Bump, was an interesting topic.

Such a plan would lead to trillions in revenue. Imagine the costs saved from not having to use container ships every year. I imagine it'd be in the realm of over 10 billion a year. Plus the fact that you'd be able to take a train from NYC all the way to Europe.

Hmmm... You're gonna have the tunnel to nowhere effect though. On either side of the tunnel, there's just lots of forests. So you need to make the rails really long and the trains really efficient.

Yes, but Russia is already investing in building raillines in the East, so the problem lies mostly with not having much in the way of rail in western Alaska.

I read on the wiki that the plan was first proposed in 1890..!

The Chunnel is over 50 miles long and this would only total about that length with each tunnel section being less than 25 miles long. You could bring it up and put a bridge between the Diomede islands. For that matter, the whole thing could be three bridges. The Jiaozhou Bay Bridge is over 25 miles long.

It's actually a feasible structure, engineering wise. Politically? Now that's another story. With the US barring certain Russian military and dignitaries over a prison death and Russian blocking certain US Dignitaries over Gunatanamo and Abu Ghraib... Let's just say *now* is not the climate to get it done.

Trillions in revenue? Really? A hundredfold increase in trade because of a relatively small reduction in transport costs? *Fascinating*,

I'm not sure Draugnar. With trillions in revenue our fine politicians may overlook some prison deaths here and there. ;)

From the development of the Russian far east's resources? From connecting the most resource rich area of the world to the world's richest consumer market? Yes. Especially when it is linked up with all the other rail projects going on in Central/East Asia.

Why do you assume the cost savings to be small? If you ship something from inland Russia to inland US right now, you have to do several costly transfers from rail-to-ship and ship-to-rail. There would be less distance traveled. The speed increases of shipping would be phenomenal.

Rail to Sea to Rail isn't as bad as it sounds, Putin. The newest rail cars are designed with removable shipping containers that can be stacked aboard a tanker. It's actually gotten pretty efficient.

But there is one additonal aspect that would have to be handled and that is security. Currently items offloaded from a ship go through security quarantines and the like. The US would still need this for incoming as I'm sur eRussia would want it for their incoming goods if any. Otherwise you opne up the risk of terrorist activity or a new form of illegal immigrants.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be benefits, Putin. But the GDP of Russia is just around a trillion, and there are nations demanding raw materials a little closer than the US.

Saying the tunnel would create 'Trillions' in revenue is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

But the very fact that freight is containerized on ships makes shipping by sea much more dangerous (terrorism-wise) than by rail, does't it? The vast bulk of containers are never inspected. There's also the issue of losses at sea.

"Saying the tunnel would create 'Trillions' in revenue is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?"

Depends on how much the volume of freight is increased. Shipping containers are a standard size, if you have stuff, like steel, which is very heavy your costs of moving it will be very high. That's why Chinese exports of steel have fallen off a cliff with the rising fuel costs.

@Putin - "But the very fact that freight is containerized on ships makes shipping by sea much more dangerous (terrorism-wise) than by rail, does't it?"

No, it doesn't Have you never seen a train? The rail cars on a train are the same size as a container on a ship and most of them *are* shipping containers: those same ones that are "uninspected" (I'd like to see the evidence behind this "fact"by the way).

Now. the issue of losses at sea... Yes, higher risk involved as a sea accident is normally a complete loss. But there are more train accidents than shipping accidents and the real risk of loss in shipping comes down to the "local" shipping once the goods are transferred to the trucks, where the highest incident rate occurs on the highway.

Oh, and note that rail cars are also a standard size, the same as shipping containers. The global transportation industry has standardrized on two basic container sizes that will fit on trins in a single or double fashion as well as on trucks as dual short trailers or a single long trailer.

Putin, seriously - are you arguing for your inflated revenue numbers out of your standard defense of all things Russian, or because you seriously believe that trade would effectively double the crossborder trade we currently have with Canada - which, I might note, also has a plethora of untapped mineral resources, and tends to be on better terms with us than Russia?

And don't forget that anything rail bound through Alaska would still have to go through Canada to get here. Alaska isn't going to consume all those goods and Canada is goint o see a revenue stream in tariffs on anything transported through their country.

Sorry how many people does Canada have? How many people does east Eurasia have?

Sorry what does this have to do with the sovereign rights of a nation to control what crosses it's borders? Are you advocating that Russia and the US just gang rape Canada's sovereignty?

Population of Canada: 33 million
Population of Siberia (includes the Russian Urals, Siberian, and Far Eastern Federal Districts): 38.7 million

Population of Central America: 41 million

Distance to Panama City, Panama from San Diego: 3,700 miles.
Amount of rail line requested in the initial article: 6,000 miles

With all due respect - and I mean this, that's not pro-forma - I likely have a much greater understanding of the economic costs for such a project due to my background. And I repeat - the project is feasable, and would generate a positive increase in trade.

But it is *highly* likely that there is another way to spend $20 B that would generate *greater* benefits. Example: buying CFLs or LEDs for every house would probably generate enough power savings to pay for itself in about a year, and probably would cost around a billion or two

Let's just oust Cuba's dictator and all his family and put in a puppet regime, then we can connect a rail line just for cuban cigars...

I'm being facetious of course.

It's not only about Siberia but also about China (and other countries that are going to be connected with it via high-speed railway, like Vietnam for instance). Still, the numbers are pulled from ass around here so I can't take a qualified stance on rentability.

And again, there is the whole Canadian problem that only Putin has addressed even remotely (with what seems to be a suggestion we run roughshod over Canada's sovereign rights). Alsaka is not part of the 48 contiguous states.

The other data point - if this was going to be such a boon for Russia, they'd offer to fund the tunnel and pay for it themselves. Granted, crossborder trade tends to benefit both parties, but this project is not a panacea that will miraculously increase by 50% the amount of foreign trade the US does with the *entire planet* currently

@ultyua - all my numbers are pulled from Wikipedia's ass. Keep in mind that a double tracked line can only carry a finite amount of traffic - if a significant chunk of US trade with Asia flowed through a single tunnel, there would be huge bottlenecks

So, you have a free trade zone with Canada but you can't freely transfer goods over their soil? Or do you think Canada would have a problem with getting thousands of kilometers of high-speed rail for free?

Hell, you can't freely transfer goods across state lines... But the point stands that it would require their approval. NAFTA is a free trade *with* them (between the US and Canada) not with Russia and does not have a clause allowing the use of their soil as a high speed transit system they will see nothing from. That high-speed rail for free needs to be controlled and maintained. Do you think they'll just say "Sure, you can run a rail right through any town you want as long as you let us put trains on it occasionally"? I don't think they would. They would want a cut of it.

@stratagos
You didn't provide any numbers relevant to the cost-benefit analysis of a billion dollar investition. Heck, population and distance would not be enough even as a starting point for writing a entry study, let alone B2B one. No offense, you can't possibly access any relevant data since it looks more like a vision than a shovel-ready project.

"Hell, you can't freely transfer goods across state lines..."

Your free trade zone sucks if it works that way. Naturally, the cargo needn't to be labeled as export from Russia or China, there can be a profitable business of branding on Alaska.

Now *that* is an interesting concept. Flag it as now domesticated goods and relabel the country of origin...

And just try to cross state lines with too much liquor, tobacco, or explosives and not have the right paperwork including the bill of lading and tax papers showing everythign has been paid in advance to the governing entities involved in that shipment here in the states. States have sovereign rights as well and the feds can't intervene unless the states become so restrictive as to impede interstate commerce. In short, a state can tax it to hell and back and the shippers must pay it. they just can ban it unless it is deemed a dangerous shipment.