4 ms·
That's a single 35 mile tunnel, in a comparably geographically stable area. The high speed rail project would need essentially two of those, each of which would
by Sanddancer 10y ago
That's a single 35 mile tunnel, in a comparably geographically stable area. The high speed rail project would need essentially two of those, each of which would need to cross the San Andreas fault. Additionally, a substantial amount of the remaining amount of track would need to be newly laid, because the existing rail infrastructure in the area is already near capacity, and the freight companies are hostile to any sort of improvements to passenger infrastructure. Yes, some of the issue is political, but it is an immensely challenging engineering problem to work through.
- billions 10y agoRelative to past engineering challenges, this represents a drop in the bucket. There is sufficient precedent to be able to emulate existing solutions for all portions of the track. Compare that to engineering accomplishments of the 20th century that had to be designed from scratch: the Itaipu dam, Panama canal or the US highway system.
- trome 10y agoDamn, way to demean someone's work. Just cause a similarly impressive feat of engineering was recently completed doesn't mean building twice more in a much different environment, with multiple active fault lines and through varied soil/types of rock is going to be smooth sailing. After the Army Corps of Engineers built the Panama Canal in 1914, it was not all smooth sailing to build the Chittenden Locks in Seattle, between dropping the lake 10ft, reversing the course of/eliminating multiple rivers and streams and dealing with the fallout of that it was and still is quite an engineering marvel.