My name is Nomonde Vakalisa. I was born and bred in Mount Ayliff, from the village called Msukeni. I’m a rural girl through and through. I’m from a very big family of 4. Is my husband entitled to half of my BAH? I am an active duty military member. Real estate; See all practice areas. The Air Foce says noti.
Moderators, look at a map. I think the parent was trying to show how fscked up amtrak's network is - one has to go through LA to get from flagstaff to phoenix!?!?! Actually, I have a more ridiculous case: according to Amtrak, if I want to go from Saint Louis to Minneapolis I have a nice eight-hour train ride through Chicago; but since the train travels in a loop and not a line, the return trip from Minneapolis to Saint Louis goes through. SEATTLE and takes seven days, and costs three thousand dollars. The ministry said that a joint Spanish and Moroccan committee of officials had already agreed a preliminary three-year plan of works to start as early as next year, with an estimated initial cost of $30m. Er, 'm' in Europe/Africa is 1e6, right? I can't imagine what sort of 'preliminary three-year plan of works' in such an Herculean effort could be done for a mere $30 million.
Look at the big dig in Boston - a relatively easy task (shorter by far, at least) with initial estimates of $4billion (I think) and 40-50% overruns, I can't imagine much more than breaking ground on either end of this proposed gargantuan tunnel getting done for $30m. It might be a misprint, but a tunnel under the water doesn't have to be as complicated as one under Boston.
It's just a big concrete-lined bore-hole. You don't have to worry about making sure the ground above you doesn't collapse, after you get past a certain depth. It doesn't even need to be ventilated, as the trains will be run by electricity.
By comparison, a car tunnel under a city is shallow and has to be ventilated. (so people don't die from suffocating on trapped car exhaust.) While not as large an undertaking, the Big Dig is much more intricate. The Eisenhower interstates are often built through and into the hearts of our major cities, and that wasn't an inevitable thing; there was real tension and debate over whether to just make them skirt the big towns, rather than going in. In California, for example, Reagan pushed to have the interstate come right out into the Fisherman's Wharf area, but that got nixed. In the Twin Cities, where I live, we have a 'Days of Rondo' celebration every year - the Rondo neighborhood in Saint Paul having been cut in.
It might be a misprint, but a tunnel under the water doesn't have to be as complicated as one under Boston. It's just a big concrete-lined bore-hole. There are two ways of building a tunnel under water, one is to use TBMs, the other is sink prefabricated sections. The former is less disruptive in the middle of a shipping lane. It doesn't even need to be ventilated, as the trains will be run by electricity. By comparison, a car tunnel under a city is shallow and has to be ventilated.
(so people don't die. The Big Dig is NOT just the new Ted Williams tunnel under Boston Harbor. A majority of the cost was spent putting a 10 lane highway that passes underneath the city, building a 14 lane bridge over the Charles, as well as a lot of other bigdig.com. And those huge cost overruns were due more to poor management and corruption than legitimate unforseen expenses.
It's fair to say that the Big Dig was too expensive, but I don't think that it could be considered 'easy' relative to anything. I think your point would've been better made comparing this project to the Chunnel. That 30 mile link cost about $13 billion (U.S.). So, yeah, 30 million seems a bit on the low side. I don't know if they would be in any way comparable.
The Chunnel lies entirely in chalk, which bores easily with a 'relatively' cheap and simple machine. I don't know much about the geology of the area, but if there is hard volcanic rock involved, or fissures which will admit sea water, the cost rises enormously.
However as regards distance, and the cost of fitting out with track, signalling etc, they are not all that different. But railway track is only about 1M (UKP) per mile anyway, that is the cheapest p. The channel tunnel, between england and france, cost more than $21 billion, for a 31 mile undersea tunnel. I suspect the $30m is for the 3 year planning, not the tunnel dig itself. Thank said, such a tunnel would of great interest.
The chunnel takes cars (on trains) and train passengers much faster between the UK and the rest of europe than ferries. Once the new high-speed london to kent rail link is finished, it will be possible to go from London to Paris in 2 1/2 hours. One can only imagine how much e.
And by 2030 we'll most certainly have 'bootstrapped' molecular manufacturing I think you will find statements like that is overly optimistic. It's 25 years from now, you seem to think of 2030 as something out of Flash Gordon. Never predict the future by relying on future inventions.
It' slike saying land will be in abundance in the future because we will have the ability to graft gills on humans. While the techniqes you describe certainly is/will come about in laberatorys and research, its a far cry from i. It's 25 years from now, you seem to think of 2030 as something out of Flash Gordon. When I was in grade school, I remember being amazed at my mom going in for the then brand-new laser surgery on her knee. Now people have it done all the time, even voluntarily to improve their vision. The computer we had (which was a rarity - I knew two other kids with access to one) ran at 1MHz and had 128k of RAM.
The DVD-Rs I bought yesterday each hold something like 75,000 times as much data as its floppy disks. 25 years ago, people ran Unix on computers. Today people run Unix on computers. 25 years ago, the largest passenger aircraft was the 747. Today, the largest passenger aircraft is the 747. 25 years ago, the fastest passenger aircraft went Mach 2.
Today, the fastest passenger aircraft is subsonic. 25 years ago, people drove cars that looked like metal boxes with windows, with a driver and a passenger seat in the front, and a backseat holding 2 or 3 people.
Today, people drive cars that look like metal boxes with windows, with a driver and a passenger seat in the front, and a backseat holding 2 or 3 people. 25 years ago, it was a handful of years since men stepped on the moon, just a few years before the first shuttle flight, with the Russians flying sojouz space craft. Today, it's over 30 years ago men last stepped on the moon, the shuttle is grounded with no alternative, and the Russians are still flying the same space craft. 25 years ago, half the population of the earth was poor, had no easy access to fresh water, and millions were fleeing war and disorder.
Today, half the population of the earth is poor, and has no easy access to fresh water, and millions are fleeing war and disorder. The length is shorter but the sea depth is WAY deeper. The article says 'only 300 metres deep'. The tunnel itself will probably need to be a good 50 metres beneath that so we're talking a damn deep tunnel built under HUGE water pressure conditions. Also for the tunnel to be usable by large freight trains the grade can't be very steep so it'll have to have a large amount of tunnel either side of the deepest point. This is going to be one expensive project and I for one can't see Morocco. Where did you get that?
I mean I'm no authority on it. But Morocco is not really one of the 'terorrist hotspots' of the muslim world. The King has been very adamant about keeping muslim fundamentalists out of the country. The chiefly muslim population of Morocco are indeed very muslim, wear traditional garb, etc, but are not fundamentalist weirdos. They respect others, other religions, and generally don't hate westerners. Aside from being poor, Morocco was a neat place to visit, and the people were surprisingly well educated about world politics and geography, considering the poverty levels.
Morocco has a wide mixture of cultures - Semitic Arabs, black Berbers, French bureaucrats in Casablanca, Spaniards in Tangiers, dazzling Arabic architecture in Rabat, bandits in the highlands, leftover hippies from the 60s in Marrakesh. It's a culture that's heavily into trading and interacting with each other, and I'll second mindstrm's recommendation about visiting there. To the extent that they have violence, it's down in the Spanish Sahara, a culturally different area south of Morocco that the last few. I can't help but wonder how badly there is a need to build something like this. England to France makes sense, as you are talking about two rich nations that see a lot of bussiness with each other. This on the other hand just doesn't seem to hold as much promise for profit.
Granted, I know little about the area and there might be more to it then I know, but I just can't see it being worth the horrific costs. Is there any reason why such a feat of engineering is needed when an air plane or boat are both practical solutions? I wonder how well they have looked at this from an economics side. It seems like it would be a horrific waste of money if it is just being done for national prestige. The worry in such projects is that very few people are willing to say 'no' to such things. The companies involved in the building are of course more then happy to let the government foot the bill, and the companies on either side of coast are happy to have it put in at not cost to themselves.
Of course, the people who are going to have to pick up the tab are the tax payers of the respective nations. Who is speaking for them in this project?
I hope this is not just a government waste program between the two nations, as it could potentially be a very expensive one. I hope this is not just a government waste program between the two nations, as it could potentially be a very expensive one.
No matter what the final cost is going to be, it's going to be a tiny fraction of what the US spent in Iraq. And dollar for dollar, it's going to be far more effective in promoting democracy, helping economic development, and stopping terrorism. It seems like it would be a horrific waste of money if it is just being done for national prestige. Funny, that's what I always think about most US military spending. Shihar wondered whether this is wasteful government spending. My response is simple: no, it isn't.
It is an effective and cheap means of promoting economic development and the development of democratic societies in Muslim nations in Northern Africa. Those kinds of cooperative infrastructure projects are, in fact, the only choice Europe seems to have for peaceful co-existence with its African and Middle Eastern neighbors.
To give Americans some idea of its order of magnitude, I made a comparison to a recen. It is silly to compare how a super power is spending on a war over seas to how a nation with only a fraction the GDP is building a very expensive tunnel to Morocco. It is precisely because Spain's financial means are more limited that the comparison is informative.
Spain doesn't have the option of fighting big wars to deal with threats. Instead, they have to find means of promoting peace, development, and cooperation. One way they believe they can do that is through cooperative infrastructure projects. Of course, it's dangerous to think that just because the US is a superpower, it is exempt from forces like budget deficits or capital flow. The current strength of the US military is bought at a staggering social and economic cost and it is anybody's guess how long it can be sustained. The fact that the US spends lots of money does not add or subtract to the viability of such a massive government projects for Spain and Morocco. It is a cute commentary on US foreign policy, but plays no effect on whether these two nations should try and dig a tunnel under the sea.
Unless you have information that the rest of us don't, for now, we can assume that the Spanish have done their homework: as economic data shows, they are in far better control of their budget than the US is. Note, incidentally, that digging has gotten a whole lot cheaper over the last decade and that there are many alternative tunnel technologies available as well, so there is no reason to believe that this project will be more than a blip in the Spanish budget. Back to the topic at hand, the point was, regardless of what the US is doing, building such a tunnel is expensive. It is only justified if there is going to be some net gain for the two countries involved. Yes, and the net gain is improved cooperation between Europe and Northern Africa, as well as a better shot at democratization and economic development in Morocco. Those are long-term goals that require long-term investments. Proponents of projects like these recognize that.
Yes, despite of this all, I think building a tunnel to a third world nation would be a bad idea for Spain. Well, and Europeans don't want their neighboring third world nations to remain third world nations forever. That's why they try to integrate them and cooperate with them and why they invest in such projects. The US approach to foreign policy, military intervention and a degree of isolationism, just is not workable for Europeans.
While Europe is capable of creating a military to rival that of the US, Europeans are not willing to pay the financial or political cost of that. Furthermore, Europe's geographic location makes US-style isolationism impractical. And that's the point of my original comparison between the Iraq war and this kind of project. Once you understand the relationship, you will understand why this kind of project makes financial sense to Europeans and why they can afford it. Is a link between Alaska and Siberia underneath the Bering Strait, and we could have a truly Pan-Continental Rally Race, starting in Scotland, working its way down to Europe thru the Chunnel, then onto Africa via this new tunnel, to the tip of South Africa, back up through Arabia over the Suez Canal, up though China and Sibera, across to Alaska, down the Canadian Pacific Coast, into Mexico, through Central America, across the Panama Canal, into Colombia, and down the Pan-American Highway into the very tippy tip of South America in Argentina! Why stop there?
Surely we could build some sort of tunnel the thousands of miles from Argentina to New South Wales (After a quick stopover in Wellington). From there a nice counterclockwise spin around the continent and across a bridge to Tazmania and from there across another bridge to Antartica!! Drive to the South Pole and through the tunnel bored straight through the centre of the Earth to the North Pole!!! Then a quick drive across the ice sheet and sub-arctic ocean tunnel and we're back in Scotland.
All right, The English channel tunnel made sense. You had 2 countries that regularly traveled via surface craft back and forth. You have 2 large industrial economies on both sides of the tunnel. The route is short enough to make the trip and transfer shorter than attempting the voyage by boat or aircraft. Now a tunnel across the Mediteranian is not going to work.
First off, Tangiers is not exactly what I would call a 'business' destination. Nor is Spain. You have to dig pretty deep on the African continent to find anywhere a typical European traveler would be going. Perhaps I am missing a pent up demand for travel from Africa. It didn't RTFA. The next problem is travel time.
Sure a ride from spain to Morroco would be a lot quicker via Train. A trip from France to Morroco a bit less so.
From Scottland to Morrocco. Well, only for the folks who want to do it because they can. Finally I would like to note that the 2 countries involved are still involved in a few territorial spats. That is not a recipe for success on a multi-billion dollar project.
I lived in Gibraltar for a while. There are a lot of ferry rides across between Spain & Morocco on a daily basis. They are usually always packed. Ferries run from Algeciras to Tangiers and Ceuta Ferries also run several days a week from Gibraltar to Tangiers (not to Ceuta, I dont' think. Spain hates Gib) There is definately money to be had, anyway. The economic value of such a tunnel would outshine any 'spat' over territory.
What are they fighting over, anyway, Ceuta? (Ceuta is a spanish protectorate/territory/colony/whatever in morocco, basically across the straight from Gibraltar.) Commercia shipping is probably one of the largest reasons. Right now, the only way to get stuff from North Africa to ship it over the water. This would also give shippers a reason to bring more goods through Spain, as opposed to shipping around Spain (once you have the stuff loaded onto a ship.
Might as well use that to your advantage. Why bother with spain at all?) From Gibraltar or Algeciras to the coast of Morocco is about 15 miles, on a clear day you can see the Rif mountains in Morocco. If you are elevated at all, you can see the beaches and houes of Morocco.
A bridge or tunnel is not THAT rediculous, though given the fact that it's open ocean, and all that implies, it's no easy task. Morocco exports a lot of goods to Europe. Some of them completely native like fruits and vegetables, phosphate, (hashich:p), etc. Others are produced by foreign companies outsourcing to Morocco (though not nearly as much as one would hope for) France, Spain, Germany, Italy and the U.K are some of Morocco's main economic partners. It goes without saying That Morocco also imports from those countries quite a bit.
Some more traffic right there. Morocco is also a touristic destination. (And I am shamelessly plugging it when I say: Go visit! I swear you'll like it.
Really:) I believe it gets around 2-3 million tourists a year (many of them people of Moroccan extraction residing in europe) which, while by no means comparable to Spain's 50 millions or France's 70 millions are still important to its economy and are a vital source of hard currency. That's some more traffic right there.
And last but not least, It is also a hub between Europe and Africa so part of many african countries' exports and imports also go through Morocco. Anyways, My point is that there is PLENTY of traffic taking place between Spain and Morocco and that a tunnel or a bridge linking the two countries DOES make plenty of economic sense. As the article pointed out, talks about this have been going on for decades now and it is actually surprising this has not happened sooner (taking into account that The distance between Tangiers and Algeciras is a measly 10 miles). And for those unfamiliar with the territorial 'spats' between Morocco and Spain, it goes something like this: A few hundred years ago, Spain conquered a couple of northern moroccan cities (sebta and imlilia a.k.a ceuta and melilla). They have been spanish ever since but Morocco still officially wants them returned (The truth is no moroccan I've ever known cares about that.) They are tax-free zones and a LOT of cheap contraband stuff (from eletronics to candy) comes from them.
My first playstation most probably came from there:) The Western Sahara is a different issue. Spain was ocuppying it during the days of european colonization and it was taken back about 3 decades ago at the end of a 'million men' peaceful march. Since then, Spain has been trying to make it an independant country so that they could fish within it's territorial waters for cheap. Now THAT is a very touchy subject for your average moroccan. You know.pride, territorial integrity, yadda yadda. The government has been stalling a referendum supposed to take place there and giving incentives to Moroccans to relocate there in hopes of skewing a future vote.
Back to the topic. I'm a bit disappointed that the tunnel is going to be trains only. I was actually hoping for something that allows cars and trucks to travel through.
I guess the ferry businesses lobbied against it to avoid certain bankruptcy. It's mostly Kurdish and Afghan refugees that use the tunnel to try and get into Britain.
It was a pretty huge issue there last year, when it got to a point that people would regularly be rushing the security gates to try and jump onto the freight trains. The camp that was set up near the Chunnel, Sangatte, got closed by the French authorities earlier year, as an attempt to placate the English. They Brits contended (pretty accurately) that it was being used as a base for immigration. People would live there. From personal experience: The boarding controls at Waterloo Station (the northern end of the Paris to London via the Eurostar) and Gare du Nord (the Southern end) were quite strict.
I would imagine that EU to non-EU controls would be stricter yet. The best comparison is the air travel experience. One buys a ticket in advance, provides immigration documents before boarding.
I suppose it would be fair to expect that there might be a problem of transient and migrant people camped outside station who can't ge. I initially thought this was a cool idea, but then I had the sinking suspicion that renfe.es must be involved.
They almost certainly will be. For those you haven't lived/are living in Spain, Renfe is also known as the World's Worst State-Run Railway. Actually, my travels aren't extensive enough to state that with certainty, but it's gotta be in the top 5.
Let's see, in the past year (and just off the top of my head) Renfe has managed to: run a pair of trains into each other because somebody literally fell asleep at the switch; trap like 30 AVE workers in an underground tunnel for three days; build a section of the Barcelona-Madrid AVE track over a dangerous sinkhole, mandating millions in costly repairs; exceed the overall timeframe and budget for the Barcelona-Madrid AVE by years and millions of euros, respectively, etc. (Hi ha algu aqui de Catalunya? Que pasa amb l'AVE ara?) If someone were to invite me to ride to Morocco with them on this underground tunnel, I would politely take the ferry.
The EU keeps Turkey out of the EU, in large part because Turkey is a Muslim country. Actually, it has much more to do with Turkey's incredibly poor record on human rights. A few years ago during the Danish Presidency, the European Council issued a set of requirements called the Coppenhagen Criteria, which basically made up a laundry list of minor atrocities perpetrated/ignored by the Turkish government that would have to be resolved before the country was considered for EU membership.
It's really easy to make blanket statements about the European community's supposed 'intolerance' for the Islamic minority, but the criticism is far from water tight. For example, the mentioned 'head scarf' policy, which is being discussed in terms of its enforcement in state-run public schools, also forbids the wearing of 'obvious' religious symbols like skull caps and large crucifixes. Many Africans enter Spain legitimately - jumping through all the necessary hoops. This in itself is not problematic. The trouble starts when their work Visas start to expire and they realize that the EU's uber-flimsy border control allows them to leave Spain and bounce around other countries in continental Europe almost indefinitely.
The proposed rail link would have little or no impact on this problem because it deals with a different set of borders. Look at the French 'no head scarves' ban, as an example. No head scarves in State schools.
No religion whatsoever in the Republic's schools. The French do not really have the same approach as the US when it comes to religion, or to schools - and even less so when it pertains to both! Essentially, France initiated free, mandatory, secular education in part to counter the influence of the Catholic church, which used to be the major educational institution at the time (i.e. End of the 19th century). The challenge to this lies not in refugees or economics but in engineering. The deepest tunnel currently is in Japan and is 100m below a 140m channel.
Engineering a tunnel 240m down is seriously non-trivial, and Japan is seriously hooked-in when it comes to engineering. Spain and Morocco, really have no hope of pulling this off without outsourcing the whole deal. The tunnel would need to be 300m + 100m below sea level (1/4 mile). That depth presents numerous difficulties with removing seep water, air density, and a host of other things.
The geology is not nearly as receptive to a tunnel as it was for the chunnel engineers and they'll find that it's much, much more difficult cutting through than the chalk that is present beneath the English Channel. This is easily an order of magnitude more difficult to build than the chunnel was. I'd be surprised if it's ever built. The deepest tunnel currently is in Japan and is 100m below a 140m channel. Engineering a tunnel 240m down is seriously non-trivial, and Japan is seriously hooked-in when it comes to engineering.
Spain and Morocco, really have no hope of pulling this off without outsourcing the whole deal. From the spanish POV: Well, we have no experience in building tunnels under the sea, but we have a lot of experience in bulding them 'under the mountain'. Madrid is sorrounded by mountains and is still connected by high. The challenge to this lies not in refugees or economics but in engineering. The deepest tunnel currently is in Japan and is 100m below a 140m channel. Engineering a tunnel 240m down is seriously non-trivial, and Japan is seriously hooked-in when it comes to engineering.
Spain and Morocco, really have no hope of pulling this off without outsourcing the whole deal. The tunnel would need to be 300m + 100m below sea level (1/4 mile).
That depth presents numerous difficulties with removing seep water, air den. There would be one slight problem with running a train from Scotland to Africa vis Spain - Spain uses a wider gauge than the rest of Europe (IIRC 5'6' versus 4'8.5' - I'm using Imperial units since the track gauges were originally defined in Imperial units).
There are some trains that can shift gauge, but most railway engineers think that's asking for trouble. Another issue is loading gauge (essentially how big the cross section of the train can be and not create problems).
The UK has a really tight loading gauge and the Chunnel has a HUGE loading gauge. So, if I'm correct, all of the links to the west of conway.com map are either completed or funded. As most of this is simply land routes, when are we gonna start the gr8st8.com route??? I know there's more to be considered.the extreme cold is one.the other major problem is that the area under consideration is geologically active. Not good for a tunnel.the other problem is that a portion of the 'best route' is a protected wild life reserve. The only problem is that this (like free trade zones) will not be good for the US economy.
The Eurostar is great - it connects London with Paris and Brussels. All these are big cities, and a lot of business travel is happening between them. It's extremely comfortable, you have space and get a nice 4 course meal (I'm doing this every month.). Still, the market share on London/Paris and London/Brussels is only about 50% - many people still prefer flying to save an hour. Also, Eurochunnel was bankrupt once, this implies that the whole project was not efficient to undertake (ex post). How on Earth could it ever be profitable to connect Spain and Morocco?
It's impossible. Madrid is the only city in Spain that could rival London, Paris or Brussels. And it already takes 6 hours to get from Madrid to the proposed tunnel! And then, there is no large business city on the other side. No business traveler will be taking the train. The plane will always be preferred on such distances. Am I making sense?
Had to work throughout the night. Hi, Strangely enough, there does not seem to be so many european posts about that subject, that is truly interesting. For my fellow globalized-citizens from America, two things:. Oh no, those fucking africans are going to invade Europe, because there will be no more control over immigration. Maybe you are not aware of it, but we have something called in here the European Union. And that means that England and France are virtually borderless for the transportation of people. This is not because you red it in the press that the train project will be the same.
Because Morocco is not part of the European Union. It is only applying for a ' special relationship'. Thus, one can imagine that controls there will be tight, very tight. Spain has been sailing a wsws.org so far. What happens if an islamist/terrorist is plantin a bomb out there?Stop being so neurotic about that.
People with dark skin don't have bombs in their suitcases. Only people with mad minds have bombs in their suitcases.
Morocco suffered a terrorist attack; Bali suffered a terrorist attack. Don't you have the slightest impression than terrorists are focusing on the shifting of Islam from the inside? Think about it. There will be no more risk for a bomb here than in every other place in the world.
What's interesting here is how spain is changing its mind about morocco. After all the fud about the Turah island, this is one more step forward to enhance the relationship between Spain and Morocco. It a step for solving the immigration problem, since this is a path to rationalize the constant flux of immigrants coming to Europe from Spain.
It is a step for integrating North Africa into Europe. It is a step for making the Arab people understand that they are.not. rejected.
Tough there have been some funny jokes (I loved the thread about grammar/spelling), people should speak more quietly about issues that they don't know anything about. Regards, Jdif. To any of you that don't work on transportation networks. Do you have the slightest idea how much shorter the trip from Europe to Africa will be? Imagine Holland for example, which exports wheat to African countries in many situations. Their cheapest way to travel is of course by road, but too time consuming and it needs a trip through Continental Europe, bosphorus (Turkey, which they don't like at all), then Syria, Libanon, Israel, Egypt, etc. Now we get a direct link from Spain to Marocco.
Here is my prediction on how things will go, if this actually is successful. Marocco and Spain will get rich from customs and the rest of the two continents will depend heavily on them for trade routes. The English shipping industry will loose considerable amounts of money (they already did with the England/France tunnel). Marocco will once again gain political influence in Africa, and will of course probably win over Western Sahara (there's been a disbute there for a long time, in case you didn't know). Someone will figure out a way to involve Linux in this, eventhough Microsoft advertisements will fill the tunnel.
In case anyone wants to know more about the geography of transportation, a good intro is located at: hofstra.edu. A couple of people inquired about putting a railroad bridge under the Bering Straight. Here's why it won't happen anytime soon: There is no railroad anywhere near either side!
For the North American side, the nearest rail point that's connected to anything is in Prince Rupert British columbia, which is about 2500 miles (i think) from the Bering Straight. The nearest rail line in Asia is the Trans-Siberian Railroad, which from Kharborosk to the Bering Straight is about 3000 miles. So that's about 6000-6500 miles considering things like rivers and mountain ranges that would get in the way. Not to mention that fact that most of the project would be built on some of the most hostile terrain on the planet.
Even if it were done, I would guess that it would be faster and cheaper to ship material by boat between the two areas. Not to mention how expensive maintinence would be on the rail line, or the fact that a rail tunnel under the Bering Straight would cross a major fault line. It would be a cool project though. Full disclosure ahead: I am a Spaniard, I lived for 2 years in Morocco (Casablanca) and I work in the railway business (software engineering, not civil engineering, but you can't have it all, can you?) Believe it or not, but this is actually possible.
Spain might not be any more the country many of you thought it was. Civil engineering in Spain and the rest of Europe is pretty advanced these days, as far as huge tunnels are concerned. Just look at Madrid's Metro and its spectacular growth here: metropla.net. The Line 12 was put in service in just 3+ years, and spans 40+ kilometres of underground tracks and stations. Look at the 27 kilometre high speed rail double tunnel currently being built beneath the Sierra de Guadarrama, a granitic mountain range 2500 metres high ( geodata.it), which will connect Madrid to the northern cities of Segovia and Valladolid.
And last, but not least, the longest metro line in Europe, currently under construction, is the Line 9 in Barcelona, which will also feature fully automated trains ( finanzas.com, in Spanish). However, having said this, I don't believe we will actually see this happen in our lifetimes.
First of all, 27e6 euros (30e6 $) aren't enough even for preliminary studies of such a complex undertaking. The current Spanish government is extremely interested in infrastructure and development work if and only if two or more of the following apply: a) political gains are to be obtained, b) civil engineering firms tycoons line up their pockets even more and c) the european union foots a significant percentage of the bills. And then comes Morocco, a developing country en route to democracy.
Morocco has comparatively few transportation infrastructures deployed: around 1000 km of electrified, standard gauge railways. You simply don't build a tunnel to nowhere, unless Spain and the EU are strongly commited to finance development works there (and they currently aren't, and most likely won't be in a foreseeable future, even though it might be a hell of a good idea to even out differences and further good neighbour relationships in the Mediterranean area). Lastly, governments of Spain and Morocco are at odds over several issues, the least important of which are the ones that got more attention in previous comments: territorial disputes and terrorism. The main troubles between Morocco and Spain (and the rest of EU) are immigration and commerce, and both of them receive a harsh treatment by the Spanish government. No compromises will be agreed upon unless forced by a third party, just because such an attitude improves the outlook of Aznar and his cabinet among the population right wing. So, unfortunately, I believe this tunnel is just vapor, and will dissipate sooner or later depending on the result of the ongoing UN-sponsored Western Sahara negotiations.
Things are probably different in Europe (never taken a train there personally), but in the USA with our super-ghetto trains, it almost always takes longer to take a train than to drive. For commuting trains, I can take CalTrain from my house to my work. Takes about 20 min longer than driving, since it makes an obscene number of stops along the way. The only reason I'd take it is so I can read the paper while commuting. But a time saver it ain't (especially when you factor in time to get to and from the train stations). Subways are better.
BART's decent, but they'll probably never make it down to the South Bay. As for 'real' trains, all we've got is Amtrak. When I was in school, I thought about taking the train from Santa Barbara back home to San Jose. Thats about a 300 mile drive.
Driving typically takes about 4-4.5 hours. The train takes (literally, I just looked it up) EIGHT HOURS and costs $82.
I get 30mpg in my car so I can make the drive in about half the time and for half the cost. Hell I could.fly. to LA for about that and be there in 2 hours. It really sucks, since I'd be totally willing to take trains to work or down to LA if they could ever manage to match a car for cost and speed. The tunnel will have to be significantly longer than the span of water it crosses, in order to allow for the tunnel to reach relatively non-permeable rock by the time you're under wet stuff and to allow a relatively shallow grade. The Chunnel's average depth under the seafloor is 40m, dropping that distance at a 2% grade takes 2km of rundown on each end.
And that's not counting the 100m or so of ocean you have to dip under. Trains really don't do well on steep grades- inefficient as hell compared to nice shallow glides, although this is less of a problem on pure-electric trains that don't have to worry about keeping their diesel generators running in an efficient RPM-range. So, the shortest crossing point doesn't necessarily correspond to the shortest required tunnel, depending on the contours of the seafloor/coasts and the various rock formations around. Gibraltar is also a hell of a lot funkier from an engineering perspective. The English Channel averages only about 100m deep, while the Strait of Gibraltar appears to be significantly more irregular, with bits running to about 300m deep from what I can find on the net.
Co-Host of Imvuselelo/Iqonga Lomculo weVangeli Who are you? My name is Nomonde Vakalisa. I was born and bred in Mount Ayliff, from the village called Msukeni. I’m a rural girl through and through.
I’m from a very big family of 4 siblings. Raised by my mother who isn’t married. But I had such a wonderful upbringing, my mom taught me a lot in life, that hard work pays and that I can achieve a lot in life if I focus. My mom has taught me to be patient hence my name is Nomonde. My mother is my role model I look up to her. What show do you host? I co-host Imvuselelo on Sundays @ 19:00-22:00 pm with Rev Faleni and Tuesdays the gospel music show Iqonga Levangeli @ 22:00- 00:00.
Since it is about gospel I want them to know that God is a loving, just and faithful God not what He has been portrayed by some people. We grew up knowing Him as a very cruel God who punishes people for no reason. I want them to develop a personal relationship with God and know that nothing is impossible with God if you believe.
When and how did your career start? I was unemployed for a very long time, I used to sell sandwiches, scones and vetkoeks.
I did some caterings for the municipalities in my area, as I had enrolled for ND Hospitality @ DUT although I dropped out due to financial constraints, I can’t point out an individual it’s just a combination of certain personalities with different styles of presentation that moulded me. I liked different things in each one of them, I’m still learning in some of them to date. But I can emphasize that I’ve learnt a lot from the Radio Transkei presenters and some TV personalities they were just the naturals.My radio debut was in 2007 November at Alfred Nzo Community Radio. What have you achieved thus far within your career? What are your career highlights? For me talking to multitudes of listeners is the great achievement.
Preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ is a huge achievement because it is what I live for and had been my dream. Career highlightsmmmm yhooo when we started taking Imvuselelo to the people, praying for the premiere of the Eastern Cape Hnr Pumullo Masualewho would have known? And being nominated for SABC Crown Gospel Music Awards. Knowing that the President is the fan of Iqonga Levangeli. Besides radio, what do you do? Almost every gospel artists that is launching an album invites me to be an MC,I also MC at corporate events, I’m a brand ambassador for Gotha Health Products. I get invites from churches to preach.
I sometimes judge the gospel music completions. Fortunately what they didn’t know about me is now in the open, when I was doing the Breakfast show they didn’t know that I’m very much involved in gospel, that I’m a preacher and a deaconess in my church as a result they are still asking if am I doing it for work?
I am a born again Christian and a full member of the church of Pentecost of South Africa. I’ve been born again since year 2000. “you become what you believe, someone’s opinion doesn’t have to become your realitybheka phambili ungancami press on never give up”.