 |
Re: Whatever.... Meanwhile... Counting beans? Or just counting the results... Where's Bullwinkle?
Author: BOB2
Date: 10-17-2022 - 14:38
rocky's head Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Yes, it reads very much like some of the other
> stories from more traditional (for US readers)
> media.
Whatever...
> 2) Yes, the Del Mar money is just for preliminary
> studies. 3-4B has long been quoted (has inflation
> hit yet?) for the actual tunnel.
The current money is for pre design work, the preferred alternative and needs studies are already funded and mostly completed. Yep, in the real wold this is about 20 miles of lane each way on the already built out I-5. And, inflation affects everytning, so we should all go hide in the caves....
> 3) San Clemente would be a longer tunnel and a
> more substantial relocation. Much of the
> preliminary work has been done, but not the
> serious environmental and design studies. Even so,
> around $10B would not be out of line, and possibly
> low.
Whatever... How many rail projects or tunnels have you done cost estimates for? What is the distance?
> 4) As for keeping it on the coast, with concrete,
> you're possibly thinking about something like the
> Dawlish portion of the Great Western line in
> England? I really don't see that getting past the
> Coastal Commission, and it really does have to get
> past the Commission (which can even, potentially,
> overrule STB and FRA in some matters). Then, do
> you really want the railroad to have to build a
> wall that prevents the ongoing landslide from
> taking out the houses above, it it even can?
The sea level rise so far has only been about 2 inches, so I had problems with the article myself. But, when we do have six inches the Dawlish line be in trouble again, too. This line and these bluff's will be coming down. The proposal in the article to rebuild the sand would help, on marginally in that event, and the RR would be toast, as it is from the potential customer standpoint right now.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Yes, it reads very much like some of the other
> stories from more traditional (for US readers)
> media.
Whatever...
> 2) Yes, the Del Mar money is just for preliminary
> studies. 3-4B has long been quoted (has inflation
> hit yet?) for the actual tunnel.
The current money is for pre design work, the preferred alternative and needs studies are already funded and mostly completed. Yep, in the real wold this is about 20 miles of lane each way on the already built out I-5. And, inflation affects everytning, so we should all go hide in the caves....
> 3) San Clemente would be a longer tunnel and a
> more substantial relocation. Much of the
> preliminary work has been done, but not the
> serious environmental and design studies. Even so,
> around $10B would not be out of line, and possibly
> low.
Whatever... How many rail projects or tunnels have you done cost estimates for? What is the distance?
> 4) As for keeping it on the coast, with concrete,
> you're possibly thinking about something like the
> Dawlish portion of the Great Western line in
> England? I really don't see that getting past the
> Coastal Commission, and it really does have to get
> past the Commission (which can even, potentially,
> overrule STB and FRA in some matters). Then, do
> you really want the railroad to have to build a
> wall that prevents the ongoing landslide from
> taking out the houses above, it it even can?
The sea level rise so far has only been about 2 inches, so I had problems with the article myself. But, when we do have six inches the Dawlish line be in trouble again, too. This line and these bluff's will be coming down. The proposal in the article to rebuild the sand would help, on marginally in that event, and the RR would be toast, as it is from the potential customer standpoint right now.
