Long Island Sound tunnel: One Thumbs Down, Lots of Questions
If you thought the Broadwater plan to build a floating liquefied natural gas terminal in the middle of Long Island Sound was one of the worst, environmentally abominable ideas ever proposed for the 110-mile-long estuary, consider the plan announced recently by a New York multimillionaire.
The editorial notes, by the way, that New London is about 100 miles away from where the tunnel would be built. From even further away, near Dallas (does it reflect badly on a Long Island Sound blog that the two people who comment most frequently, Bryan Brown and Sam Wells, both live in Texas?), Bryan Brown has sent me some worthwhile thoughts on the tunnel, in response to this post. Here's part of what Bryan says:
Where are they going to dump the material from the tunnels? It's 500 million cubic feet or 18.4 million cubic yards of rock and soil. If they used it as fill, 100ft of it would cover 116 acres.
If half the borings come out of the LI tunnel, how are they going to move 9.2 million cubic yards? At 30 cubic yards per load, that's 300,000 truck trips.
Have 55-ft diameter tunnels been bored before? I haven't found any that are that big. The tubes all seem to be less than 40ft in diameter.
24 million gallons of gasoline per year saved seems reasonable based on a trip that's 30 miles shorter. Is it still 24 million gallons in 2025 when we're all driving hybrids or electric cars that get 100mpg?
How much of the so-called green benefit from this project gets eaten by the CO2 emissions associated with building it? Cement is responsible for GHG and this project will take a lot of concrete. The construction equipment will be burning diesel (or maybe CNG or LNG).
If Sam is right and it induces more traffic, that would reduce or even wipe out the so-called green benefits, particularly if there is no rail component.
Labels: Long Island Sound tunnel