California to taxpayers: forget about that $260 million per mile train. Now we want to build a $2 billion tunnel for cars.

Photo above - the IMDB movie database has at least a dozen films with the word "tunnel" in the title. None have a happy ending . . .

First of all, I’m a big fan of tunnels. There are 2 of them under Baltimore Harbor, where I used to live. The scary one – the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel – was built in 1956 (75 years ago). I try to avoid this one because water is visibly leaking from the walls and ceiling. I recommend the Fort McHenry Tunnel. It's only 40 years old with no burned-out lights, and no apparent leaks. Try to use this one. And for fun, try and hold your breath from the moment you enter until you see daylight again. Bet you can’t do it.

So California’s plan to replace a crumbling coastal highway with a $2 billion tunnel has me concerned. First of all, coastal erosion is the reason they can’t even afford to keep fixing the existing highway. And the tunnel would be smack in the middle of an earthquake zone. I believe there was a magnitude 8.8 earthquake somewhere in the pacific yesterday. But it’s not yet known if the resulting tsunami will reach California and cause more coastal erosion. Or what would have happened to the proposed tunnel route. Let’s just agree that most of California is a dangerous earthquake zone, and leave it at that. Too dangerous for nuclear power plants, but not for tunnels? (see link below)

There’s also the lesson from California's unbuilt and soon to be abandoned $130 billion high speed train. Without DC funding, local taxpayers don’t seem as enthusiastic. But they were happy to sign up when the state promised it would only cost $30 billion. The bullet train has quadrupled in cost, and everybody but Governor Newsom and union worker-voters now realizes it’s a bad idea.

If the tunnel expense quadruples, it would end up costing $8 billion. It's scheduled for completion in 2039, by which time melting icebergs should put most coastal states underwater, according to certain talking heads. Is 2039 too optimistic for a 6,000 foot long tunnel? The $130 billion train line is 25 years overdue. If it takes 25 years for the tunnel, that would be the year 2050. Does anyone seriously think this would be finished for less than $8 billion and before 2050? If so, why would you believe that?

California voters might believe it. They’ve taken the bait on this kind thing before. Someone should remind them why they’re not allowed to have nuclear power plants, before the tunnel referendum is held.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

California pitches $2 billion tunnel to fix crumbling highway

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Avectoijesuismoi · 36-40

It did take 25 years to build the Trans Siberian railway but that is 5771 miles long between 1891-1916 and they had some difficult terrain and challenges to overcome.

My suggestion for the railway is to get the Germans to design it then be incharge of keeping it on schedule and get Chinese companies to do the building of it. They seem quite reliable at getting things done on time, there must be oodles of cheap labour available on work permit from Mexico.
But the tunnel might not be a terribly good idea in areas that are Earthquake prone.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@Avectoijesuismoi railways are vulnerable to terrorism, earthquakes, and wildfires. which of those isn't a concern in california?

Avectoijesuismoi · 36-40

@SusanInFlorida
As for California yes there are those risks, but Railways elsewhere equally have some of the same risks and equally have other different risks that aren't present, one I can think of runs along the coast on a sea wall in the UK several years ago now there was a bad storm and it demolished a large section of it, fortunately they had stopped the trains before the storm hit.
As for California pretty much everything is at risk in some way, but is it unique to California NO
Iceland has Volcanoes that pose a risk, Parts of Greece are at risk to wildfires, and earthquakes, Spain, France Flooding and fires, Australia Fires etc etc etc
Is the Highway or the Inter State also not at risk in California.
It proves one thing
What ever you do in life, no matter where you live etc there is always going to be at least one if not more risk factors involved there is nothing that is 100 % safe all that you can do is try to minimize the risk factor, but sometimes the risks are beyond your control.
Be it Railways, flying, driving, Living in Los Angles, New York, Tampa, Paris, Moscow, London etc etc there is always going to be a risk in some form or other that things go wrong, you end up injured or dead.
If you go through life pondering what could go wrong you will send yourself to the loony bin.
Yes I take precautions as best I can and don't go out of my way to go into areas that I know are dangerous that is if you take out of the equation that I go diving in the ocean and am often in the water with various creatures such as sharks to name one, but I know what to do to keep safe and to minimize the risk and if something goes wrong and I die as a result of being in the ocean it is 100 % my own fault
I am very much of positive mindset and I live for every moment in that moment, because we have zero control as to when exactly our last moment will be regardless of our age, how well we look after ourselves etc.
There is a moment we are destined to die, but I am not going to sit about and wonder when mine is coming I get out and live.