4 ms·

Even just looking at that map it's not clear why they didn't just connect Strendur to Rókin instead, perhaps with a bridge. I guess there's a geographical or ge

Even just looking at that map it's not clear why they didn't just connect Strendur to Rókin instead, perhaps with a bridge. I guess there's a geographical or geological explanation, but I'm curious precisely what that is.

breck 6y ago
I can't see anything obvious. Maybe the cold weather makes tunnels a cheaper option? Here it is in GMaps: https://goo.gl/maps/ijR9TG3LbyKo3wW7A https://goo.gl/maps/ijR9TG3LbyKo3wW7A Note that the map in the parent seems to be rotated.
- stdbrouw 6y ago
  The photo on Google Maps shows a cruise ship, and the map shows a harbor. Perhaps a fixed bridge with enough clearance is impossible and one that opens not any cheaper than a tunnel?
lqet 6y ago
I suspect a meteorological explanation. The weather might be so bad sometimes that crossing the bridge is not possible. Or the lifetime of a bridge exposed to such conditions might be extremely low, or maintenance costs extremely high.
- Symmetry 6y ago
  There are docks on both sides, perhaps the issue was boat traffic?
  - walrus01 6y ago
    I think that may be the case, combined with the expense and height requirements to build a bridge tall enough to pass all current and foreseeable shipping traffic in air draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_draft
saalweachter 6y ago
I suspect that building an underground roundabout isn't actually as tricky as most of us are assuming, and that building a shorter third leg off the longer tunnel is relatively cheap -- they already have all of the equipment and personnel on hand.
- stdbrouw 6y ago
  Sure, I don't think the roundabout is that special. But if building a short third leg is cheap, building an even shorter third leg (instead of one that meets the others "in the middle") should be even cheaper.
  - saalweachter 6y ago
    There's probably two complications with that plan: first, you end up with a tunnel that is too steep (you have to dip deep enough to get under the water), or you end up digging (and outfitting) four tunnel entrances, rather than three. [n.b. I am assuming the plan actually makes sense, and that when you compare the three-headed tunnel, the two tunnels, and the tunnel & bridge solutions, and all of the maintenance and externalities of roads connecting them, the three-headed tunnel is no more expensive, and trying to think of reasons this may be. If the plan is actually more expensive, or if no counter-proposals were considered, this is all somewhat moot.]

breck 6y ago

I can't see anything obvious. Maybe the cold weather makes tunnels a cheaper option? Here it is in GMaps: https://goo.gl/maps/ijR9TG3LbyKo3wW7A https://goo.gl/maps/ijR9TG3LbyKo3wW7A Note that the map in the parent seems to be rotated.

stdbrouw 6y ago
The photo on Google Maps shows a cruise ship, and the map shows a harbor. Perhaps a fixed bridge with enough clearance is impossible and one that opens not any cheaper than a tunnel?

lqet 6y ago

I suspect a meteorological explanation. The weather might be so bad sometimes that crossing the bridge is not possible. Or the lifetime of a bridge exposed to such conditions might be extremely low, or maintenance costs extremely high.

Symmetry 6y ago
There are docks on both sides, perhaps the issue was boat traffic?
- walrus01 6y ago
  I think that may be the case, combined with the expense and height requirements to build a bridge tall enough to pass all current and foreseeable shipping traffic in air draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_draft

saalweachter 6y ago

I suspect that building an underground roundabout isn't actually as tricky as most of us are assuming, and that building a shorter third leg off the longer tunnel is relatively cheap -- they already have all of the equipment and personnel on hand.

stdbrouw 6y ago
Sure, I don't think the roundabout is that special. But if building a short third leg is cheap, building an even shorter third leg (instead of one that meets the others "in the middle") should be even cheaper.
- saalweachter 6y ago
  There's probably two complications with that plan: first, you end up with a tunnel that is too steep (you have to dip deep enough to get under the water), or you end up digging (and outfitting) four tunnel entrances, rather than three. [n.b. I am assuming the plan actually makes sense, and that when you compare the three-headed tunnel, the two tunnels, and the tunnel & bridge solutions, and all of the maintenance and externalities of roads connecting them, the three-headed tunnel is no more expensive, and trying to think of reasons this may be. If the plan is actually more expensive, or if no counter-proposals were considered, this is all somewhat moot.]