China plans a 13,000 km rail line to America passing through an under-ocean tunnel.

[GeorgeGist]

Beijing: China plans to build an ambitious 13,000 km rail line to operate bullet trains to America through Russia passing through a tunnel underneath the Pacific Ocean to reach the continental US via Alaska and Canada.

The proposed line beginning from China's north east could go through Russia's eastern Siberia, the Bering Strait, Alaska, Canada and then reach the contiguous US, Wang Mengshu, a tunnel and railway expert at the Chinese Academy of Engineering, told the Chinese official media.
Once the line is put to use, bullet trains can run at 350 km per hour, enabling passengers to travel from northeastern China to the US in less than two days, he said, adding that Russia, which is heavily dependent on rail transport like China, is also progressively advocating the idea.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/china-plans-a-13000-km-rail-line-to-america-passing-through-an-underocean-tunnel/470737-11.html

[LittleBlue]

1. Time to learn Mandarin

We'll all inevitably be subjects of the Middle Kingdom.

[Jesus Malverde]

50. Many parents in California, hire Chinese nannys for just this reason.

China is a growth leader. The United States is not.

The United States will be saddled for the next 20 years with negative to flat growth as we turn Japan-like trying to care for our elderly baby boomers.

To Give Children an Edge, Au Pairs From China

[LittleBlue]

53. Excellent idea

Very forward thinking. It's obvious China will be the other major player in the world.

[Jesus Malverde]

56. It's strange our fascination with the middle east when we have such monumental changes going

on around us. We need to pivot our focus towards Asia. We see it here and from the state department, most of our energy goes into european or middle eastern affairs.

It's very strange. Business made the pivot long ago, our foreign policy needs to catch up.

[AnalystInParadise]

63. hate to break it to you

But China is set to age faster than the US. The one child policy is going to lead to the largest implosion by a nation state in the history of man. And we will be watching it. It aint going to be pretty. To summarize, China is fucked......hard.....

http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/322http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/322

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2013/11/12/chinas-demographic-collapse/

http://www.economist.com/node/18651512

[MineralMan]

2. Earthquake! Where were they intending

to land this tunnel, I wonder. The entire Pacific coast of the US is an earthquake zone. Morons.

[BlindTiresias]

11. Do some research

This doesn't apply to the area they want to build at. Furthermore, the kind of thinking you are espousing is exactly what is dragging our country down. At least the Chinese still have a can-do attitude about great works and ambitious state projects.

[Agschmid]

14. Earthquakes can happen anywhere...

But it is a cool idea.

[KittyWampus]

23. yeah, their "can-do" attitude built a huge dam on not one but TWO major fault lines-

"Scientists have long argued that the weight of water reservoirs can cause seismic shifts that trigger tremors, also known as reservoir-induced seismicity."

"The Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River is the world’s largest hydropower project. It has come under criticism even from Chinese officials and others concerned about its geological impact. A 2011 study by government seismologists concluded the dam had increased seismic activity near its reservoir. Over 3,400 earthquakes were registered in the reservoir’s vicinity between 2003, when the dam began operation, and 2009."

[Nye Bevan]

16. Are tunnels not built near the US west coast for this reason?

(Genuine question, not snark. I really have no idea).

[neverforget]

22. Seattle is building the Alaskan Viaduct underground

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Way_Viaduct_replacement_tunnel

Portland's light rail has a 2.9 mile long tunnel also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_Tunnel

[lunasun]

30. Ok yeah sure but if they were furners they would all be morans dontcha know

[miyazaki]

36. Can you imagine how much transportation infrastructure

is at the mercy of pacific seismic zones? Yet alone the millions who live there.
Its all moronic to you?

[MineralMan]

37. It is moronic to build an undersea tunnel

in a seismic zone. I would never use such a tunnel.

[UtahJosh]

54. What about the mainland/Hokkaido tunnel?

I'm just curious (not trying to argue your point, as I have *no* clue about undersea tunnels and the effects of major earthquakes on them), isn't there an undersea tunnel between mainland Japan and Hokkaido? If so, is that not also in a seismic zone?

How did that structure fare during the Tohoku quake of 2011 (or was that quake significantly to the Southeast, at least enough to not be a danger)?

[former9thward]

58. Earthquakes can happen anywhere.

I guess we better ban tunnels.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. Any chance they could extend it to NJ-NY?

Cuz Christie hath screweth that commute for a generation, and the existing two tunnels are 100 yrs old and ready to fail.

While the Chinese have the political will and the ambition to build and improve we have been hijacked by the tea Baggers who want to cancel any and every govt. project.

[arcane1]

4. Wouldn't continental drift be a factor here?

[Kurska]

7. Not anymore than it is for the chunnel.

Also the berring straight is only about 55 meters deep with little earthquake activity. It wouldn't really be that hard (just expensive).

[seveneyes]

9. Yes and elastic rebound would ruin an otherwise quick trip

A disaster just waiting to happen.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. I would think so

Don't be in the tunnel when an earthquake re-aligns it!

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. In geologic time

they are not planning on geologic time though

[FiveGoodMen]

45. But when plates move against eachother it's kind of sudden

I wouldn't think they'd have to move more than an inch or two to create all kinds of trouble

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. If we have a major earthquake it could be a problem

they are going around the known issues in the Circle of fire per map. That said, you could have a new plate fissure happen under you, again, in geologic time.

It looks from the map they chose relatively stable areas

Now imho there are other reasons, far more mundane and not related to geologic time, why this plan will not go much further than a nice plan, and it has to do with the more human scale sense of politics.

Something like this requires three superpowers to play nice over the very long haul. (in human terms). That ain't gonna happen.

[Brigid]

5. There isn't enough money on the planet to build this.

[sakabatou]

6. That's a 37 hour trip if built

[Blue Owl]

8. I like trains but this seems like a horrible idea

How much concrete would it take to line that tunnel? What if there were medical emergencies during the trip? Who would want to endure two days of claustrophobia? Not worth it IMO.

[Jenoch]

39. They would not be in the undersea tunnel for twk days.

[LuvLoogie]

10. Pleased to announcing technology revolution bullet train of China,

for faster traveling paradigms to intercontinental destinations in American U.S. Mainland from China municipality departures, in record land travel by rail timings in the nearer future, via Russia overland routings and undersea tunnel innovations.

[jberryhill]

31. Drinking passanger for happy refreshments given

[KurtNYC]

12. "Let's go for a 10,000 mile underground train ride" said no sane person, ever.

[pampango]

20. The only underwater part would be the Bering Strait. Where did you get the 10,000 miles

underground?

[KittyWampus]

25. Okay, help me with the math? 125 miles at 215 mph….

"Crossing the Bering Strait in between Russia and Alaska would require about 200km of undersea tunnel, the Beijing Times newspaper reported, citing Wang."

So that means rounding it off to an extreme, It's be about 2 hours under the water?

But then there's the melting permafrost and climate change issues up there….

Can't see how rails would be stable.

[pampango]

33. It would take about 40 minutes at 215 mph. The thing does not seem feasible but

it would not be 10,000 miles underground.

[KittyWampus]

35. Oops, I doubled it instead of halving it? Sorry.

[Kelvin Mace]

32. First, kilometers, not miles.

13,000 km is a bit under 8,100 miles. The narrowest spot in the Bering Strait is around 60 miles, which would be the spot where you would go underwater. If the train crosses at top speed that would mean about 15 minutes "underwater".

What's the big deal?

[NightWatcher]

13. too bad they couldn't travel on the water or in the air to cover that distance

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Agschmid]

15. I see what you did there...

[Takket]

17. How us this going to be cheaper and safer than

Air travel???

[951-Riverside]

18. Lets see, we can permanently damage the eco system and perhaps create earthquakes or...

We could just hop in a plane and fly back and forth.

And good luck with underwater pressure and oxygen, oh... and don't get stuck mid way.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. The Channel Tunnel

is doing fine, and it runs deeper than this tunnel probably would.

Also, rail is WAY more friendly to the environment than planes and carries a lot more cargo per unit of fuel expended.

Earthquakes? The planned route goes through seismically stable areas:

[knitter4democracy]

44. It's the northern part of the Ring of Fire.

How's that safe?

[Kelvin Mace]

51. Look at the seismic map I posted

The areas of the planned route are in "green" areas, meaning low seismic activity.

If you look at this map of the "ring of fire" you will note that the Bering Strait is outside of it.

[knitter4democracy]

57. It's not that far, and they've had problems with it.

Just saying.

[Kelvin Mace]

62. Again, the planned route

is outside of seismically active areas. The Bering Strait is no more active than the English Channel. I wish we cared enough about out infrastructure to plan projects like this. We can't even manage a short tunnel between NJ and NY which we desperately need.

[msongs]

21. completely trapped underground 2000 miles from safety in any direction. what could go

wrong?

[KittyWampus]

24. That would be two days of white knuckles for sure. As someone pointed out upthread

it wouldn't be the whole time underground or underwater.

[former9thward]

59. It would be underground for 30 minutes at the most.

What is this "completely trapped underground" stuff coming from? The Chunnel is deeper and underground longer.

[itsrobert]

26. I'll believe it when I see it

Too costly and too slow.

I bet the plans also call for a pipeline to run along side.

[CJCRANE]

27. All Aboard The TransEuraAsiAmerican Express!

[lunasun]

28. these comments can't all have been lifted from freeperland

[minivan2]

29. I thought this was the Onion!

Well, this is awkward.

[Fumesucker]

38. !

[kentauros]

48. I wonder if he got the idea from the movie:

The Tunnel (1935)

[ThoughtCriminal]

40. Wait, I saw this movie!

Battle Beneath the Earth (1967)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061387/

[malaise]

41. I pass

I can't even bare a cruise ship.

[whistler162]

42. Likely to be as successful as the Overseas railroad!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Railroad.

Problems include

1 - Getting Russia to go along
2 - Environmental concerns along the Alaska and Canadian coasts.
3 - Winter
4 - Earthquakes, Alaska at least is not lacking in seismic actvity.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

47. Chairman Mao: 'Every long journey starts with a first step'.

Is this what he meant?

What could possibly go wong?

[sorefeet]

49. Why does it have to be

underground???? Why can't it be a tube, made from steel or lexiglass, lying on the ocean floor??? Might even be scenic??

[kiranon]

52. This would be the mother of all money pits.

Or the biggest scam.

[karadax]

55. A great idea for hauling freight.

Cargo vessels take weeks to cross the pacific. If the rail system takes less than two days there would be a significant reduction in shipping costs and fuel consumption. Not to mention we would get our rubber dog poo a lot sooner than conventional shipping methods.

If they want to try it and they're willing to pay I say go for it.

[A HERETIC I AM]

60. Weeeelllllll....maybe not.

Average number of containers carried by a modern container ship = 8000 to 9000 (18,000 "TEU's")

Number of containers moved through the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach annually= 7.9 million TEU (about 4 million 40 footers)

Number of containers carried on the average freight train = 200, that's 100 cars double stacked.

That would work out to be 54 trains every 24 hours each carrying 200 containers.....


JUST TO COVER THE PORT OF LA/LB

Include the Oakland container port as well as Portland and Seattle, not to mention Vancouver means there is a shit ton of containers coming ashore on the West coast.

FWIW, the big ships are making the Pacific crossing in about 10 days, from what I understand, not "weeks"

[Corey_Baker08]

61. Now Thats 21st Century Technology For Ya...

Forget the dreams of flying cars, and robots that can do everything...this is a real technological innovation...although im not a safety expert so I cannot fully endorse it but on the cover it seems like a great innovation to me...