by 
Mastodon
ANSWERS: 4
-
Amazingly expensive, they require years of planning and construction, and there has to be a dire need for that kind of system now and for decades to come to justify the cost. You don't just grab a shovel and a case of beer and get started. You need to send out swarms of geologists to look for week spots along the way (which could cause collapses), need to buy 2 TBMs (Tunnel boring machines) which cost about 10 million each, need to hire, train, and prep thousands of workers, obtain approval from many government agencies, draw up contingency plans, and then there is the always fun part - funding. Who wants to shell out a couple billion for a big hole? Anyone?
-
"For water crossings, a tunnel is generally more costly to construct than a bridge. Navigational considerations may limit the use of high bridges or drawbridge spans intersecting with shipping channels, necessitating a tunnel. Bridges usually require a larger footprint on each shore than tunnels." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel#Underwater_tunnels Here's a list: http://home.no.net/lotsberg/data/subsea.html Here's a couple of articles: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3646415.ece http://www.donnan.com/Pittsburgh-river-tunnel.htm
-
Is that like a donut? Yum. Yeah, I think more chunnels would be good.
-
Along with the cost and logistic problems the Chunnel is short for Channel Tunnel. How many more "Channels" need tunnels under them?
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC