4 ms·
Right, sorry. If the tunnels were even 30cm wider this would indeed be a lot simpler, but as you say the cost of that would be wildly prohibitive in the foresee
by lorenzhs 11y ago
Right, sorry. If the tunnels were even 30cm wider this would indeed be a lot simpler, but as you say the cost of that would be wildly prohibitive in the foreseeable future. TfL would love it, though ;)
Come to think about it, what would be the optimal layout of such an underground tunnel system for single-occupancy vehicles? The current system of changing lines and the station layout that results from it would no longer be a good fit, you'd have to come almost to a standstill. It could even be that reusing the tube tunnels would be less efficient than boring new tunnels in a future where tunnels can be bored "cheaply" with very little human involvement.
- Symbiote 11y agoAre tunnels likely to get much cheaper? Compared to a lot of construction work it seems to be fairly automated already — take a look at some Crossrail videos [1] — so I'll bet a lot of the cost is design, planning and solving unexpected problems. And the cost of the machine. [1] https://youtu.be/X_ffeK8SIDo?list=PLF8E85417123BEF2F&t=66 https://youtu.be/X_ffeK8SIDo?list=PLF8E85417123BEF2F&t=66 (Quotes, roughly: 500,000 components in the tunnel boring machine, staff of 20 round the clock,
- Silhouette 11y agoFWIW, my civil engineer friends once told me that the biggest problem with building something like this often isn't the tunnel itself, it's making sure you minimise damage to everything already built on the ground above. In this case, there is a lot of London up there, and causing subsidence under a road with average house prices in the millions would be a very expensive mistake.