Yes, Apples and Oranges. Though it looks like Swiss project is more technically challenging than the NJ/NY one. Few more comments from Philip who did some more

Yes, Apples and Oranges. Though it looks like Swiss project is more technically challenging than the NJ/NY one. Few more comments from Philip who did some more research: "Tyler: Thanks for the insider’s perspective on this. You imply that this new tunnel is an exceptionally challenging project, more challenging than the Swiss tunnels, for example, and hence the staggering cost. I’m having a hard time understanding this. The NJ/NY tunnel is billed as necessary to replace and/or augment a “100-year-old” existing rail tunnel. Page 6 of http://www.arctunnel.com/pdf/deis/4_1_0013.pdf http://www.arctunnel.com/pdf/deis/4_1_0013.pdf makes it look like tunneling under the Hudson means going through sand and mud. This was apparently well within the capabilities of civil engineering circa 1910. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel says that the maximum overburden of the new Swiss tunnel is 2500m, i.e., there are 8200′ of rocks pressing down on the tunnel (generates a lot of water pressure if nothing else). http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Specials/Gotthard_base_tunnel/The_tunnel/Tunnelling_through_a_mountain.html?cid=28276254 http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Specials/Gotthard_base_tunnel/Th... talks about the granite that they are tunneling through in places." http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/10/08/new-jerseys-canceled-railroad-tunnel-in-perspective/#comment-162705 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/10/08/new-jerseys-ca...