 |
Re: The obvious, affordable solution, instead of a multi-billion $ tunnel? And, it's "obvious" that you've done a cost benefit analysis, right?
Author: BOB2
Date: 12-17-2019 - 08:27
So when did you do the cost estimates and cost benefit analysis of replacing the single track, 30 mph. line along the bluffs, with a 110 mph. double track line in a tunnel?
And, at what University did you get your degree in economics, that taught you that "cost benefit" should be based on what you "obviously" feel it must be?
And, at what University did you get your engineering degree, that shows that the current effort to stabilize the bluffs will be a permanent safe and reliable solution?
Given your purported expertise, how much does it cost to operate a LOSSAN or ML train per minute?
How much value of passenger travel time is saved per minute?
How many minutes would be saved by a high speed two track tunnel replacement, versus continuing to operate over the single track low speed bluffs segment?
How much "obviously" "cheaper" is rebuilding and operating over the bluff's in the, than the cost of operating tunnel over the life of the tunnel project, versus the cost of rebuilding the whole bluffs segment, over the life expectancy of that investment, based on your "obvious" expertise in this field?
How many actual minutes exactly adds up to a "few minutes"? It's a numerical value I'm unfamiliar with in doing "cost benefit" analysis.
Based on your experience doing cost benefit, is the "cost benefit" of the LAUPT run through, saving only a "few minutes" a luxury or are "they" "a liar"...? Or, is that also a "luxury" based on your "obvious" experience with "cost benefit" analysis?
You make assertion about "they" being " a liar". So who are "they" who are "a liar"?
Glad to hear you think it should be built... as a luxury?
But, I was just wondering where you got your supposed expertise, what analysis you've done what analysis you've reviewed, and what analysis you can show, when you are claiming some mysterious "they" are "liars"?
What else is so "obvious" to you, that you can make such "obvious' accurate estimates without actually collecting data, or doing the math problems, and finding the solution?
It sounds like you're maybe one of these products of "common core" math education. That's what we're teaching kids these days how to "estimate", or "guess" better, at the most "obvious" answer on the multiple choice math tests. As this is somehow seen as a way to raise standardized test scores, as opposed to teaching folks how to actually "solve" math problems.
Maybe, we should call that "old timey" actually solve the problem (like to calculate the tonnage per operative brake) real math "Boomer math" to distinguish it from "modern" estimate or "guess" the answer "common core" math?
Of course, it's always possible that this "obvious solution", is postulated by an "obvious" dufus (using a clever handle), pulled straight out of the most "obvious" orifice?
"So they continue with the obvious solution of building a section of concrete wall to stabilize it. Which can be done for the entire at risk section. Not the prettiest fix. But technically feasible and much cheaper than a bypass tunnel. The tunnel would save a few minutes but isn't necessary. Just a nice improvement. But cost/benefit.
So when someone posts that the tunnel is the only long-term solution, they are a liar with an agenda. A tunnel is a nice luxury option. I hope it gets built one day."
And, at what University did you get your degree in economics, that taught you that "cost benefit" should be based on what you "obviously" feel it must be?
And, at what University did you get your engineering degree, that shows that the current effort to stabilize the bluffs will be a permanent safe and reliable solution?
Given your purported expertise, how much does it cost to operate a LOSSAN or ML train per minute?
How much value of passenger travel time is saved per minute?
How many minutes would be saved by a high speed two track tunnel replacement, versus continuing to operate over the single track low speed bluffs segment?
How much "obviously" "cheaper" is rebuilding and operating over the bluff's in the, than the cost of operating tunnel over the life of the tunnel project, versus the cost of rebuilding the whole bluffs segment, over the life expectancy of that investment, based on your "obvious" expertise in this field?
How many actual minutes exactly adds up to a "few minutes"? It's a numerical value I'm unfamiliar with in doing "cost benefit" analysis.
Based on your experience doing cost benefit, is the "cost benefit" of the LAUPT run through, saving only a "few minutes" a luxury or are "they" "a liar"...? Or, is that also a "luxury" based on your "obvious" experience with "cost benefit" analysis?
You make assertion about "they" being " a liar". So who are "they" who are "a liar"?
Glad to hear you think it should be built... as a luxury?
But, I was just wondering where you got your supposed expertise, what analysis you've done what analysis you've reviewed, and what analysis you can show, when you are claiming some mysterious "they" are "liars"?
What else is so "obvious" to you, that you can make such "obvious' accurate estimates without actually collecting data, or doing the math problems, and finding the solution?
It sounds like you're maybe one of these products of "common core" math education. That's what we're teaching kids these days how to "estimate", or "guess" better, at the most "obvious" answer on the multiple choice math tests. As this is somehow seen as a way to raise standardized test scores, as opposed to teaching folks how to actually "solve" math problems.
Maybe, we should call that "old timey" actually solve the problem (like to calculate the tonnage per operative brake) real math "Boomer math" to distinguish it from "modern" estimate or "guess" the answer "common core" math?
Of course, it's always possible that this "obvious solution", is postulated by an "obvious" dufus (using a clever handle), pulled straight out of the most "obvious" orifice?
"So they continue with the obvious solution of building a section of concrete wall to stabilize it. Which can be done for the entire at risk section. Not the prettiest fix. But technically feasible and much cheaper than a bypass tunnel. The tunnel would save a few minutes but isn't necessary. Just a nice improvement. But cost/benefit.
So when someone posts that the tunnel is the only long-term solution, they are a liar with an agenda. A tunnel is a nice luxury option. I hope it gets built one day."
