4 ms·
Yes it's expensive, but a future where most infrastructure is underground, from mass transit to power and communications, allowing nature to return to the surfa
by Wintamute 6y ago
Yes it's expensive, but a future where most infrastructure is underground, from mass transit to power and communications, allowing nature to return to the surface, for future generations to enjoy seems like a worthy goal imo, even just on the aesthetic merits, saying nothing of the ecology. Just a damn shame we couldn't build these boring machines in the UK, and funnel the spending into the domestic economy.
- tonyedgecombe 6y agoI actually like railways and think there is a need for more capacity up and down the country. What I don't like is the cost of this project. We could get a lot more bang for our buck.
- TomJansen 6y agoWholeheartedly agree! Giving back to nature is a very good goal. In the Netherlands, there is a growing problem of the "boxyfication" of the landscape (verdozing van het landschap), meaning that because of the growing trend of internet shopping, more and more warehouses and distribution centers are being built in the iconic farm landscape. Moving these structurally simple buildings underground would allow for more space for nature in the already densely populated country
- kmlx 6y agoyou can have it both ways. see japan: incredible surface transport options (that are also a sight to behold) and an incredible care for nature.
- elicash 6y agoShipping goods should be done underground. It'd be nice if PEOPLE could remain above-ground.