5 ms·

Have we ever considered underground biking lanes? I wonder if they could be fairly shallow compared to subways, and would definitely be safer than the proposed

by thrush 12y ago

Have we ever considered underground biking lanes? I wonder if they could be fairly shallow compared to subways, and would definitely be safer than the proposed option above by entirely avoiding conflict with cars. Better even, with underground biking lanes, we could try to build infrastructure to avoid weather problems. Snow, rain, flooding and cold are the problems I'm referring to.

adrianN 12y ago
Digging tunnels is super expensive and you have to take care of lighting and ventilation.
- learc83 12y ago
  That got me thinking. What if instead of tunnels, you dug channels in place of sidewalks and put grates along the top. Basically tunnels under the sidewalk except you don't have to worry about the weight of earth or cars on top of the tunnel--just pedestrians. You do the digging much cheaper from the surface, and it wouldn't require ventilation.
  - adrianN 12y ago
    Digging is still expensive and now you have people spitting on cyclists and raining dirt from their shoes and you prevent women from wearing skirts.
    - learc83 12y ago
      Excellent points. OK so the grating is solid on the top with mesh on the sides for ventilation. It was just a half baked idea, and now that I think about it drainage would be a pretty big problem as well. If the drains got clogged it could turn into a death trap pretty fast in a heavy downpour.
- abduhl 12y ago
  This is a bold statement. As someone in the tunneling industry, I disagree.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    "As someone", could you point to a public tunneling project conducted in the last several decades that wasn't super expensive?
    - abduhl 12y ago
      What does super expensive mean? Expensive is a relative term. When weighed against the costs of other options, tunneling consistently comes out ahead on a cost basis. This is proven by the fact that tunneling projects are undertaken regularly across the world.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        If that "proves" anything, it's only that public entities spend money according to priorities other than thrift. But really, your response to a plea for a single example of an economically-defensible tunnel project was "tunneling consistently comes out ahead on a cost basis"? You never took rhetoric, did you? It's not as though I asked a question that someone "in the industry" wouldn't have the background to answer.
        abduhl 12y ago
        Public entities do not spend money according to priorities other than thrift, in general. Rather, they assign dollar values to everything (sometimes irrationally) and then compare based on a dollar valuation. Some entities pretend to not do this by obscuring things with a neat naming convention like a "contractor score" or "ranked qualifications" but, in the end, it's all about money because the public has people, such as yourself, who are ready to hang them in a second if they think their money is being mismanaged. The reason I don't give a single example of a tunnel project is because they are, quite literally, all over. Your local water/sewer district has probably put in tens in the past year. If you live in the Bay area, Caldecott's fourth bore has just been completed successfully (on time, under budget) and this installation was obviously much less costly than blowing up the mountain. If you live out East, Liberty University just completed a jacked box tunnel install that was less costly than the alternative of rerouting train traffic or continuing to use a less safe at-grade crossing. Are there examples of tunnels that have gone awry? Certainly, and I'm sure you're more than willing to rattle off a few results that you found on Google. The fact is, good and cheap (relative to the other options) tunneling jobs happen all the time, around the world. Your use of scare quotes does not diminish the fact that you are completely ignorant of the pros and cons of tunneling and that you are arguing from that position of ignorance.
bwindels 12y ago
Or just have tunnels at intersections, but yes, probably still very expensive. And flooding could be an issue.

by thrush 12y ago

adrianN 12y ago

Digging tunnels is super expensive and you have to take care of lighting and ventilation.

learc83 12y ago
That got me thinking. What if instead of tunnels, you dug channels in place of sidewalks and put grates along the top. Basically tunnels under the sidewalk except you don't have to worry about the weight of earth or cars on top of the tunnel--just pedestrians. You do the digging much cheaper from the surface, and it wouldn't require ventilation.
- adrianN 12y ago
  Digging is still expensive and now you have people spitting on cyclists and raining dirt from their shoes and you prevent women from wearing skirts.
  - learc83 12y ago
    Excellent points. OK so the grating is solid on the top with mesh on the sides for ventilation. It was just a half baked idea, and now that I think about it drainage would be a pretty big problem as well. If the drains got clogged it could turn into a death trap pretty fast in a heavy downpour.
abduhl 12y ago
This is a bold statement. As someone in the tunneling industry, I disagree.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  "As someone", could you point to a public tunneling project conducted in the last several decades that wasn't super expensive?
  - abduhl 12y ago
    What does super expensive mean? Expensive is a relative term. When weighed against the costs of other options, tunneling consistently comes out ahead on a cost basis. This is proven by the fact that tunneling projects are undertaken regularly across the world.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      If that "proves" anything, it's only that public entities spend money according to priorities other than thrift. But really, your response to a plea for a single example of an economically-defensible tunnel project was "tunneling consistently comes out ahead on a cost basis"? You never took rhetoric, did you? It's not as though I asked a question that someone "in the industry" wouldn't have the background to answer.
      - abduhl 12y ago
        Public entities do not spend money according to priorities other than thrift, in general. Rather, they assign dollar values to everything (sometimes irrationally) and then compare based on a dollar valuation. Some entities pretend to not do this by obscuring things with a neat naming convention like a "contractor score" or "ranked qualifications" but, in the end, it's all about money because the public has people, such as yourself, who are ready to hang them in a second if they think their money is being mismanaged. The reason I don't give a single example of a tunnel project is because they are, quite literally, all over. Your local water/sewer district has probably put in tens in the past year. If you live in the Bay area, Caldecott's fourth bore has just been completed successfully (on time, under budget) and this installation was obviously much less costly than blowing up the mountain. If you live out East, Liberty University just completed a jacked box tunnel install that was less costly than the alternative of rerouting train traffic or continuing to use a less safe at-grade crossing. Are there examples of tunnels that have gone awry? Certainly, and I'm sure you're more than willing to rattle off a few results that you found on Google. The fact is, good and cheap (relative to the other options) tunneling jobs happen all the time, around the world. Your use of scare quotes does not diminish the fact that you are completely ignorant of the pros and cons of tunneling and that you are arguing from that position of ignorance.

bwindels 12y ago

Or just have tunnels at intersections, but yes, probably still very expensive. And flooding could be an issue.