Talk:Underwater tunnel

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

I have greatly improved this page (IMO) from the few lines it was. (Frediculous biggs 15:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comparisons

Each comparison also applies to other than undersea tunnels, so why not just let the general tunnel article, which is also better organised, do it all? Jim.henderson (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Types of tunnels

Immersed tube and Submerged floating tunnel), different kinds of underwater tunnels, should be mentioned here. 184.166.6.102 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table of data

I suggest we make the list into a sortable table, showing parameters such as length, depth, underwater length, price, road/rail/both, flag and such. See List of offshore wind farms for an example. TGCP (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what irks me on a regular basis is the completely broken numeric ordering. Not only in this article. Ordering by length and 9km is longer than 111km. how can this be fixed? ZwergAlw (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Downward slope has less carbon footprint?

This seems like a nonsensical argument- how is a downward slope producing less carbon than an upward slope for a bridge? What matters is the relative change in vehicle height- not whether they go down then up vs. up then down. This should be removed I think- it's not an actual benefit. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbowen303 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]