Epic Mega Bridge To Connect America With Russia Gets Closer To Reality 465
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why build one... when you can build two for twice the price!?
Americans seem to have some kind of habit doing that. Often when I go to Amazon to check some reviews, for example for a computer or a portable heater, there's always comments like "great product, have to grab a couple of more". It certainly is not always obvious to me why the reviewer would need the extra units.
Re:Why build one (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly this was never a red flag for me, but now it will be. If I get some cool house thing, I'll often buy one for my mom, but I can't imagine that is so common as to cause all those reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't understand why someone would want more than one portable heater?
I understand that one is more than sufficient for your 10x15 "apartment" in your mom's basement, but can you look past your own needs for a moment and consider that the needs of others may be different?
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the Contact [wikipedia.org] reference.
Re:Why build one (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I need to watch it again, it's been too long.
Re:Why build one (Score:4, Insightful)
A ferry would be orders of magnitude cheaper and achieve the same.
Agreed. It could also avoid the ice and bad weather by using a more southern route, like directly from Shanghai to Long Beach.
Re: (Score:2)
i love infrastructure (Score:2)
but this is nuts
if the cost is {Y}
and the profit per year is {X}
then 500 years * {X} = {Y} roughly
the cost, including building the roads/ rails to get to the bridge, greatly dwarfs, by many orders of magnitude, the quantity of commerce that would flow
finally, compare the cost to your average container ship fees and where you want to ship it
waiting for a many century payoff is not wise
someday, in only a few decades maybe the way technology and world populations are going, then the scheme would realize a prof
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To recoup their investment as early as possible they'll allow traffic on sections of the bridge as soon as each is ready.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, what does that change?
opening a small part a little early offsets by a tiny fraction the tiny amounts that would make the route profitable
we're talking about comparing the price of shipping on a container ship and the price of going by rail/ truck on this crazy route
Re: (Score:2)
in my defense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:i love infrastructure (Score:5, Interesting)
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/... [wikipedia.org]
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
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't you forgetting about those Russian nukes? Putin just ordered twenty new ones. This age is different from any other in that regard, a state which holds ICBMs can degrade to any depth and still remain viable.
Re: (Score:3)
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 up
Re:i love infrastructure (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
that's eurocentric history
yes, napoleon and hitler fucked up badly
from the asian side, it's different. for example, genghis khan
Re: (Score:2)
well yeah, on a trajectory of 100-200 years. i'm talking about right now
i even said so in my comment you are replying to: "someday, in only a few decades maybe the way technology and world populations are going, then the scheme would realize a profit" over a shorter period
litleness (Score:3)
Not only from London to New York, but from London to Hanoi. It is doable, it will create millions of sustainable jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need to heavily fortify the bridge? If something objectionable starts to cross it, a WW2 dive bomber could do the job.
Re: (Score:2)
No need for fancy aeroplanes.
A pack of C4 the size of a loaf of bread would do the job.
Soon. Very soon. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Yeah not gonna happen... (Score:2)
Its the wilderness (Score:2)
Exactly right. The wilderness on either side of the bridge is vast. It is vast because it is really hard to build roads over permafrost, particularly if the permafrost starts to melt whenever you build a road on it. Roads on permafrost pretty much need to be rebuilt every year. The bridge is a big effort, but the roads to reach it might be a bigger project. It would be the bridge to nowhere, from nowhere.
Terrible idea. (Score:2)
Hasn't anyone seen 'Red Dawn' ?
Not going to happen (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not going to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia's demands:
Get your fucking military out of half the world's countries.
Re: (Score:3)
The vast majority of places we are... we are there with the consent of those governments.
If this is legitimately Russia's desire, it is similar for their request that we help Russia re-enslave eastern europe. That's Russia's big complaint. "hey hey America... those are MY slaves... don't go giving them weapons or the ability to defend themselves."
To which we have generally told Russia to go fuck itself with a rake.
And here is something the Russians can start looking forward to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We don't want it. We want Russia poor, isolated, and backward until they break.
They 'we' are inhumane assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? I mean... anyone can say a thing.
I'll show you...
You are a space hamster after my sweet broccoli.
See?
Substantiate your position please.
Re: (Score:2)
If the entire first world are our puppets... sure.
But by this definition, all governments are puppets of one kind or another and the insult through dilution loses potency.
Re: (Score:2)
Get your fucking military out of half the world's countries.
More like three-quarters [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Russia's demands:
Get your fucking military out of half the world's countries.
Re: (Score:2)
We have an existing and quite inexpensive container ship network.
To put this in perspective, consider that if you drive a mile to the store to pick up a toothbrush, you just spent more in transportation costs than it took to get the toothbrush from a factory in China to the store where you bought it. Shipping is really, really efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly... the russian rail project is of marginal value under the best of circumstances. And Russia's behavior means we don't want to do anything with them. We want their economy to collapse. We want their asian neighbors to nibble at their borders. We want their military hardware to rust into uselessness. We want their tech to become hopelessly outdated.
This is not what we wanted until fairly recently. But... Putin wants to restart the cold war... Fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
not really... the chinese are opportunists... they're exploiting pathetic security policy in the US. I mean, if you leave your fly down can you blame people for looking?
I don't blame the chinese for that. That's on us.
Re: (Score:2)
Container ships are cheaper than rail [tenntom.org]. Their disadvantage is the labor-intensive step of loading and unloading the containers to/from the ship. For a couple hour trip across the English Channel, the loading/unloading cost is disproportionately large compared to the transport cost of the ship, so it makes economic sense to replace it with a tunnel or bridge.
But for cargo across the Pacif
Re: (Score:2)
Login and we'll measure the diameter, depth, and contents of the relative assholes.
Otherwise... nope.
International relations - Don't work that way. (Score:2)
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. The idea is countries make agreements that say one thing (usually a compromise of some kind) while claiming to their politically important classes that the agreement is good because it's another thing. The classic example I think of is the Security Council's authorization for the second Iraq war, which was designed to legally allow the US go to war with Iraq while still lett
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Login and we'll talk about it... and I don't expect them to live if this is how they conduct themselves...
https://youtu.be/DoQwKe0lggw?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Login
I'll comment very briefly. if you login I'll make more comprehensive posts.
1. no they're not this is just something they say to justify ire.
2. I don't see how this isn't anything we don't both know and count upon. This is not surprising in the least.
3. Yep... which why the US is so baffled as to why Russia can't stop being fucktards and cooperate on common goals.
4. As to them needing to be brutal... we have no problem with their brutality. We'd like to use. If the idiot Russians would stop pissing in t
Re: (Score:2)
WW3 is coming. You think large scale war will never happen again?
https://youtu.be/tvObuhT7Kpw?t... [youtu.be]
The only questions to be answered are when, with whom, and who survives.
Login and we'll talk about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Login and we'll discuss your argument if you have one.
Looks like random baseless insults from an AC troll more than anything. And one that hypocritically criticizes my record while shielding himself from criticism by not having a record.
Regardless... Login and I'll shred your argument with logic and facts. Or keep trolling like a coward.
Your move.
Re: (Score:2)
alliance with the west would give them the same thing... we could fight the war on terror together... New era of cooperation and mutual profit.
I suspect the main reason Putin rejected that idea is that association with the west would mean democracy, western media, and western NGOs would be a big deal in his country... and the chances of a "colored" revolution that struck down the oligarchs would be more likely than if he opposes the west, suppresses political opposition, censors the media, and excludes fore
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That has actually been the declared and official offer from the US for decades on this matter. We don't want an advantage over Russia in regards to nuclear weapons because we don't want to nuke Russia. We'd like to de-emphasize nuclear weapons because of the inherent collateral damage of such weapons.
When the next war comes we'd like that war to be as surgical and limited to military targets as possible while sparing civilians, industry, etc as much damage as possible.
This is in our interest because we
Re: (Score:3)
... its been common knowledge from the start and has been reaffirmed repeatedly... here is Obama doing it again:
http://www.rt.com/usa/obama-sh... [rt.com]
but it goes back to reagan... just doing some basic google searches gets me this:
http://www.thereaganvision.org... [thereaganvision.org]
Do I need better links than that... fine... its a waste of time but whatever:
https://www.larouchepub.com/ot... [larouchepub.com]
That is Bill Clinton saying he would also share missile defense tech with Russia... LIKE REAGAN.
But lets see if I can find a better link.
http:/ [washingtonexaminer.com]
Plate boundary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until the next earthquake, and then you fix it. A hell of a lot more straightforward than making something last in the violent and frozen marine environment. I hope there is no metal in it. Or concrete. This thing has to compete with giant ships lumbering across the ocean - it will be a challenge.
No demand (Score:2)
You are connecting a very, very remote area of Russia with a very, very remote area of the US. Take a look at a population density map [wikimedia.org], there's no cities whatsoever nearby. And long distance shipping will either go by sea (cheaper) or plane (faster), just the maintenance on thousands of miles of rail would kill it. This is as likely as the head of NASA suggesting a manned mission to Mars, it's his idea to make lofty ideas but the people with the money will never fund it.
MagLev (Score:2)
In 100 years... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is known for building roads to nowhere (Score:2)
Just Google "Baikalâ"Amur Mainline". The project would make sense if Russia and USA were on visa-free travel level good terms, with vibrant urban or industrial centers on both sides of Bering Strait. Think of something like Channel tunnel. But, even in the best political climate, why connect remote areas requiring days of additional road travel to deliver people or goods? Air or sea shipping is the best option until huge changes in demographics of both countries and mutual political ties.
Re: (Score:2)
Call it the Seattle to Vladivostok run.
Brilliant! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
cost (Score:2)
Allegedly the plan will cost upwards in the trillions of dollars range.
It's ok, no need to worry. We'll get government support and we can print the money.
Great idea! (Score:5, Funny)
But before they do it, I'd like to see them fix the potholes on Elston Avenue.
The Ultimate bridge to no where (Score:3)
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.
Could calculate based on fast rail (Score:2)
If you can get a 10% increase in price because you have all of China's exports on store shelves a month earlier it could be big bucks. Unlikely to pay off a trillion dollars but anyway.
Not Gonna Happen... (Score:2)
The Russian official allegedly proposing all this is, Vladimir Yakunin [wikipedia.org], is under US Sanctions for the Ukraine/Crimea mess. Moreover it would cost Trillion$, during a time when they don't have $10 Billion to upgrade their air force to their latest fighter: the PAK-FA [wikipedia.org].
I will not be surprised to find out this is somebody at the Siberian Times idea of a practical joke.
Yalu River (Score:2)
Apparently, SOME people are learning from history...and not in a good way.
Foolish (Score:3)
Report from Fairbanks (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
here's the problem - there's no road to Nome (Score:3)
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
Re:Make it out of ice (Score:5, Informative)
Like the aircraft carrier that was planned to be made out of ice [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
The idea wasn't that far fetched. It would have been almost impossible to sink and heavily armoured. Picrete is some some cool stuff (pun intended).
Re: (Score:2)
Um, with the next great ice age, it'll be a land bridge. No work at all, just wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, a new ice age is starting. We just managed to more than offset it, though...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [ft.com]
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/ [yale.edu]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Truckers are also cheaper than dock workers.
Re: (Score:2)
And strike less often.
What's the economic damage the Long Beach longshoremen strikes have done over the last decade (and possible the next decade) vs the cost of this bridge?
Re: (Score:2)
If imported products were inspected as thoroughly as they should be they would be a lot more expensive, possibly to the point that some manufacturing would return.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Truckers are also cheaper than dock workers.
Obvious solution: Outsource. Build a port in Ensenada [wikipedia.org].
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they'll do both. High speed trains are actually harder to design for so adding a road on top is trivial and not much more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the Chinese not only try to build the Nicaragua Canal; they're also building a transcontinental rail line in Honduras. It's interesting how Chinese capital is doing to the World what English, then American capital used to do. Especially here, we talk about the economic backyard of the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A shortage of boxcars is jamming up the industries that don't rely on specialized rail cars.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/shortage-of-railroad-boxcars-has-shippers-fuming-2015-06-21 [marketwatch.com]
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
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=
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia still have armed nuclear ICBMs that can reach the U.S. faster than tanks rolling across the bridge. The cold war may have ended, but Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) have not. You should be more concern about the Chinese buying farmland in the Pacific Northwest.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/californians-chinese-scooping-farmland-washington-state-n401841 [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why should anyone be concerned about that? The same fears arose from the Japanese buying up american real estate in the 1990's.
Even the local government could take it back at any time if it wanted to by just condemning the property.
Re: (Score:3)
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 shipp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the numbers here:
http://www.breitbart.com/calif... [breitbart.com]
A small number of people can affect large swaths of the economy of *multiple* countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that's not the point. She cited it as her foreign policy experience when asked about experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bridge to Nowhere! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Bridge to Nowhere! (Score:5, Interesting)