Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mooted: An Undersea Link From Finland To Estonia

Posted by timothy on from the to-send-along-massages-from-sweden dept.

jones_supa writes A train link between Finland and continental Europe could become a reality 15 or 20 years from now. A study carried out by Sweco Consulting recommends moving ahead with negotiations on building a railway tunnel between the capital cities Helsinki and Tallinn. According to a preliminary report out Wednesday, an undersea link would shorten the travel time between the two capitals from the current minimum 90 minutes by ship to around 30 minutes by rail. Estimated ticket cost is about 40 euros. The study, commissioned by the two cities, estimates that the undersea route could be completed after 2030 and would cost somewhere between 9 and 13 billion euros.

149 comments

  1. Double your endowment with this reality pill! by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

    For any large project a good rule of thumb is to double your budget and set aside the extra for inevitable unexpected expenses. If that number isn't available the project will not be finished.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Double your endowment with this reality pill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      True. Although, they could save a lot of money by making sure it runs Linux - but, I'm not sure they heard of it.

    2. Re: Double your endowment with this reality pill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry dude, but Linus Torvalds is Finnish and E-stonia is the haven of IT. :)

    3. Re:Double your endowment with this reality pill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry dude, but Linus Torvalds is Finnish, and E-stonia is an IT haven. :)

    4. Re:Double your endowment with this reality pill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's known to not work. As soon you double the the budget you end up having to double it again anyway, making it four tims as expensive as the original budget instead of just double.

      What you should do is halve it in the beginning.

    5. Re:Double your endowment with this reality pill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Unfortunately a large part of the extra budget and time is usually of the form of having to spend years in the courts because somebody doesn't want you building anything anywhere ever.

    6. Re: Double your endowment with this reality pill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry dude, but Linus Torvalds is Finnish and E-stonia is a haven of IT. :)

    7. Re:Double your endowment with this reality pill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe not...
      Last time a transportation project of that size was run in Scandinavia it came in ahead of schedule and under budget:

      http://regionomics-at-ceu.blogspot.com/2011/12/crossing-scandinavian-waters-oresund.html

    8. Re:Double your endowment with this reality pill! by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why you have two budgets- one you tell the contractors about, and one that has enough money to deal with the cost-overruns.

      It's like inviting people over. Some people are chronically late, while others are always too early. If you want everyone there at 7pm then you tell the late people to be there by 5:30pm, and the early people to be there by 7:30pm, and it all works out.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re: Double your endowment with this reality pill! by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Sometimes sarcastic remarks don't work very well over the internet.

    10. Re: Double your endowment with this reality pill! by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      What was sarcastic about his remark? Linus IS Finnish and Estonia IS, well, Estonia. Where's your issue?

      BTW - sarcasm.

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    11. Re:Double your endowment with this reality pill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of government departments work this way already. They don't have an internal budget per project, but they have some amount of funding to cover problems and unforeseen things, pooled together for the whole group of related things. They still have discretion to not give it to a failing project because the project ended up being fundamentally flawed, but on the other hand if a key piece of the project is damaged, stolen, etc., they can cover it. I've seen even seen it used for when a science project gets canceled, they draw from that money to help grad students on the project finish even when nearly everyone else is canned. And at least in the areas I worked, it over estimated the amount needed usually, so most of the money doesn't end up going to struggling projects, but to ones that did well so they can go faster or do more.

  2. don't make it easy for the Vikings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At least a thousand years ago, the Vikings had to traverse an extremely unfriendly sea to plunder, rape, and pillage Europe.

  3. I can get there for 25 € by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Needed to visit my anarchist comrades in Helsinki last year.

    THERE: 20 € (discount)
    BACK: 25 €

    Ship: fast catamaran, travel time slightly less than 90 minutes. Will not sail during storm. Downsides: fuel efficiency at least 10 x worse than electric railway. Upsides: no large capital costs.

    Conclusion: if they build the tunnel, it will be worthwhile mostly for passers-by between Finland and central Europe, and naturally for cargo. It will not be useful for Talllinn-Helsinki commuters.

    1. Re:I can get there for 25 € by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it depends on if you can work on the ferry/catamaran or not, and what you make per hour.

      Sea cost ~20 euros and takes 90 minutes.
      Rail cost ~40 euros and takes 30 minutes.

      60 minutes for 20 euro?

    2. Re:I can get there for 25 € by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Most of of the day trips from Helsinki to Tallinn are done to shop more cheaply than at home. I don't know if it's still the case today, but it used to be popular to head to Estonia to get a haircut. So spending an extra 20 euros cuts into the savings.

    3. Re:I can get there for 25 € by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Haircut: (n) 4 5 liter freeze boxes of Vodka.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. ha by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    "Estimated ticket cost is about 40 euros"

    Actual ticket cost will be 200 euros or more.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    1. Re:ha by oldelpaso · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It isn't a captive market, competition from the ferries should keep it down. A return ferry ticket is about €50. While you could charge a premium for business class seats, they alone won't fill a train. The Eurostar London-Paris service is a reasonable comparison. Booking in advance, you can usually get a return ticket for that for £100 in off-peak hours. The Dover-Calais ferry is cheaper, but way more inconvenient.

    2. Re:ha by GNious · · Score: 2

      Brussels-London, via France, is a 2 hour train-ride, and costs 80 EUR.
      What in this specific setup of trains going between Helsinki and Tallinn makes you think it would 2.5x more expensive than that?

    3. Re:ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At one point you could fly over with a helicopter for 50 EUR. I recall the normal helicopter ticket being three times as much but one of the helicopters crashed in 2005 and then in the wake of it when restructuring their operations the company operating the flights had dirt cheap tickets for the least popular departure times.

    4. Re:ha by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      And they (whoever "they" are) are forgetting Government Subsidies for those rail systems, which everyone pays via higher taxes.

      IF government was OPEN and HONEST about how much things actually cost and compared with the benefits, many programs and subsidies would cease. But questioning effectiveness of government is tantamount to being "evil" these days.

      I've seen government programs so expensive, that if we scrapped the program completely, and just paid the remaining people affected cash, it would be a fraction of the cost of maintaining the program.

      I'll use the cost to build California's "High Speed Rail" system as an example. It would be cheaper, and more effective, to offer every man woman and child in California, 20 free round trip tickets via Airlines, and that is before a single train is run. The estimated one way price (as of today) is approximately $20 more than the cheapest flights available (and doesn't include ongoing government subsidies)

      The point being, there are groups of people who are "in love" with certain viewpoints, where their emotional attachment overrides any logical points being made. In this case, there is NO economical sense in building out a rail system, UNLESS you're emotionally compromised by the idea of "high speed rail".

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:ha by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Airports do happen to cost a shit ton on their own. Though in my opinion, perhaps both suck. Massively upgrading slow speed networks (as in ~100 mph and more on good tracks) with most of them electricity powered might be a good way to spend the zillions. Frequent runs, more places it goes too, cheaper fares, fuller trains, wifi/4G and maybe USB power for the people married to their phones and then who cares if the trip takes 5 hours instead of 3.

    6. Re:ha by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I'll use the cost to build California's "High Speed Rail" system as an example. It would be cheaper, and more effective, to offer every man woman and child in California, 20 free round trip tickets via Airlines, and that is before a single train is run. The estimated one way price (as of today) is approximately $20 more than the cheapest flights available (and doesn't include ongoing government subsidies)

      So you're suggesting using heavily subsidized airlines instead of rail? Without government subsidizes airline travel would be much more expensive, just think of the price of building and operating an airport as well as the market power the private airports would have with their own airline.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    7. Re:ha by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting using heavily subsidized airlines instead of rail?

      Source? I would be interested if you're talking about actual subsidies (government giving money to airlines) (and apart from EAS) rather than tax breaks and such. What is the cost per passenger?

      As a libertarian, I'm generally opposed to REAL subsidies for just about everything, simply because of all the unintended consequences.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re: ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nothing BETTER than being lectured to BY A FREE MARKET HYPOCRITE who loves EMPHASISING points with CAPITAL LETTERS.

    9. Re: ha by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      So says the AC chickenshit unwilling to taint their precious profile with garbage posts. Worse than a troll IMHO

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:ha by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No it won't.
      For that price I can hire a private boat for a weak, rofl.

      The distance is what? 40km? 30km even? I would wonder when it is finally running if the price is even EUR20.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:ha by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Airlines are supported in several ways. One is that they pay less fuel tax. Then there are the bailouts that they get every now and then. The tax breaks that they give to airports. Not to mention incentives, grants, funding, etc to airports.

    12. Re:ha by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      You might not be that far off. I'll admit to a very limited understanding of European life, but I do watch a few British shows and the views I've seen on train travel are less than stellar. I remember half of a Top Gear episode devoted to how you could buy an old car, fill it with gas, then drive it between two of the cities serviced by a long distance train route for cheaper than you could buy a two way ticket and have a car to keep at the end of the trip. And those were simple over land routes, tunnels are orders of magnitude more expensive. It costs somewhere between $100M & $200M per mile of tunnel, and if the UK/France Tunnel is of any indication will come in closer to 16.2 to 23.4 Billion, not 9 to 13 Billion.

    13. Re:ha by citizenr · · Score: 1

      It isn't a captive market, competition from the ferries should keep it down. A return ferry ticket is about €50. While you could charge a premium for business class seats, they alone won't fill a train. The Eurostar London-Paris service is a reasonable comparison. Booking in advance, you can usually get a return ticket for that for £100 in off-peak hours. The Dover-Calais ferry is cheaper, but way more inconvenient.

      or you could fly there for 45 pounds ...

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    14. Re:ha by citizenr · · Score: 1

      and 30 by plane (trains are so fail)

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    15. Re:ha by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse Top Gear and real life - that won't end well for you. Train travel in (continental) Europe is a far different beast to that in the UK. Fast, clean, affordable, punctual trains serve every city/large town, with regional routes connecting them to the smaller towns and villages.

    16. Re:ha by GNious · · Score: 1

      If you can get from downtown Brussels to London (not Luton, Stanstead or similar) either for 30 Euros, or in 30 minutes (your post is a bit ambiguous), then I'd very much like a link.
      Traveling in from the outlier airports is not exactly free, or instantaneous, from my experience.

      Add to that, the train-ride on Eurostar is more comfortable (can work on laptop, has power-outlet etc), has better service, and less security-theater and hurry-up-and-wait, I'll take the train ca every time.

      Note: I just dbl-checked - seems the cheapest train is now 43 Euros one-way, making it 86 Euros return.

    17. Re:ha by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      It isn't a captive market, competition from the ferries should keep it down. A return ferry ticket is about €50. While you could charge a premium for business class seats, they alone won't fill a train. The Eurostar London-Paris service is a reasonable comparison. Booking in advance, you can usually get a return ticket for that for £100 in off-peak hours. The Dover-Calais ferry is cheaper, but way more inconvenient.

      That's exactly my point though (and yes I made the same comparison as I live in France and often travel to England).

      Even 100 pounds is way more than the 40 euros nonsense number they've come up with to promote the project.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    18. Re:ha by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      or you could fly there for 45 pounds ...

      True to a point but incomplete as your total cost of flying has to include travel to/from the airports on either side as the airports are not in the city proper as the train stations are.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    19. Re:ha by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Brussels-London, via France, is a 2 hour train-ride, and costs 80 EUR.
      What in this specific setup of trains going between Helsinki and Tallinn makes you think it would 2.5x more expensive than that?

      80 Euros is still twice 40 Euros and in the years I've been going back and forth between the UK and France I have never once had a ticket on the Eurostar as cheap as 80 Euros, though they no doubt exist.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    20. Re:ha by GNious · · Score: 1

      I was a bit unclear, sorry - just checked prices earlier today, could get tickets at 43 Euros each way.
      Admittedly, there is a limited number of tickets at that price, and they are sold out fairly quickly; if you're ordering tickets for the next couple of weeks, you'll be lucky if you get anywhere near that price.

      That said, I fully expect that the mentioned "estimated ticket-price" on the Helsinki-Tallinn line would be for a limited number of tickets, with much more costly options available - this is par-for-the-course on all transport services.

    21. Re:ha by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I was a bit unclear, sorry - just checked prices earlier today, could get tickets at 43 Euros each way.
      Admittedly, there is a limited number of tickets at that price, and they are sold out fairly quickly; if you're ordering tickets for the next couple of weeks, you'll be lucky if you get anywhere near that price.

      That said, I fully expect that the mentioned "estimated ticket-price" on the Helsinki-Tallinn line would be for a limited number of tickets, with much more costly options available - this is par-for-the-course on all transport services.

      Fair enough - I guess I should have written that the average ticket price wouldn't be anywhere near 40 Euros but I agree with you overall :-)

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    22. Re:ha by default+luser · · Score: 1

      The reason they could make this happen is because the EU passed a stupid law that says all cars have to be recycled. Before that happened, old cars were taken to the scrapyard to get payment for the salvageable parts, but now people have to pay a hundred quid (according to Clarkson) to have them recycled.

      Hence, a sudden infusion of cars that would have otherwise been scrapped. It has no real-world bearing on th e cost of rail versus car transport, just an inconvenient problem created by the meddling EU.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    23. Re:ha by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "Subsidized" doesn't mean "Pay less". It does mean "given money to, by the government".

      And I love how keeping money you earn is considered "subsidy" by the left, as if government has the right to all of your money, but allows you to keep some of it. Good job guys.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  5. Re:Why bother with Estonia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, we have utopian stateless socialist anarchy here in EE. (Now if I could get the tax office to understand that, all would be mighty fine. :P )

  6. Precondition: Rail Baltic by paavo512 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Missing from the summary: this project does not make sense without proper railway connection from Tallinn to central Europe (this is Rail Baltic, about to be started in "near" future and expected to be ready around 2025).

    1. Re:Precondition: Rail Baltic by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 2

      I really don't think it could be cost-effective.
      The distance involved is greater than the Channel Tunnel, and neither Finland nor Estonia has a large enough population to make it worth that much expenditure. There is no way passenger figures will match those of the Channel Tunnel and that particular project ended in tears for investors.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    2. Re:Precondition: Rail Baltic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is also for cargo and tourists from/to Russia. Direct train from continental Europe to Tornio would give finally good reason for Finland to change to standard gauge track. Can also advertise direct train service almost from Finnish summer homes Portugal and Gib to Inari.

      Train from HKI to TAL also cheaper than renting cargo car to enjoy cheap Estonian alcohols, but also removes excuse for booze cruise with exchange students. pkl. Such is life.

    3. Re:Precondition: Rail Baltic by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Says the guy who lives in germany and has no idea how much travel back and forth between Helsinki and Tallinn is actually happening :)

       

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Precondition: Rail Baltic by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Better to do both, standard rail to Tornio with a tunnel to Sweden further south.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    5. Re:Precondition: Rail Baltic by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      If it was a natural gas pipeline across the whole Baltic funded by the Russians which they have to pay through the nose in transit fees it would be fine. As long as you hide the bill they can swallow it just fine.

    6. Re:Precondition: Rail Baltic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is that Finland, and AFAIK the Baltic countries as well, use the Russian railway gauge (1520 mm) rather than the standard gauge (1435 mm) that the rest of Europe (and most of the world) uses. So somewhere along the way some more or less time-consuming and/or expensive stuff is needed (transfer cargo/people to another train, wheels/axles with adjustable gauge or whatnot).

  7. Big Public Works Projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no way this is getting built for less than €20 billion.

  8. Ticket to Ride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what I remember, all it took was one pink train with one wild card to link Finland and Estonia!

  9. Re:Why bother with Estonia by Carewolf · · Score: 2

    Cut it over to .de or .dk, a real country.

    A bridge to Denmark would be a bit too long (and silly), and Finns doesn't want to be any closer to Sweden, so a bridge to Stockholm over Åland is probably out of the question.

  10. I.G.Y. by Darth+Hubris · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for that train, all graphite and glitter; 90 minutes from New York to Paris.

    --
    The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out
    1. Re:I.G.Y. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a beautiful world this will be
      What a glorious time to be free

    2. Re:I.G.Y. by unitron · · Score: 1

      Did you ever even get your spandex jacket?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  11. Booze tunnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the tunnel will be popular, as it seems there is quite busy traffic between these countries - rather surprisingly, it seems a large part of it is Finns shopping for booze in Estonia.

    http://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish_...

    1. Re:Booze tunnel? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      According to a study, seven million one-way crossings are made each year. That averages out at around 10 000 return crossings a day.
      Compare that with Dover's 2013 figures which were 12.7 Million for "short sea crossings" and an additional 11 Million using the Tunnel.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    2. Re:Booze tunnel? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Same with Sweden heading to Denmark for booze. I took the ferry from DK to SE the day before Midsommer, and everyone but me was coming back hauling lots of booze bought at a cheaper tax rate.

  12. Mooted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that's what Christopher Poole is up to.

    1. Re:Mooted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He retired from 4chan

  13. Why were the chunnel building machines buried? by WillAdams · · Score: 2

    That's one thing I've always been mystified at --- when the English Channel tunnel was finished the machines were run a bit further and entombed --- why weren't they run up to the surface and put up for use on other projects?

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    1. Re:Why were the chunnel building machines buried? by kjr71 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It seems there was a total of 11 machines, and only one of them was buried. One of them was even sold on eBay:

      http://slashdot.org/story/04/0...

    2. Re:Why were the chunnel building machines buried? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were purpose built for one job, and it was more cost effective to leave them there than to try to get them out to be stored and maintained for no actual purpose.

      They were stripped of anything that could usefully be stripped of them. The cost of the boring machinery is an insignificant part of a project that is costing tens of billions.

    3. Re:Why were the chunnel building machines buried? by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's one thing I've always been mystified at --- when the English Channel tunnel was finished the machines were run a bit further and entombed --- why weren't they run up to the surface and put up for use on other projects?

      Because machine lines the tunnel behind it as it drills and moves forward, and because construction continues behind it... meaning they couldn't be "just run forward" as the tunnel ahead was larger than the machine. So they either have to be entombed (as the British did) or dismantled and scrapped (as the French did). Most large TBM's are also custom built, so there's little resale or reuse value to begin with.

  14. Can't See Any Banks Financing This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A number of banks ended up in serious trouble after financing the Eurotunnel:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotunnel#History

    I can't see many being enthusiastic to finance another tunnel, particularly when this one has a smaller potential customer base.

    1. Re:Can't See Any Banks Financing This by aliquis · · Score: 1

      It would likely be built by the governments.

  15. Price difference may not matter to everyone by grimJester · · Score: 2

    The difference between 25 and 40 € isn't that big. Depending on where exactly you are and want to go in Helsinki/Tallinn, it may well be more convenient to take a train.

    Heck, people ride the metro for nearly half an hour to get downtown for beers. If I can get to a decent Tallinn pub in less than an hour door-to-door I'd probably go now and then, depending on how late in the evening I can get back home.

    For those who don't know, alcohol and restaurant food are around half the price in Tallinn compared to Helsinki.

    1. Re:Price difference may not matter to everyone by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that a fast ride to good eating establishments will raise demand... and therefore price. So your half price beer is only half price because of the difficulty in obtaining it.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    2. Re:Price difference may not matter to everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny enough, in every large city I've been in there is no shortage of half price beer places within easy access of mass transit. Which one you go to comes down preference and how much variety you want. Yet some of the places kept offering half price beer for years on end despite being packed that night every week, probably cause it keeps making them money one way or another (e.g. food sales).

    3. Re:Price difference may not matter to everyone by citizenr · · Score: 1

      subway is ~1.5 Euro

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  16. Current minimum is 30 min by car. by drerwk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I had the great pleasure of staying in Helsinki for Dec/Jan - love the Finns. It finally got down to -44 or so and there was much celebration at work as the gulf had frozen over and the booze run to Tallinn could be done by car. I gratefully declined the invite to go along for the ride.

    1. Re:Current minimum is 30 min by car. by swb · · Score: 2

      Average temperature Dec-Feb for Helsinki was 32F and the minimum low was -5F.

      I wouldn't drive over that much sea water unless the average high was -5F for at least a month. It gets a lot colder than Helsinki around here in MN and cars go through the fresh water lakes every year, loads recently despite having a week of subzero F highs.

    2. Re:Current minimum is 30 min by car. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that people were fucking with you if they said they'd be driving over. There's heavy ferry traffic going to St. Petersburg all the time so the fairway is probably not frozen at all.

    3. Re:Current minimum is 30 min by car. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the great pleasure of staying in Helsinki for Dec/Jan - love the Finns. It finally got down to -44 or so and there was much celebration at work as the gulf had frozen over and the booze run to Tallinn could be done by car. I gratefully declined the invite to go along for the ride.

      That is total bollocks.

      I in fact live in Tallinn and i have yet to heard anybody driving a car from Tallinn to Helsinki over the sea. Besides Sea really never completely freezing, there are multiple ship-lines running from east to west and vice versa, you would sink quite quickly on the way into one of these free water lines.

      Also, -44 - just no, no no no. Totally made up, yet to heard these kind of temperature in Helsinki nor Tallinn.

    4. Re:Current minimum is 30 min by car. by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      I do think it is plausible that it could have been -44 in the middle of the night, but the daytime temperature on a day like that would be something like -20.

    5. Re:Current minimum is 30 min by car. by drerwk · · Score: 2

      It may be people at work were kidding me: However, apparently it is common to drive into the sea at Talinn.
      http://www.topgear.com/uk/phot...
      http://www.bencoombs.net/page7...
      As for temp:
      Helsinki Airport recorded a temperature of 34.0 C (93.2 F) on 29 July 2010 and a low of 35.9 C (33 F) on 9 January 1987. - so maybe I'm thinking with wind chill.

    6. Re:Current minimum is 30 min by car. by drerwk · · Score: 1

      Thanks /. for removing the - from my comment!

    7. Re:Current minimum is 30 min by car. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not between Tallinn and Helsinki. This between the islands in the west of the country.

  17. Whos paying for this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both these countries are as poor as church mice last I checked.

  18. Estonia in 2030 by Fartypants · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, Finland already has a border with Russia and the way things are going, it's entirely possible Estonia and the rest of the Baltics will be returned to Russia's "sphere of influence" by 2030. Promises made by NATO to put a brigade in Poland and create local headquarters in each of the Baltic states have made depressingly little progress and the EU has made it clear that avoiding conflict with Russia is worth the sacrifice of nations on the periphery of Europe.

    1. Re:Estonia in 2030 by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      When you give the political reigns to beancounters it is what happens. Everyone is too busy trying to protect their own interest right now to bother with things like that. People do not bother thinking about geopolitics anymore. If Russia actually got serious there are only two countries in Europe with any kind of military muscle that could do anything. France and the UK. The UK basically froze its military upgrades once the Conservatives came to power and basically the same thing happened in France with the Socialists. The US is too busy being concerned with China and the Middle East to devote serious time to Europe at this moment. Plus with sequestration they cannot do a lot of spending either.

      The Poles at least figured out by now that they are basically on their own and started doing their own military acquisition program.

    2. Re:Estonia in 2030 by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      EU has made it clear that avoiding conflict with Russia is worth the sacrifice of nations on the periphery of Europe.

      Ukraine is only "in Europe" in some technical geographical sense that would also include Russia. Meanwhile the EU is trying to avoid being dragged by USA/UK into what is quite clearly a civil war, not an invasion by Russia regardless of what the talking heads would like us all the believe. Invasions aren't the sort of thing you can do quietly. Just ask the Iraqis.

    3. Re:Estonia in 2030 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your claim of civil war would have more credibility if the invasion to easten Ukraine had not been preceded by annexation of Crimea, where Russia denied any involvement until the staged "referendum" was over and massive Russian military presence established. After which it confessed ( proudly ! ) that yes, the "green men" orchestrating it were actually Russian military.

  19. Continental Europe by mseeger · · Score: 1

    Finnland has alread trains to continental Europe. In fact, Finnland is a part of continental Europe.

    1. Re:Continental Europe by robi5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Though to be fair, Russia is doing its best to write itself out of Europe... well probably there are trains to Sweden as well.

      What's interesting is how Europe is such a hodge-podge of countries, with almost as many sets of countries as the number of countries:

      There is Europe as a continent - but many countries, esp. Russia really behave in un-European ways; some countries have minority land in Europe (Russia, Turkey).

      The EU seems to be the biggest ensemble - but curiously, Switzerland, one of the richest countries, is not in the EU and does not appear to bear any of the costs of solidarity and convergence (e.g. helping East Europe catch up); also is absent Norway (also one of the richest countries, and a great oil power); and the UK is on the brink of exiting the EU (and the UK now has a weird anti-Eastern European immigrant stance while it happily accepted immigrants of more radically different cultures and London, like Paris, is becoming a Muslim city). Some countries, like Turkey and probably Ukraine will spend an eternity in the waiting room before being able to join. Iceland just suspended joining talks.

      The UK deserves its own section as they are an oddball in many other regards: driving on the left side of the road, using incompatible power plugs, often using imperial units etc. etc. - but more importantly they use terms like "We visited Europe last Summer" as if the UK wasn't even part of Europe. So one of the strongest military powers in Europe is also one of the least integrated (similar in that regard to the Swiss). Germany also deserves special mention due to their strong economy, yet no military power or participation, and the weird stance on nuclear power plants (despite the fact that they are densely surrounded by nuclear power plants). However, Germany is the most important integrating force of Europe, mainly responsible for its Eastern opening.

      Then there is NATO; interestingly Norway is in, but Sweden and (more understandably and regrettably) Finland isn't; Switzerland is again, absent (despite having a strong military; again there seems to be a lack of solidarity while they unilaterally benefitted from being a safe haven and from the tax evasion of the rest of the World)

      Within the EU, there is the Euro currency; while theoretically mandatory for all countries, this further fragments Europe, along multiple fracture lines:
      - Some developed countries (UK, Denmark, Sweden) opted out from the beginning (special treatment)
      - Some countries which caught up introduced the Euro (Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia), but some opted not to (Czech R., Poland)
      - Some countries have been unable to meet Euro introduction criteria, e.g. due to irresponsible borrowing of the Socialists in Hungary till 2008

      A special place is occupied by Greece - they lied and cheated so they gain admission into the Euro zone. Europe has lavishly rewarded their morals by pouring EUR200Bn into Greece over a year or two. (In comparison, Hungary, which has the same population size but much lower GDP/head and welfare, only got EUR20Bn, i.e. one tenth of that, from EU cohesion funds over around 10 years.) and the Greeks will want more money for their irresponsible behavior. So some of the European fault lines are growing and the Euro zone is about to shrink. But of course Europe doesn't try to offset the loss of Greece by more ambitiously integrating Eastern Europe like Poland, the Chech Republic and Hungary. In fact, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia has been left by the EU to predominantly depend on Russia for energy sources, a BIG mistake with the reversion to Russian imperialism.

      Minor redemption is the SEPA (Single Euro Payment Area), which, despite its name, includes a lot of non-Euro, non-EU countries. SEPA's spirit (removing financial friction inside Europe) and existence however doesn't stop a UK bank like Barclays to shamelessly charge a whopping GBP25 fixed fee on each and every transfer (despite electronic, STP) into another SEPA country. Maybe royal remnants like H.M. Beefeate

    2. Re:Continental Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to have to remember to carry cyanide pills with me, just in case I ever get stuck sitting next to you on the bus and having to listen to you waffle on about total bollocks..

    3. Re:Continental Europe by jonfr · · Score: 1

      Sweden didn't opt-out of the Euro. They agreed to adopt it when they joined. Then they held a second referendum on the Euro and rejected adopting it, that referendum has de-fact no legal meaning. Currently Sweden stays out of the euro by not joining ERM-II as is required for minimal of two years if they want to adopt the euro. Denmark has opt-out clause, they can cancel it with a vote when they want to and adopt the euro quickly after that.

      As for Russia. They are preparing for war with Europe. Russia wants what they don't have. What that is EU and what EU has. Prosperity and riches. Putin wants that.

      He can't have it and is never going to get it.

    4. Re:Continental Europe by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Don't know what you want to say with that: Germany also deserves special mention due to their strong economy, yet no military power or participation
      Germany has a strong army and a strong air force and a marine that is very suitable for its role in the NATO.

      Becoming 'Muslim' is not a fault line. Actually no one really cares what religion you have. Even if you are so brain damaged that you need a religion to have a fulfilled life the - in general more or less atheist - population of Europe tolerates you.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Continental Europe by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      A good post +1
      Re: Hungary
      I do believe that Orban has completely repaid the debt and threw out the IMF. There is a very negative view on adopting the Euro in Hungary as many Hungarians borrowed Euros but could only pay the loan back in Forints. The last I heard, Orban had changed this as well, converting these loans into Forints. He maybe a bit crazy, ocd etc and extremely Nationalistic, but in my opinion he succeeded in bringing the country out of a financial mess (and into another one :))
      Slovakia with the Euro, has a higher standard of living simply because they're happy to follow Merkel's path. Hungary is soon to follow because of the massive re-industrialization by Germany (eg new Mercedes factory) due to cheaper labour costs.
      Hungary as a people will not allow Russia or Germany to take the country again voluntarily. They need some respite after the last 100 years and the socialist opposition can see that plainly. They have lost ~ 75% of their previous dominions since 1919 with no thanks to the US. Consequently, there are huge minority groups of Hungarians all throughout the Serb/Romanian/Transylvanian lands and Slovakia/Ukraine to the north. The loss of land has seriously affected the economy of Hungary with no hope of reinstating political borders to follow the ethnic one.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    6. Re:Continental Europe by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Germany has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear submarines. They have 183k people in their military while France has 215k despite Germany having more population than France. The German Navy has poor power projection capabilities. They have decent tanks and other military hardware but their Air Force and Navy are kind of dire.

    7. Re:Continental Europe by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      The EUSSR is a bit of a mess. Gigantic in theory but in practice it is worth less than the sum of its parts.

      A lot of the faults in what is happening in Europe right now are due to a lack of political direction and lack of stomach to do important strategic investments. Read about Nabucco and North Stream to get an idea. The Germans claim they can do everything and try to cultivate an aura of invincibility but in practice they don't want to pay for anything with large upfront costs. Once Nord Stream came online Putin felt safe that he could invade Ukraine just fine while he kept selling natural gas to Germany at the same time. This is because he knows how important these kinds of strategic investments are. He is doing it again by funding large natural oil and gas pipelines in the Far East. So he can just switch the direction he's pumping the gas if he wants to continue pushing his strategic interests further West. At the same time France and Germany this week basically handed him a chunk of Eastern Ukraine on a platter. He's not going to stop at just that. He'll probably only stop once he cleaves Ukraine neatly in half taking their heavy industry with it including Antonov and Morozov. Next he might try to vassalize the Baltic states.

      As for the Euro whoever had the stupid idea of making a single currency area, with free currency transfers, without a banking union was a moron. Had we a banking union then Ireland, Spain, Portugal wouldn't be in the dire straits they are right now. Greece has a lot of structural issues which cannot be easily solved in a generation. They were part of the Ottoman Empire until 1822 and had a lot of dictatorships, civil wars, and WWII in between. And structural reforms, to me at least, are about deeper changes than slashing pensions or salaries which is nothing more than shock therapy and does nothing to solve the real problems they have.

      The problems of Greece happen elsewhere as well. The US has plenty of bankrupt states but they don't threaten to kick them out of the Union for it. Comparing Greece with Hungary in that way makes little sense. Of those EUR 200 billion loans over 90% of it went straight to cover French and German private bank loans. Hungary got structural funds which will be invested into the local economy. Considering that Hungary is not on the Eurozone and has different PPP those EUR 20 billion will do more in Hungary than they would in Greece. I agree that more funding should have been provided to Eastern Europe but part of the problem was the the EU grew way too fast for its own good.

    8. Re:Continental Europe by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The oil price collapse certainly put a dent into his plans. Otherwise he could have done extremely well. If Russia successfully annexed Ukraine all of a sudden they would have gained a lot of population and heavy industry including the USSR shipyards. He did it a bit too early though. The Russian military did not finish their modernization program on time. Neither did China.

    9. Re:Continental Europe by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The air force is not kind of dire, and as I said the marine does what their role in the NATO supposes them to do.

      You don't need a 'special' marine or air force to fight the our days wars against third world countries.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Continental Europe by robi5 · · Score: 1

      Most Hungarians borrowed in CHF. Had Hungary adopted the EUR in time, people would have borrowed in EUR rather than CHF (it had only marginally higher interest rates than CHF, and there is natural bias toward a domestic currency if conditions are not too far). Also, debt repayment would have occurred in the same currency. So the timely adoption of the EUR woulnd't have been detrimental or against the interest of the population; on the contrary, it would have served the country better. Yes the current government did its best to eliminate the CHF exposure and famously hedged all domestic CHF debt weeks before the Swiss central bank let go of the exchange rate. You're right about Orban's success in taking the country out of the high risk debt the Socialists irresponsibly built up.

    11. Re:Continental Europe by robi5 · · Score: 1

      > Becoming 'Muslim' is not a fault line. Actually no one really cares what religion you have. Even if you are so brain damaged that you need a religion to have a fulfilled life the - in general more or less atheist - population of Europe tolerates you.

      Well, your opinion exhibits the tolerant Western mindset. It is this very mindset that is likely taken advantage of as the Muslim influence is growing unabated, through migration, demographics and propaganda. But mostly, through sitting out the couple of decades before there is majority. If a Western democracy has become predominantly muslim through demographics, or at least very large parts of it, what's going to stop electoral wins and eventually Sharia law? Just asking. So it's not _your_ tolerance what matters (in fact it's an enabler more dangerous than terrorism) but what the other side does with it, and IF the other side has a very strong agenda, then this will inevitably bias the whole system.

      But, while being eaten alive by other worlds, the First World and Western culture preoccupies itself with internal fighs, such as Russia against Ukraine, UK immigration intolerance toward E-Europe, Russia against Nato and the US etc. When democracy, girls' education and women's rights will evaporate, all these shortsighted frat bullyings will be obvious in retrospect.

    12. Re:Continental Europe by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I stopped reading at "becoming a Muslim city" because clearly you get your information, at least partly, from gibbering sources, and you seem quite happy with it.

    13. Re:Continental Europe by robi5 · · Score: 1

      Nice theatrical statement, but would you consider available data? Like the 2001 -> 2011 trend in the Religion section?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

    14. Re:Continental Europe by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Modern Muslims who migrate to the West are not fond of sharia law.

      No idea why people try to compare some minorities that live in the middle ages with open minded people and fear monger on that.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Continental Europe by robi5 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are _lots_ of people in the Middle East who are also not fond of sharia law, yet something like the Islamic State occurred, and Islamic revolutions resulting in 'fundamentalist' religion-states. Interesting that you seem to starkly contrast modern Muslims who migrated to the West with, your word, 'minorities that live in the middle ages'. I'd have thought that there are all kinds of gradients and influencing channels.

      Also, walking in the streets of some of the above mentioned cities, not all Muslims living there appeared very modern muslims, what with their youth forming large, loud obnoxious groups of man-gangs where other pedestrians, especially women do best by crossing to the other side of the road.

    16. Re:Continental Europe by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Follow the money.
      The islamic state is not something that sprang up by the people themselves.
      It is just a small rich group of maniacs that want power an hired a few ten thousand poor idiots as 'soldiers'.
      That the now IS areas needed to be conquered is a sign the population did not welcome them.

      Anyway, dealing with Muslims or militant Islam spreaders has nothing to do with being an hard core christian. If they get a majority via voting, there is still a long way for them to go before they can cause trouble. As there is that thing called constitution, which you can not change by simple majorities alone.

      Bottom line if you are scared in your own country by increased islamization, can do as the immigrants did, emigrate :)

      Well, regarding Germany: I'm not concerned.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Continental Europe by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      We are talking about Russia here. They might have a dilapidated military compared to what they had during the USSR but they still have a lot more power projection capabilities than Germany.

    18. Re:Continental Europe by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course they have, that is why germany is member of the NATO.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  20. Numbers by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This tunnel would be roughly the same length and complexity as the English Channel Tunnel. The combined metro area of London and Paris is 26 million people; Talinn and Helsinki combined are less than 1/10th the size. If you're thinking more in terms of connecting all of Finland to all of Europe the way the Chunnel connects the whole UK to Europe, the population of Finland is again less than 1/10th the size of the UK.

    The Chunnel has been in or on the edge of bankruptcy for most of its existence.

    I'm not sure this is gonna work.

    1. Re:Numbers by dj245 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This tunnel would be roughly the same length and complexity as the English Channel Tunnel. The combined metro area of London and Paris is 26 million people; Talinn and Helsinki combined are less than 1/10th the size. If you're thinking more in terms of connecting all of Finland to all of Europe the way the Chunnel connects the whole UK to Europe, the population of Finland is again less than 1/10th the size of the UK.

      The Chunnel has been in or on the edge of bankruptcy for most of its existence.

      I'm not sure this is gonna work.

      It is a classic mistake to measure the benefit of infrastructure on the basis of "does it pay for itself in ticket sales?". The benefit to society may be much larger than the direct income generated.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:Numbers by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      It is a classic mistake to measure the benefit of infrastructure on the basis of "does it pay for itself in ticket sales?". The benefit to society may be much larger than the direct income generated.

      If that's true, then the ticket prices can be raised - the amount people will pay for a thing represents how much they value it.

      If it's a commercial benefit, then those costs are merely passed along to the next consumer in the chain on a given product.

      Granted, this excludes unaccounted externalities where license have been granted to externalize (e.g. subsidies to airlines to fly out of Heathrow to Paris), but it's better to fix those problems than subsidize on a guess.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Numbers by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      It is a classic mistake to measure the benefit of infrastructure on the basis of "does it pay for itself in ticket sales?". The benefit to society may be much larger than the direct income generated.

      It would certainly be interesting if the tunnel project helped balance out the drastic price/income/tax differences between Finland and Estonia, similarly to what has happened between Sweden and Denmark to some extent. Booze runs to Estonia are a national pastime in Finland where alcohol is heavily taxed and monopolized, while many an Estonian spends their weeks working well-paid jobs in Helsinki. Of course, our government is doing everything to curb the booze runs in the name of national health, intra-EU free trade be damned. Meanwhile, a lot of Finnish entrepreneurs are moving South to enjoy a more business-friendly taxation.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    4. Re:Numbers by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The Chunnel has been in or on the edge of bankruptcy for most of its existence.

      Do you mean that it's been subsidized or that it's like a highly-efficient non-profit? The difference is pretty important relative to its perceived value. And I'm assuming they have a huge bond repayment, which would make any such endeavor challenging over a long timeframe (as with most worthwhile efforts).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's true, then the ticket prices can be raised - the amount people will pay for a thing represents how much they value it.

      That would only work if everything in society was paid for accordingly.
      For people to be willing to pay the full value of the train tickets one would have to first make sure that drivers of cars paid for the cost of capturing and neutralizing released smog, but then no-one would be able to afford using anything but trains.

    6. Re:Numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it's better to fix those problems than subsidize on a guess."

      Care to cite a source?

    7. Re:Numbers by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Of comparable size and complexity is the "Big Dig" in Boston. A difference is that it was paid with federal appropriations, thus never had to turn a profit. It really depends on what the governments of Estonia and Finland want to do in this situation, and if they can convince other EU members to help chip into the project too.

    8. Re:Numbers by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Right, so charge people to use roads and freeways. After all if they value the convenience of having a robust economy where good and services are mobile then they should be willing to pay.

    9. Re:Numbers by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Europe already has very high petrol taxes. So done.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Numbers by packrat0x · · Score: 1

      This tunnel would be roughly the same length and complexity as the English Channel Tunnel. The combined metro area of London and Paris is 26 million people; Talinn and Helsinki combined are less than 1/10th the size. If you're thinking more in terms of connecting all of Finland to all of Europe the way the Chunnel connects the whole UK to Europe, the population of Finland is again less than 1/10th the size of the UK.

      Then this rail project needs to estimate cargo profitability, and only continue if cargo on its own is profitable.

      --
      227-3517
    11. Re:Numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cost is mostly fixed. Benefit is the sum of the benefit gained by each person on it. So it's pretty obvious raising prices reduces benefit to society.

      The benefit to society (measured in monetary terms) is the sum of the direct income generated PLUS sum of what people would have been willing to spend extra. If you had omniscience and perfect price discrimination at your fingertips, then yes, you could make the direct income generated match the societal benefit, excluding externalities (which with infrastructure, you get a lot of).

      So, all in all, your economic knowledge is awfully lacking, and you should refrain from future commenting on issues which you really know nothing about as if you know it all.

    12. Re:Numbers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If that's true, then the ticket prices can be raised - the amount people will pay for a thing represents how much they value it.
      No, it can't.
      Why should I pay more for my ticket to go to a city that benefits from me staying there in a hotel eating there in a restaurant and drinking in a pub?
      If the train ticket is more expensive, I do the exact same thing with another train, another city, another hotel, another restaurant and another pub.

      I really wonder why americans always have so retarded ideas about how economics work?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:Numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, and let's take this one step farther. One thing that simplistic accounting scenarios often miss is that the presence of the infrastructure changes the future of the area it serves. The most common outcome being, more development, more people, and more activity.

      This is quite natural. As long as the infrastructure serves the purpose intended, is easy to access and not inordinately expensive, then it attracts people. People who otherwise would not be attracted. Some will just visit, some will come and stay. However make a city appealing and accessible with infrastructure and it will typically grow.

    14. Re:Numbers by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      It is a classic mistake to measure the benefit of infrastructure on the basis of "does it pay for itself in ticket sales?". The benefit to society may be much larger than the direct income generated.

      Sure, but this is going to benefit a tenth as much society as the Chunnel, at the same cost. And the Chunnel has never been indispensable to start with.

    15. Re:Numbers by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      In economic terms it might not make sense but in strategic terms it might make sense. Given the current situation with Russia an overland route is problematic. The Baltic states have cultural ties to Finland. The only other overland route to the EU is by Poland but this is stuck between Kaliningrad and Belarus.

      I doubt those countries can fund it by themselves.

      The Japanese undersea tunnel to Hokkaido makes no economic sense either. It was still built for strategic reasons back when the USSR was still around.

  21. This will only work if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can buy duty free alcohol on the train like you can on the Ferry. Many people ride the ferry just to buy beer. You can even get a rolling carrier the holds the maximum number of cases you can legally buy.

  22. Mooted??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from Amerika and I don't have no edumication. 'Round here mooted means it's not worth spending time talkin' about unless you just want to have a chit-chat for the fun of it.

    1. Re:Mooted??? by deadweight · · Score: 2

      Yes - "Moot Court" is a think in law school where you pretend to have a trial. The headline makes it seem like the tunnel idea was cancelled in USAian English.

    2. Re: Mooted??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-Americans should watch this 1984 Saturday Night Live skit "The Question Is Moot" to get a feel for the American English meaning of the word.

    3. Re:Mooted??? by unitron · · Score: 1

      Yes - "Moot Court" is a think in law school where you pretend to have a trial. The headline makes it seem like the tunnel idea was cancelled in USAian English.

      The headline made *me* think it was about an undersea "communications" link.

      But I did wind up expanding my knowledge of the variations of meaning for the word "moot".

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  23. Re:Why bother with Estonia by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2

    Cut it over to .de or .dk, a real country.

    Because Finns and Estonians have a shared ancient history. Estonians are descendants of finnic tribes. Their language is very similar to Finnish.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  24. Important advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A direct, fixed link between those two countries as opposed to the current one via Skt. Petersburg will help to affirm their independence from Russia, the imperialist country that has previously attacked them both.

  25. Why Under the Sea? by lazarus · · Score: 2

    Each time we do this, we tunnel (at great cost) under the ocean floor. While the engineering involved is impressive, I can't help but wonder why we don't just build a tunnel on the sea floor (by manufacturing the materials on dry land and then just sinking them to the bottom and sealing them up). Is the problem that we don't have the submersible technology, or robotic technology to do the finishing work, or is there something else I'm missing?

    This can't be the best way to build a tunnel through the water.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    1. Re:Why Under the Sea? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Is the problem that we don't have the submersible technology, or robotic technology to do the finishing work, or is there something else I'm missing?

      Some drunk driving a motorboat with the anchor dragging above the ocean floor will latch on to above ocean floor tunnel, causing a massive leak and/or damaging the boat. This is why it's better to build the tunnel in bedrock.

    2. Re:Why Under the Sea? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert on it, but I imagine it's because the sea bed isn't particularly flat, so lots of support structure would be needed in order to make a road that's somewhat flat and that's difficult to do under water. Going beneath everything ensures there's a solid foundation the entire way.

    3. Re:Why Under the Sea? by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      That's called an immersed tube tunnel. The way it's done is they dig a trench at the bottom, lower concrete tunnel elements to form the tunnel and then cover the structure with rock and sand. This method has been used many times in the past and will be used in the future, for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

      Immersed tunnels aren't always cheaper than boring or blasting through rock. For one thing, it is cumbersome and expensive to dig a trench in deep waters.

    4. Re:Why Under the Sea? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      Because a bored lined tunnel is orders of magnitude easier and cheaper at any kind of depth. They are also lower maintenance and will last for a longer period of time. Concrete and sea water don't mix well. This is even assuming that sea floor is nice and smooth and even with no large changes in height.

    5. Re:Why Under the Sea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This way you skip most of the Enviromental Impact Studies you would have by having to change the ocean floor no matter how polluted by St Petersburg it is.

    6. Re:Why Under the Sea? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      In a tunnel you have air.
      Workers can just walk around.
      We have experience in making tunnels since millennia.
      We make nice tunnels with high tech machines all over the world in mountains.
      Making a tunnel below sea level is no much difference.

      Dropping pipes to the ground of the sea and evacuating them is something different.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  26. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If my math is correct, at 9 billion euros (no cost overruns) and 40 euros a ticket, this could pay for itself with 12,300 passengers every day for the next 50 years. As long as there are no ongoing costs. That's actually about 1/2 the number using the Chunnel, so not really too far out. Plus presumably a lot of freight would go through it.

  27. finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    moar cheap booze from estonia, even cheaper than before! Finlands economy is saved! :D

    1. Re:finally! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The economy sees socialism as damage and routes around it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  28. What good are trains? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    Why would I travel frequently when I can send packets? When looking ahead 50 years should probably worry more about the Singularity than about if people can use transportation in exactly the same fashion they do today.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:What good are trains? by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      The Singularity is an interesting concept, but can it do Pizza over IP?

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:What good are trains? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      It's the perfect job for a 3D printer.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  29. Useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such a Tunnel will be useful to isolate Russia and strengthen NATO and the EU. The route would also be useful to introduce nat gas to the Baltics from Scandinavia. All to hopefully screw Vladimir Vladimirovich!

    1. Re:Useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's a part of the equation. We're talking about this now because the EU has 9 Bil to spend on a message to Russia that says "Fuck you, the Baltics are ours now."

  30. Re:Why bother with Estonia by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Right, the closest neighbors are Russia and Estonia, and no one likes Russia.

  31. Finns can get drunk faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just what we needed

  32. Carbon? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    Perhaps climate change is real and we should be traveling by train instead of flying to, y'know, save the planet.

  33. How can the time difference be so small by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    I wonder why the train trip is supposed to take so long, or how the ferry trip is calculated.
    It is a no brainer that the train can be up to 10x as fast as the ferry. So what is wrong here?
    They use hydrofoils for the ferries? Then it makes sense.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:How can the time difference be so small by paavo512 · · Score: 1

      Big ferries take about 4 hours to cross the gulf (70 km). The 90 minutes mentioned in the summary does indeed apply for newer hydrofoil boats which have max speed about 70 km/h and take little or no cars on board (and have more expensive tickets). The number mentioned for the train (30 minutes) is 8 times less than for large ferries.

    2. Re:How can the time difference be so small by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That makes sense!

      I'm looking forward to be sailing in that area next year in late summer. I guess it will be great fun!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  34. Re:Why bother with Estonia by irr · · Score: 1

    Because Finns and Estonians have a shared ancient history. Estonians are descendants of finnic tribes. Their language is very similar to Finnish.

    Finns are descendants of North-Eastern Estonians, who migrated to North and North-West over the sea. North-Eastern "Coastal" Estonian is one of the three sub-languages besides official written (Northern) Estonian and Southern-Estonian and is a root of today's Finnish language. Finnish is tend to sound like Estonian some 600 - 800 years ago.