Saturday's New York Times carried a negative op-ed piece regarding the English Channel Tunnel. This is surprising insomuch as the Times has taken positions that can be described as "pro mass transit".
The most interesting opinion offered by the columnist is that he believes the Tunnel's economic failure can be attributed in part to that is was not designed for vehicular traffic.
However, anyone having crossed the Channel must wonder at the thought of several "exhaust towers" interfeering with navigation that often resembles your favorite freeway at rush hour. Wouldn't that be "sport" if a vessel laden with petroleum or other environmentally unfriendly substances were to collide with one of these towere?
Anycase, here is a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10WOLM.html
The most interesting opinion offered by the columnist is that he believes the Tunnel's economic failure can be attributed in part to that is was not designed for vehicular traffic.
However, anyone having crossed the Channel must wonder at the thought of several "exhaust towers" interfeering with navigation that often resembles your favorite freeway at rush hour. Wouldn't that be "sport" if a vessel laden with petroleum or other environmentally unfriendly substances were to collide with one of these towere?
Anycase, here is a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10WOLM.html