Russia Plans World's Longest Tunnel, a Link to Alaska - Page 5

beanhead4529 · #81 Posted **May 20, 2007, 3:19 AM**

i don't think there's nearly enough demand for this project to be even remotely feasible. the channel tunnel is still paying off its construction debts, even though it is less than half the length of the proposed tunnel. i am highly doubtful that this will get off the gound.

borgo100 · #82 Posted **May 20, 2007, 5:06 AM**

its a stupid idea, why would u wana drive to Russia, like even if you wanted to get to places like moscow or even china it seems cheaper to fly, and in that area, northen russia, mongola, alaska and northen canada there has to be less then a couple million ppl, it seems pointless

Nowhereman1280 · #83 Posted **May 20, 2007, 3:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by beanhead4529

i don't think there's nearly enough demand for this project to be even remotely feasible. the channel tunnel is still paying off its construction debts, even though it is less than half the length of the proposed tunnel. i am highly doubtful that this will get off the gound.

This isn't the Channel tunnel we are talking about here, this is a tunnel that would create nearly a straight line railway between the United States and China, the two largest trading partners in the history of the world... This would cut weeks off the transit times of nearly all goods going between China and the US. This would basically replace all Sea Freighter trade between the two countries. There would be at least several hundred billion dollars worth of goods flowing through this tunnel every year, just put a 1% tax on that and it will generate several billion dollars each year... This has the potential to be a trade coup on the scale of the Panama Canal...

Quote:

Originally Posted by borgo100

its a stupid idea, why would u wana drive to Russia, like even if you wanted to get to places like moscow or even china it seems cheaper to fly, and in that area, northen russia, mongola, alaska and northen canada there has to be less then a couple million ppl, it seems pointless

The point of this tunnel is not to "drive to Russia" but to open a trade link to Freight train traffic... Read the article before making a poorly worded comment completely ignorant of the topic being discussed...

jmecklenborg · #84 Posted **May 20, 2007, 10:40 PM**

Use Google Earth and you'll get a distance of roughly 5,500 miles between Beijing and Seattle. So if a freight train averaged 50mph between those two points the transit time would be 110 hours. Shanghai to Los Angles is about 2,000 more miles so the shipping time would be 150 hours.

Meanwhile the shipping distance between Shanghai and Los Angeles is about 6,500 miles. At 20~mph the time is 150-200 hours. Keep in mind that container ships carry as much cargo as several freight trains.

This route could save substantial time for shipments north of Beijing to Canada, the northwest corner of the U.S., and possibly the Great Lakes region.

Nowhereman1280 · #85 Posted **May 21, 2007, 2:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Use Google Earth and you'll get a distance of roughly 5,500 miles between Beijing and Seattle. So if a freight train averaged 50mph between those two points the transit time would be 110 hours. Shanghai to Los Angles is about 2,000 more miles so the shipping time would be 150 hours.

Meanwhile the shipping distance between Shanghai and Los Angeles is about 6,500 miles. At 20~mph the time is 150-200 hours. Keep in mind that container ships carry as much cargo as several freight trains.

This route could save substantial time for shipments north of Beijing to Canada, the northwest corner of the U.S., and possibly the Great Lakes region.

It would save much more than just that though. You are forgetting how much time inventory spends sitting in ports between the train or truck that dropped it off there and the the loading of the ship. If this tunnel is built a factory in China can just put the goods right in a box car and ship it straight to the local distribution center in the US without having to put it on a train, then take it off, stack it in the port, the load it on a ship, then unload it from the ship stack it in the port wait for the truck or train to come get it and then unload it at the distribution center. That will also save a few days... Not to mention trains are a much cheaper, more efficient (energy wise) form of transit than ship.

This would be more efficiant for the entire US not just the north, because even after the 150-200 hour boat ride to the US, the goods still need to go from the Port to the local distribution center which adds another couple days to the journey.

Its basically a more direct route using a form of transit that travels many times as fast. 50 mph for a train is a little slow. The freight limit in the US generally higher. 20 mph for a freighter is also a little fast. You are lucky to get 15 knots, which is a little less than 20mph I believe.

Anyhow, this would be much better than our current system regardless...

cornholio · #86 Posted **May 21, 2007, 4:08 AM**

Also remeber that not only would thuis be a direct conection between na america and china but it would also be a direct conection for south america and china/asia. Not to mention the oil pipelines which are by far the biest money maker in this project.

beanhead4529 · #87 Posted **May 21, 2007, 4:34 AM**

how deep is the ocean floor in that area?

ardecila · #88 Posted **Jun 17, 2007, 5:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

The point of this tunnel is not to "drive to Russia" but to open a trade link to Freight train traffic... Read the article before making a poorly worded comment completely ignorant of the topic being discussed...

Just as I wouldn't sail my yacht through the Panama Canal, I probably wouldn't drive to China.

denizen467 · #89 Posted **Jun 17, 2007, 8:26 AM**

Surprised that nobody has pointed out that we're talking about connecting 2 continents and that this means 2 tectonic plates. If I remember right, the Pacific is 'shrinking' (and the Atlantic is 'growing') from movement of the plates. How do you build a safe tunnel across a fault zone like this? (Of course, I am assuming that the tectonic plates meet at the Bering Strait, it's possible that this isn't actually the case.)

Canadian Mind · #90 Posted **Jun 17, 2007, 9:07 AM**

lets put it this way, North America and Asia are approaching each other at approximately an inch per year, with the Bering straight being the fulcrum point... so say the tunnel they build will change by a degree and maybe compress a couple inches every hundred years or so. Even normal concrete could handle this for the life expectancy of this thing. However if you wanted the get picky you could insert a bunch of expansion and compression joints... which I would assume would be used in normal construction of tunnels anyways.

needless to say, tectonics wouldn't be a problem.

Nowhereman1280 · #91 Posted **Jun 18, 2007, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Just as I wouldn't sail my yacht through the Panama Canal, I probably wouldn't drive to China.

You have a yacht? Sweet!

newstl2020 · #92 Posted **Jun 26, 2007, 7:52 AM**

Keep in mind that while factoring these equations for the amount of possible time saved, we have been taking train capability NOW into the equation. We are talking about this tunnel having a 20 year construction expectancy. Add that onto extra time that can be figured in to deal with financing, diplomatic issues, and other considerations. We are looking at what could very possibly be 30+ years down the road. THIS IS A VERY LONG TIME. At the rate the globe progresses in this day and age, is it that hard to believe that we might be seeing Magnet-Train freight moving at upwards of 300 miles an hour? I don't believe so. Also, this technology would conceivably be much cheaper than it is today, allowing thousands of miles of track to be built connecting all parts of the eastern and western hemispheres. The potential for this project is absolutely astronomical considering the more than likely advances in technology. However, being 30 years down the road...who says we don't have massive planes that can carry the cargo of a few trains and travel at amazing speeds....

navyweaxguy · #93 Posted **Jun 26, 2007, 12:03 PM**

Ok this is a neat idea. No matter how much time they save going through the tunnel, they still have to deal with crap weather on either side... No maglev train will be built through it, mainly because where is it going to go once it gets through each side. No one is going to fund a maglev train from the end of a tunnel to where ever the end point will be. Then who is going to fund it on the russian side. So how much would a maglev train from Vladivostok to Anchorage cost?

Xelebes · #94 Posted **Jun 27, 2007, 2:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by navyweaxguy

Ok this is a neat idea. No matter how much time they save going through the tunnel, they still have to deal with crap weather on either side... No maglev train will be built through it, mainly because where is it going to go once it gets through each side. No one is going to fund a maglev train from the end of a tunnel to where ever the end point will be. Then who is going to fund it on the russian side. So how much would a maglev train from Vladivostok to Anchorage cost?

A couple billion dollars.

Canadian Mind · #95 Posted **Jun 27, 2007, 6:37 AM**

lol, sounds about the same as the transit costs for Vancouver... so it can't be that bad. I'm sure that if a city of 2.2 million can afford a billion dollars, 3 nations with a total combined population of 500 million can afford it.

navyweaxguy · #96 Posted **Jun 27, 2007, 12:35 PM**

Well the latest maglev to be built is the one in China.. 20 miles 1.2 billion... Vladivostok to Anchorage is roughly 2800 miles... so at today's prices it would be around 168 Billion.. figure costs will rise and the harshness of teh enviroment being built and the remoteness.. you are looking at realistically 350-500 Billion to do that.

SkyWatcher · #97 Posted **Jun 27, 2007, 12:55 PM**

First off....I doubt very seriously we'll be buying much from China in 20-30 years when/if this thing gets built. No telling what country will be manufacturing all our goods then....might be a country not even on that continent.

Second, there WILL be a road involved, whether or not anyone can drive it for a 'Mickey Mouse' road trip is the real question. There has to be a service road somewhere in the deal for routine maintenance. Issuing a blanket statement that there will be no road is lunacy. If you menat there will be no PUBLIC road, then you might be correct.

Are there people who would drive if there were a public road in the project? YES. There are millions of people like me who don't fly. Yes it would be expensive, but there would be drivers who would do it, first for the records of course.

Reminiscence · #98 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 10:46 PM**

Talk about being ambitious. This is the most daring plan I've heard since the Space Elevator idea. I think we're still decades away from this being built, and thats at the earliest. Maglev, or some other future design of train, should be able to reach speeds in excess of 600 mph in order for this to become a tourist option in my opinion as I dont think many people would use it. It is a crazy idea in the first place, but I guess when you dream you've got to dream big.

Maybe if we wait a few thousand (or million) years for Hawaii or California to make its way up to the Bering Strait, there wont be a need for a tunnel anymore. Not that it would benefit any of us today though.

WonderlandPark · #99 Posted **Jul 1, 2007, 3:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Not to mention trains are a much cheaper, more efficient (energy wise) form of transit than ship.

Umm, absolutely NOT, ships are far and away the most efficient way to move goods long distances.

Nowhereman1280 · #**100** Posted **Jul 18, 2007, 12:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

Umm, absolutely NOT, ships are far and away the most efficient way to move goods long distances.

Not really, that may be true for ridiculously bulk goods like grain or iron ore, but just as a truck wins over a train (when available) for smaller orders, a train wins over a Ship when available because it is faster and just as capable of carrying large quantities at a high efficiency...

Whatever the point is trains can outrun a ship any day and therefore people would rather use a shorter route at a higher speed (trains) rather than a longer route as a slower speed (cargo ships). Thus we can assume that this route will be favored over shipping making a tunnel of this nature highly desirable...

Also, someone suggested that we probably will be getting our goods from some other country by the time this would be completed, that's like saying we stopped getting our goods from Japan because China came around, Japan is still one of our top trading partners, we just get different goods from them now than we did in the 50's and 60's, nicer goods, cars and electronics instead of cheep toys and toasters, the same will happen to China as its economy approaches the development and wage levels of Japan...