- 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
re: Why Not Tunnels?
Posted on 7/24/18 at 1:36 pm to East Coast Band
Posted on 7/24/18 at 1:36 pm to East Coast Band
A lot of comments about how tunnels are terrible, or “I hate tunnels.” But I am trying to figure out how they are different from a traffic standpoint than a bridge. A friend of mine thinks people just slow down when driving through.
In theory, I think you can have the same number of lanes as a bridge and you have the same issue of it being a bottleneck in a sense that you can’t escape the traffic of an accident once you are on it (or in it).
Maybe the GWT gives people around here a bad taste in their mouth if they’ve run into traffic issues in it? But it seems to me that the issue there is that it’s one of the only direct ways through the bay, and as many people have said they are bidding out a bridge to help spread the traffic like we are considering doing here. I am curious why they are going bridge instead of another tunnel too, but I couldn’t find any info on that either.
In theory, I think you can have the same number of lanes as a bridge and you have the same issue of it being a bottleneck in a sense that you can’t escape the traffic of an accident once you are on it (or in it).
Maybe the GWT gives people around here a bad taste in their mouth if they’ve run into traffic issues in it? But it seems to me that the issue there is that it’s one of the only direct ways through the bay, and as many people have said they are bidding out a bridge to help spread the traffic like we are considering doing here. I am curious why they are going bridge instead of another tunnel too, but I couldn’t find any info on that either.
2
Posted on 7/24/18 at 7:41 pm to Marineaux
quote:
But I am trying to figure out how they are different from a traffic standpoint than a bridge. A friend of mine thinks people just slow down when driving through.
In theory, I think you can have the same number of lanes as a bridge and you have the same issue of it being a bottleneck in a sense that you can’t escape the traffic of an accident once you are on it (or in it).
First, many tunnels have posted speed limits less than interstate standard.
Second, typically the lanes are narrow, or at least appear so to me, probably effecting an uneasiness in the drivers.
Posted on 7/24/18 at 8:17 pm to Marineaux
Musk wants his tunnel to not have an emergency lane, as if nothing can go wrong.
Moron.
He's a carnival barker gone mad.
Oakland had a double decker highway go horribly wrong in 89 when the A's beat sf giants and we watched the rescues for days. They had just laid sections on. When the towers moved the sections fell on cars beneath.
Tunnels are a horror story waiting to happen.
Only way tunnels should exist is to carry vehicles with no driver. Put them on a series of conveyors.
Moron.
He's a carnival barker gone mad.
Oakland had a double decker highway go horribly wrong in 89 when the A's beat sf giants and we watched the rescues for days. They had just laid sections on. When the towers moved the sections fell on cars beneath.
Tunnels are a horror story waiting to happen.
Only way tunnels should exist is to carry vehicles with no driver. Put them on a series of conveyors.
This post was edited on 7/24/18 at 8:18 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News