🚀 go-pugleaf

Charles P. Hobbs wrote:
> That might not be such a bad plan for South Pasadena: build a
> tunnel for the freeway, then charge tolls to pay for the extra
> expense. . .


Ooohh. Tunnel? Bad idea.
Not because of the cost, though - after all, we can get
FHWA to pay 95%, right? (irony intended)

As part of the environmental process approving the
route of I-10 through central Phoenix, it was decided
that a 1/2 mile long tunnel would be used in the
segment through the downtown area, and a neighborhood
park would be built above the freeway.

Well, the park turned out nice, and the freeway's
impact was diminished somewhat, but here are the
consequences:

1. As many of you know who drive through tunnels
regularly, they don't have the capacity of an
equivalent section of freeway, due to reduced
visibility, plus the driver's feelings of
'confinement'- i.e. no place to go in case of trouble.

2. This half mile stretch has a significantly greater
accident rate than other comparable stretches of
highway, due to reduced visibility and driver reactions.

3. The tunnel is much more expensive to operate
and maintain than a comparable section of depressed
freeway (24 hour lighting, drainage, ventilation,
cleaning, etc.)

The point? Just one thing: Solutions which may seem
to have the least impact in one area have many
other impacts, which need to be taken into
consideration.



-- 
Richard C. Moeur, P.E.,  N7WTB,  E.C.I.,  whatever...
Practicing Traffic Engineer (I'll get it right someday...)
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
"Life is just one W1-5 after another, until the W14-1"
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
the Arizona Department of Transportation. Really.
Now Open!: http://members.aol.com/rcmoeur
:9