1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Building a bridge from Alaska and Russia?

  1. Feb 2, 2010 #1
    I think I saw a documentary on TV a while back about the thought of building a bridge between Alaska and Russia. The largest bridge ever built. Do you think that this could actually be done in terms of modern structural engineering?

    I would imagine that such a bridge would become quite a bottleneck.

    An underground or underwater rail tunnel would seem much more practical and economical.

    AlaskaBridge.jpg
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 2, 2010 #2

    Ranger Mike

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    we can't do this..makes it too easy for the commies to invade us!
     
  4. Feb 2, 2010 #3
    There is no infrastructure on either side of the strait to connect to that bridge. The Russian side, in particular, is extremely sparsely populated, it's one of the most pristine parts of the world. You'd have to build 2000 miles of roads or railways to connect to the Russian transport network, much of it over permafrost (which makes any construction difficult and expensive).

    And there's no economic reason to do all that, because, even if all roadways and bridges were already there, it would still be significantly more expensive to move stuff using land transport across Bering Strait, than to load the same stuff into containers in Shanghai or Vladivostok and to transport it to Long Beach using cargo ships.
     
  5. Feb 2, 2010 #4
    About how many miles across from Alaska and Russia is the Bering Strait?
     
  6. Feb 2, 2010 #5
    The strait itself is 60 miles wide. From there, like I said, it's 2000 miles to connect to the Russian network (somewhere near Khabarovsk), and about 500 miles to connect to Alaska Route 11.
     
  7. Feb 2, 2010 #6

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What exactly would be the economics to support this? A 60 mile long bridge in one of the most unforgiving environments doesn't seem really feasible if not darned near impossible. It's tough to say because a bridge like that would require some serious pilings. Does anyone know if the geology in the area would be usable for this purpose?
     
  8. Feb 2, 2010 #7
    the permafrost that they built the pipeline on is having melt problems now
    even if there was some reasonable need to build it, I don't think that the knowledge is enough to make it last
    could you imaging being the workers on that project, how absolutely miserable!!!

    field enginner/manager says:

    I'd sign the PO but the ink in my pen froze

    although... its a dumb idea, with no use, that would waste billions, so they will probably do it

    dr
     
  9. Feb 2, 2010 #8

    stewartcs

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The Discovery Channel had a show on Extreme Engineering the other day on this very topic.

    CS
     
  10. Feb 2, 2010 #9

    minger

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The only thing I know about Kamchatka is the cheap grocery store vodka. Mmmmm, hangover. Is there a Popov province up there, too?
     
  11. Feb 2, 2010 #10
    of coarse, thats where all the vodka trees grow!

    dr
     
  12. Feb 2, 2010 #11

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    dr d, though there have been reports of artic permafrost melting, I'm unaware of any current impact on the pipeline. Please provide a source for this statement

    The continuous tunnels would be shorter than the English Channel tunnel.

    They'd be underground for most of the tunnel work.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2010
  13. Feb 2, 2010 #12

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Saw it. This interactive only covers the bridge version, not the tunnel?
    http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/beringstrait/interactive/interactive.html [Broken]

    Surprisingly, it seems like most of the cost and difficulty would be not in the Strait crossing itself, but in extending a useful transportation system to the Strait from the Russian side. Apparently there is very little or nothing out there worth the expense.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  14. Feb 2, 2010 #13

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Only 30-40 miles to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BeringBridge.jpg" [Broken] in the middle of the Strait
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  15. Feb 3, 2010 #14
    I tried to find the thing I read on the net about the pipeline, but couldn't find it
    It basicly was talking about the fact that the best permafrost observatories we have are the ones along the pipeline its self, and at the current rate, maintainence costs were going to increase as supports in some places were going to need "upgrades" (I think it was to go deeper, as the frost line shifted.) The roads and structures in alaska are having problems, too Shifting as surface melts. Could be significant problems in the coming years.

    dr
     
  16. Feb 6, 2010 #15
    I think it's a great idea, but one whose time has just not yet come. Now, assuming our civilization doesn't all go to ruin in the next hundred years or so, maybe it will be feasible in the twenty-second century. Russian and US infrastructure capabilities may be a lot greater (well, at least the Russian). I can see great possible advantages at that time. Consider that by then we should have implemented very-high-speed maglev rail capabilities to supplant most resource depleting and environmentally unfriendly air travel. We can envision trains that travel at around 1000 mph (1600 kph),and that will connect all of the Americas to all of Eurasia, Africa and possibly Japan and Australia (by maybe the 23rd century or so).

    There are, however considerable problems, not the least being that much of the travel will be along the "Ring of Fire" and the system will have to be designed to compensate for this factor (23rd century maybe?). Still, in that long-term the economic gain might be considerable. Also, travel at those speeds would have to be within sealed "tubes" so much of the system might best be accomplished underground and under-water. Also at those speeds, curves in travel would have to very gradual and extend over long distances. Just some things to think about.

    KM
     
  17. Feb 8, 2010 #16

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    why?

    Tunnel construction at that scale (1000's of miles - orders of magnitude longer than today's longest) becomes the entire issue, trains just an afterthought. It would require innovation akin to the invention of the airplane.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
  18. Feb 9, 2010 #17

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I would imagine the tunnel idea is much more feasible than the bridge option. I just can never see that happening.
     
  19. Feb 10, 2010 #18
    Why? At least two reasons. First, the speed of travel can be far greater, twice or greater than the speed of sound if travel is in sealed tubes. We'll not be able to match that with atmospheric travel (ie., aircraft). Second, we greatly decrease the pollution (atmospheric and ozone layer) from air travel.

    Regarding the second comment, that is why I stated that this will not happen any time soon, but given standard progress, it should at some time - - maybe a hundred years from now or so.
     
  20. Feb 10, 2010 #19

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    My question referenced your comment regarding the current, proposed, Bearing Strait tunnel or bridge was 'a great idea'. Why?
     
  21. Feb 13, 2010 #20
    I don't know how I can state it more clearly. It is ultimately faster, cleaner, environmentally safer. Its drawback is that it cannot occur anytime soon - - like within the next hundred years, but then, why not?

    KM
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook