Looking Beneath the Surface for Tomorrow's Transportation Solutions
By Tony Lynn

The surface of the earth is two dimensional. The expansive realm beneath is three. And that three-dimensional freedom gives the tunneling community a potentially powerful solution to several of today’s big problems.

That solution is underground roads. Our cities are becoming more and more paved. Our freeways are built out to the right-of-way lines. Still, the roads are jammed. Clearly, going underground offers a solution. But, looking at tunnel prices, the economics would seem to be prohibitive. Can the tunneling community offer any suggestions? Think of the size of this potential market if the costs could be brought down.

If the costs of tunneling could be reduced, underground roads could be built for electric cars. We are talking about underground roads exclusively for non-polluting cars operating under computer control. Pollution and traffic congestion would be reduced. A new market for Detroit would be created. Our cities would benefit from a 21st century infrastructure.

The tunneling community knows what tunnels cost. But, much more importantly, the tunneling community knows, or is in the best position to figure, what tunneling could cost if some of the constraints were changed. The question being raised is: how cheap could tunneling be if the tunnelers had more say? Here are some thoughts relative to getting the cost down for tunneled roads:

Keep everything light. The cars traveling in these tunnels would be small, light vehicles. Each tunnel, maybe 13 ft in diameter, would be two narrow lanes, one for a stream of cars at speed, the other for merging and exiting.

Simplify. All that is needed is a stable hole, smooth, paved, not too leaky.

Tunnel where it’s easy. So much of tunneling today is in the worst possible conditions: soft ground with major liabilities above, waterlogged ground, downtown in crowded conditions with limited working hours. No way! Instead, put the tunnels through the surrounding hills above the water table. We are talking about a new road system supplementary to the existing, but separate. It can’t happen unless the tunneling is cheap, so put it where it’s easy.

Change contracting conditions. After technological advance, the largest contribution to reducing the cost of tunneling could come from changing contracting conditions

Encourage innovation. The most regressive requirement common in tunneling contracts is something like “The contractor must have successfully completed several similar projects using the method to be employed on this project within the past so many years.” Could there be a better way to stifle creativity and innovation? Better, a parallel, quite dissimilar requirement such as:

“The goal of this agency is to build underground road systems. To do so requires massive amounts of tunneling. To make this feasible, the cost of tunneling must be reduced. This will require innovation. Therefore, no bid will be eligible for award if it proposes to use any completely tried and true method. All bids, to be eligible for award, must have at least one experimental element that promises to reduce the cost of tunneling. Completely novel approaches will be given priority.”

Allow time. A system of underground road tunnels would take years to build. Similarly it would take years to develop and perfect the automatic car control systems. So, instead of putting it out for bid one phase after another, each with barely enough time, put it all out for bid at once with each piece then having plenty of time.

Quit whenever you want. No bonds required. This would be a total departure, which might work as follows: The tunneling contractor bids to build a reach of tunnel at so much a foot. The owner never pays more under any circumstance. But, the contractor can quit for any reason at any time. If the existing contractor quits, all the contractor’s peers, and even the same contractor, rebid the job a few weeks later under the same deal. Quit whenever you want. Would this idea, or a better one, get the cost down? Would the jobs get done? Could the lawyers subvert it? Could lawyer-like contractors twist it too badly?

Enabling legislation. With the best intentions, we have, as a nation, worked ourselves into a semi-paralysis where the problems fester while solutions are tied in legal and procedural knots. So, as a final bit of whimsy, let’s consider what truly enabling legislation might do:

1. Appropriate funds and direct them to the selected construction organization. Or, if construction is anticipated by private funding, grant the necessary license and powers.
   
2. Modify contracting laws, as required, to allow Quit Whenever You Want or other experiments in construction administration designed to most economically build the finished system.
3. Streamline resolution of eminent domain and other lawsuits: The desired result is that the courts be directed to expedite any and all litigation related to the underground road system.
   
4. Relief from environmental laws: Our courts have become the playground of legal savvy obstructionists. Underground roads can not happen without some relief from environmental restriction and litigation. Can “can-do” stand the current tide of can’t, mustn’t and won’t?

A final few questions for the contractor readers of TBM: Tunnel Business Magazine: If the suggestions above were in effect, what would you bid to build a 1-mile, 10-mile or longer piece of underground road in the hills around San Francisco, Los Angeles or your city? Ignoring all the nonsense above, what are your best ideas to lower the cost of tunneling? If your ideas were in effect, what would you bid?

Tony Lynn has worked in tunneling from miner to project manager and is currently president of Berkeley Engineering Co. Inc., Berkeley, Calif. He welcomes comments at his website: CheaperTunnels.com.