Slashdot Mirror
The World's Longest Tunnel
fusconed writes "Bloomberg reports that the Russian government is proposing to build an underground tunnel between Russia and Alaska for transporting goods, electricity and natural resources. The tunnel would be twice as long as that between the UK and France. The $10 — $12b cost is not something to be overlooked, but Russia claims the benefits would pay it off in 20 years. It would take 10 to 15 years to build, but being an Alaskan, it sounds good to me!"
In Soviet Russia... tunnel digs you!
What about the crust movement? England and France are fairly stable compared to the "ring of fire".
oink oink oink oink is that the smell of PORK? :)
But really, aside from that, is the infrastructure in Alaska and Canada and eastern Russia up there really of the sort that could take advantage of a big project like this? It's all well and good to ship cargo and electricity and such through a tunnel, but without having a way to get it to / take it away from the tunnel, I'd be skeptical of the utility.
And of the line losses. That's a thought. Which is greater- the line losses of electricity going from Russia to here, or the cost to ship coal from an equivalent power plant in Russia and in the United States?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
According to Wikipedia, in 1990, when the Channel Tunnel was completed its cost was estimated as 10 billion GBP.
I'm no expert on inflation and exchange rates, but by estimating this tunnel at $10-$12 billion aren't they saying that a tunnel that is twice as long as the Channel Tunnel will actually cost less to build? Is there any reason to believe this will actually be so?
They have Boats for that sort of thing; it'd be a lot more practical.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Looks like it's only about 60 miles with a nice little island halfway in between. It'll be interesting to see if this proposal goes anywhere. Any anticipated economic potential will have to be weighed against the operational costs, however, which will surely entail full-time security checkpoints at both ends and in the middle to thwart any bad guys looking to blow it up. Those costs can't be insignificant.
Come to cold, barren Alaska...it's not Siberia!
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
They've already moved 27 armies into Kamchatka and surrounding territories, but then they discovered that the world maps that they were working on weren't totally accurate. Now they find out that they need to create an actual line connecting to Alaska to enable their attack. It's pretty brazen of them to ask us for help.
So in 15 years we can attack Kamchatka from Alaska with 3 dice?
The whole idea is silly beyond words. WHY on Earth would you connect two nations, both of which have many viable ports, with a massive tunnel to their least populated and most distant parts?
The link between France and England makes sense. The tunnel spits people out very close to densely populated zones and provides access to the rest of Europe with a few hours (or less) of train rides. The link between Russia and the US would spit people and goods out as far as you can possibly get them from populated zones. The cultural benefits would be almost nil as it makes no sense to fly a few hours from the lower 48 states, land in Alaska, then take a train ride to the middle of nowhere Russia. You might as well just fly the whole way and go somewhere more interesting then frozen wastelands. If you want to ship goods to the US or Russia, you are better off just to load up a boat.
The whole idea is stupid.
It would take 10 to 15 years to build, but being an Alaskan, it sounds good to me!"
What if that means you have to give up almost half your $1,000 yearly oil royalty check for ten to fifteen years ? Because that's about what it would cost, assuming Alaska pays half and Russia pays half.
Please help metamoderate.
...Alaska is Senator Ted Stevens home state...
I guess this brings a whole new meaning to "a series of tubes"!
Thanks,
Mike
Sweet - when I visit Alaska one day I'll be able to take the "Bridge to Nowhere" on my way to the "Tunnel to Siberia."
Why would you want to go all the way with a road, of all things? Cars are great for undirected travel in dense environments brimming with potential pickup and dropoff points, which is precisely what travel along the coast from Alaska to California is not. For this sort of thing, rail is far more efficient and convenient; plus, you're not stuck behind the wheel of your Hummer the whole ride down. Should the passing scenery out your panoramic windows in your passenger train car get boring, you can take a day off at a train stop to rent a Vespa or a snowmobile, or just go hiking.
Frankly, the last thing America needs this century is to further perpetuate a backwards transportation policy that has bound us to oil, a marriage that hurts us economically, environmentally, and politically the longer we continue. I'm reassured that Canada has shown better judgment, and I trust those floppy-headed lumberjacks won't be laying asphalt all over the coast anytime soon.
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
The summary says underground tunnel, but it's actually an undersea tunnel and is likely above ground. These types of things typically are. The sections are dropped into the sea and connected together on the sea floor. They are not dug underground.
Well, since you're already on Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_bridge
Sounds like a good trick for the ruskies to get us to pay for most of it then threaten to take back Alaska. Wow, you said that and my Risk instincts told me to start building up troops in Alaska...
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
I can only assume you think other people are that stupid because you are that stupid. If you'd read TFA you'd have seen that they have in fact considered transport links on the North American continent. It doesn't mention roads, only rail, but trucks are a pretty crappy way to move stuff thousands of miles anyway.
I'm surprised they are considering a highway in the tunnel itself. Putting vehicles on trains is faster and safer and ventilating a 65km tunnel full of vehicles would be a huge task, even compared to the scale of the project.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
To answer you question, all that you need to do is to look at a map of the Pacific Ring of Fire.
9 /Pacific_Ring_of_Fire.png
Here's one, in case you had trouble finding one for yourself: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0
The Bering Strait is clearly well north of the Ring of Fire faultlines. Thus the tectonic impact will be minimal.
Furthermore, you don't throw together a $12 billion proposal and not take into account such things. Anything you can think of regarding this project has likely been thought of already by the planners. If crustal movement was to have a serious impact, we would not be hearing about this proposal, because it would have been scrapped long ago.
Will that enable truck traffic all the way to say, LA?
... lots of stuff that's good to ship in bulk via pipelines or via heavy rail.
I don't think that you'd really want to bother with a road in the tunnel. Like the Chunnel, you'd probably use trains. They're more efficient, and you don't have to worry about exhaust gases building up in the tunnel (they're electric), plus they just make a lot more sense for moving bulk goods over long distances.
The Russians already have a well-developed rail infrastructure -- that's if they haven't torn it up for scrap metal lately -- and the Trans-Siberia Railway is all double-track and electrified (at no small expense, but hey, when you have a lot of peasants or comrades to employ, who cares?), so it would be dumb to transfer it all to trucks.
You can't run the same cars from Russia to the U.S., unfortunately they're like the only place in the world that doesn't use Standard Gauge tracks and rolling stock (they use 5-foot gauge instead of the standard 4 feet, 8-1/2 inches; oddly the latter actually works out more nicely in cm than the former), but if you did everything in shipping containers it wouldn't be that hard to build a yard somewhere and just shift them across to new cars. Probably do it on the Russian side since you'd want to save the space in the tunnels and go with the narrower gauge.
Russia, particularly Siberia, has a lot of natural resources. Timber, coal, mineral ores, and probably oil
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Whether this project makes sense aside, that's what we're blowing in one month in Iraq. Think about all the good infrastructure projects we could build with the money we're wasting on a civil war. Ok, stepping off the political soapbox. Next?
If this is built with a rail line, please run a passenger train now and then... perhaps once or twice a week, connecting to the Trans-Siberian. It will be awesome to know that one day it may be possible to get anywhere in the world by land transportation only. London and Singapore are connected by passenger rail, so why not Alaska, and then the rest of the US and Canada?
OK, so we get a tunnel to somewhere on the west coast of Alaska.... Then what? To the best of my recollection, there are no rail lines connecting Alaska with the Lower 48. So you're probably talking about a rail line paralleling the Alaska highway (built during WWII, when cost was no object...) to Prince Rupert, BC, and then probably to Edmonton, AB. So the people who would make out like bandits on this would be the Canadian railroads, all that bridge traffic to the United States.
If you're not familiar with the geography of Western Canada, it's worth taking a peek at your favorite mapping site... Make sure you look at something like Hybrid view on Google Maps, so you get a sense of the topography....
Unless there's already a rail connection from the proposed Alaskan terminal through Canada, I don't see this as being particularly economically feasible. Certainly the US should insist that Canada kick in a contribution.
But if this does come about, I hope they'll run passenger trains along that route, it would be a spectacular train ride!
dave (occasional railfan)
p.s. Speaking of Canada, how about the prospects for a tunnel from the Lower Mainland to Vancouver Island? My guess is that the island residents will never go for it, all that traffic would ruin their spectacular corner of the world...
fusconed wrote:
"being an Alaskan, it sounds good to me!"
Well of course it does. Alaska has long received excessive amounts of Federal spending. This would just be yet another large government handout that would have almost no benefits.
seriously, how awesome would it be to stick the family in the SUV in florida and wind up in beijing? or berlin?
"oh look a sign... next gas station, 1200 km"
"daddy i got to goes to the bathroom"
"not now honey, your pee will freeze to your dick or the polar bears might get you"
"mommy, jessica is drooling on me!"
"tell jessica we'll leave her at genghis khan's firecracker shack when we get to ulan bator if she doesn't knock it off"
"honey, all this mcdonald's drive thru serves is skinned uncooked dog"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sounds like a good trick for the ruskies to get us to pay for most of it then threaten to take back Alaska. Wow, you said that and my Risk instincts told me to start building up troops in Alaska...
ha-ha! While you weren't looking I just took Greenland!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
i think we could easily afford to finance this solo if we were to.. say.. pull back our armies, which are currently sucking up money occupying half the planet?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I'm sure it's feasible to build a flexible railcar that can ride standard-gauge tracks, then upon exiting the tunnel westbound, expand its wheelbase to match the wider Russian tracks.
The tunnel would make for some enticing possibilities. Imagine a rail tanker full of Stolichnaya leaving Moscow and arriving in Boston two weeks later, totally free of stevedores' handling fees. Mmmm, vodka...
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Ground troops, you say? Through a tunnel between Asia and North America?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061387/
That is only true if USA does not buy anything at all from China and Korea and Japan. But it does.
As many posters indicated, this tunnel can guarantee transportation of goods using tidal energy, in other words - even when fuel oil for ships is in short supply or becomes just too expensive. Most of the railways in the Far East already have electric power, and the new tracks for the tunnel will definitely have electric power as well. This would allow you to transport anything directly from China through Transsib and the connecting railways to Alaska, bypassing the ocean and the shipping completely.
In other words, the Peak Oil concept may be believed or disbelieved by populace, and nobody cares what you or I think about it. However large states must pay attention to the possibility, even if it is only a conjecture. The tunnel between continents would greatly add to national security of both USA and Russia - in the real sense of national security, such as the guaranteed ability to trade for centuries ahead.
Reminds me of conversations I had with a mate in the navy:
"So, how's life on the boat?"
"It's a ship dammit - a SHIP!!"
NYC is on the East side of the Hudson River (except for Staten Island, but that's really Jersey). As is Long Island and New England. The Hudson runs all the way up to near Canada. So that hugely populous part of the country (over 30M people) is divided from the rest of the states. The closest railroad bridge to NYC is over 100 miles North of the City. We've got a couple of tunnels and a couple of bridges for trucks, though our ports have been reduced to a token amount of transfer.
So we've been trying to build the Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel from Jersey City to Brooklyn. It's supposed to cost only $2-3B, which is only <5% the NYC annual budget.
But Mayor Bloomberg, like any NYC mayor, is more interested in real estate developers than in the overall economy of NYC, so he opposes it. But it's probably the best tunnel project being considered in the US. It would further integrate the US with itself, making us more productive, not further subsidize the Alaskan oil corporations and make us more dependent on the Russian mafia oil industry.
--
make install -not war
I've got to object to that. We British can easily build trains which can manage much more than 125mph.
The problem is we just can't get planning permission to build straight tracks. Locals object (because of noise), hippies object (to cutting down trees), environmentalists object (on principal) and so forth. By the time you incorporate the costs of fighting through all the planning, public enquiries, protestors, etc, building a high speed train link anywhere in the UK is un-economic.
Chunnel trains travel at high speed through France because they built a new, straight, track for them - when they get to the UK they have to slow to about 50% because they're running on old, curvy, tracks.
In the UK it's a real problem in all sorts of ways not just for trains. For example, everybody with half a brain knows that Heathrow Airport must have another runway. It's the only even nearly reasonable solution to current air traffic problems but the locals, hippies, enviros, etc, are fighting tooth and nail, it will take years to force it through despite the fact it's an absolute imperative and needs to be done yesterday.
Take a look at this document from the government of British Columbia. It is a fairly extensive article discussing the various considerations for building fixed links (tunnels, bridges, etc.) across large bodies of water. In this case it talks specifically about a link between the British Columbia mainland (at Vancouver) and Vancouver Island, but the considerations it mentions are quite valid most places people want to create these kinds of links. A good read considering the OP.
A few points from the article on why a fixed link across the Straight of Georgia is not likely to happen any time soon:I think someone who wrote that article did get the wind conditions wrong. I think it is fair to say that they can get wind speeds up to 115 kph or higher during a storm, as we saw this last winter. However, that is not an average wind speed, as I can attest to from trips I have made across the straight myself. :-) Wind speeds are no more different normally than say the English Channel.
For a tunnel, they would need to go down more than 815 metres (2,675 feet) to stay in stable rock (that is when it didn't shake from an earthquake or tremor). There is some speculation that if a major earthquake happened that huge underwater landslides from the sand banks on the south side of Vancouver (around where the south arm of the Frazer River exits into the straight) could cause a tsunami.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I think you are referring to the Road of Bones. The Road of Tears is an album by the Battlefield Band..
Yeah, but the English and the French hate each other, the Americans and the Russians.... Oh, wait, nevermind.