Talk:Gibraltar Tunnel

Why does it have to be so high?
Why does it have to be so high? --Abdull 18:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it is a narrow shipping passage. --  Szvest   - Wiki me up ®  12:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but 900 m? Wouldn't 100 m be enough?

Also, for this kind of frontier extreme engineering for overseas crossing, the best solution would be a submarine bridge. It would be a bridge made of undersea tunnel segments attached to the sea bottom by cables/light pillars. This would suit better because: 1 - Easier to build. No need to dig extremely deep tunnels in a quake prone area. No need to build super strong and high pillars to sustain a bridge. It would be made of prefabricated tunnels dropped into the water. 2 - The best solution of an earthquake area. The water around the tunnels acts as buffer in case there's a quake. 3 - Light and flexible cables to sustain. Due to the air in the tunnels, the underwater bridge could be lighter than water. Therefore the attachments would be made of cables, without the need of huge concrete pillars. These cables, possibly made of composite, would have the necessary flexibility against quakes and sea currents, but would be strong enough to prevent the tunnels to come to surface.

Joao mandapamim@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.214.128.236 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What you're talking is similar to how the Transbay Tube was constructed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.138.182 (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is written in the article that: A floating bridge was not an option either because of the number of ships passing through the Gibraltar corridor and the strong currents of the strait.--BIL (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Article move
I am moving this article to its accurate title "Gibraltar tunnel" as the decision to build a tunnel instead of a bridge has been approved. See article. --  Szvest   - Wiki me up ®  12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed section
I just removed the following text from the article:


 * In the event that the earth's general sea level rises significantly due to global warming, then a barrage would become an option worth studying. Such a barrage would incorporate locks to pass ships, a road and rail link to connect the continents, and a hydroelectric power plant to generate power from the flow which would be generated by the Mediterranean's excess evaporation (see Mediterranean Sea:Oceanography). Also see Atlantropa for a discussion of a similar project that was never undertaken (although Atlantropa had many other goals and requirements).


 * To prevent the Mediterranean becoming inexorably saltier, a large pipe would be led from the deep part of the dam, down into the depths of the Atlantic ocean. Because of the salinity difference, the outward flow of deep Mediterranean water would not require pumping.


 * The costs of such a barrage would be astronomical, but the costs could be spread among the large number of countries which would be protected &mdash; including those of the Black Sea basin.

I don't see where this text has anything to do with a tunnel proposal. --StuffOfInterest 19:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds like it might be used for a dam or bridge project, not the tunnel. 207.69.139.141 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Economics
Surely this article should include something of the economics of the project as these would appear to be rather dubious. A figure of nine million passengers is given for the first year of operation, but this is significantly higher than that of the Channel Tunnel in 2006, many years after its completion. One might expect a Gibraltar tunnel to be less economically feasible than the Channel Tunnel, which itself is not considered a great economic success, as Morocco is much less populous and poorer than Britain (resulting in less use) and the tunnel itself would be a greater engineering challenge than the one under the English Channel. Therefore one would expect the tunnel to be more expensive than the Channel Tunnel and be less used. Booshank (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, this would be good, but I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss this project. Populations matter little in this case, the question is wether there is demand for traffic. Same thing with economy, it doesn't matter if both countries are very rich, if they have nothing to trade, it won't be used. A rich and a poor country could probably have a lot of goods to trade since their industries will produce different things. Also, there are more cheap workers available in morocco than in england, and greater challenge doesn't neccecarily translate to more expensive.


 * In the article it says "Preliminary studies should be finished by 2008", so later this year, we'll probably have more facts. 81.235.136.245 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is written in the box that construction start is 2008. Must be wrong, they are are no planning for that? It is easy for someone hoping for such a project to write "construction start soon" in Wikipedia. --BIL (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I think that the article on Gibraltar Bridge should be merged in here. The combined article could be called "Gibraltar Crossing" or "Gibraltar Fixed Crossing," but since it seems that the tunnel is a more likely structure for now it could stay as Gibraltar Tunnel. --BOARshevik (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I like the idea. The bridge article is extremely underdeveloped and would fit in fine as part of a generic "crossing" article.  As for a title, I would lean towards "Gibraltar Fixed Crossing" as leaving out the fixed could include discussion of ferry service. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally in support, I think the two articles compliment each other very well, so it makes sense to put them together. It also seems a lot more likely now that it will be a tunnel rather than a bridge, so I can see the bridge section becoming literally a "footnote of history", within the broader article. Olyus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC).