3 ms·

Not explained is how environmentally (the reason for building a tunnel instead of a bridge) is better.

• Sharlin 9y ago
  Sure it was. It preserves the current environment which is preferable from both aesthetic and ecosystems point of view.
  • ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
    On the surface, what about the long term effects of boring giant holes and tunnels through underground?
    • jopsen 9y ago
      Probably most of it is rock, and the tunnel is probably sounded by concrete. Regardless, I have no doubt the Swedes did an analysis and weighted the pros and cons.
    • jimstr 9y ago
      There was a previous Swedish tunnel project that had a number of incidents, among others groundwater pollution caused by a new sealing compound that contained acrylamid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallands%C3%A5s_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallands%C3%A5s_Tunnel
  • tontonius 9y ago
    What about the aesthetics and ecosystem of the bedrock? Are we suddenly caring more about living things than inanimate objects?
    • Sharlin 9y ago
      Yes, in general we do.
      • pjc50 9y ago
        The joke is that rock that deep underground has no ecosystem. It may however be involved in the water table, which is always critical.
• henrikschroder 9y ago
  Out of sight, out of mind. That's pretty much the reason.