Yes, as long as it gets the necessary permits and green-light from my elected officials.

The canceled tunnel was planned to go in about a block from where I currently live and I was excited for it. It wasn't even going to be under Brentwood (the northern terminus was about 2.5 mi away from the nearest edge). The hypothetical question for the plaintiffs might better be: would you be ok with a tunnel being built between 2-4 mi away from your house after successfully consulting with your elected representatives?

>>Yes, as long as it gets the necessary permits and green-light from my elected officials.

This. all im saying.

yes? i don't own the prismatic wedge of land that extends all the way to the core of the Earth afaik

This the Ad Coelum Doctrine in legalese. I don't think it makes sense either.

Why wouldn't you?

You don't own the airspace over your house (over some minimum altitude), why would you own the land under your house (below some minimum depth). I would have absolutely no problem with a tunnel running 20m--or whatever the safe, silent amount is--underneath my house.

So you wouldn't have been okay with the Elontunnel, which runs closer than 20m below the surface--about 28 feet in the case of the Hawthorne tunnel. Though for point of comparison, some portions of the Metro system run at this depth or shallower.

Depends on the tunnel. A subway tunnel 12ft under the ground? Absolutely not. A deeper tunnel that I can't hear or feel? ...yeah?

If the NVH of a train passing through is equal to or less than that of heavy trucks using the main road that's a few hundred feet away I wouldn't care one bit.

Are you ok with airplanes flying over your house?