Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
Also the tunnel as is allows the possibility of a NE spur line to the airport. The undertaking if even possible would be at least 5X.
The tunnel wouldnt simply need to be the length of the new runway, but would also need to be likely 20%+ longer in case of planes skidding off the runway.
|
If a hypothetical N/S tunnel was built, it wouldn't be built under the runway. It would have to be built under the apron, taxiways and possibly the terminal expansion. It would definitely have to go under the Airport's long long term expansion plans. To avoid going under the terminal in those long term plans, a tunnel would probably have to be 2.5 - 3 times as long as the current E/W tunnel. In the under-construction terminal/apron plan, this tunnel would have to be at minimum 33% longer than the E/W tunnel being built, but likely around 50%. Plus, I really doubt the Airport Authority would allow a public tunnel in such a location. In addition, the current 2 lane tunnel being built under the new taxiway F would have to be 6 lanes wide.
Such a tunnel would not provide the road capacity required for the developing NE area inside the ring road, and roads like CHB would have to be upgraded. The city's reports have shown that these upgrades would cost significantly more than the E/W tunnel's cost. Essentially, the E/W tunnel would have been required even if a more expensive and complicated N/S tunnel would have been built.