Talk:Underwater tunnel

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Markbowen303 in topic Downward slope has less carbon footprint?

Comment edit

I have greatly improved this page (IMO) from the few lines it was. (Frediculous biggs 15:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC))Reply

Comparisons edit

Each comparison also applies to other than undersea tunnels, so why not just let the general tunnel article, which is also better organised, do it all? Jim.henderson (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Types of tunnels edit

Immersed tube and Submerged floating tunnel), different kinds of underwater tunnels, should be mentioned here. 184.166.6.102 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Table of data edit

I suggest we make the list into a sortable table, showing parameters such as length, depth, underwater length, price, road/rail/both, flag and such. See List of offshore wind farms for an example. TGCP (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

what irks me on a regular basis is the completely broken numeric ordering. Not only in this article. Ordering by length and 9km is longer than 111km. how can this be fixed? ZwergAlw (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Downward slope has less carbon footprint? edit

This seems like a nonsensical argument- how is a downward slope producing less carbon than an upward slope for a bridge? What matters is the relative change in vehicle height- not whether they go down then up vs. up then down. This should be removed I think- it's not an actual benefit. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbowen303 (talkcontribs) 16:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply