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 we could get the costs 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.  Think what that could mean:

Reducing Pollution. Direct environmental and visual impact of underground roads would be much less than surface roads.  But, more importantly, having available underground high speed roads would be a powerful incentive for our switchover to pollution free cars. The biggest problem society faces, according to opinion makers of growing influence, is global warming caused by combustion of fossil fuels.  Bold plans are being proposed to bring about a switchover to non-combustion propulsion sources.  Cars operating in tunnels, for obvious reasons, would need to be pollution free.  Participation in the underground road system could also be predicated upon the car owner’s purchase of renewable energy for recharging.

If a system of underground roads was built, or even was being built, then individual car owners would have a strong reason to invest in a pollution free car.  Sales of “green” cars would be stimulated.  It would be a non-coercive incentive system.

Relieve Traffic Congestion. Traffic often tops the list of contemporary problems.   Moving cars underground would leave the surface roads more open for SUVs, Hummers, and trucks.  They, in turn, could operate more efficiently to the extent that the underground roads reduced surface road traffic allowing them to move at speed.

21st Century Infrastructure. Congress is trying to alleviate the recession by investing in infrastructure including traditional stop and go transit systems.  Underground roads for electric cars would move travelers continuously to their destinations.  It’s a 21st century system.  Widespread implementation would put the U.S. on the cutting edge.

Invigorate Detroit. Underground roads would necessitate total automatic control.  This would allow< vehicles to follow each other at minimal spacing, a “train” of independent cars.  Two such lanes could carry a freeway’s worth of traffic and take up very much less of the surface.

The cost of modern luxury cars is reported to be about half electronics and software.  Total automatic control is a continuation of that trend.  Those in Detroit who get out in front on this one would have a better chance of surviving the current crisis.  This new market could resuscitate at least some of the auto industry.

Underground auto tunnels would operate as an incentive system.  People who purchased a pollution free car with automatic control and also purchased renewable energy would have entry to the system.  They could travel fast and hands free below the crawls above.

Existing organizations like the Intelligent Vehicle Transportation Systems Institute can testify to the feasibility of controlling cars in tunnels at, say, 60 miles per hour. Although critical, in an overall appraisal that is not the largest technical hurdle.  Rather, analysis of the economics of this idea suggest it is the cost of tunneling.  So the input of the tunneling community is key.

Anthropologists tell us our ancestors descended from the trees and started walking around upright and using tools a millon or so years ago.  At first we lived in small bands and huddled in caves.  Somewhere around 10,000 years ago we started living in villages.   Towns and cities grew up only relatively recently.  Genetically, in our natures, in ways we do not consciously appreciate, we are still villagers.  We like our surroundings on a human scale.  Witness the popularity of malls and downtown closed-to-traffic walking streets.

In modern life the basic sound background is the internal combustion engine, tire noise, the siren, and the 4 wheel boom box.  We sometimes only realize how grating it is in its absence.  In contrast, in “primitive” villages one is often impressed by the peace and quiet.  Birds, crickets, frogs and other natural sounds form the background.

In traditional villages the children run around.  Nobody seems particularly worried.  Reflect upon the relaxed nonchalance of those parents versus our own modern parental paranoia.  We have built our residential environment inside a web of hurtling metal boxes.  Their roads take up lots of space.  They are noisy, smelly, and, most seriously, potentially fatal to children and pets.

Now imagine all the roads put below, in tunnels.  The surface would be much more quiet and amenable.  And that would change our quality of life.  In this scenario, everyone would have cars just as they do now but they would come and go below.  The surface would be residential with homes connected by paths for walking and bikes.  Children would be safer and could get themselves to school.

So, what we mean by “roadless communities” is apparently roadless communities.  The roads are there, below, in tunnels.  The cars operating in these tunnels would have to be non-polluting, be they electric, fuel cell, or what–have-you.  Because non-polluting cars would be prerequisite to living in roadless communities the two developments would be mutually reinforcing.

It is hard to overestimate the degree to which our communities have been shaped by the automobile.  Commensurately, it may be hard to appreciate how putting cars underground might enhance our enjoyment and appreciation of our community.

Most importantly would be the effects on children and their parents.  Kids could run around, bike themselves to school and lessons and generally grow up more independently and naturally.  Parents would be relieved of their chauffeuring duties and that portion of their paranoia related to motor vehicle tragedy.  Families living in roadless communities would be more in harmony with nature.

It is interesting to think about the effects tunneled roads would have on residential architecture and community planning.  If roads were underground, physically, our communities could be free of the limitations imposed by topography.  Each home could be located on esthetic considerations.  We would not be carving up the neighborhood with driveways but living in nature.  It would also make sense to say goodbye to the grid.  Property lines could be set to surficial landmarks, whatever makes immediate sense locally. Underground roads would be accompanied by underground parking.  There need be no trenching since all utilities would be brought through the tunnels.

Homes might be often served by elevators and that could invite a vertical architecture taking advantage of the view.  A modern home with all amenities could easily be supported on a single 12 foot diameter elevator shaft coming up from underground parking.  Or, two pillars could support a single level home wrapping around the mountainside.  Other possibilities abound.

The single development that would make roadless communities practical is cheaper tunneling.  If tunneling was cheap enough the market for tunneling would multiply manifold.  If only it was cheaper.  How can we get it cheaper?  That is the continuing focus of this column.  Contributions invited.

Life not lived around hurtling metal boxes would be better.  Our neighborhoods would be quieter and our kids would be safer.  At the interface between the roadless community and the rest of the world, on Saturday mornings, there could be a community carwash, polishing, and caressing.  Oh, we love our cars.  But we don’t need them hurtling in our residential midst.

Some thoughts relative to getting the cost down for tunneled roads:

Simplify.  Don’t over-engineer the system.  Modern rail rapid transit systems are not fault tolerant.  Accordingly they are very engineered and expensive.  The underground road system envisioned here is supplementary to the existing surface road system.  The tunnel-capable cars that use the system would run on the surface roads normally and could always revert to the surface roads if need be.

Keep everything light. The cars traveling in these tunnels would be small light vehicles.  Each tunnel would be two lanes, one for a stream of cars at speed, the other for merging and exiting.  Two lanes of small lightweight vehicles would require, perhaps, a 13’ tunnel or thereabouts.  This brings up a necessary caveat of tunneled roads.  There are no pullover lanes.  Every vehicle must be able to push and be pushed.

Tunnel where it’s easy. So much of tunneling today is in the worst possible conditions: soft ground with major liabilities above, waterlogged ground, crowded conditions, downtown 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

Encourage Innovation.The most regressive requirement common in tunneling contracts is usually worded something like this:  The contractor must have successfully completed several similar projects using the method to be employed on this project within the past so many years.  Further, the project manager and superintendent must have completed within the past so many years several projects using the same methods contemplated to be employed on the subject project.  Although probably understandable in each specific case, 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 which promises to reduce the cost of tunneling.  Completely novel approaches will be given priority.”

While you’re laughing at that one, let’s go on to two more of the major inflators of cost: not enough time and contingencies.

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 not enough time, put it all out for bid at once with each piece then having plenty of time.  The big boys and also small tunneling companies could all jump in if no bonds were required because the contractors could:

Quit Whenever You Want. 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. Underground roads can not happen without enabling legislation.  This could be both good and bad.  Bad in that it would have to be enacted by Congress and/or state legislatures which would take time, but good in that enabling legislation could, if boldly done, sweep away the existing impediments.  Most importantly, the enabling legislation would be about saving time.  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:

Appropriate funds and direct them to the selected construction organization. Or, if construction is anticipated by private funding, grant the necessary license and powers.

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.

Streamline resolution of eminent domain and other lawsuits:  The desired result is that the courts expedite any and all litigation related to the underground road system and be directed that in no case, ever, is any injunction to be issued to impede construction.

Exemption from environmental laws. This would be the most important article in enabling legislation and, probably, the least likely.  Our courts have become the playground of legally savvy obstructionists.  It is becoming apparent to many that, as Governor Schwarzenegger recently stated, “It is a shame when environmental laws stand in the way of environmental progress”.  This was in relation to the difficulties posed by environmental restrictions in building power lines to move solar generated power from the Mojave Desert to the cities.

Underground roads would reduce impact on the earth’s surface, relieve traffic congestion and pollution, encourage the switchover to eco-friendly cars, stimulate the economy, and, by requiring innovation in new cars, give Detroit a chance to get ahead.  But, realistically, these worthwhile objectives can not happen without some exemption from environmental restriction and litigation.  As in wartime, where victory is paramount, the campaign must go forward and the aftermath dealt with later.

Once a vehicle enters the LightWay system it would travel continuously, at speed, until emerging onto the regular road grid near its destination.

Private Ownership. The vehicles would be privately owned but would have to meet tough criteria to be eligible to ride the LightWay.

* Light – unloaded weight limit.
* Completely automatic control while in the LightWay.
* Real-Time Safety Checked – communicated before each entry.
* Minimum mileage requirement.
* Carbon-free – owners/drivers would need to prove that they were purchasing their energy from non-polluting sources.
* All requirements could be tightened over time along an announced trajectory.
* Pushable.  Lose power and you are pushed out. No stopping in the road, ever.  Every car must be able to push and be pushed.
* No standard designs.  Within the operating parameters creativity could reign.
* Truly rapid transit – but we would still have our beloved individual cars.

Tunneled Roadways. Most of the routes will be tunneled.

* Simple, cheap tunnels.  This is the most critical point to allow realization of  the Lightway system.
* High speed, minimal headways, and automatic control require a separate roadway.
* This system is envisioned to be supplemental to the existing road grid.  With much traffic siphoned off into the LightWays, surface road traffic would de-congest.
* For safety, light LightWay cars need to be separated from heavy cars, SUVs, and trucks as much as possible.
* Real estate is expensive.  Tunneling under on an easement is cheaper.  And preserving the surface allows other uses.

Configuration

* Generally two parallel lanes, one for travel, and one for merging in and out. One lane only required for long non-accessed reaches.
* Simple, cheap tunnels.  The lightness of the LightWay cars means simpler pavements.  Tunneled means more stable roadways than surface roads.  Don’t need 100% watertight.
* Automatic control based on car-to-car communication.  Minimize tunnel embeds.
* Maintenance at night.  Computer controlled grinding for smooth Ways

On and Off Points

* Cars coming on get traveling parallel and then are automatically sidled in. Must have proviso to prevent entry of unlicensed or defective cars.

* Cars leaving switch lanes and come out onto surface streets.  Must have areas to automatically pull over and stop vehicles that have become defective or the driver has gone to sleep.

However, there may be general principles that can inform our approach.  The first general principle is that it’s going to take energy to remove the in situ ground and take it outside.   In the attached “Derivation A” we come up with this equation:

Tunnel Advance Rate = Power Intensity x Effectiveness x Continuity x Intelligence

It is important to note that this equation is merely a reflection of the definitions that went into it. No empirical information is expressed.  It is opinion.  But, hopefully, it seems pretty intuitive.

Intelligence

The last term, “Intelligence” (volume of rock excavated per amount of energy applied) provides an interesting departure point.  In 1955 the U.S. Army Snow, Ice, and Permafrost Research Station undertook research to build military installations under the ice in Greenland as part of the DEW Line.  They measured the specific energy for ice excavation by many methods including hand labor, many kinds of mining machines, and even melting.

The lowest specific energy, by far, was a man with a pickaxe.  What they saw was that a man with a pickaxe would attack the ice and once having started a crack would locate subsequent blows to enlarge the crack.  Each blow was predicated on the results of the previous blow.  He was using his intelligence to maximize the amount of excavated ice.  Anyone having done hand digging has done the same, seizing every opportunity to pry out large chunks.

A relevant aside at this point is to note that rock is generally already cracked.  Often there are three intersecting planes of cracking producing an in situ rock body of tightly assembled chunks.  We might usefully view rock excavation in such cases as “rock disassembly”.

Rock is much weaker in tension than in compression.  An interesting development that might not be familiar to working tunnelers is the CERAC Breaker.  Developed in 1978 by Atlas Copco, this breaker is designed to capitalize on the weakness of rock in tension.  The device is inserted into a short drilled hole.  It mechanically expands, gripping the inside periphery of the hole and then pushes off of the bottom of the hole pushing the gripped rock outward and breaking it in tension.

In the 1980’s the CERAC breaker was extensively studied by the U.S. Bureau of Mines as an enabling technology for what they termed the “Drill/Break System” of mining.  The Bureau investigator found the system very promising, but it has not been implemented commercially, perhaps because mechanizing the process was perceived as too difficult.

The Rapidex system, developed and tested in the 1970’s was a semi-continuous drill and blast system designed to advance into the rock utilizing small blasts in a spiral pattern resembling a lighthouse stairway.  The government funded development through many testing stages, but the mechanical difficulties encountered in finding, loading, and initiating previously drilled holes were too much for the technology of the time.

Many other systems have been proposed for excavating rock more “intelligently”.  Some involve drilling small holes and microblasting on a semi-continuous basis.  Others involve injecting a highly pressurized gas and igniting it, or pumping in water and

creating hydraulic shocks.  They all require drilling holes in the rock face and introducing some means to push the rock outward towards the free face.  Although most hold promise, none of the many novel methods proposed have been developed to the point of commercial success.  Consistently, the difficulty seems to be in the mechanization.

All these concepts were developed and prototyped years ago before the recent proliferation of computer controlled industrial manipulators.  Now, with position sensors and control programs worked out and generally available, an array of mining duty manipulators could be developed and used to test and refine any of these systems.

Or, turn it around; a general purpose manipulator array not wed to any specific method could interchangeably and alternately test and utilize any and all promising methods.  The idea is that the manipulators could grab drills and other tools of many kinds and through programming changes turn them into an Adaptable Tunnel Excavation System.

Robots are generally recommended for harsh, dangerous environments.   A rapidly advancing tunnel heading is a crowded, loud, wet, and dusty place.  Good for robots,- not so good for humans.  But, to take maximum advantage of intelligence the manipulator array would be under human supervisory control.  Like a 787 pilot, he or she doesn’t work the hydraulic valves, but they would direct the program.

Continuity – Get up to speed and keep going.  No stopping, or, at least, minimal stopping or slowing.
Look at buses and “rapid transit”.  Everybody is accelerated to speed and then decelerated to a halt.  Again, and again, and again.  This is not energy efficient or “rapid”.  It is not the future.

Transit stations are agglomeration points.  People bent on travel in a certain direction come together and wait together.  Agglomeration is inherently wasteful.   Most importantly, in terms of the sum of the individual times lost.  But also the cost of the stations.  In many “rapid transit“ systems the stations cost more than the tracks between the stations.  Enormous expense to provide places for waiting.

Bus stops and train stations are also dispersion points.  Even though you got yourself to the agglomeration point, waited, then experienced a prolonged series of accelerations and decelerations, you are still not where you are going.  If you are not within walking distance, next, you have more waiting.

Obsolescence – Minimize equipment ownership.  Buses and trains get old and out of date.  Large costs are required to keep them modern.  Frequently these costs are too great and the systems gradually decline.

Waste – Minimize staff. Transit stations require maintenance and janitorial workers and sometimes even special police. Bus and train systems require operators, maintenance yards and mechanics, office buildings, and office staff.   Everyone’s health and pension benefits run into perpetuity.