Slashdot Mirror
Epic Mega Bridge To Connect America With Russia Gets Closer To Reality
Sepa Blackforesta writes: A plan for an epic bridge connecting Russia's easternmost border with Alaska's westernmost border could soon be a reality, as Russia seeks to partner with China. Sijutech reports: "If this mega bridge come to reality, it would be Planet Earth’s most epic mega-road trip ever. The plans have not been officially accepted since specific details of the highway still need to be discussed, including the large budget. Allegedly the plan will cost upwards in the trillions of dollars range."
Why build one... when you can build two for twice the price!?
This is the project which is be done. But the problem is the littleness of current thinking.
Not only from London to New York, but from London to Hanoi. It is doable, it will create millions of sustainable jobs.
To recoup their investment as early as possible they'll allow traffic on sections of the bridge as soon as each is ready.
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
A plan for an epic bridge connecting Russia's easternmost border with Alaska's westernmost border could soon be a reality,
When asked to explain what is meant by, "soon", the Sijutech spokesman clarified, soon, for very large values of soon.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Why would the west give Russia leverage? We saw them try to exploit the pathetic hold they had on us with the international space station. A diplomatic project we put in place mostly to make the russians feel good... and they tried to fuck us with the olive branch.
We have an existing and quite inexpensive container ship network. Is this rail project going to be cheaper than that? Doubtful and less flexible... and most problematic going through Russian territory which means Russia gets leverage.
I'd be surprised if they got the funding for this... the Chinese might pay for it but who is going to build the US/Canadian leg of it? Because we're not letting Russian or Chinese labor in to do it and that means paying an American/Canadian construction firm... and who is going to do that.
Look, if the politics weren't so shitty, I'd say "fine"... it might make some sense. But the politics are not only shitty but getting shittier all the time.
The US State Department has already effectively admitted that we're in the a second cold war with the Russians. Blood is getting pumped back into old Cold War organs, programs, and operations. In the article cited it points out that Russia is dealing with sanctions from the "West"... aka the US. And they think building a rail road to the US is going to give them independence from US sanctions? How?
The only way I can see that happening is if the US gets addicted to the train network and finds it impractical to maintain sanctions given that the train goes through Russia. Which is basically just another reason for the US to quietly slit this idea's throat and move on.
Look Russia... If you want to do business with the US, you need to make people like me happy. I know... you don't like that... but that's reality.
And here's what I'm going to need:
1. Surrender all claims to the Eastern European countries that don't want to join your club.
2. Embrace and accept the missile shield concept. We'll cut you in so you can have the same tech and maintain parity with us for missile defense. What we want is to make the ICBM obsolete. Help us do that and we'll see that you gain the same advantage.
3. Stop doing your best to troll US foreign policy by giving nuclear tech to the Iranians and similar nonsense. Its very obvious what you're doing and it is not appreciated.
4. Stop trying to use anyone's dependence on something you provide to get leverage in politics. Its a serious problem when the Germans trust you for fuel and then you threaten to cut them off if NATO doesn't play ball. You've done the same thing with various eastern european countries as well. And the whole thing with jacking up the launch costs or saying you might not take US astronauts to the space station was a test... and you fucking failed. We gave you an opportunity to stab us in the back of the thigh with a butter knife just to see what you'd do... and you fucking did it. How can we trust you with anything that could potentially give you leverage over us if you'll exploit even the most f'ing meaningless pressure points to gain laughable advantages?
Russia does this and relations between the US and Russia can be very good. Investment, cooperation, access to markets, access to technology... fucking milk and honey. We'll help them develop their resources and find them a market for it. We'll make them rich.
But that's all contingent on them not being assholes. And that's never happening.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Like the aircraft carrier that was planned to be made out of ice?
But that seems like a stretch given the effective shipping to ports on the west coast.
The west coast ports for North America. are maxed out and need modernization to accommodate larger shipping vessals.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38e0825e-c677-11e4-a13d-00144feab7de.html
The Chinese are also spending $50B to build the Nicaragua Canal in Central America to bypass the west coast ports.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/nicaragua_canal_a_giant_project_with_huge_environmental_costs/2871/
The occasional labor strike at the west coast ports and the resulting backlog doesn't help either. Alternative routes may be worth the money for the Chinese to get their products to U.S. consumers.
Truckers are also cheaper than dock workers.
Shipping by truck is much much less efficient / more expensive than shipping by ship. Modernizing some ports would cost far less than this crazy bridge connecting nowhere Alaska to nowhere Siberia. Almost anything would cost less than this. This article isn't about a project which people are seriously considering, this is a Discovery Channel style "What if..." sort of article.
But not cheaper and faster. A boat from China or Japan takes 10-14 plus loading and unloading time (which, if you're sharing a boat with a bunch of other companies, can potentially add weeks of delay before the boat leaves the dock), and air shipping is relatively expensive. With two or drivers trading off, you could potentially do California to Japan by truck in about a week.
Having a bridge between North America and Asia could be absolutely huge for shipping, as a potential midpoint between the two shipping methods. Whether it will be or not is another question.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
china?
china is currently picking on vietnam, philippines, japan, india, etc., thugging han imperialist efforts to steal land
meanwhile, all is quiet on the northern border with crazy, dying russia
at some point, china will notice that it's stealing speck islands and barren mountains from its neighbors according to hilarious historical made-up "justifications," when russia actually stole vast tracts of resource-rich land from china only 150 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
then things will get interesting with the derelict work force you are talking about, who can easily be handed a gun and told to charge. perhaps china will have some social/ political upheaval, an ultranationalist demagogue will take charge, and, like after every revolution (french, russian, arab spring, etc.) things quickly turn imperial on its neighbors
russia is a failed cult of personality petrostate that everyone hates because it also is a neoimperial thug (only on weak neighbors of course, like any insecure bully). it will continue to decay and have old rusty weapons someday
but china is a rising power a huge economy and with 10x the population of russia will continue to militarize with sophisticated advanced weaponry
THAT is the story with china and siberia, not this silly bridge
the world powers have to talk about how to divide russia when it finally implodes, that's the end game of the trajectory the joke country is currently on
japan gets back sakhalin, kirils
kamchatka would have to be "occupied briefly" by japan and the usa so it is not completely overrun by china when the inevitable happens
i welcome the new countries of tuva, irkutsk, yakusia, etc. (quickly and easily run over by china, and now new north korean style puppet states: i hope not, hopefully more like mongolia)
russia gets pushed back to the urals
and let's not even get started on the revenge that will happen in the european side of things...
hey germany, want to revive konigsberg?
finalnd, you deserve karelia back
abkhazia, crimea...
it's a continuation of the rot and decay that started in 25 years ago with the collapse of the USSR. that's the long term trend that has never been reversed. a brief lull with some petroleum money that is now gone, and mafia goon putin putting a face of denial on that, it doesn't change that trajectory
if you think the kgb thug chest thumping by putin on small, weak georgia and ukraine is supposed to impress anyone other than propagandized neoserfs in a walled media garden inside russia. no: the thugging just isolates russia internationally and makes everyone despise them. so they have absolutely zero friends, and enemies all around when the longterm implosion deepens
and if you think russia's nukes would prevent this scenario: no, any use of nukes would only hasten it
russia: you lost a maritime conflict with a rising japan and then a civil war 100 years ago. get ready for a much more humiliating conflict with china, and much more internal decay
i give it 20-50 years. sooner if china gets internal strife soon and therefore the desperate need to redirect that energy to han ultranationalism on the border
i would actually prefer if it happens in putin's lifetime. let's see that asswipe humiliated. unfortunately, he'll probably die a "hero" and then all the heroic destruction he's done to russia politically and socially will result in the country's serious collapse after he dies
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So they're going to build a bridge from Nowhere, Russia to Nowhere, Alaska. So the 50 people on each end can visit each other, I guess. Because there's in infrastructure in place to get anything of significance to or from either end point of the bridge.
From an old CNN article: "Relatively isolated even by Alaska standards, no road connects Nome with the rest of the state's road system. About 836 road-less kilometers (520 miles) across desolate terrain separates Nome from the closest major city and road network in Fairbanks, the unofficial northern terminus of the Alaska Highway.
But before they do it, I'd like to see them fix the potholes on Elston Avenue.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is about as practical as building a space plane to take me from my kitchen to my livingroom. Slow and inefficient rubber tired transit for more than 1/2 around the planet is the biggest waste of a slashdot article let alone the massive physical resources. Modern cargo containers ships are faster, travel more direct, are more all weather, cheaper and gentler on the environment than running trucks on iced over roads. Other than a civil engineer's board imaginations, I can only assume that this is the ultimate attempt of the Serbian chamber of commerce to get a global scale pork barrel project in their backyard. For transportation comparison: .
Mode - Miles/Gallon/ton - [Hydrocarbons, CO, NO lbs/ton mile].
Ship - 514 miles/gallon - [0.0009, 0.0020, 0.0053]
Rail - 202 miles/gallon - [0.0046, 0.0064, 0.0183]
Truck - 59 miles/gallon - [0.0063, 0.0190, 0.1017]
Keep in mind that the above does not include the materials, cost or environmental damage to build this road to no where. If you really want a wild road trip drive from Cape Town to Cape Chelyuskin.
I had the same question, honestly. But it might have some benefits...
A cargo ship has a top speed of under 25MPH (20 knots). A Class 5 freight train can hit 80 MPH and there's no *technical* reason why they couldn't go even faster. Even with the increase in distance by taking the long way around, you can maybe reduce transit time. Such trains could also load and unload deep inland, closer to where the cargo is needed, eliminating multiple handling steps.
I still don't think it's a *good* idea, but it's slightly less crazy than it might initially sound.
=Smidge=
Yes, but that's not the point. She cited it as her foreign policy experience when asked about experience.
Table-ized A.I.
One of the real long term bottlenecks for our ports is the over reliance of trucks to move containers in and out of the ports. Let's face it, everyone want to be next to the ocean so freeways are already clogged (LAX, SD, SFO, SEA). The US ports need to take on building (or greatly expanding) their own rail links to the interior to get around big city traffic. Existing long range freight rail is already maxed out in the west due to extraction industries exporting oil and coal that farmers can't get their grail to the ports for export. There is also the need to restore many of our short line rail in the western cities to get cargo between the ports and logistic centers. Much of these road beds are just setting fallow in "rail banks," waiting for us to restore them to life. What cheaper and more efficient way unclog our freeways of heavy, slow, polluting and damaging trucks.
The economic reasons I can think of largely involve more rapid transportation between hubs all over Asia (and maybe even Europe) to hubs in North America. A trip across the Pacific from Hong Kong to Seattle can take two or more weeks, while a rail trip from Hong Kong to Seattle could be done in perhaps one week, depending on how many yard changes would be needed. (Transit times between Hong Kong and the East Coast via the Panama Canal are even longer, taking a month or more, while the additional time required to cross Canada or the US would be measured in days.) Using Google Earth and some admittedly straight lines, the distance from Hong Kong to Seattle was about 6600 miles. If a train can average even 60MPH over that, the trip would take less than five days, and even some curves and detours wouldn't extend it by much. Of course, most train traffic wouldn't originate from Hong Kong, but would instead go directly, more or less, from the other hub cities scattered across China, reducing the factory-to-destination time even further.
Rail gauges might not even need to be considered, since the US and China use the same gauge, and the tracks through Siberia could be laid as dual-gauge or even just 1435mm gauge and the Russians can start adopting that (it would make trade with Europe easier, too).
Such a bridge would have to allow a significant amount of rail traffic to cross, but the economics could work out over a very long term (many decades at least). The trillion-dollar price tag is for a network of roads and rail running from London to New York; the bridge itself would probably be in the range of $100 billion for a road and dual tracks. Amortizing that at 2% interest over 50 years gets annual costs of $3.18 billion for the loan itself.
A North Carolina Dept. of Transportation study placed the approximate cost of a 4000 SEU Panamax vessel at 80% capacity at about $1500 per TEU and a New Panamax (capacity 12,000 TEU) at 51% capacity at about $950 per TEU. Those capacities can be matched using 4.5 or 8.5 trains, respectively, of 180 wagons (the max length allowed in the US) double-stacked and able to handle four TEU each (so 720 TEU). I'm not sure about the basic economics, but I imagine that the costs for train travel are less than that. Even if they're higher per day, they would probably be lower per trip.
If the toll per TEU is about the same as it is in Panama ($72), each nearly-full train crossing would bring in about $50,000. If maintenance consumed a quarter of that and the rest went to the loan, it would require almost 85,000 annual train trips, or about 232 per day. Even at zero interest, it would require more than 53,000 annual train crossings, or about 146 per day, and all of those at around 95% capacity.
However, if the tolls were higher but the cost per TEU were lower, it might work out. At 50 trains per day, the toll would need to be about $250 per TEU (plus some amount for maintenance) to pay off the loan. That's still a lot of trains for two tracks, but it might be workable. This doesn't include any road tolls or oil/gas transit fees for lines running along the bridge, which could add a fair amount, but I'm not sure it would dent it significantly.
Another reason that I can think of, though, is to get part of North America reliant on Russian natural gas, particularly as Alaska's petroleum-derived production slows over the coming decades. That could bring an influence level that's hard to achieve any other way. Russia has a history of slowing or shutting off gas supplies to Ukraine and other places during winter when it wants leverage. I'm sure it would love to have that leverage over the US and Canada as well.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Yes, truckers are cheap because the industry has turned them into the ugliest of sharecroppers where the are paid by the mile, lease the trucks from the company and pay for upkeep on the trucks. Now fuel, that's expensive! And for longshoremen, everything is so automated that the docks are deserted compared to a century ago so the port labor cost per pound is miniscule. Truckers are lucky to get gross $20/hour BEFORE expenses.
The biggest expense in shipping is time: capital setting idle, decaying value due to technological obsolescence, missed market windows, etc. Find some smart MBA at a global company, buy them lunch and let them bend your ear on logistics. That is why so many of your favorite electronic toys arrive via cargo plane.
Yes, truckers are cheap because the industry has turned them into the ugliest of sharecroppers where the are paid by the mile, lease the trucks from the company and pay for upkeep on the trucks.
I've worked for and with a number of major distributors, and I haven't seen a single one of them that does this. In every case, the company owns the truck and hires people who have a CDL to drive it. Usual going rate is about $21 an hour. They also have their own in-house shops for maintenance.
Even walmart, who is notoriously cheap, does it this way.
The stuff in bold was edited out of the interview by ABC, just to persuade rubes like you.
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
PALIN: Sure.
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia. And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
it's a continuation of the rot and decay that started in 25 years ago with the collapse of the USSR
No, that rot and decay started 93 years ago with the formation of the USSR.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No, she mentioned it to point out that she was governor of a state that's a lot closer to a semi-hostile foreign power, and more thoughtful about the implications of that than would be the community organizer from Chicago (who had never been in charge of state police, let alone armed national guard installations). She wasn't presidential material, but nor did she claim that the right-next-doorness of Russia was an example of foreign policy experience. Her point was that when you govern a state with a huge energy and fishing and mining economy that's a stone's throw from a looming competitor in those same areas, it becomes part of your daily thought process. She's a clumsy speaker and has some wacky ideological quirks (mostly from having been raised in a religious family culture), but she wasn't wrong to point out, simply in passing, that having Russia and Canada as your next door neighbors while you're governor is different than having Indiana and Missouri as neighbors when you're a community organizer, whatever that actually is.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If their strikes really cost that much money, then it should be a trivially easy decision by management to pay them and avoid the strike. If management isn't doing that, then obviously the strikes aren't hurting all that much.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
you're talking about an openly declared war of total destruction
if russia continues it's economic, political, and social degradation, it will become weak enough that china can free siberia the way texas was carved from mexico: an uprising by locals, controlled by china covertly. buy off corrupt russian officials, provide "humanitarian aid", etc
then there is no war declared and no one for russia to nuke
russia can whine and bitch that china is supporting the whole thing, and china can just say it's a local uprising
if russia attacks china anyway, now muscular china has every right to openly attack dying russia
either way, you absorb the "independent state" later
sounds familiar?
yes, because this is how russia operates in abhakazia (georgian province), eastern ukraine, crimea: inflame, create, and encourage a puppet separatist movement
so what i'd like to see is: in 20-30 years china rushes in to "help" chinese minorities abused by russia
just for the irony
watch russia complain in blind hypocrisy
ukrainians and georgians are nodding their heads knowingly right now
already, chinese minorities in siberia are huge and a worry for moscow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
it won't be but 10-20 years before the chinese are running siberia by economic and social fiat, undeclared, informally, if not officially politically, with russia's weak economy and small population. the actual political control can come later, even much later
siberia breaks from moscow with chinese covert encouragement, just like russia in ukraine and georgia today, and china runs siberia as small weak puppet states
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This project is foolish. how many remote gas stations will be needed to fuel vehicles using such a bridge. who will man and supply these stations and where will their waste go? Driving along and need a toilet? It may be quite a few hours between rest stops. Need a tow truck? I guess that might generate quite a towing bill. Frankly this project will do little if any good for anybody and would be a target for every natural hazard and the terror lunatics would probably enjoy monkey wrenching such a bridge as well.
Whatever point you were trying to make there, especially that Russians need to stop being assholes, doesn't work when everything you've based it on involves the US being even bigger assholes.
Actually, that's not true. International relations works by allowing everyone to be assholes while pretending that they're awesome.
This is because everyone in political power, in every country in the world, but ESPECIALLY the USA and Russia, are narcissistic personalities. Something that Karmashock was referring to when he said:
Look Russia... If you want to do business with the US, you need to make people like me happy. I know... you don't like that... but that's reality.
to make people like him (or Putin or Obama or any other person who could POSSIBLY become president of either country) happy you have to give them lots of ego-puffing, always give them what they want immediately and never ever criticize them.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
No; don't be stupid.
- Dan
The article title says bridge. The picture at the top of the article shows a bridge. The actual article text says 55 mile long tunnel. Is there an actual bridge in these plans or not?
I have family in Fairbanks that run an industrial business that would inevitably be significantly involved in and enormously impacted by such a project, and I can tell you that there is no talk of or preparation of even the slightest increase in the infrastructure that would be required before this project even began.
The first phase of an initial inquiry into increasing railroad infrastructure from Alaska to the lower 48, about 10 years ago, rung up an estimate of about a dozen billion dollars; everyone involved did the "let me laugh even harder" dance, and a second phase of the inquiry never happened.
That short little hop between Nome and Fairbanks is 500 miles of wilderness. There are no roads in the entire western half of Alaska and nobody is talking about building any.
I live in AK now and have been to Nome where gas is $6 a gallon
Why? Because there's no ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE to Nome
You not only have to build a bridge to one of the most remote parts of the Seward Peninsula - You have to then build an entire road for hundreds of miles down the Seward Peninsula to Fairbanks over land that is varying between Permafrost and regular road - (and you can build for one or the other but the permafrost is changing) - Sure, you could build an "Ice Road" but same situation -
I'm not saying it's the WORST idea in the world - Anchorage has the 2nd busiest Air Cargo terminal in the US - (Nashville is 1st I think) and we're ideally situated for Air over the North Pole, and maybe Naval thru the Northwest passage, - but there's no Rail line - and no Road from the Seward Peninsula to the Lower 48 - Hell, half the villages out there are still on the honey bucket system. The Bridge would probably come ashore at Wales, and you can drive to Nome - but from there you're back to Cargoship - so will the US create that kind of Infrastructure in AK? We can't even get the broken stuff fixed so I don't foresee new stuff.
FYI - the Road to Nome has been tossed back and forth but there's no palate in AK right now for new Infrastructure since the budget deficit caused by dropping oil prices.
RB
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee