Bering Strait Bridge

[M II A II R II K]

Bering Strait Bridge



Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering estimates the cost of a highway, double track rail and pipelines, at $105 billion, five times the cost of the Channel Tunnel. This excludes the cost of new roads and railways to reach the bridge. The Discovery Channel proposal contains several extremely long suspension spans. A lower estimate for a road bridge is $15–25 billion, based on the price (US$180m) per mile of the Confederation Bridge, the longest bridge in the world to span ice covered waters. The Confederation Bridge is a pure concrete bridge, spanning the Northumberland strait. The water is 10 to 25 meters in depth, roughly half the depth of the Bering Strait.

The cost for the connections would be high. Alone, a road to the Fairbanks area, about 700 miles (1,100 km), would cost at least $1.5 billion. The distances on the Russian side are larger than that. A railway would have to be much longer, and cost much more money. These costs might be justified inside each country, like linking Alaska with the rest of the USA, and linking western Alaska with the rest of Alaska. The bridge itself is even harder to finance.

The Bering Strait area is extremely remote and sparsely populated. Air is the main mode of travel in the area, and across the strait there are very few chartered flights by small private airlines such as Bering Air, located in Nome. There is no existing car or rail ferry service as there are no roads or railways for it to serve. So far, tourism in Chukotka is hindered by the international border controls and visa requirements. In Russia, a special visit permit is required because of military restrictions; this must be lifted for significant volumes of travel by air or boat to occur.

To finance the bridge or tunnel, income would be needed. Possible sources of such income include container traffic between Russia/China and Canada/U.S., which, due to a shorter (great circle) route and higher running speeds, could make the transit more quickly by rail via the Bering Strait than by sea crossing the Pacific Ocean, in addition to saving two land-water transfers for traffic originating and terminating at inland locations. A bridge or tunnel which also carried pipelines would earn pipeline revenues. Potential income from these sources is unknown. The main market for the oil would be the contiguous part of the USA, a very long distance away. The cost to ship the oil by sea is much lower than the enormous cost for a pipeline. Natural gas is a more likely candidate, due to the relative difficulty of transporting it by ship.






• Video Link

[You Need A Thneed]

The pipeline and the railway would be the important parts of this bridge. Considering that there is basically no one living within 1000 km of the bridge site, a road part of the bridge would not see a whole lot of traffic, but would see some.

Even to build the service roads, train track to get to the bridge would require the construction of several small towns just to house the workers. These towns would have to be somewhat permanent to provide services to the route, even when the route would be complete. Roads and rail would have to be built to haul in supplies - to be used to access the bridge when complete. Russia doesn't use the same gauge track as North America, it would likely require a transfer port to be built somewhere in Russia.

Design wise, I think it would be something similar to the confederation bridge, just with longer spans, and larger ice breaking piers. I think the whole thing would have to be enclosed - the road, the rails, and the pipeline, to protect from the wind and the cold.

Construction would take several decades, at least. It would be ten years after the start of construction at least before any work on the bridge started, I would guess. Work to build the supply roads and rails would take that long, IMO. Construction periods each year would be short, lengthening the whole process.

I think it would be very beneficial to world trade, but it'll be a while before it happens, if it ever happens at all. I can see a bridge from Spain to Morocco coming sooner.

[M II A II R II K]

The plan along with this bridge is to have a rail tracks that go as far into China and the Continental United States on the other side, certainly useful for freight and pipelines.

The construction window would only be for 4 months a year but construction of the piers and the bridge can take place year round of course.

[Lecom]

Aside from the obvious questionable elements of the proposal, it would take decades to flesh out into a serious project, considering the economic problems of both the United States and Russia.

[JDRCRASH]

I would have this built for trains instead. It's not like there are heavily populated areas at both ends of the bridge; and even then, it would still be a long commute.

[pesto]

Would the on-ramps be metered at rush-hour?

More seriously, is there an economic rationale for this or is it more of an engineering "thought experiment"?

[M II A II R II K]

It would be great for oil pipelines as well as trafficking freight between Russia, China, and the U.S.

[new.slang]

although its a cool thought this would be pretty useless...and huge waste of money. WTF would you do if you are low on gas, or if the bridge collapses. Would someone be plowing the bridge from october to may...etc

[M II A II R II K]

If it were just for trains and pipelines that wouldn't be a problem, particularly if the train tracks are covered as well.

Driving can realistically be for "local" traffic when the weather is good.

[hammersklavier]

Large-scale freight movement would be the bridge's prime benefit. The railroad line would have to go from the northernmost CN or CP railhead in British Columbia all the way down the Yukon Valley, over the easternmost part of Siberia called Kamchatka in Risk, probably through or near Vladivostok, and on into Manchuria where it can link up with the Chinese rail system. The bridge would simply be the most expensive element of the whole system; yet the system's potential profitability (because, among other things, the arc described in the rail route is technically shorter across the earth's surface than the straight lines big ships use to cross the Pacific, and because freight trains can develop speed up to 60 to 70 mph whereas even the biggest ships top out roundabouts 25 knots, which, even when you factor in that a knot is longer than a mile IIRC, is still significantly slower than the rail speed) hinges entirely on the span. Without it the region around the bridge itself is far too sparsely populated with far too few opportunities for commerce to support a trunk line. Right now, the furtherest a freight line can conceivably profitably go is from the current Canadian railhead NW via Whitehorse to Fairbanks (where it would interchange with the ARR).

That said, if the development of the economic and physical plant to support the railroad began to be developed now then in a good 20-30 years there might be enough of a local economic base to support a true intercontinental trunk line.

The most important missing link in the world rail system, however, is that of a standard-gauge connection between China and Europe. (Probably via Kazakhstan.) Just pointing out...

[Dball]

It would be better off as a tunnel only due to the elements. Would also make the tunnel a year-round operation without icebergs getting in the way. Maintenance would be less in the long-run as well. $105B sounds very low.

[SnyderBock]

Maybe they could just start filling in the Bering Straight with rock and dirt? Do this each summer for 20-30 years and I bet we have a land bridge! lol, jk ;-)

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Maybe they could just start filling in the Bering Straight with rock and dirt? Do this each summer for 20-30 years and I bet we have a land bridge! lol, jk ;-)

Whatever was placed in one year would likely be wiped out by the ice movements during the winter.

[PartyLine]

I think a tunnel would be better off than a bridge