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