Siberia-Alaska Rail and Tunnel

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by V8stangman, Aug 26, 2011.

  1. #1 V8stangman, Aug 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Russia Green Lights $65 Billion Siberia-Alaska Rail and Tunnel to Bridge the Bering Strait!

    The high speed railway and tunnel will be a private public partnership whose economic impact could be startling. 100 million tons of freight could be moved per year using the most efficient known way of transport. Proposed tidal energy plants could provide 10 gigawatts of energy and a string of wind power fields could churn a constant supply of clean energy, serving as a vital link to a worldwide energy grid. The tunnel alone would take fifteen years to complete — and an energy and railway network would take many more — but the project would significantly change the shipping and energy industry.

    In a time of austere measures by governments throughout the world we hear less and less of large-scale projects, but the economic and environmental benefits of developing critical infrastructure links is a key element to 21st century environmentally sound economic growth.

    http://inhabitat.com/russia-green-lights-65-billion-siberia-alaska-rail-and-tunnel-to-bridge-the-bering-strait/2/
     
  2. thats awesome

    #$%# yeah
     
  3. Almost as funny as a bridge linking me with hsv
     
  4. #4 SmilinGoat, Aug 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    hope it happens. would really help alaska's economy.
     
  5. Sarah Palin doesn't want a tunnel near her house.
     
  6. Finally!

    In before racing events from Patagonia to South Africa.
     
  7. seems strange considering theres #$%# all of importance anywhere near either end
    would have thought shipping would still be much more economically viable
     
  8. dont do it, its a trap, its just so they can drive tanks into america

    hasnt anyone else played risk?

    they'll use kamchaka to invade alaksa and break the us's +5 reinforcements a turn advantage
     
  9. pretty interesting, thanks for posting
     
  10. This.

    There's also the potential complications of crossing international borders. For a manufactured good made in China to reach the Contiguous US, it would have to pass through Russia and Canada. Each of those countries will have to process goods transiting their country.

    If they charge a duty on the goods, and savings in efficiency by rail may be lost, and using the rail may become commercially unviable.
     
  11. Why would all countries have to process goods transiting their country?
     
  12. cool idear
     
  13. Now all we need is a gazillion miles an hour train
     
  14. If Russia green-lights it, does that mean the USA already accepted there will be a tunnel to/from Russia appearing in Alaska?
     
  15. I guess that will be the biggest hurdle.
     
  16. well americans can already see russia from their porch so might as well allow it
     
  17. pretty cool, but it probably won't happen
     
  18. NAFTA?
     
  19. I perhaps should've specified that I was referring to Customs.

    Each country that the goods pass through will want to check the cargo for potential hazards or illegal objects.

    With sea ports, the port area is secure, with no containers leaving the port without going through customs to make sure that they are safe for entry into the country, and don't contain illegal items or people. There's less opportunity for cargo to be interfered with at sea.

    With rail, the train is exposed for the parts of the trip excluding the tunnel section. Stowaways can jump on or off anywhere. High risk cargo is also a problem. What if someone decided to send a container load of weapons from Russia to America, without checking cargo at the very mouth of the tunnel, there is no way of stopping those weapons entering the country. What about the marijuana trade? Without customs checks at both Canada/US borders, trains could be used to bring in large quantities of the stuff.

    For the line to be secure from a Customs point of view, there needs to be checks at the Chinese/Russian border, both entrances to the tunnel, and at both Canada/US borders. It's a hell of a lot of fuss, especially compared to sea transit which only has two.

    NAFTA is a free-trade agreement, but it doesn't stop each country from protecting their borders.
     
  20. Also, track gauge.

    Either the Russians will have to use the standard gauge which the Chinese, US and Canada use on just that line (and have yards where they move containers onto carriages using that gauge), or the trains will have to switch gauges twice.
     
  21. I'm sorry, Canada and the US already do something like half a trillion dollars of trade a year, and the majority of that transits the border by truck and train (truck and train crossings are usually co-located). If ALL US-trade with Russia were diverted to rail, which had to pass over the US-Canada border twice, the change would be so absolutely minuscule compared to the existing rail traffic, I doubt either CBP or the CBSA would even require expanding their facilities or staff to accommodate it. Excluding the tunnel entrance, anyway. And if you threw China into the mix, I don't see why somebody who used to be employed checking containers at a port wouldn't be able to find work checking containers at a rail yard. I'm not saying this idea isn't stupid, but customs isn't the issue here.

    Edit: And for the record, marijuana trade is already a multi-billion dollar export-driven, transborder industry. They don't transport it by train. Because believe it or not, its hard to get a traincar onto a train without the operator noticing.
     
  22. it would be both Russia and China, and while the US trade with Russia might not be so massive, China is a pretty big thing I hear
     
  23. They're on different continental plates. How would that even work?
     
  24. And really doesn't change the fact that it takes just as many people to check freight by rail as it does to check them by ship. And that the demand for workers in the rail POE would probably be closely matched by the surplus of workers at sea POEs, while the Canada-US rail crossings are low-security crossings, which don't require much staff to manage (ie: once a Russian train is secured at in Alaska, it would be treated as entering from the United States at the Canadian border, and passed with appropriate paperwork).
     

Share This Page