison would be easier to interpret if the sections started in broadly similar condition. Otherwise, a worse repair record or longer disruption might reflect the pipes’ different starting problems, rather than the repair method itself. It’d help make the repair results and the access impacts mentioned in #2005 fairer to weigh side by side.

For a hypothetical street where digging would cut off a key route for weeks, I’d give the disruption benefit real weight - but only if the city had good reason to think lining was suitable there. If confidence in the repair were weak, I’d rather accept the digging than trade a shorter disruption for a repair that might need doing again.

Should the city also explain why each trial section was considered suitable for lining - and where it wouldn’t be? That would help residents judge whether the results apply to other streets, not just whether this particular repair held up.

Yes - alongside explaining why sections were chosen, the city could list sections it considered but ruled out for lining, and the reasons. Otherwise, a strong result on carefully selected streets could sound more broadly applicable than it is. That context would help residents see both what the trial demonstrates and what it leaves unanswered.