Russia - US tunnel.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:59 pm

What would it achieve that couldn't be done easier & cheaper by more conventional means?

OK, it would be a fantastic engineering achievement, but they'd be well advised to look at how well the Channel tunnel isn't working (economically) & draw lessons from that.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:51 pm

My first reaction - ARE YOU KIDDING ME

how could this structure possibly work.

what a waste of money $$$$ Yeh - I have some swamp land - you'll love it..

Patsy

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:52 am

The chunnel has 2 lanes, only for trains, but the trains can hold lorries and cars as well as passangers. It probably should have been made a traffic tunnel as well for lorries etc, but I think that the reasons why it was not built that was were because of expense, and also because of safety in that cars and trucks having a crash in the middle of the tunnel under the English channel, well it doesn't bear thinking about really. I've been on the Chunnel, its an amazing engineering achievement.

This is an interesting idea, what I would see as being major issues would be that remoteness of the tunnel, it would have to have one side on the far east of Russia, up above the kamachka Peninsula, and the other in far western alaska, the conditions in both these areas are punishingly harsh for anyone trying to get to the tunnel, and then the distances to get there (thousands of miles from any large scale civilization on both sides, that would be off-putting, then finally trying to keep the tunnel maintained and serviced, and also dealing with any accidents or problems in such a harsh remote environment would be difficult. Its certainly not impossible, but whether its really commercially viable right now is questionable. It would be an amazing achievement though, no doubt about that.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:35 am

I'd like to see it. Both ends could have train and/or truck terminals to handle whatever comes through, but I agree that some kind of system would have to be set up for emergencies inside the tunnel, such as crashes.

With the historic importance of the Bering Strait land bridge, I'm sure environmentalists on our side would throw a fit and try to prevent such a project.

eta: I don't think environmentalist is the word I want, but it's early and my brain can't bring up the right word.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:25 am

I think if you bore a hole straight through the Earth you end up in China, so there would have to be a major right hand turn somewhere. Just so you know.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:07 am

Scrat;819874 wrote: How does the Channel Tunnel work? This is simply longer and bigger, another reason not to do it besides money is Geological. The ring of fire, I wouldn't want to be in it during an earthquake and we all know how strong they can be in Alaska.

(my emphasis)

Yeah, that was my first thought. Wouldn't a bridge be better? I know nothing about this sort of thing...