3 ms·

Actual tunnels are usually pretty awful for cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists since they tend to be hot and full of exhaust fumes.

AlecSchueler 4y ago
Any tunnel I've been in has been fine. Motorcycles can't enter, they have to go on the road, not the cycle lane. Smaller "scooters" can be admitted but there is plenty of active ventilation to deal with that. In the case of the Maas Tunnel in Rotterdam there is a second tunnel for combustion vehicles. Pedestrians have a tunnel of their own below the cycle tunnel.
- vinay427 4y ago
  I think they meant tunnels in general that affect people not in cars, including motorcyclists, because of their lack of a loosely airtight or climate-controlled environment. As opposed to a tunnel specifically for bicyclists and motorcyclists, which is also how I read it at first.
- seszett 4y ago
  The Kennedytunnel in Antwerp is two-level with a bike tunnel on top of the (very crowded) motorway, and it does smell of fumes in spite of the ventilation. The large detours of the bike path at both ends of the tunnel are also a bit annoying as they significantly increase the distance you have to cycle. The alternative with elevators like in the Sint Annatunnel isn't really better though, because there you just have to wait for a long time for the elevator. I much prefer bridges but where I've used bike bridges (like in Nantes) they were very low with little clearance above water. Even in Lille they're just a few meters, maybe ten meters at most, above water, so they're easy to climb without a large detour. I wouldn't take the Pont de Cheviré on a bike for example...
- agsnu 4y ago
  I immediately thought of the Rotherhithe tunnel in London. While pedestrians and cyclists can use it, it's grim - see this video for example of someone walking it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjAHzZa_pc8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjAHzZa_pc8 Clearly for crossing any lengthy stretch of water, a bridge is much preferable to a tunnel.
  - AlecSchueler 4y ago
    You're basing that position of the case of one badly designed bridge though. Try some underwater cycling tunnels in the Netherlands. The Benelux tunnel is a joy to use.
    - AlecSchueler 4y ago
      Tunnel* not bridge
Gualdrapo 4y ago
And (at least here in Bogotá) they are pretty good places for burglars to hide, surprise and attack cyclists.
sofixa 4y ago
Not if the tunnel is cycle and pedestrian only, like the Sint Anna tunnel under the Scheldt in Antwerp.
- robinson7d 4y ago
  Totally, and this seems to be exactly the type of tunnel that the article’s author is discussing, evidenced by the second point they make: > Tunnels have a smaller height difference than bridges. Only need clearance for the height of a cyclist, not for trucks or trains plus electric lines.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Note the phrasing of "actual tunnel", which is meant to agree with this in the comment chain > The article is actually about underpasses, which are not "tunnels" but rather a bridge (or overpass) built on the "other" road.

AlecSchueler 4y ago

Any tunnel I've been in has been fine. Motorcycles can't enter, they have to go on the road, not the cycle lane. Smaller "scooters" can be admitted but there is plenty of active ventilation to deal with that. In the case of the Maas Tunnel in Rotterdam there is a second tunnel for combustion vehicles. Pedestrians have a tunnel of their own below the cycle tunnel.

vinay427 4y ago
I think they meant tunnels in general that affect people not in cars, including motorcyclists, because of their lack of a loosely airtight or climate-controlled environment. As opposed to a tunnel specifically for bicyclists and motorcyclists, which is also how I read it at first.
seszett 4y ago
The Kennedytunnel in Antwerp is two-level with a bike tunnel on top of the (very crowded) motorway, and it does smell of fumes in spite of the ventilation. The large detours of the bike path at both ends of the tunnel are also a bit annoying as they significantly increase the distance you have to cycle. The alternative with elevators like in the Sint Annatunnel isn't really better though, because there you just have to wait for a long time for the elevator. I much prefer bridges but where I've used bike bridges (like in Nantes) they were very low with little clearance above water. Even in Lille they're just a few meters, maybe ten meters at most, above water, so they're easy to climb without a large detour. I wouldn't take the Pont de Cheviré on a bike for example...
agsnu 4y ago
I immediately thought of the Rotherhithe tunnel in London. While pedestrians and cyclists can use it, it's grim - see this video for example of someone walking it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjAHzZa_pc8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjAHzZa_pc8 Clearly for crossing any lengthy stretch of water, a bridge is much preferable to a tunnel.
- AlecSchueler 4y ago
  You're basing that position of the case of one badly designed bridge though. Try some underwater cycling tunnels in the Netherlands. The Benelux tunnel is a joy to use.
  - AlecSchueler 4y ago
    Tunnel* not bridge

Gualdrapo 4y ago

And (at least here in Bogotá) they are pretty good places for burglars to hide, surprise and attack cyclists.

sofixa 4y ago

Not if the tunnel is cycle and pedestrian only, like the Sint Anna tunnel under the Scheldt in Antwerp.

robinson7d 4y ago
Totally, and this seems to be exactly the type of tunnel that the article’s author is discussing, evidenced by the second point they make: > Tunnels have a smaller height difference than bridges. Only need clearance for the height of a cyclist, not for trucks or trains plus electric lines.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Note the phrasing of "actual tunnel", which is meant to agree with this in the comment chain > The article is actually about underpasses, which are not "tunnels" but rather a bridge (or overpass) built on the "other" road.