🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3B19F094.B00D94C1@big.top>, William Lynch
<bozo.clown@big.top> wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:

> >    This undergrounding is what is being done for Boston in its Central
> > Artery "Big Dig" project, and I suspect that SF will have an easier
> > time of it than Boston has.

> I disagree that 'SF would have an easier time of it than Boston has.'
> The terrain for tunneling is very similar (either bedrock or very soft
> landfill, aka 'liquifaction zones'); Boston's cost is up 75%, and that
> would make the bean counters wary of similar black holes; and
> construction dollars in general from both Washington and Sacramento
> are drying up.

   I checked on http://www.bigdig.com and most of the Boston tunneling
is above the bedrock. A Sunset Blvd. tunnel would have the same problem
as most of Boston's Big Dig, but a tunnel between Golden Gate and
downtown SF would go through solid rock, which is relatively easy to
tunnel through -- there aren't a lot of pipes or foundations built very
deep into it, and there is little need to worry about disrupting the
surface. Which would be a very real problem with a possible Sunset
Tunnel.

> Don't get me wrong. I think that it would be wonderful if it happened.
> But they are going to say we just rebuilt this bridge and tore down
> that highway and besides there are nothing but Democrats in office
> there so why should we pay for this latest boondoggle.  File this
> under wishful thinking.

   You are probably right there. There have been those who have
proposed constructing privately-financed toll tunnels, but such plans
have not gone anywhere.

-- 
Loren Petrich
petrich@panix.com
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train