Lol. Sigh.

Very cool idea, but I don't think its worth the cost.

Total US: Russia trade in 2010: $13.7 B

Total cost of the project: $12 billion for the tunnel + 6,000 miles of track at around @# about $250K per mile = $1.5 B = total project is $13.5 B. And with the usual graft, delays, and "oops we forgot about that", lets call it an even $20 B. Which is going to be on the low side.

Lets assume that 40% of Russian trade goes though ports like Seattle currently, and that there would be a 3% savings in transport costs - note that I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass.

Total break even time: 120 years or so

Years ago, dunno how many of you other older people remember this or not, there was discussion of building an underground rail system from the US to England. It was going to remove pressure from the underground rail system and use a series of powerful magnets that would allow a seemingly low-friction train to travel from the US ec to England in a theorized 45 minutes.

@strat, what if a huge $20 B in trade from china goes through the tunnel, and They have a 5% tariff = 20 year payback time.
never mind the impact on the russian economy of cheaper export rates and the increasing cost of jet fuel...

Pretty cool, but way too damn expensive (though I'm no engineer, so I'll leave it to them).

and just when everyone gets used to it and its benefits, the Russians will get in a strop about something (Arctic territorial stuff / nukes / whatever has pissed off the latest Putin-clone running Russia) and shut it.

@strat and @orath
What if those trade numbers increase along with the price of oil?

The US imports very little oil from Russia.

The term is 'opportunity cost' - can't post more until later, but there are better was to spend $20 billion in borrowed money

The BBC had this story a few weeks ago too - A Victorian era (1890) proposal for a Scotland-Ireland undersea tunnel. This wasn't an underground tunnel that also went under the sea, but an "undersea bridge" - a pipe sunk under the sea carrying the tracks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-15187431

The US may not import much oil from Russia but higher oil costs would render other forms of transport (ships, planes) more expensive and less attractive and therefore the train would be used more.

It's not just trade between Russia and the US though. Think about the bigger picture: China. Not only China but also Taiwan, Korea, India. A mass train line connection North America to Asia wouldn't even be able to cater for all the demand of use it would have.

For the oil trade a pipeline would trump a rail link by a healthy margin. For most other trade ships make for a highly efficient low cost option. For human passengers airplanes is the way to go. Trains are a really bad idea before you even start to consider the huge numer of anti-US, anti-Russia and anti-China terror groups who would see it as their target of choice.

Scaremongering. There are many anti-UK, anti-French, anti-Europe terror groups but none of them have ever breached the security of the Channel Tunnel.

Such an advanced tunnel would have numerous safety mechanisms anyway, it would be very difficult for a terror group to damage it in a severe manner. Especially as they'd have to get whatever they were going to use past, presumably, strict security.

Sarg, a bunch of half starved illegal immigrants with nothing but the shirt on their backs and a desperate desire to get away from French cooking have managed to breach Channel Tunnel security. We have been bloody lucky.

The reason for that is because of French apathy to the whole issue. They are happy to see the immigrants jumping on trains and trucks headed to Britain because they just want them gone. The focus on bomb threats is far more effective, different levels of security for different areas of concern.

@Stany +1 that's exactly what I meant with my oil question.

Thanks Stany, it's nice to have a second rational voice here. Wild accusations backed up by highly selective pieces of evidence are so easy for oppositional reactionaries to make.

In fairness my arguments are entirely circumstantial as well, I haven't provided any evidence of what I've said nor do I have a detailed understanding of French border security. I'm just stating my point of view although I do feel it's fairly safe to assume the things that I have said.

And of course the Russians are well known for their top notch security that always stops the bad guys getting through. But terror issues aside, I've still not seen a good argument in favour of this. If memory serves the Chunnel was a financial disaster.

The point I was referring to though was:

Octavious talked of terror groups but then all he could offer against the security of the Channel Tunnel was starved pantless immigrants clinging on to buses. That is not the terror threat he scaremongered of previously. In other words, he was talking bullshit.

The Channel Tunnel came in over budget (as with almost all major construction works) but as far as I know it was not a "financial disaster". Eurostar started posting net profits in 1999 and I believe has continued to do so since then. On the point of border control again, I think an important thing to remember is that security is a lot easier to administrate over a single tunnel rather than an entire border. Also, while Russian security may not be perfect, you can bet that American security will be incredibly tight. Sarg, I see what you mean now and yeah that was my point, immigrants are not the same as terrorists, not in terms of their movements, behaviour or detectability.

On a more abstract note, not building something on the basis of security issues is effectively a victory for terrorism as a terrorists broad objective can never really be the total overthrow of a government, rather the impeding of their economic and social system. To not build the tunnel on the basis of a terrorist threat would allow them to directly draw a link between their actions, a government decision and damage to an economy. This could only encourage more terrorism.

Another blow to right scaremongering purely for personal-political reasons. +1 Stany.

I also +1ed Stany. Very good point.

I don't think this will happen till that tunnel between South Korea and Japan happens (and that can likely only happen once there's no more North Korea). If that can make money then further development of that barren wasteland which is the Russian Far East is possible. But alos keep in mind whether the United States would want this thing built. The Chunnel wrecked Britain's island mentality and national thinking by making France easier to get to than Northern Ireland, if there's a land link to Asia (no matter how relatively remote it is) then the great moats of the Atlantic and Pacific count at least a little bit less. It would be a moment like the closure of the frontier, and could be more trouble than it's worth.

Please tell me, Sarg, what on earth are the personal-political reasons I could have regarding a tunnel on the other side of the world? It won't effect me in the slightest. I am simply giving my opinion that it's a really daft idea because of the huge costs, small benefits, and many political difficulties.