Are rock cuts in hills replacing tunnels?

[roadman65]

I noticed that rock cuts through hills are replacing tunnels in some areas cause you will see a tunnel bored through the same hill a freeway goes through with an opening. 

Us 70 & 74 has a tunnel through a hill in Asheville, NC with freeway I-240 running alongside of it and no bore.
Sepulveda Blvd. in LA tunnels through a hill in the Santa Monica Mountains while I-405 cuts through the same exact hill nearby.
US 41 & 76 in Chatanooga, TN has the Bachman Tubes through a hill that nearby I-24 cuts through.

There are more examples like the PA and WV Turnpikes eliminating tunnels, but it shows that it is now easier and cheaper to blast a whole mountain away than only a small tube.

[Duke87]

What you have to remember is that the cost of a tunnel isn't just the cost of drilling, it's also the cost of building the structure and then maintaining and operating it.

Though, there is also a matter of aesthetics. In the US, we're perfectly willing to just blast the side of a mountain away to make way for a highway if it's the most cost effective way of getting the job done. In some other parts of the world, they're a bit more sensitive to how they alter the scenery and are thus more inclined to use tunnels.

[NE2]

Railroads do this to increase clearance for double stacks.

[Truvelo]

...Though, there is also a matter of aesthetics. In the US, we're perfectly willing to just blast the side of a mountain away to make way for a highway if it's the most cost effective way of getting the job done. In some other parts of the world, they're a bit more sensitive to how they alter the scenery and are thus more inclined to use tunnels.

Over here there was a controversial scheme around 20 years ago that caused outcry and resulted in a huge scar on the landscape, article here.

[US71]

What you have to remember is that the cost of a tunnel isn't just the cost of drilling, it's also the cost of building the structure and then maintaining and operating it.

Though, there is also a matter of aesthetics. In the US, we're perfectly willing to just blast the side of a mountain away to make way for a highway if it's the most cost effective way of getting the job done. In some other parts of the world, they're a bit more sensitive to how they alter the scenery and are thus more inclined to use tunnels.

AHTD debated long and hard over the I-540 tunnel. It would have been cheaper to blow-up half the mountain, but they opted for a tunnel. Part of it was trying to preserve the scenery, part of it was they would have had way too much material for filler.

[english si]

...Though, there is also a matter of aesthetics. In the US, we're perfectly willing to just blast the side of a mountain away to make way for a highway if it's the most cost effective way of getting the job done. In some other parts of the world, they're a bit more sensitive to how they alter the scenery and are thus more inclined to use tunnels.

Over here there was a controversial scheme around 20 years ago that caused outcry and resulted in a huge scar on the landscape, article here.

Though I'll point out that, having read through various documents on the project, the alternative proposals by those who objected were really ill thought out (taking out the water meadows or the town side of the hill instead - and one person thought it would be an idea to take out both sides of the hill), and the tunnel scheme was rejected due to being more environmentally damaging, what with a larger cutting to the north of the hill to get low enough to have a tunnel, having to import spoil for the embankment south of the cutting, having to light the road.

It does look a bit ugly (less so now the chalk has darkened), but that's in part to do with the non-straight sides of the cutting (there's a ledge near the top).

Also, having the junction slip roads in the cutting isn't good - they are steep, and there's not much distance between junctions 10 and 11 - far better would have been to make the fork a bit further south full access and ditched those ramps onto the old A333.

[adventurernumber1]

Disclaimer: Resurrecting a thread:

I don't think rock cuts in hills could ever completely replace tunnels, that being because on many mountains/tall hills you may have some settlement on it (especially in a large city), and due to that, a tunnel would be needed. An example of this is on both US 11/US 64 and US 41/US 76 (mentioned earlier in the thread) in Chattanooga, TN when they have tunnels through missionary ridge. The roads have tunnels through the ridge, and there is a lot of settlement on top.

[Brian556]

quote from NE2:

Railroads do this to increase clearance for double stacks.

Why are they hauling burgers from Wendy's?

[sdmichael]

I noticed that rock cuts through hills are replacing tunnels in some areas cause you will see a tunnel bored through the same hill a freeway goes through with an opening. 

Us 70 & 74 has a tunnel through a hill in Asheville, NC with freeway I-240 running alongside of it and no bore.
Sepulveda Blvd. in LA tunnels through a hill in the Santa Monica Mountains while I-405 cuts through the same exact hill nearby.
US 41 & 76 in Chatanooga, TN has the Bachman Tubes through a hill that nearby I-24 cuts through.

There are more examples like the PA and WV Turnpikes eliminating tunnels, but it shows that it is now easier and cheaper to blast a whole mountain away than only a small tube.

I-405 is a poor example. Sepulveda Blvd is three lanes with no shoulder. I-405 was built as eight lanes with shoulders at a lower level. It would have been a very large tunnel. How do you widen at that point? They made a good choice.

[bugo]

What you have to remember is that the cost of a tunnel isn't just the cost of drilling, it's also the cost of building the structure and then maintaining and operating it.

Though, there is also a matter of aesthetics. In the US, we're perfectly willing to just blast the side of a mountain away to make way for a highway if it's the most cost effective way of getting the job done. In some other parts of the world, they're a bit more sensitive to how they alter the scenery and are thus more inclined to use tunnels.

AHTD debated long and hard over the I-540 tunnel. It would have been cheaper to blow-up half the mountain, but they opted for a tunnel. Part of it was trying to preserve the scenery, part of it was they would have had way too much material for filler.

The actual reason for the I-540 tunnel was because it was an opportunity for AHTD to "show off". My cousin who worked for AHTD for years confirmed this.

[amroad17]

West Virginia thought that was a better idea.