http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070424/russia_tunnel_to_somewhere.html

3% of worlds cargo would use it
only 69? miles
Chunnel only 30

those were the highlights

4/27/2007 3:13:10 AM

it's cold up there. makes more sense than a bridge.



[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 6:37 AM. Reason : ]

4/27/2007 6:28:15 AM

Do we even have ferry service?

If the traffic demands are too low to even warrant ferry service then why bother?

4/27/2007 8:44:32 AM

I guess they mainly want to be able to say that they did it.

Only 3% of the world's cargo would use it? Sure doesn't sound like they'd be doing it for economic reasons.

4/27/2007 10:34:24 AM

3% of all the cargo in the world is still a shitload of cargo.

4/27/2007 10:36:43 AM

I think an even bigger implication is the highway that would need to be built through Asia and North America to service said 3%.

4/27/2007 10:42:08 AM

the london-moscow-washington express for people who don't like to fly!

4/27/2007 11:09:57 AM

I think an even bigger implication is the highway railroad that would need to be built through Asia and North America to service said 3%.

4/27/2007 11:30:19 AM

How could anyone reason that 3% of the world's cargo could be anything resembling a small number.

Here is a number I found via a quick google search (not going into detail looking for this) but to prove a point: This number represents metric tons of AIR CARGO that passed through the MEMPHIS, TN Airport in 2005.

Memphis (MEM) 3,598,501

We all know air freight is the most expensive way to ship goods, so it's safe to say that it's probably the least used. This being only ONE city of ONE state in ONE nation... I'd say 3% of the world's cargo is going to put that tunnel to heavy use.

4/27/2007 1:40:42 PM

They're working on a 36 mile tunnel under the Alps for $15 billion right now.

4/27/2007 1:46:21 PM

Quote :

"the capital of a gold- and mineral-rich Siberian region roughly the size of India... ...would also build oil and gas pipelines and lay electricity and fiber-optic cables"

i think this is a meaningful imperative

Quote :

"Lobbyists claimed the project is guaranteed to turn a profit after 30 years."

i think it will be longer than that (maybe 50 yrs), and the sooner this gets built, the cheaper it will be in the long run.

Quote :

"Eventually, 3 percent of the world's cargo could move along the route, organizers hope."

a hundred years from now, it will be well more than 3%.

on a long enough timeline, any project can have a positive NPV -- that's where gubment comes in.

if you build it, they will come



[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 2:24 PM. Reason : /]

4/27/2007 2:24:26 PM

This brings back memories of a Popular Science edition I had as a kid. Had a sketch of a massive bridge linking Siberia with Alaska. They even had designs implemented for the bridges support beams that could withstand an iceberg

4/27/2007 5:02:01 PM

It'd be a good idea, but just like most huge projects the estimated cost and the actual cost will more than likely be two very far apart numbers.

This would need some serious private backing before either the US or Russian governments buy in.

4/27/2007 6:53:57 PM

Why is this a good idea? Just put the 3% of cargo on a friggin' container ship and ship it! Dollar per tonne-mile, a cargo ship is much cheaper than a train, nevermind trucks.

Not to mention, a ship can go straight to its destination in California; a train or trucks must follow the intricacies of the land, covering perhaps a thousand extra miles before reaching California. Heck, for all the distance saved a fast boat might actually be faster than a 50mph train.

As such, the tunnel would never become profitable. I seriously doubt 3% of anyones cargo would use this tunnel.

Now, I must ask again: is there a ferry accross the strait, even in summer? I suspect not; but I wouldn't be surprised.

4/28/2007 10:38:19 AM

Quote :

"Why is this a good idea? Just put the 3% of cargo on a friggin' container ship and ship it! Dollar per tonne-mile, a cargo ship is much cheaper than a train, nevermind trucks. Not to mention, a ship can go straight to its destination in California; a train or trucks must follow the intricacies of the land, covering perhaps a thousand extra miles before reaching California. Heck, for all the distance saved a fast boat might actually be faster than a 50mph train. As such, the tunnel would never become profitable. I seriously doubt 3% of anyones cargo would use this tunnel. Now, I must ask again: is there a ferry accross the strait, even in summer? I suspect not; but I wouldn't be surprised."

ships don't just go in a straight line to their destination, they have to follow shipping lanes. throw in terrible weather, slow paced, etc etc.....

4/28/2007 11:18:27 AM

On Discovery's Extreme Engineering series, they showed the proposed Bering Strait Bridge. Here is the wiki entry on it:

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

And here is a wiki entry on a tunnel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKM-World_Link

4/28/2007 3:41:14 PM

hahah how long until a major disaster inside the tunnel, or it gets blown up, etc etc

4/28/2007 8:22:45 PM

Quote :

"Do we even have ferry service? If the traffic demands are too low to even warrant ferry service then why bother?"

1. this is not for people
2. the seas are too rough for a reliable ferry service even if there was a demand
3. you are hilariously retarded

4/28/2007 8:26:30 PM

Hmm, a ferry can carry all sorts of traffic which includes trucks. I understand the Russians once built a ferry that carried a train (it sank somewhere around 1900). And since this is only cargo, why not ship the cargo to a calm sea port before crossing the ocean? I ask, because I was unaware of huge population centers and factories anywhere near the bering strait.

But lets try this: grant whatever permits a company would need ahead of time and give them to the highest bidder, such that any investors willing to build the tunnel will own it. I suggest this, because if you can convince real people to put their own money into this then you might as well be right. But I doubt anyone will.

4/29/2007 1:08:19 AM

this will turn into 20 times the disaster that the Big Dig was/is, and within 10 years we'll probably be on shaky terms with Russia again and not be utilizing the tunnel.

4/29/2007 1:23:58 AM

Quote :

"and within 10 years we'll probably be on shaky terms with Russia again and not be utilizing the tunnel."

well considering the us is on 'shaky' terms with the entire world...i have to agree with you there.

4/29/2007 4:26:23 AM

Quote :

"Hmm, a ferry can carry all sorts of traffic which includes trucks."

well the original plans called for just a pipeline, so theres a good chance it wont be carrying any traffic of any kind

4/29/2007 7:25:35 AM

ferries don't work very well on frozen water.

4/29/2007 4:46:40 PM

Ships tend to avoid the Bering Sea (and especially the strait) if possible, hence container ships aren't really a very good option for direct routing of cargo across the strait. A tunnel is a good idea that will likely be profitable and heavily traveled in the long run.

4/29/2007 5:16:28 PM

I am so going to drive to london if this happens.

4/29/2007 6:19:49 PM

The show Deadliest Catch is filmed on the Bering Sea. I dont think ferries would do too well in that situation.

4/29/2007 7:48:11 PM

Ok, I was not imagining having ferry terminals at the two closest points accross the straits. I assumed the ferry would leave British Columbia and sail to Vladivostok in Russia, should take less than a week.

As I'm assuming all the cargo crossing the strait would be destined for the lower 48 and canada on our side and inland russia on the other, the detour seemed minimal.

4/30/2007 12:33:29 AM

this tunnel or bridge is a terrible idea.

if this tunnel is built at ungodly cost, and the price of cargo/ton goes down, i don't think that the bridge/tunnel will ever pay for itself. i also find it difficult to imagine the time of arrival being quicker. how about all the money that will be needed to keep the snow off the roads at both ends to keep all this traffic moving.

i'm all for pushing engineering limits, but this just seems like people trying to build it to say they built it.

4/30/2007 8:21:29 AM

Too bad it's not NC. They could just throw up a toll road between Durham and Raleigh on I-40, raise the gas tax by 4 cents a gallon, raise sales tax by half a percent, raise property tax by two percent, put forth a bond referendum for three billion dollars that 50.2 percent of the dolts in the state vote for, put lottery ticket dispensers on every ATM in the state, etc. etc.

4/30/2007 8:34:52 AM

won't they strike oil digging the tunnel?

4/30/2007 8:38:51 AM

it's already planned/built in asia... for freight purposes not much would need to be built, for high speed passenger service, a shitton needs to be done...

4/30/2007 3:33:21 PM

you know what's really cool? There is a discovery channel show about a tunnel across the atlantic that has trains that go like 2000MPH which is possible because the tunnel is a near perfect vacuum.

4/30/2007 4:46:59 PM

Hey it might help Alaska Economy if we had people up there building more shit. Shit blew up when they built the Pipeline. State gained nearly 20% boost in population.

4/30/2007 4:53:38 PM

Quote :

"you know what's really cool? There is a discovery channel show about a tunnel across the atlantic that has trains that go like 2000MPH which is possible because the tunnel is a near perfect vacuum."

I have that show taped, and it is the most amazing thing.

And it is 5,000 mph, which is about Mach 7 And the other main thing is that the trains would be magnetically levitated.

The ride from NYC to London would take 54 min., 18 minutes each for acceleration, constant speed travel, and deceleration.

You could easily go for a day business trip, or even take your girl just for dinner!

5,000 mph (magnetic levitation + vacuum)
NYC - London in 54 minutes
54,000 prefabricated cylinders joined to make tunnel
100,000 tethering cables to tether to ocean floor
US 12 TRILLION manufacturing cost
BILLION tons of steel


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

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/transatlantictunnel/interactive/interactive.html

4/30/2007 5:09:58 PM

^now THAT would be badass!!!

4/30/2007 5:18:10 PM

^^What did they do to protect it from earthquakes/ shifting of the continental shelf?

4/30/2007 5:26:16 PM

Of course you gotta know, that this is just a dream, and is in its thought stages, not even planning stages.

There will be so many technical and logistical hurdles with it, that it will take tens of thousands of experts working for decades to solve them.

About the eathquakes and shifting plates, the tube will not be resting on the ocean floor, but tethered to it, so the tube will be floating in water, 150 feet below the sea surface. So I guess those tethers would be pretty long!

And there will be 100,000 of them, so even if a few 100 snap or break, it is no big deal. They can be replaced in days. They will have to map the whole ocean floor and mark all the spots which are even a tiny bit seismically active, and they will avoid those places as much as they can.

4/30/2007 6:14:20 PM

the structural steel required to make those tubes handle a vacuum on the inside of all the water pressure would be insane, and I don't see how they would be able to either pump the air out of it or power up a 5,000 mile underwater electrical system to run the magnetic levitation rails. the tunnel is most likely possible, but to me it seems like the only way this concept would ever reach the light of day is if they pressurized the tubing instead of making it a vacuum. That would kill the high-speed transport portion of the idea.

4/30/2007 10:46:14 PM

it is completely do able, obviously. To decide whether something is possible, all you should do is show it doesn't violate any known laws of nature. After that, it's a question of practicality.

5/11/2007 3:28:55 AM

they said it would take huge air pumps like 9months just to pump the air out.

5/11/2007 3:30:09 AM

This would be guaranteed to backfire when we inevitably go to war with Russia (or even China).

5/11/2007 3:51:34 AM

^^ what i saw on the discovery program was that it would take a 100 beoing 747 engines 2 weeks to pump all the air out.

5/11/2007 7:21:24 AM

Quote :

"the structural steel required to make those tubes handle a vacuum on the inside of all the water pressure would be insane"

Not really. The pressure at 150 feet is 5.425 atmospheres. Making it a vacume inside jacks up the pressure on the containment vessel only 1 atmospheres, or 18%.

5/11/2007 9:57:47 AM

Pipe like that would take years to make. It would probably be some heavy-guage CML&C pipe, and it would cost tens of thousands of dollars per linear foot. Welding that shit underwater would be fun for everyone involved, I'm sure.



[Edited on May 11, 2007 at 4:00 PM. Reason : 2]

5/11/2007 3:36:56 PM