- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why Not Tunnels?
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:02 am
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:02 am
Are there any civil engineers or other similarly informed individuals in the OT who can talk about why tunnels aren’t being discussed as an alternative to a new bridge to solve Baton Rouge’s traffic problems? I’m sure it’s been considered and eliminated as a possible solution for good reason, but I’m curious to know why. Prohibitive cost comes most immediately to mind, but....
The George Wallace Tunnel (GWT) in Alabama was finished in ‘73 at a cost of $50M, which is $293.7M in today’s dollars. The GWT is 3,000 feet long. From one side of the Mississippi River to the other where the current bridge is built is about 2,700 feet. What I know is that we have many different considerations here that they may not have there such as levees and boat traffic depth which would likely drive up the cost, but would those things drive it up THAT much? $293.7M is about 1/4th the amount of the most recent bridge estimate I saw of $1.2B. For that amount, without any more information, it seems like you could build multiple tunnels for the price of a bridge. Also, I’m sure the Corp would have something to say about a Mississippi River tunnel.
I’m sure I’m missing something (if not multiple things) here. I know nothing about engineering, just curious. Please school me. Thanks.
The George Wallace Tunnel (GWT) in Alabama was finished in ‘73 at a cost of $50M, which is $293.7M in today’s dollars. The GWT is 3,000 feet long. From one side of the Mississippi River to the other where the current bridge is built is about 2,700 feet. What I know is that we have many different considerations here that they may not have there such as levees and boat traffic depth which would likely drive up the cost, but would those things drive it up THAT much? $293.7M is about 1/4th the amount of the most recent bridge estimate I saw of $1.2B. For that amount, without any more information, it seems like you could build multiple tunnels for the price of a bridge. Also, I’m sure the Corp would have something to say about a Mississippi River tunnel.
I’m sure I’m missing something (if not multiple things) here. I know nothing about engineering, just curious. Please school me. Thanks.
29
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:03 am to Marineaux
Imagine another 2016 flood.....with tunnels
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:04 am to Marineaux
What’s the difference in sea level?
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:04 am to Marineaux
Have you never driven through Mobile? Frick tunnels and every moron who hits their brakes to go through them. Also, if you honk while driving through, I hope you DIAF.
This post was edited on 7/24/18 at 9:07 am
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:04 am to Marineaux
Pretty sure it’s because the ground / soil is unstable here.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:05 am to Marineaux
It isn't that water that is worry some for tunnels in LA. It is the crappy soils we have. Louisiana Currently has 3 tunnels. And the state hates them.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:05 am to Marineaux
Why not just build lanes on top of the current interstates that don't let you exit until denham/prairieville
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:06 am to Marineaux
have you ever seen a picture of the pipelines that run through South LA? There's also salt caverns all over the west side of the river in Baton Rouge.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:06 am to Marineaux
More expensive, less efficient
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:06 am to tigeralum06
quote:imagine the traffic when building that over the existing interstate.
Why not just build lanes on top of the current interstates that don't let you exit until denham/prairieville
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:07 am to Marineaux
SUCKAS
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:08 am to tigeralum06
Cost maybe. The existing roadways probably aren't built to accommodate that sort of design so it would probably be the cost of new road plus the cost of basically rebuilding the existing road.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:08 am to LSU Fan SLU Grad
quote:
Imagine another 2016 flood.....with tunnels
Huh? The tunnel openings on each end are elevated (like in mobile) higher than a flood could get. So how are you saying the flood waters would get in?
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:08 am to Marineaux
quote:
The George Wallace Tunnel (GWT) in Alabama
is a complete fricking cluster frick. Every day from 4-6 pm traffic gets backed up for 2+ miles with 2+ hour delays. Wrecks all the time from people not knowing how to drive.
Mobile has been researching building a bridge to eliminate the tunnel for some time now, and construction has actually begun I believe. Won't be ready til like 2020 or so.
So no, tunnels suck arse
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:08 am to tigeralum06
quote:
Why not just build lanes on top of the current interstates that don't let you exit until denham/prairieville
This. Use the George Washington Bridge between NYC and NJ as an example. It’s a bridge with double decks. One can be the current I-10 that forces people into one lane who need to stay in BR, and the upper deck can be a bypass spur that gets people over the city and back onto I-10 outside of BR.
Of course Louisiana politicians are stupid so this won’t happen
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:09 am to Marineaux
Tunnels aren't cheap and we can't "import" Chinamen to build them anymore.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:09 am to CarRamrod
New Orleans has a couple. Also one under the harrahs.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:09 am to Marineaux
When the river is at 29’ and you see 25-30’ water columns shoot up through the ground you’ll know why.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:10 am to Marineaux
Boston's Big Dig fiasco is a perfect example of why not.
The tunnels are nice now, but that was an expensive clusterfrick.
The tunnels are nice now, but that was an expensive clusterfrick.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 9:10 am to Parmen
quote:
This. Use the George Washington Bridge between NYC and NJ as an example. It’s a bridge with double decks. One can be the current I-10 that forces people into one lane who need to stay in BR, and the upper deck can be a bypass spur that gets people over the city and back onto I-10 outside of BR.
The bay bridge in SF/Oakland is a double decker. Westbound on the top, eastbound on the bottom.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News