 |
Re: "A true long-term solution" does not require expensive inland relocation tunnels
Author: John
Date: 02-19-2024 - 13:08
Steve Edward Nicks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's what emergency funds pay for: just getting
> it open again. A true long-term solution for that
> line, as at Del Mar, requires that a new railroad
> be build inland someplace, like along I-5. That
> would cost billion$ not million$. Intermediate,
> they could build actual retaining walls and make
> it kind of like Dawlish, but the Coastal
> Commission, the State Park (much of the San
> Clemente beach is a state park), and lots of
> private landowners would have an interest in that
> bit of "uglification" so I wouldn't expect much of
> that to be done.
>
> A true long term solution for the beach run is to
> stabilize the bluffs and strengthen the sea
> berm/wall. For Del Mar to stabilize the base. No
> 10 times more expensive inland tunnels are
> required.
>
> Walls, terracing, shotcrete, and appropriate
> drainage work. As do various methods of sea walls
> and rip rap. They are applicable here. You are
> correct that the snobs and purists must be
> overcome. But affordable engineering is
> available.
>
> San Diego sea level rise in the last 100 years has
> been 6 inches. Alarmist 'scientists' predict a 3
> to 6 foot rise in the next 100 years. Which is
> bunk. Their earlier predictions have been far
> higher than the actual results ended up being,
> whether temps or sea level. It's almost as if they
> continue to get grant money if their studies
> predict what the Dem narrative wants.
>
> If they will put the stop gap emergency walls up
> for 2 miles of the San Clemente section it will
> solve things enough to keep running 99% of the
> time. Only a few areas where a landslide might
> overwhelm it. Then slap a 30 mph head end only
> visual restriction and call it a day.
I agree with this assessment. Even if a section was elevated on a causeway and allowed the slides or ocean waves to pass under it would be quicker and less expensive than tunneling.
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's what emergency funds pay for: just getting
> it open again. A true long-term solution for that
> line, as at Del Mar, requires that a new railroad
> be build inland someplace, like along I-5. That
> would cost billion$ not million$. Intermediate,
> they could build actual retaining walls and make
> it kind of like Dawlish, but the Coastal
> Commission, the State Park (much of the San
> Clemente beach is a state park), and lots of
> private landowners would have an interest in that
> bit of "uglification" so I wouldn't expect much of
> that to be done.
>
> A true long term solution for the beach run is to
> stabilize the bluffs and strengthen the sea
> berm/wall. For Del Mar to stabilize the base. No
> 10 times more expensive inland tunnels are
> required.
>
> Walls, terracing, shotcrete, and appropriate
> drainage work. As do various methods of sea walls
> and rip rap. They are applicable here. You are
> correct that the snobs and purists must be
> overcome. But affordable engineering is
> available.
>
> San Diego sea level rise in the last 100 years has
> been 6 inches. Alarmist 'scientists' predict a 3
> to 6 foot rise in the next 100 years. Which is
> bunk. Their earlier predictions have been far
> higher than the actual results ended up being,
> whether temps or sea level. It's almost as if they
> continue to get grant money if their studies
> predict what the Dem narrative wants.
>
> If they will put the stop gap emergency walls up
> for 2 miles of the San Clemente section it will
> solve things enough to keep running 99% of the
> time. Only a few areas where a landslide might
> overwhelm it. Then slap a 30 mph head end only
> visual restriction and call it a day.
I agree with this assessment. Even if a section was elevated on a causeway and allowed the slides or ocean waves to pass under it would be quicker and less expensive than tunneling.
