Photo taken by Famartin in January 2016
License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike (CC BY-SA)
View this photo at Wikimedia Commons
BH Photo #435018
Tunnel is clearly defined both in engineering and common use it is not subjective because you want it to be. "Cut and cover Tunneling" is a TECHNIQUE NOT A DESIGN. The designs of "cut and cover tunnels" vary-arches, rigid frames, culverts stringers etc. I am finished with the Luke blog and bridge page. Kindly F.O.
No, the obtuse one is you, because your cherrypicking of dictionaries (And wholly ignoring engineering material that explains tunnel construction for the narrow dictionary definitions you've cherrypicked.) does not trump actual multi-nationally-recongized-and-utilized tunnel engineering/construction designs and methodologies, and the fact that you think your pedantry is a "gotcha" that trumps them really highlights your idiocy, as does your constant+repetitious reliance on irrelevant political red herrings+ad hominems.
You're neither an engineer nor a linguist, so you ought to stop pretending you are, because the more you stamp your feet and go "NO! I KNOW BETTER THAN ENGINEERS!" (Which is exactly what you're doing.), the worse you make yourself look.
"While the definition is subjective, listing the structure as a cut and cover tunnel would be a good compromise, as this design name sets it apart from a more standard bored tunnel."
No Mr. Obtuse, the definition is not subjective, hence the many sources that define tunnel the same way. "The design name"? it is called a box culvert or a steel stringer, both designs have been used for some time.
Luke how obtuse can you be. It does not fit the engineering definition of a tunnel as I posted. It does not fit the common usage definition of a tunnel. It is not a tunnel because someone calls it a tunnel. Clue in Mr. Obtuse Order follower
I posted the oxford engineering dictionary definition and the common usage dictionary. The FHWA does not accept it as a tunnel they accept the name of the technique as cut and cover tunnel and guess what gubment worker, because the gubment tells you don't make it right. I am sure as with most gubment crap it needs to be dumbed down for gubment people to understand they talking about a hole with a street in it. Steel beams on abutments are stringers MR. Obtuse
"Luke, You strike me as a true life long government order follower. At the very least someone who spent most of their life in an industry that relies on government charity to survive. There is just a mind set in these people that is so enslaved."
And with you bringing up yet-another "hurr durr gubbrmynt"-theme Red Herring/Ad Hominem Combo Fallacy, we've further confirmed that you're not arguing in good faith.
"Being correct is important in the ideas we express and what we want to communicate to others in these pages."
Yes, and "being correct" requires one to prove that they're correct, which segues into the next point
"You first cried I was anti engineering and I presented facts that engineering does not support what you said."
Except you did no such thing. You pedantically cited a dictionary, (And a Wikipedia article, which lists cut-and-cover under construction types, which doesn't end up supporting your own argument.) which is not the same thing as citing actual engineering stuff.
Meanwhile I cited several PDFs describing the actual engineering methodology behind cut-and-cover construction AND referenced local media that referred to it as cut-and-cover AND referenced historicaerials showing them constructing the trench used in said cut-and-cover construction of shallow tunnels.
tl;dr I've looked for evidence that this is actually a tunnel, found it, and provided it.
You've done nothing but sat and gone "It's not literally bored through rock so it's not a tunnel" ad nauseum (Plus some rather childish antics.).
You're right that throwing logs over a ditch doesn't make it a tunnel. But digging a 30 foot deep trench, and putting a concrete encasement over it does make it a cut and cover tunnel. The point is, while it may not be a traditional bored tunnel, it is still considered to be a tunnel.
While the FHWA has no accepted definition of a tunnel, according to the provided link, cut and cover is a tunnel construction technique. The FHWA (Federal Highway Administration, a government administration) seems to accept cut and cover style construction as tunnels. This document is very informational. Titled "Technical manual for design and construction of road tunnels-civil elements" and written by four professional civil engineers, I would believe that these people know what they are talking about. As a civil engineering student, I also believe that this would be acceptable to consider a tunnel.
While the definition is subjective, listing the structure as a cut and cover tunnel would be a good compromise, as this design name sets it apart from a more standard bored tunnel.
Luke, You strike me as a true life long government order follower. At the very least someone who spent most of their life in an industry that relies on government charity to survive. There is just a mind set in these people that is so enslaved.
Being correct is important in the ideas we express and what we want to communicate to others in these pages. You first cried I was some sort of anti engineering and I presented facts that engineering does not support what you said. the vast, vast majority of definitions for tunnel, including engineering definitions do not support your inaccurate assessment and still you argue (order follower mentality). You attack being accurate and correct on the pages?
Your links do not provide a definition of a tunnel.
This quote covers the basics of your links.
" The contents do not
necessarily reflect policy of the Department of Transportation. This report does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government
does not endorse products or manufacturers. "
Again, digging a ditch and throwing logs over it does not a tunnel make.
Calling it Almond milk does not make it Milk, no matter who calls it Almond milk or how many. There are generally agreed upon definitions for things, including tunnels, cut and cover does not fulfill the definition of a tunnel in any commonly associated definition of tunnel.
1) People can't view the scripts page, but woweee here's all the NBI entries that refer to the structure as a tunnel (See image)
2) Again, being pedantic and only using your narrow definition of tunnel is idiotic
3) Look, I can cite things too:
And they're all engineering pdfs that describe the cut-and-cover tunneling method in some form or another (Including a whole chapter from the FHWA.).
Perhaps you should READ THEM instead of yet-again spouting your inane pedantic/pseudointellectual personal opinions as if they're engineering factualities.
4) So to finish it off:
If you look at the location on historicaerials, you can see the area under construction from 1979-1982
You can see that they've dug DOWN to build the trench used in cut-and-cover tunnel construction.
A LOT of groups, from governmental to locals to engineering call this a tunnel.
There's more evidence supporting it being a tunnel than not.
You're a pedant, and annoyingly pseudointellectual one at that.
To finish off the conversation,
The FHWA has no accepted definition of a tunnel, (call what ever you like a tunnel), the AASHTO does not have an accepted definition of tunnel, only what defines weather it is a short or long tunnel.
The NFPA defines a tunnel as an "underground" structure longer than 75 feet
on and on and on
It is a tunnel now
North Nash Street-Stringer-http://bridgehunter.com/scripts/bridge/add-nbi.cgi?fips=51013;id=000000000000069;v=2017;from=54502
Fort Meyer Drive-Stringer-http://bridgehunter.com/scripts/bridge/add-nbi.cgi?fips=51013;id=000000000000071;v=2017;from=54502
North Lynn Street-Stringer-http://bridgehunter.com/scripts/bridge/add-nbi.cgi?fips=51013;id=000000000000073;v=2017;from=54502
All draw bridges in front of castles are now tunnels when down.
Cut and Cover the Almond milk of engineering.
Hopefully the tunnels don't catch on fire as easily as his cars :')
Tunnel is so last century. I vote that we start calling them "bores" since Elon's Boring Company now makes tunnels.
They also sell flamethrowers, so we could call this a flame war. Lol
1) All 5 of the NBI entries refer to it as a tunnel (As does everyone from the federal, state, and local governments to news outlets to highway fanatics.), and as I already stated, stringer is the typical roof construction method for cut-and-cover tunnels, but I guess paying attention is hard.
2) This tunnel passes under a park built upon the backfill used to bury the it.
3) And now you're being willfully obtuse and willfully ignoring the actual engineering/design differences between cut-and-cover tunnels and overpasses.
Literalism and pedantry don't trump actual engineering.
I thought tubes were tubes and stringers were stringers.
I suppose you could make an argument for the tubes as they are actually under something. This "tunnel" is not under anything, a pretty standard definition of tunnel. Otherwise do we start adding all the wide stringers as tunnels, cities are full of them, not to mention NBI (the gospel) lists it as stringers. And yea, the common and reasonable definition of something is generally best used, don't you think?
You can ignore engineering techniques for your own personal opinion all you Like, it doesn't mean you're in the right.
Cut-and-cover (Which are typically stringer-roofed trenches.), along with immersed tubes (Used frequently in your home state, Royce.) are forms of tunnel construction, despite not being litetally tunneled through rock.
Ignoring this for a literalist view is extremely idiotic.
Seems if it wasn't tunneled it is not a tunnel, hence the word tunnel. NBI has it listed as steel stringers
I've found several references to this being a "cut-and-cover" tunnel project , which is how most tunnels are built nowadays, especially when being built in already-built-up metropolitan areas
Citing sites that refer to it as cut-and-cover:
Let's all be like Elsa. Let it go. Let it go.
"even VDOT calls it a tunnel" LOL, well if the government says so it must be true.
Funny, because even VADOT calls it a tunnel
This is not a tunnel