So, as a not very smart man. Wouldn't underground roads be better? I feel with it being underground it'd be easier to manage pollution and install some things to fight it.

[–] Piemanding@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Underground roads are crazy expensive. You need something to hold up the earth and anything else above it. There's issues with water leaking in. Piping will have to go around it. If it breaks down somehow it will take longer to repair. It's only really an option if the detour would be a lot longer or within urban areas for the extra space it frees up.

[–] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or if you know, having greener spaces and roads underground are actually better for climate change. I'm not sure if this would help in that matter or not, but I think it's a possibility. Not everything is about our made up concept of money.

[–] Redscare867@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

What’s better for climate change is less cars on the road, not underground roads. If we are going to be digging these expensive tunnels in every city they should be for subway systems. That would be a substantially better use of the funds and would be a good step towards reducing the emissions of a city. This is all assuming that we stop subsidizing car ownership so heavily of course.

The entire process of building and repairing roads is pretty carbon intensive due to the amount of concrete involved.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, replacing surface roads with greenery is good for climate change, or more locally for reducing the heat island effect.

They likely also redesigned the roads to reduce stop and go traffic, with all the extra pollution that creates.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I doubt it would affect pollution significantly. It's not like both ends of the tunnel aren't open to the air. It would definitely locally displace it so it's not distributed across the above ground length of the road, but the same amount more or less (minus whatever adheres to walls) is still coming out of either end.

Underground tunnels also have the danger of fires rapidly spiraling out of control and in the past have killed dozens of people, and that was before electric cars became common. I would not want to be in a tunnel when a Tesla's battery explodes.

I'm not saying this has no advantages, but for the trouble and cost it seems like a train would be better.

[–] pascal@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I think it's better from a polluting point.

Nothing underground generates oxygen, but moving the roads from above to underground gives more "it's free real estate" to grow grass and trees, like in the second photo, which generates oxygen and stores carbon. It's not the best thing like suppressing the cars all together, but it's better than the first picture.

[–] Resistentialism@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I completely forgot about the whole fire thing.

When yku say it like that. It makes more sense. It's a shame we don't have super efficient ways to convert exhaust gasses into healthier gasses. But yeah, if it's just a short tunnel, the entrance and exits would just not funnel it right. I wonder if really long tunnels would be better. Maybe being able to use the entrances with a system to input clean air and force the exhaust through vents.

And I wonder if those fire suppression systems that starve the fires of oxygen could be something that could be useful? But that'd require automated doors to seal the tunnel, and then if someone is trapped on there, the fire is the last of their issue. Unless there were refugee points that also seal, but then you've gotta make sure everyone's in them. I wonder if some form of scanner could be used to allow humans in. But then there's that thing where a fire has been starved, but then gets a sudden burst of oxygen and it becomes explosive. I forgot what it's called. I'm sure someone actually smart could brainstorm it better.