3 ms·

52.6B krone for 18 km 8B USD for 11 miles CACHSR IOS 36B USD for 171 miles. The Merced to Bakersfield IOS looks like a bargain on a distance basis. I have no

52.6B krone for 18 km 8B USD for 11 miles CACHSR IOS 36B USD for 171 miles. The Merced to Bakersfield IOS looks like a bargain on a distance basis. I have no idea of the carbon offset or passenger time saving versus flying of course

bradchris 5mo ago
Well, if we’re comparing CA infra costs, for a more 1-1 comparison you can look at the $9.7B Los Angeles is spending on building out a long-awaited subway line (phase 1 of 3 opened Friday!) and see how tunneling underwater looks like a bargain in comparison. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-05-07/los-angeles-metro-d-line-extension https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-05-07/los-ange...
Melkman 5mo ago
They are not really comparable are they. One is a rail connection over land and the other is a 130ft deep tunnel for rail and road traffic.
- readthenotes1 5mo ago
  Of course they are comparable. They are both mechanisms to get people from point A to point B
looperhacks 5mo ago
1USD = 6,35 DKK
lukan 5mo ago
The building of this tunnel will likely create way more CO2, than can be saved by providing a more direct route and avoiding ferries (german source ... and very critical of the project) https://www.nabu.de/umwelt-und-ressourcen/verkehr/verkehrsinfrastruktur/fehmarnbeltquerung/28486.html https://www.nabu.de/umwelt-und-ressourcen/verkehr/verkehrsin... Personally I like the concept of having a more direct access to scandinavia and see lots of other positive long term effects.
- gmueckl 5mo ago
  I really hate how German environmental activists resort to hyperbole and alarmist language by default when voicing concerns. This only makes it harder for me to take them seriously. And then there is this tried and true tradition of commissioning studies with the sole intent to support a predefined viewpoint rather than taking an unbiased approach. This makes it so hard to trust any information when political arguments become heated. To make the connection back to the tunnel: it consumes a huge amount of concrete and that releases the associated amount of CO2. Thisnpart is fairly easy to estimate. But estimating the impact on traffic emissions is fraught with issues. There are so many assumptions about lifetime, amount of traffic, types of vehicles that I can easily imagine the error bars to stack up to the point where a little tuning of model parameters gives just about any desired result.
  - lukan 5mo ago
    Agreed to that, but they are right with stating, that digging up so much ocean soil in a direct line might disrupt entire maritime ecosystems.
    - peterfirefly 5mo ago
      "Environmentalists" also made a big fuzz about the Øresund connection, claiming that the artificial island midway would disrupt the entire Baltic Sea ecosystem by drastically reducing the flow of water. Didn't happen. The (fairly small) compensatory digging had the effect the engineers had calculated and the water flow actually increased slightly and the Baltic Sea ecosystem is fine -- or at least not harmed by this particular project. I think we should trust the people who can (and do) make calculations over those who can't (and don't).
    - msandford 5mo ago
      The tunnel will very likely be less disruptive to marine animals than ferry boats. During the construction yes it will be worse but 10 years after? The ecosystem will have forgotten the disruption and will have gained additional peace from reduced/eliminated ferries.

bradchris 5mo ago

Well, if we’re comparing CA infra costs, for a more 1-1 comparison you can look at the $9.7B Los Angeles is spending on building out a long-awaited subway line (phase 1 of 3 opened Friday!) and see how tunneling underwater looks like a bargain in comparison. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-05-07/los-angeles-metro-d-line-extension https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-05-07/los-ange...

Melkman 5mo ago

They are not really comparable are they. One is a rail connection over land and the other is a 130ft deep tunnel for rail and road traffic.

readthenotes1 5mo ago
Of course they are comparable. They are both mechanisms to get people from point A to point B

looperhacks 5mo ago

1USD = 6,35 DKK

lukan 5mo ago

The building of this tunnel will likely create way more CO2, than can be saved by providing a more direct route and avoiding ferries (german source ... and very critical of the project) https://www.nabu.de/umwelt-und-ressourcen/verkehr/verkehrsinfrastruktur/fehmarnbeltquerung/28486.html https://www.nabu.de/umwelt-und-ressourcen/verkehr/verkehrsin... Personally I like the concept of having a more direct access to scandinavia and see lots of other positive long term effects.

gmueckl 5mo ago
I really hate how German environmental activists resort to hyperbole and alarmist language by default when voicing concerns. This only makes it harder for me to take them seriously. And then there is this tried and true tradition of commissioning studies with the sole intent to support a predefined viewpoint rather than taking an unbiased approach. This makes it so hard to trust any information when political arguments become heated. To make the connection back to the tunnel: it consumes a huge amount of concrete and that releases the associated amount of CO2. Thisnpart is fairly easy to estimate. But estimating the impact on traffic emissions is fraught with issues. There are so many assumptions about lifetime, amount of traffic, types of vehicles that I can easily imagine the error bars to stack up to the point where a little tuning of model parameters gives just about any desired result.
- lukan 5mo ago
  Agreed to that, but they are right with stating, that digging up so much ocean soil in a direct line might disrupt entire maritime ecosystems.
  - peterfirefly 5mo ago
    "Environmentalists" also made a big fuzz about the Øresund connection, claiming that the artificial island midway would disrupt the entire Baltic Sea ecosystem by drastically reducing the flow of water. Didn't happen. The (fairly small) compensatory digging had the effect the engineers had calculated and the water flow actually increased slightly and the Baltic Sea ecosystem is fine -- or at least not harmed by this particular project. I think we should trust the people who can (and do) make calculations over those who can't (and don't).
  - msandford 5mo ago
    The tunnel will very likely be less disruptive to marine animals than ferry boats. During the construction yes it will be worse but 10 years after? The ecosystem will have forgotten the disruption and will have gained additional peace from reduced/eliminated ferries.