Why was it not possible to construct a bridge between britan and france instead of channel tunnel?
Answer:
Small part of TIME's "By Tunnel or Bridge?" article which was wrote on Friday, Nov. 24, 1961.
...The relative merits of tunnel and bridge have plunged their proponents into a no-holds-barred debate. Either is technically feasible. Each would cut the cost of a Channel crossing from $32 for a car with three passengers to $22.50, reduce freight charges by 50%. Both would take about five years to build. The tunnel's main advantage is that at an estimated $364 million, it would cost only half as much as the bridge. Moch contends that a tunnel would induce claustrophobia and be a trap in case of an accident. But pro-tunnel people contend that the bridge's numerous pilings would be a hazard to shipping and that the roadway would probably be impassable during fog...
You have to look at things like shipping traffic and weather.
Also cost wise, it is probably cheaper to bore out the tunnels and lay down conventional track than it is to construct a bridge that size.
Too far. Here's an article that will really help.
Ship navigation would be hard through that bridge, too much money, and the tunnel is more profitable today than a bridge would have been. Article below.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transpo...
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: