Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Ottoble, post: 2114131, member: 2539"] Hey no problem its my everyday more than willing to share my thoughts as others with more SU sports insider knowledge do for me. For depth its actually the opposite you want to be as shallow as is practical. In this case if you can be next to an adjacent buildings foundation instead of under it that is excellent you don't impact existing buildings as much. With a preinstalled top down cut and cover approach (see tomcats post right after yours)You could go under adjacent foundations a bit without a big problem because the wall goes in first. General rule The deeper you go the more expensive it is excavation costs go up but also wall pressure from soil gets greater so your structure costs more and your roadway onramps and offramps get longer and more complicated. Ramp issue is also the case with the higher viaduct some people proposed. I think when most people think interstate tunnel they think Holland Lincoln or Lehigh deep tunnels and that makes total sense those are the ones that get talked about. In this case Id reccomend thinking back to your last trip on the thruway. On the thruway you go under many of smaller roads that are up on bridges. Think of the tunnel I am describing as 500 of those briddges for smaller roads all right next to each other with the roadways unknowingly right above interstate traffic. My feeling is with sliding the alignment to Townsend and using a top down approach the cost would have to come down to a more workable number than the one provided so far just by reducing phasing and interstate partial closure and economic impact costs that would come from rebuilding on the same alignment. And it actually connects to 81 better than the current alignment smoothing out corners and improving safety. As I said still may not be cheaper but worth a look. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?