And while prices might look good for the USA (I'm not sure), they are gigantic when compared to similar projects in Europe. And a mass-transport car tunnel has exactly 0 advantages over a rail tunnel.
It is obvious that having a huge goods fire from a commercial truck that shuts down people's vehicles is dangerous; that directly leads to death and directly prevents rescue. It is obvious that having isolated, separately functioning vehicles that can drive away, and a fire from a specific, planned-for factor of an understood quantity has a comparatively low potential for causing death.
I liked the article and thought it was a fun peek deeper into the regulatory and safety manual side of things.
You attacking it for being really weird and then about how _obviously_ it is or isn't certain ways compared to historic fires in other tunnels feels forced and out of place to me.
I agree the article was fun and had charm. My criticisms were more narrow than that.
This is designed to allow owners to drive through a wildfire, for example, and in testing has performed quite well.
I would love to see a video of testing the scenario discussed here. Enclosed tunnel with poor ventilation and fire safety equipment, the car in front of you catches fire, can you just sit there perfectly fine?