Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
American Reacts Why Europe is Building a 57KM Tunnel Through a Mountain
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 авг 2024
- Original Video: • Why Europe is Building...
Discord: / discord
Watch stuff and learn and chill hi whatsup ⚔️👋🧐
Hi everyone! I'm an American from the Northeast (New England). I want to create a watering hole for people who want to discuss, learn and teach about history through RUclips videos which you guys recommend to me through the comment section or over on Discord. Let's be respectful but, just as importantly, not be afraid to question any and everything about historical records in order to give us the most accurate representation of the history of our species and of our planet!
Having a diverse perspective is crucial to what I want to achieve here so please don't hold back! I want to learn about all I can! Keep recommending and PLEAESE join my Discord :) ( / discord )
Patreon: / mcjibbin
#europe
#b1m
#engineering
#tunnel
#train
#construction
#american
#mcjibbin
#americanreacts
#reaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Hello from Switzerland, the reason for a base tunnel (instead of the older conventional tunnels) is that you don't have to overcome the height, i.e. drive more or less horizontally through the tunnel, which saves energy and time (distance you need to overcome the height because you can't overcome steep climbs by train, except with cog railways).
I suppose the opposition to this project is primarily simply that it is seen as a waste of money instead of being used for more meaningful projects that benefit the local population. Problems like this occur more often in indirect democracies with large-scale projects. It is understandable if the regionally affected population is not allowed to say anything about the project.
In Switzerland, a referendum was launched for the Gotthard Base Tunnel about this project and its costs, which was accepted, and public resistance was correspondingly low (by the way, the project was budgeted at 12.2 billion = approx. 13.34 billion US $ and completed within 17 years on schedule).
In Switzerland, a referendum was launched for the Gotthard Base Tunnel about this project and its costs, which was accepted, and public resistance was correspondingly low (by the way, the project was budgeted at 12.2 billion = approx. 13.34 billion US $ and completed within 17 years on schedule). I'm curious to see if these countries can do the same. The question of how punctually the trains will then run should also be interesting, especially since trains from Italy almost always have a predictable delay here. 😛
The environmental objections are against the whole length of the line, not just the tunnel part. Only 35 miles is in a tunnel, there will be 140 miles of track to be built on the surface.
1:33 They are not protesting the tunnel itself, but the highspeed railway leading up to the tunnel through their narrow and once picturesque valley.
One side protest the track, the other side protest the budget. Its how it is everytime..
It's not to say the protesters are not right. The high speed railways have been a horrible waste of money. Well at least the very fastest one the higher speed railway have a much better economy.
@@matsv201 trains are real, money is not, I won't elaborate
@@matsv201 High speed rails are not a waste of money, it's people who can't accept their purpose that are a waste of money. They can go to US, that's where they belong.
Because we like trains better than cars..
A strange concept to Americans
@@kevintwine2315 especially when its .....different and scary!!!!!!! and probably a bit communist!!!!!
Accurate.
@@kevintwine2315 Because America is so sprawled out. You really need a car.
@@matthewjamisonAmerica isn’t bigger than Europe interms of land area , so you excuse isn’t justified.
The reason for base tunnels are that they allow for a shorter, less steep, and less curvy route. The result is energy savings due to not having to haul trains up a mountain but also due to the shorter route (and a more constant speed as sharp curves can require slow downs). There are time and money savings due to not having to add locomotives for steeper incline sections (all else equal this can also allow for heavier and longer trains that were impossible on the culmination tunnel route). The faster speed in principle also results in a higher capacity (up to a point and depending on much mixed traffic the line carries). And last but not least there are significant time savings due to higher speeds and a shorter route.
Both time and cost savings are meant to lead switching from road or air to the train (with the benefits that this brings). That goal might also need additional capacity, and additional capacity might also need for freight to switch from road to rail.
The B1M Video about the Fehmarn belt tunnel is also very interesting. It's an underwater tunnel
Great reaction! If you really enjoy engineering and tunnels you should check out the Gotthard train and traffic tunnel in Switzerland😉 greetings!
As a engineer you dont really chose where the tunnel will go. You have a track geometry. In this case they had to run heavy freight on it. So they are limited to 1.5% incline. At the same time they had to let train go 200km/h (that by the way is NOT high speed.) Forcing it to be failry straight.
This effectivly ties the hands of the engineers. So the go upwards as far as they can, but eventually they hit the moutain and have ro go throw it.
While its called a "base tunnel" its not quite literaly at the true base pf the mountain, but a bit up on the side on the foothils.
People protesting against large engineering projects are essential. I don't agree that the projects should be stopped, but they do make the engineers take the environment into consideration. Both sides will compromise and it'll cost more, but it'll be better in the long term.
This I agree with. Nothing wrong with pointing out issues in a loud enough voice that these issues will be considered and addressed during the project.
You’ve got to understand that in Europe if we don’t like something a government is proposing we just have the right to demonstrate/make a big noise. We don’t demonstrate about just ANYTHING - just things that some sections of the population have a problem with. Its a concept called freedom!!!!
Yes, electricity is considered a "fuel". It fuels processes and is a constants process cost. Fuel is a functional word, not one of aggregate.
In January 2024, digging on the Italian side began. Two of the ventilation shafts on the French side are finished...and the main tunnel continues to advance.
We are awaiting financing on the French side for the 4 other tunnels and the 250km/h LGV track from Lyon to the Ambin tunnel (the 57km base tunnel)
The reason for protests? Some people aren't happy unless they're angry about something. Anything!
You are absolute correct, same problem here in the basque country with the basque "Y", that's the name of the rail knot, some wanted cleaner transport, started doing the Y and the protests started bcos that was bad for the envyroment, such an idiots
Great reaction again 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 greetings from Austria 🇦🇹
It's not just the tunnel, they're protesting about the whole line. When will people realise that high speed projects use a tiny amount of carbon compared to the amount them save by getting lorries and cars off the road. The construction of the entirety of HS2 will produce the same emissions as 1 month of road transport in Britain.
Why comparing it with the transport in all Britain (which is totally meaningless) and not with the actual drop in car traffic caused by this line ? May be becaus it wouldn't be 1 month anymore but some decades ?
Anyway, to clarify, I am not necessarily against (HS) rail projects but saying the amount of carbon emitted during the construction is negligible is quite dishonest.
@@noefillon1749 It is equal to one month of current traffic. Once it is built and the traffic has gone down, there will be much less carbon emitted.
@@10thdoctor15 You didn't understand my point. The emissions of the construction of a specific line and the emissions of a whole country are not comparable. What makes sense to compare is what is lost (the emissions during the construction) and what is gained (the trucks and cars removed from the road so not the total emissions but the difference in emissions with and without the line). You said the emissions of transports would be reduced, sure, but how much ?? That is precisely what is worth questioning.
@@noefillon1749 I see your point, and do agree, remembering that a lot of freight will transfer from road to rail as well.
The reason a month is quoted is just to give an idea of how little emissions will be generated by the construction (or how much road transport contributes).
@@10thdoctor15 And my point is that a month worth of carbon emission for all Britain is not little at all. Or at least it is really relative what it's compared to. Anyway, I think everything is clear for both of us.
Greetings from France.
Hannibal would have loved an easy route like that, yes lol
I'd say the higher inital cost and lower upkeep is better. This thing is meant to service us for decades after all. It's better to think ahead. We may get even more fuel efficient trains in the future but that doesn't excuse us trying to skimp on initial costs. Laying it all underground as opposed to laying 1/3 underground should also minimises the weather wear and tear a mountainous region can place on the tracks.
It’s not just fuel cost but also speed the train can achieve
It isn't just about cost, there is simple physics to consider. There are diminishing achievable possibilities of taking trains up and down gradients the faster you want to go, they don't have tires as one example.
No Connor...electricity is not a fuel.
Electricity is known as an alternative fuel.
So how do electric cars work. 🤔
@@BrianMac2601 on electricity
@@markwolstenholme3354 It is known as alternative energy...not fuel. It is a technical distinction, but that is part of science.
@@BrianMac2601 It depends on where the electricity in their batteries come from...that is the "fuel" that is powering them.
I haven't watched the whole video yet, so maybe they'll discuss this later on, but I don't find anything unusual about people protesting the world's longest railroad tunnel. A tunnel may generate tons of loud rail traffic where there's so far been none or very little. The infrastructure outside the tunnel entrances may be problematic in many ways. The cost to taxpayers may be considered too high. There may be fears of corruption regarding the project. Building the tunnel might come with a neverending line of construction related traffic (dump trucks and other heavy vehicles) on what may be very delicate road infrastructure, and it will continue for years. And so on.
Trains are really not very good on gradients/inclines ,the reasons are complex,it's easier and cheaper to build track to follow the contours of the land to avoid hills , rail lines often follow river valleys for this reason, unfortunately following river courses leads to lines often being flooded after heavy rain .
3 billion tons a year = the mass of Rhode Island per year
Such construction projects explode usualy on costs. Even if they not the BER airport, ore Stutgart 21.
one objecton is the amount of traffic generated at the entrances is what were local roads which are going to receive many times the volume of traffic in what were quiet local picturesque roads
that´s just bs. The roads over there are already overloaded with road traffic, plus this tunnel is part of a bigger line that will, like it says in the video, take a LOT of traffic away from the local roads.the places where the traffic will concentrate are not on the line but at the end and beginning of it. so not in the valley but near Turin and Lyon.
There are some cool documentaries on the bilding of the Öresund bridge/tunnel between Sweden and Denmark.
They probably protest because of the train tracks before and after the tunnel.
You should check our HS2 project here in England due to finish about the same time. Regards JH
I would think the smoke rise but they might use fans to improve the air cleaning, it a reason why I question why they put car exhaust so low as hear that goes up after leaves car into atmosphere so why not put exhaust higher to put fumes over head of people and cyclists
6:20 The "blue" Tunnel is over 100 years old. They buildibg the yellow Tunnel. Its a part of a railway cortidor from east to west in the EU and switzerland. The EU is building a large railway System dringend the EU for cargo transport.
01:29 Honestly I have tried to understand the reasons of the protesters, but in the end, they looked like just a bunch of "no to everything new/ not to any change" bunch of people, misinformed at best. All their claims have been disproved by scientific studies on site. We have a bunch of these people in Italy and I´m sick of them, they just hinder change because they are scared instead of trying to inform themselves.
As a student in transport engineering in Lyon, France I have had a lecture from one of the opponents to the project and it was very interesting.
Their main point is that the predictions saying that it will remove a lot of trucks from the roads are REALLY flawed and it's really difficult to predict how many trains will really circulate in the tunnel in decades.
The main argument for building the line is that it facilitates the operation of trains. Instead of requiring 2 or 3 locomotives they only require 1 because of the less steep grades. This would make the use of the train cheaper, then incentivize it.
But the thing is that all over France, which is an overall pretty flat country except for some regions, the train is way cheaper than the road. But its modal share is about 9%. The French economic model of freight rail chronically ill and simply doesn't work. More particularly (but there is a lot more to it including EU policy that reduces greatly the capability of the French government to intervene in it), the entry and exit from the rail is where it is not cost effective at all. Trains are not expensive, they are way cheaper than trucks. What is expensive is changing mode. Rail doesn't go to every factory and every store, so the goods need to go from a truck to a train, usually to another train, then back to a truck. These changes of mode are really poorly and inefficiently managed by the SNCF (national rail company). As an anecdote, when they send a package to a destination, they don't even have a standardized system to follow it along its path. So they put the package in the system it goes in trains, changes trains, then arrive at destination but during all the time in between they absolutely don't know where the package is and when it's going to arrive. The time it takes is not consistent/reliable etc... so the companies prefer trucks over trains.
These issues are absolutely not going to be solved by this railway. The main fear of the opponents, or at least the one I met, is this of a completely useless underused extremely expensive project.
Moreover it generates a lot of local environmental impacts and CO2 emissions. Even though the tunnels are underground, they generate a ton of waiste : all the rock that is excavated. What do we do with it ? The construction generates carbon emissions that will only be compensated in decades IF AND ONLY IF the expectations of modal shifs are actually met when the tunnel opens, which isn't sure.
I want to clarify that I am not necessarily against this line. But I am really doubtful. I was originally very enthusiast about it, but this lecture made me really reconsider certain things.
But in some way I kind of agree that some protesters in a lot of similar projects are indeed no-to-everything people
It's a tradition to give TBM's girl's names.
I'm guessing the protests are more about the new lines that will have to be built either side of the tunnel to link it up.
yeah it why I hate how roads done these days, in roman days they would dig through for a straight road, these days they zigzag it around the terrain, be nice to go through as bet it shorten travel time by a lot
3 millions tons = 1 millions Ford Ranger
Somehow Electricity = Fuel
In France between 60 and 70% of electricity are from Nuclear Plant, 15% from hydro, and less than 15% from petrol/gas/coal, but in the world, more than 60% of electricity is produce by thermal plant (petrol/gas/coal/fuel/etc), so Electricity = Fuel
3 millions tons of CO2 emission = emission of 700 000 french citizens in a year.
No offense to the asshole environmentalists (pleonasm, I know), this project will see the light of day, it will make it possible to reduce very polluting air connections, the crossing of the Alps by millions of trucks per year even more polluting than the plane.
you can t go as fast, if you go up, if you go down you get go 350 km/h
More videos about Europeans/European Union/euro/European civilisation! Thanks 🙏
Can you do a reaction on the
WW1
ATTACK OF THE DEAD MEN
change of water flow
As a student in transport engineering in Lyon, France I have had a lecture from one of the opponents to the project and it was very interesting.
Their main point is that the predictions saying that it will remove a lot of trucks from the roads are REALLY flawed and it's really difficult to predict how many trains will really circulate in the tunnel in decades.
The main argument for building the line is that it facilitates the operation of trains. Instead of requiring 2 or 3 locomotives they only require 1 because of the less steep grades. This would make the use of the train cheaper, then incentivize it.
But the thing is that all over France, which is an overall pretty flat country except for some regions, the train is way cheaper than the road. But its modal share is about 9%. The French economic model of freight rail chronically ill and simply doesn't work. More particularly (but there is a lot more to it including EU policy that reduces greatly the capability of the French government to intervene in it), the entry and exit from the rail is where it is not cost effective at all. Trains are not expensive, they are way cheaper than trucks. What is expensive is changing mode. Rail doesn't go to every factory and every store, so the goods need to go from a truck to a train, usually to another train, then back to a truck. These changes of mode are really poorly and inefficiently managed by the SNCF (national rail company). As an anecdote, when they send a package to a destination, they don't even have a standardized system to follow it along its path. So they put the package in the system it goes in trains, changes trains, then arrive at destination but during all the time in between they absolutely don't know where the package is and when it's going to arrive. The time it takes is not consistent/reliable etc... so the companies prefer trucks over trains.
These issues are absolutely not going to be solved by this railway. The main fear of the opponents, or at least the one I met, is this of a completely useless underused extremely expensive project.
Moreover it generates a lot of local environmental impacts and CO2 emissions. Even though the tunnels are underground, they generate a ton of waiste : all the rock that is excavated. What do we do with it ? The construction generates carbon emissions that will only be compensated in decades IF AND ONLY IF the expectations of modal shifs are actually met when the tunnel opens, which isn't sure.
I want to clarify that I am not necessarily against this line. But I am really doubtful. I was originally very enthusiast about it, but this lecture made me really reconsider certain things.
There's a constant issue about freight rail in France.
And the EU has no fault in the matter.
The French infrastructure for freight rail is more than sub-par, it's quasi non-existent but this line can be an excellent incentive to revive, develop and improve it.
Plus, the authorities can simply ban (or strictly limit) freight trucks from driving through the region, only allowing origin / destination traffic. Which would effectively force the modal shift.
And that's basically what they want to do once it'll open.
The current line has many other issues, it's not omly a matter of how many locomotives a train needs. The current tunnel is not wide nor high enough for many shipments, the gradients and turn radii are problematic, the throughput capacity is abysmal, access is complicated and the tracks, signals and tunnel are in disrepair.
Freight rail won't ever increase on the current line, it has way too many limitations.
Only the new line could accomplish the needed modal shift.
Also, the Lyon Torino project includes a high-speed line on the French side that will free up many many slots on the regular lines in the region that are needed for regional and freight rail.
Sustainable progress can't be only made of regress in ease, speed, comfort and capacity.
At some point there must be improvements and incentives, or at least offering a better solution before forcing its use.
This line will be like the Channel Tunnel of the Franco-Italian Alps. And the problem with current opponents is that they are now so extreme in their positions that they consider every benefit to either be a lie, a dream or unnecessary and any disadvantage to be vastly underestimated or hidden. Any fact, probability or plan becomes irrelevant, only their fear or imagined worst scenario matters to them.
As always, a balanced and calm argumentation has a hard time being heard when faced by loud, harsh and fear mongering opponents that refuse any compromise or discussion.
There are many reasons why freight rail barely exists in France and opposing improvements won't help increase it at all.
It has to start somewhere but every improvement project is systematically opposed, often with the poor modal share of French freight rail as a justification for opposing improvements to its infrastructure. A catch 22 situation !
It's like the most stringent ecologists nowadays : they are against aviation, especially shorthaul flights, for obvious environmental reasons.
OK, that's understandable. But then, they should be in favor of new high-speed lines, like the extension from Bordeaux to Toulouse and to the Spanish border on the West side of the Pyrenees range (GPSO project), or in favor of the high-speed line extension from Toulouse to Montpellier via Narbonne with a high-speed connection branch to Perpignan and the Spanish high-speed line from Barcelona that ends there ? New lines that would obliterate the number of flights to / from Toulouse, between the cities in Southern France and Barcelona, and greatly reduce highway traffic in this part of the country.
But no, they're against these new lines too !
When asked why, they usually answer many "facade reasons" to essentially say that everyone will have to travel slower and much less. They don't want solutions, they want the need / problem to not be there in the first place.
That would be OK if everyone agreed with that but most people want to travel, faster and / or comfier. It's certainly better to build new HSR lines and offer more carbon free travel opportunities than to let car and truck traffic increase and short haul aviation grow even more, emitting tons and tons of carbon and particles.
Plus, like the Lyon - Torino line, the new high-speed lines in the South of France will free up *tons* of previously occupied rail segments that can then be renovated, upgraded and used to greatly improve regional rail and massively increase freight rail.
Freight rail that surely lacks transfer points but also lacks available track segments as the legacy / regular network is saturated and impractical in many places.
The problem is, and I say this as a firmly ecologist leaning guy, that many ecologists are becoming increasingly overly strict and dogmatic. They've become "more royalist than the king himself"...
We have to balance the economy, the population's needs & wishes on one side and environmental / climate goals on the other.
I can understand their fear that facilitating freight transportation may favor an increase in consumption too, thus create an increase in pollution and emissions.
But, as all our societies and economies are based on consumption, we have to adapt fast but not too fast and too harshly.
Or this feeling of "nothing left to lose, so let's splurge limitless" currently budding in the minds of a portion of the population will eventually prevail and then the transition will be even more difficult or will outright fail.
They can't expect everyone to quickly and drastically alter their lives and dreams, or expect countries / governments to slash their economies and social models (that most ecologists rightfully defend at the same time).
The most stringent ones seem to be opposing both the problems and their solutions which is absolutely counterproductive.
They should focus on, among other things, opposing the 1 to 1 replacement of combustion engine vehicles by electric vehicles, for example.
As this is really a case of bad solution, especially for SUV's.
They are in a dogmatic opposition to literally everything, instead of approving the lesser evils and focusing on fighting the greater ones.
As for the nature on the path of the new line, common arguments of opponents are that it is going to be ruined.
But all recent projects had a massive emphasis (and budget) on preservation and protection, often improving the odds and situation for certain species of plants or animals.
One can argue that preservation schemes could be done without the infrastructure projects, that's true.
But in reality, no budget would ever have been allocated for local nature preservation without the infrastructure projects.
There was one major example a few years ago, it was sadly for a highway project, the one between Bordeaux and Lyon. A rare and endangered species of crustacean, the white-clawed crayfish, was slowly dying in a valley creek that the highway straddled over.
A substantial budget and manpower was allocated to protect the species, research and develop breeding farms for preservation and reintroduction of this rare white-clawed crayfish species. The endangered crustacean is now almost guaranteed to survive.
It's a win-win situation !
The fact that this project was needed for the preservation efforts of this endangered species to receive funding is regrettable, but that's today's reality.
So let's make the most out if it.
And let the possibly endangered or rare species of the Alps be studied and protected by preservation efforts funded by the Lyon Torino project !
The current situation with the thousands of trucks, the pollution in the valleys and the very limited rail line can't go on forever.
It must be addressed and no one can count on freight to simply and magically reduce without alternatives.
Switzerland tackled this issue with the Gothard Base Tunnel, the Lyon Torino line is the same thing, so we know it works and dramatically reduces the number of trucks spewing carbon, oxides and particles in valleys.
@@KyrilPG I read all of this really carefully. Thanks for the info !
A Truck hass a 1 tone faule tanke enutubg 1 tone oft co2 wehen bindend. Linde um on a 8 lange Highway tats. a Trafik Jam 37500 Trucks Long. And trat Evert year oft our Highways.
I would rather see the country side.
I'm sorry, your constant interruptions followed by "what?" and a silence make your channel unwatchable. Unsubscribed.
A possible feared environmental problem could be something like this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallands%C3%A5s_Tunnel#1990s:_Problems,_scandal,_and_stoppage