I don’t see why it couldn’t be not just a good job creator here in the United States but an economic stimulator for both the European union as well as NAFTA.
Wouldn’t it create jobs since the CCC in the 1930s under Roosevelt created jobs by building railroads?
How would the US government go about making this kind of thing?
Well in fairness the Panama Canal was created pretty fast using tunnel borers i tihnk
[QUOTE]
Well in fairness the Panama Canal was created pretty fast using tunnel borers i tihnk [/QUOTE
I don’t believe there were any major (ship sized) tunnels used on the original canal, by boring machines or otherwise. There may be some small tunnel work going on now as the canal is expanded, but they are for use in conveying materials during construction and are generally less than 700 ft in length.
Another prediction. We’ll get a tunnel under the Atlantic just after we build that bridge across the Pacific.
At this point, I’m sure you’re just goofing on us. The answer is NO. NO WAY. NO WAY IN HELL with current or future technology.
Genie: The tunnel can’t be done. Do you have another wish?
Potestas: I’d like to understand women.
Genie: How many lanes each way do you want in that tunnel?
Google the Panama Canal history. The first survey was done in 1819. Finished in 1914. It was excavated, not tunneled.
I t hink you would have problems building a bridge over the pacific because of the waves. But actually during WW2 they built a lot of pontoon bridges, not sure if you could extend across the pacific using pontoons linked together but perhaps from San Fran to Hawaii?
I don’t know but that really is giving me a lot of thoughts! I would love to put a schematic together for something like that but I’d imagine the engineering equations would be a headache
This Potestas, he thinks BIG. We need more people like that!
Thank you. I watch a lot of TED talks and they are inspiring. But more than that think about all the problems that would be eliminated by a global transit like this? Having the ability to create more jobs and more hope and more change would make this a better world in my opinion.
Unemployment is a huge cause for terrorism, creating more jobs would get rid of that (or at least dent it) and would help get rid of extreme poverty both of which we can do a lot to fix.
I guess the biggest thing is trying to find a way to get it done, it seems impossible but people said that about the first airplane.
Once again - the first airplane wasn’t asked to fly through an active volcano…
Rather than link to an article, why not just post the answer here: You drill holes ahead of the main shaft (that’s how it gets done in hard-rock mining as well - usually with core being pulled as well)
No. The biggest thing is trying to find a reason to do it. If you’re willing to spend vast amounts of money on an employment-creating stimulus project, you can spend it on a project that might produce something useful, even productive. And if you’re willing to spend that amount of money on a “global transit project”, you’ll have no difficult finding projects that are vastly more cost-effective in terms of the improvements to global transit that they bring.
There is no advantage to driving under the Atlantic Ocean - none. If your priority is speed, flying is going to be quicker. If your priority is economic cost or environmental impact, shipping is more attractive. Even if this tunnel existed, the number of people wanting to drive through it would be low - just those to whom it was important to say that they had done this. The number of people wanting to drive through it a second time would be vanishingly small.
Currently The Channel Tunnel, linking The UK and France is, at 23½ miles long, has the most undersea portion of any tunnel in the World. You can’t drive through it but have to put your car on a train. There are three tunnels - one each way for trains and one in the middle for emergency and service access.
Anyone who lives in a city that has road tunnels will be used to hearing that the tunnel is closed because someone broke down or rear ended someone else. That’s on a relatively short length - the problem would increase exponentially (I think) with the length of the tunnel.
No one has mentioned the psychological problems of being stuck in a tunnel miles under the sea. Being stuck in one under a river is bad enough.
I like the idea of instead of under, building a series of above water bridges going the Canada, Greenland, Iceland, and Norway route.
Consider the longest bridge over water is in China and spans 540,000 feet or 102 miles, and the worlds longest suspension is in Japan and spans 6532 feet or 1.27 miles, and using floating platforms like used for oil rigs, it is certainly is possible especially if it is rail only which would mean a narrower bridge.
A tunnel has been proposed and is currently in the planning stages to be dug under the Bering strait which is only 180 feet deep and only go about 60 miles. About double the English channel. The plan is illustrated here.
That “102-mile bridge over water” in China is a continuous inland viaduct that happens to cross a few rivers, finger-type lakes and rice paddies, and is therefore a “bridge over water.”
Pretty irrelevant to whatever unfathomable bridging technology would be needed for going from Canada-Greenland-Iceland-Norway.
Icebergs are a massive issue. And I wouldn’t like to be on the bridge on a windy day.
We already have global transit. No one is going to want to drive for days through an undersea tunnel when they can fly to their destination in mere hours - especially if the toll for the tunnel costs more than airfare (the tunnel isn’t going to maintain itself).
Generally, when implementing a jobs program, one seeks to create jobs that produce useful results at a reasonable cost; this tunnel doesn’t fit the bill.
The first airplane didn’t require several decades’ worth of the entire US GDP; this tunnel would.
If you really think there’s some merit to this project, then you’re talking to the wrong people: you should be writing a letter to your congressional representatives.
One possibility would be to adapt Elon Musk’s Hyperloop technology to undersea use. I’m still a little skeptical that the Hyperloop technology will work on dry land; but if it works, and it scales up well, and it can work reliably underwater (or under the sea bed), then maybe by 2200 we’ll have a London-NYC tunnel.
I can’t imagine such a tunnel would get much use.
Under no circumstances would I put myself there. All I would be thinking about is 3000 miles long, 5000 psi, and how fast that thing would fill up with a leak.
We already have global transit. Airplanes can carry us anywhere we want to be in the world in a matter of hours. Driving from New York to Lisbon would take a minimum of 48 hours driving time, not counting stops for food, sleep, and fuel. Realistically, you are talking about spending five days driving in a tube that must be stocked with not just roads but gas stations, hotels, and restaurants, with all the infrastructure requirements that implies.
You are imagining the least efficient solution to a problem that does not exist.
If your goal is to create jobs as an act of government welfare rather than market driven needs, there are far more useful ways to spend our money.
I just don’t see how that’s feasible.
First off, there’s very little road connection to Labrador. There’s one road from Baie Comeau in Quebec (don’t feel bad if you’ve not heard of it; it’s rather isolated) to Labrador City (a distance of 585 km). Than another 555 km from Labrador City (which is inland) to the coast of Labrador (Happy Valley/Goose Bay).
But Happy Valley/Goose Bay aren’t close to Greenland. You have to go up the Labrador coast, by boat, to get to Nain, which is the closest town to Greenland. There is no road from Happy Valley/Goose Bay, because the terrain is rugged and there’s no economic justification for a road.
Then you’d need a bridge from Labrador to Greenland, across the Labrador Sea. That’s right, it’s called a Sea, because it’s huge: 900 km (559 mi) wide, and 1,898 m (6,227 ft) deep. It also has a major current:
There’s also the ice:
So how feasible is it to build a bridge that’s close to a thousand km long, over a mile deep, and that can withstand the crush of ice for half a year?
Then, even if you get that bridge built, and you’re in Greenland, guess what? there’s no road linking west Greenland to east Greenland, because there’s the massive glacier in-between. So you’d have to build a road over a glacier, which is in the process of melting, but still has rugged northern winters.
Then you’re at the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland. That Strait is 180 miles (290 km) wide at its narrowest point between Greenland and Iceland, and is 625 feet (191 m) deep. While it doesn’t freeze over, unlike the Labrador Sea, the Strait is a main passage for icebergs drifting south. So now you need a bridge that’s 180 miles long, with piers 625 feet deep, capable of withstanding a hit from a passing iceberg.
Then there’s the third stretch of water: the Norwegian Sea. The wiki article on the Norwegian Sea doesn’t give the distance from Norway to Iceland, but the accompanying map looks to me like it’s at least three times the gap between Iceland and Greenland. Call it 600 miles at a conservative estimate. And it’s deep, ranging from 3,000 metres to 4,000 metres deep. Is it even possible to sink piers to that depth? If not, would it be a floating bridge? It would have to withstand the storms of the North Atlantic.
Then, even if the bridges get built, there’s the support issues mentioned in the discussion of the tunnel: fuel stations; restaurants; comfort stops; lodging.
All in some of the most rugged North Atlantic winter weather.
Just not seeing it. How can that possibly be more economical than ships (for cargo) and planes (for people)?