Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
That's what they do. Lincoln Tunnel, Holland Tunnel---both a LOT longer and a LOT deeper, and the Hudson River was already there, all built with 1930's technology. Somebody on another thread commented that they can't build a tunnel wide enough for 2 cars to pass, much less golf carts. Seriously??? I think either way, tunnel or bridge, they will make it work
|
That's not even close to what was said.
https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...72-post21.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdNoMore
I am thinking that tunneling under a divided 4 lane turnpike, would be much more problematic (and expensive?), plus it would be hard to make it large enough to get a pickup sized vehicle from one side to the other...which I believe will be something they will want with this crossing.
I guess we will just have to wait and see. 
|
"Problematic" = Relatively large tunnel size needed for two pickups to pass
due to lack of bedrock, needed strengthening for sandy soil, complicated drainage issues (and possible pumping needed) for high water table, mobilizing a boring machine since cut & cover wouldn't most likely be allowed across turnpike, etc., etc.
Please note that I did not say...
"it can't be done." 
Although different environmental conditions, some of the same issues of a tunnel versus a bridge...are covered in this article.
FACTSHEET: Why a bridge instead of a tunnel? | BC Gov News
Just setting the record straight.
