Are there alternatives to the “wildly expensive” Sakhalin Bridge?

60

There could be another bigger infrastructure mega-project in our country. The “wildly expensive” Sakhalin Bridge may well be added to the Great Construction Project, which has already begun in new Russian regions seriously affected by hostilities. Is it really needed and are there other viable alternatives?

To be or not to be?


The fact that federal and regional authorities are really considering the possibility of building a bridge designed to connect Sakhalin Island with the mainland became known during a meeting between President Putin and the Governor of the Sakhalin Region Limarenko, where discussed socialeconomic development of the Far East.



From the very beginning, the head of Sakhalin made it clear that he hoped that the bridge would someday be built:

I want to tell you right away that in the future we expect that we will have a bridge. If earlier there were few arguments, now I will say that our industry has begun to develop, and an additional cargo base is appearing. We are now preparing these calculations, I will talk about this a little later. Among the issues related to transport accessibility, one issue that has not yet been resolved is the issue of road construction: two thirds of the roads continue to remain unpaved. In previous years, this work was not done; now this topic is difficult and number one when the population evaluates problem areas.

According to Governor Limarenko, the structure of investments in the Sakhalin region has changed, where five years ago two-thirds of them went to the raw materials sector, and now they do not exceed 27%. According to official data, the island territory ranks fourth in the Russian Federation in terms of investment attractiveness.

Regional authorities plan to build factories for the production of petroleum products and construction materials, as well as for the processing of fish and other seafood. It is planned to increase LNG production volumes, as well as develop technological hydrogen production process jointly with Rosatom. After modernization, the Korsakov port should become the most important logistics hub in the region, an integral part of the Northern Sea Route.

As for the project to build a bridge from the mainland to the island, Limarenko estimates it at a total of 600 billion rubles:

To build a bridge with approaches is a two-unit nuclear power plant. Like this. The numbers were different, but it was called this: 300 billion – bridge and 300 billion – approaches. For 300 billion, a bridge can be built through a concession, if we consider that the approaches are the development of territories, because the approaches do not pay off. This is what [Russian Railways head Oleg] Belozerov and I watched.

That is, this is more than two times more than the Crimean Bridge cost the federal budget. However, the impressive numbers did not bother President Putin, who competently supported the aspirations of the head of the Sakhalin region:

This is exactly what I wanted to say: the approaches and junctions there will cost more than the bridge. This is an area that requires development. Simply driving through the taiga is less interesting than traveling in a region that has development prospects.

We need to look at this. We need to look at the development of the surrounding areas. We have already approached this projectile more than once. Let's go back, because the topic itself is important, I agree. It is necessary to connect Sakhalin with the mainland by a bridge, and development there will proceed at a different pace. I'm absolutely sure. Let's return to this topic and take a look.

It would be nice, but...


The idea itself of connecting Sakhalin with the continental part of Russia sounds good, and if this also accelerates the development of the entire Far Eastern region, then that would be simply wonderful. However, this promising project has repeatedly been subjected to harsh criticism at the very top.

So, back in pre-war 2020, the special representative of the Russian President on environmental issues, ecology and transport, Sergei Ivanov, commented on this idea as follows:

From a psychological point of view, a bridge is needed. Now, they say, Crimea has been united, now Sakhalin wouldn’t hurt either. But from an economic point of view, no. There are no weights for this bridge.

He also called the Sakhalin Bridge “wildly expensive,” comparing it with a project to build aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy, which “would be nice to have.” But the governor of the Sakhalin region in pre-war 2021 was more optimistic, counting on the Land of the Rising Sun as a partner:

Years will pass, 10 or 20 years, but one way or another a bridge or tunnel from Japan to Russia and a bridge from Sakhalin to the mainland will appear. Like the Suez Canal, it was predetermined many years before it was dug.

In the realities of April 2024, it is already quite obvious that no one will transport anything from Japan across the Sakhalin Bridge through Russia, which is subject to Western sanctions. This bridge crossing itself will be an extremely convenient target for enemy cruise missiles, attack naval drones, surface and underwater ones. The worst thing will be if we are first allowed to build this bridge for huge budget money, and only then it is destroyed, as happened with Nord Stream 2 and its older brother.

Does this mean that the idea of ​​connecting Sakhalin with the Russian mainland should be forgotten until better times?

Rather yes than no. To build such a complex infrastructure facility such as a bridge or underwater tunnel across a strait in a warring country is an unjustified risk. However, there is a compromise option with a dam. It would be much faster, cheaper and safer to build a wide dam across the strait, leaving locks in it for the passage of civilian ships and warships. A highway and a railway line with a drawbridge can be laid on top of it.

Such an object will be easier to guard and preserve even in the event of a successful enemy attack on it than a bridge crossing.
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -5
    April 4 2024 10: 37
    We need a bridge... stop chewing your snot! and talk nonsense... regarding drones and so on... you can always find what and when to blow up
    1. +1
      April 4 2024 10: 40
      Right! And Nord Stream 2 is needed.
      Don't chew snot, let's build Nord Stream 3 nearby. What if Putin agrees on peaceful and good neighborly relations and won’t be blown up?
  2. +11
    April 4 2024 11: 02
    The cost of the bridge can be wildly reduced if prisoners of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, violators of migration laws and Russian officials convicted for this are used in its construction.
    And until they build it, there will be no freedom.
    1. +5
      April 4 2024 11: 16
      And to feed the scoundrels...
    2. -2
      April 5 2024 01: 07
      And if you add captured rfushniks to them, then it will be completely free. To the delight of the beneficiaries.
    3. +3
      April 5 2024 08: 00
      then they will build forever. with such “workers” the cost can only increase wildly. Even Stalin with his education methods could not force the captured crests to work.
  3. +2
    April 4 2024 11: 25
    There is an alternative to the bridge to Sakhalin and it is an order of magnitude cheaper than the figures given in the article. This is a continuously formed floating tunnel from reinforced concrete from coastal reinforced concrete factories with a diameter sufficient for the passage of vehicles. One branch is for railway transport, the second is for motor transport. After pulling the tunnel afloat and connecting both halves, flooding onto a previously prepared bed, ballasting, pumping water from the tunnel threads and equipping the tunnel with utilities. Fast, inexpensive, reliable for centuries. Continue in the same way, taking into account the experience gained, to build similar underwater passages-tunnels. From Sakhalin to Japan and under the Bering Strait to America.
    1. +6
      April 4 2024 12: 38
      The depth of the Nevelskoy Strait in the fairway is up to 7,2 m.

      Where are you going to “drown” a double-track car or railway tunnel? Sergey wrote correctly about the dam. During the construction of access roads, there will be a mass of rock dumps - so it will be placed in the body of a dam up to a hundred meters wide (only a vigorous military unit can destroy it). On the fairway, make the bridge liftable like on the Svir River. The main problem will be ensuring water exchange in adjacent water areas and climate change. And so, for ten years we will do without the Olympics and world championships on our territory, but the boycott will not end soon...
    2. +4
      April 4 2024 19: 16
      From Sakhalin to Japan and under the Bering Strait to America.

      With the expectation that the tanks would pass laughing
  4. +3
    April 4 2024 12: 17
    When ballasting a bottom transition tunnel, it is necessary to take into account the reverse elastic deflection of the rigidly paired reinforced concrete transition threads. Rigid fastening of bottom tunnels to the shores will significantly reduce, and perhaps completely eliminate, ballasting that prevents the bottom tunnel from floating up. To reinforce hydraulic concrete, it is necessary to use fiberglass reinforcement that is neutral to sea water. Install a pipeline above and between the tunnels for emergency exit of passengers and drivers.
  5. +1
    April 4 2024 12: 33
    The author is right, an embankment dam is the best solution. Leave a passage 100 meters wide, and a bridge across it. Naturally, no “gateways” are required. The cries of Western environmental activists are ignored. The bridge can be called Tatarsky as a strait. I’m not sure that the bridge should have both a road and a railway, you can stop at one
    1. +1
      April 7 2024 18: 08
      Do you have any idea about the depths there in order to pour something in? Both the bridge and the tunnel are problematic from the point of view of resistance to earthquakes, which happen there somewhat more often than in central Russia. And the climate is not very good between the island and the mainland. Well, the economic efficiency should be visible. We need to look for a different approach.
  6. +5
    April 4 2024 12: 36
    When deciding on the construction of a bridge (tunnel) to Sakhalin, money is not the first issue. Just like an armed attack.
    It is strange that no one mentions the seismic situation of Sakhalin.
    There was an urban-type settlement called Neftegorsk on Sakhalin. Before speaking about the bridge (tunnel), it is worth asking about the fate of Neftegorsk. At least at the Wikipedia level.
    By the way, from the former Neftegorsk to the future bridge (tunnel) is only 125 km.
  7. +8
    April 4 2024 12: 52
    A bridge or dam taking into account seismic resistance is of course necessary, but wildly expensive as well as completely useless for the Russian Federation are Chubais, Abramovich and the company, which it is high time for the Russian Federation to stop feeding, because it is not good for a horse...
  8. +4
    April 4 2024 13: 03
    It is certainly necessary to connect a territory like Sakhalin with the mainland; if there was a road, cargo would appear. But neither the tunnel nor the bridge are suitable for this for the reasons mentioned above, well, I’ll just add that for the bridge, ice load can be a problem. What remains is an embankment dam, maybe more expensive, but less of a headache, otherwise a bridge, and even more so a tunnel, then think about how seismically something might happen there... True, I don’t know what volume of embankment is needed, so then block it off only 7.5 km, in terms of distance it is not 19 like Kerch. So everything is quite realistic, if there is a desire to develop the region.
    1. +6
      April 4 2024 17: 24
      There are no fishing bases left in Nevelsk, Kholmsk, Korsakov or Poronaisk. The fishermen went to Primorye. This is a fish. There is not a single timber industry enterprise left on the island. The last one, the North Sakhalin private farm, closed about 30 years ago. This is wood. The mines remain only in the Uglegorsk region; all mined coal is loaded onto ships in the Uglegorsk port and sent by sea to China. They don't need a bridge. What else can be transported over the bridge? Oil Gas ? In the Okha and Nogliki regions, where oil and gas are produced, a berth system has been created for tankers and gas carriers. There's no need for a bridge either. What remains? And what remains are the show-offs! For reference: I lived on Sakhalin for more than 40 years.
      1. 0
        April 9 2024 07: 19
        Well, it’s as if fishermen are present in all areas, fishing season goes on every year, caviar and fish are caught. The resource base is unstable, but this is a complex problem. Gas carriers and tankers are refueled only in the south, in the Korsakov region. In the north there are only technological complexes and pumping stations that process and pump oil to the south. Well, also in De-Kastri, but this is the mainland. After 40 years of living on Sakhalin, one could remember
        1. 0
          April 9 2024 20: 45
          Everything is correct. Oil and gas are loaded in Prigorodnoye. Fish is still caught and processed, although not much. De-Kastri is on the other side of the Tatar Strait, but when I was still living in Yuzhny, there was talk that oil would be loaded from production platforms. That's right, but you didn't say anything about the financial feasibility of building the bridge. I left Yuzhny for the mainland 12 years ago, but I don’t think that an economic miracle happened on Sakhalin during that time.
          1. 0
            April 10 2024 06: 37
            In my opinion, the cause and effect here are the opposite: for an economic miracle to happen, you need to build a bridge. The most acute problems in the region are caused by transport accessibility: transporting any cargo by ferry is expensive and time-consuming. Delivery lead time is from 2 weeks from Primorye. It is at least a month until Iturup. In such conditions, any industrial production is simply unprofitable. The most textbook example is oil refining. What's the point of building a refinery if no one outside the island will buy it because of the high cost of transportation? But the situation when it is cheaper to send oil to Khabarovsk, process it there, and then transport it by tanker to the island is abnormal.

            But there is also the center and north of the island, which can only be reached through the south. And which, as a result, are degrading, because they have no potential for growth in the current environment. If you monitor the demographic situation, then while the population in the region is declining, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk is only growing larger, the population is leaving the regions.
      2. +1
        April 12 2024 13: 27
        Well, you gave it: Show off! What show-off?! These are kickbacks and kickbacks. According to the current standard of profit for budget theft, this is up to 40 percent. So calculate how much it will be! And then ask: is a bridge needed? Answer: definitely needed. Question: And to whom? Answer: Eh, well, there they are, not those who are there, but those who are not here, but here, but not there, because they also need him, but those who need him more than those there. Here is such a harmonious logical explanation of why and most importantly, who needs this, what’s-his-name, bridge.
  9. 0
    April 4 2024 13: 29
    Why a bridge, why not a tunnel, why not a dam like in St. Petersburg, which could organize the passage of water flows, which would improve the ice conditions and microclimate. Questions: what to transport, what kind of cargo, and there aren’t any particularly large ones. Who counted the economy? Or does it all depend on the king? What about the Governor of Sakhalin? Free, at the expense of the Russian budget. But let him build the island himself, at least half of it, at the expense of the island’s budget.
    1. -3
      April 5 2024 00: 54
      And really, why spend the Russian budget on this? What to spend? Lease it to the Chinese, just like they gave Alaska to their adversaries! They will build a tunnel and a high-speed railway. the road will be opened there and the climate will be reformatted to tropical! It will be better than in Hong Kong, and not like in St. Petersburg. Only after 100 years - at the end of the lease - will you be able to prove to the Chinese who have already settled there that you were leasing it for a time
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      April 9 2024 07: 12
      Is the Russian budget formed out of thin air? Where do the revenues from Sakhalin oil and gas projects go? Do you know?
  10. +5
    April 4 2024 15: 34
    Neither a bridge, nor a tunnel, nor a pontoon bridge is needed, the justification for this is the population of Kamchatka. Calculating how many investments per resident is prohibitive and will never pay off. There are quite a lot of necessary large bridges in the Russian Federation. Regular railway ferry service is optimal for Kamchatka. Having built an additional four or five large ferries, if necessary, they will sail along the entire Pacific coast, from Magadan to Vladivostok. As one famous leader said: “The economy should be economical.”
    1. -3
      April 5 2024 00: 44
      Vladimir! Have you confused Kamchatka with Sakhalin? And if there is no bridge or tunnel, then when you arrive in Sakhalin 50 years later, don’t be surprised, where did the Japanese and Koreans come from?
      1. 0
        April 5 2024 16: 34
        In 1991, the population of Sakhalin was 715 thousand people.
        In 2023, the population of Sakhalin was 460,5 thousand people. People are leaving.
        Arriving on Sakhalin after 50 years, do not be surprised......
        1. +4
          April 5 2024 16: 49
          What nonsense? What does the population have to do with the bridge? The population travels by plane. Of course, if there was a bridge (tunnel, dam), then someone would go to the neighboring region. But these are just a few. Would you travel from Sakhalin to the European part? And existing ferries generally provide freight traffic. Besides, we are at war. Moreover, due to the fact that we have strained relations with Europe, cargo has gone to the east, which requires modernization of the BAM, the Trans-Siberian Railway, and the Far Eastern Railways. And this is not just a lot of money, but a huge amount of money.
        2. 0
          April 9 2024 07: 09
          People are leaving the regions; in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk the population is only growing. If you lived here, you would notice the trend. In conditions when all traffic flows are closed in the south, the center and the north are falling apart
      2. +2
        April 5 2024 20: 15
        (Stogov) Thanks for the note. Of course we are talking about Sakhalin. I represented the entire surrounding region, that’s why I printed it - Kamchatka. According to the population of Sakhalin, the outflow of population from all Far Eastern regions, and even the bridge to Sakhalin will not hold. More comprehensive development and greater investments are needed.
  11. +2
    April 4 2024 15: 41
    The transition to Sakhalin has, of course, been needed for a long time. He began to think about it even under the Tsar-Father. But then one war, then another, a third... But what needs to be built is not a bridge, but a tunnel or dam. They will last longer unexploded.
    1. +1
      April 5 2024 00: 39
      It is even enough to complete (or restore + complete) the tunnel that was 90% built by the time of Stalin’s death. Construction was stopped, the slave force was disbanded. By the way, the project for a tunnel to Crimea was on the table as a more reliable alternative. But a reliably built tunnel is a one-time thing, that is, built once and forever. This is the trick
  12. 0
    April 4 2024 16: 06
    To understand whether a bridge is needed or not, first you need to take a ride on the Vanino-Holmes ferry, the bridge will connect with the mainland and the north of the island on the road to the south of Sakhalin!
  13. +3
    April 4 2024 16: 59
    The number of inhabitants of Sakhalin is 460 thousand people. The cargo turnover is 1300 thousand tons, this is the cargo turnover of the Kholmsk - Vanino ferry crossing, the distance Khabarovsk - Lazarev (from here the bridge to Sakhalin begins) is 900 km. There is a road from Khabarovsk to Komsomolsk on the Amur, it is 400 km. Further to Lazarev it will be necessary to build through the hills and taiga, this is another 500 km, there is a road there in places, but reconstruction will still have to be done. Roads on the island Sakhalin, that's a different story. Compared to other bridges and roads, the project of a bridge to Sakhalin with roads will cost a trillion rubles. Everyone understands that a bridge (dam) is needed, but there is no money. Could this trillion be used to build housing, or a plant to produce a people's car, or a plant to produce microcircuits (chips)??? The USSR was richer than the Russian Federation, but did not build a bridge to Sakhalin.
    1. -1
      April 5 2024 00: 30
      Learn materiel! The tunnel was 90% completed by 1953, but the mediocrities who replaced Stalin stopped construction before reaching the finish line 5 minutes!
  14. +5
    April 4 2024 17: 14
    Not needed. Firstly, there is no economic feasibility. There is no passenger flow, no cargo flow. Secondly, it will be a one-time bridge, until the first major earthquake. Thirdly, there is a target for the enemy that we cannot guard. Moreover, they will destroy them without any war, because the Anglo-Saxons like to strike on the sly. Just to make a mess and cause economic damage in the form of wasted money. A la Nord Streams. Regarding the dam, yes - it is more rational, but environmentalists claim changes in the microclimate and marine fauna in the region due to the dam, which is undesirable.
    Maybe if humanity survives the next world war, then it will be necessary to build, but after 2050.
    1. -2
      April 5 2024 00: 27
      So I thought, why did they sell Alaska to the adversaries? Now I read you - and I understand! Eureka! There was no economic feasibility! Well, you are a strategist! Thank you for building it to Crimea and not asking you. By the way, Stalin thought strategically and built the tunnel to Sakhalin by 90%. But we were unlucky that in 1953 it gave up, and the “strategists” decided: well, why finish building it?
  15. +5
    April 4 2024 20: 13
    Rather than engage in utopian projects, it would be better if they started building the Siberian Meridian without delay. There is at least a direct economic benefit. And the socio-economic benefits will affect a much larger number of the population. And if you extend it to Kamchatka, then it’s absolutely fire. It will push Russia harder than the Trans-Siberian Railway did in its time.
    1. -3
      April 5 2024 00: 10
      nothing utopian, already in 1953 the tunnel was 90% completed, but construction was curtailed due to the death of Stalin
  16. +4
    April 4 2024 20: 42
    No one will completely block the Tatar Strait with a dam. A bridge a couple of kilometers long will have to be built anyway, to discharge the water masses of the Amur, for the passage of ships and for the passage of fish. Regarding ecology and the impact on climate, here is what they write:

    So, first, let’s evaluate the contribution of the current from the strait to the water balance of the Sea of ​​Japan. The width of the Nevelskoy Strait is 8 km. The average depth is 5 m. Current speeds in the strait reach 1 m/s, but since these are tidal currents, in the general direction from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk to the Sea of ​​Japan, the average current speed is no more than 0,25 m/s. Thus, per year, 300 cubic kilometers of icy Okhotsk water enter the Sea of ​​Japan through the strait (though, to a large extent, this is river warm, muddy and fresh Amur water, but oh well...) The volume of the Sea of ​​Japan is 1 cubic kilometers. The current from the Nevelskoy Strait will take almost 630 thousand years to fill the depression in the Sea of ​​Japan. It's like dripping cold water from a pipette into a swimming pool.

    The construction of the bridge will not affect the climate and ecology in any way. There is no political or military necessity here. There is only economic feasibility here. If you don’t know where to spend the money, your chickens won’t eat it, then build it.
  17. -3
    April 4 2024 21: 14
    It's cheaper to build a dam than a bridge?! Moreover, at the same time, raise the level of the strait immeasurably and reduce valuable land on Sakhalin and the shores of the Far East?! Well, the author is original, he thinks interestingly and outside the box, because no one has suggested such a third option!
    Under Stalin(!) they still wanted to make a tunnel.
    The Chinese built a bridge between the islands more than 100 km away, and for less money than our Crimean Bridge! Our prices for construction projects are getting more and more fantastic!
    And the Tatar Strait at its narrowest point is only about 7 km. And the depth there is 8-10 meters! Another thing is that there is seismic activity there, which is dangerous for the bridge, and even more so for the tunnel.
    1. +2
      April 5 2024 08: 17
      Another thing is that there is seismic activity there, which is dangerous for the bridge, and even more so for the tunnel.

      You answered yourself. And don’t forget about the military threat

      It's cheaper to build a dam than a bridge?!

      Cheaper and easier. The soil removed during the construction of 530 km of approaches can be used

      Well, the author is original, he thinks interestingly and outside the box, because no one has suggested such a third option!

      The dam has been talked about for a long time. Now they are keeping quiet about it, but this is the most rational decision.
      1. -2
        April 5 2024 08: 52
        Which is simpler, I agree, which is cheaper, especially for us, is in doubt. A dam is not just an embankment, even a reinforced one. Can you imagine a dam 7-8 km long, and its enormous height(!), even if built in the narrowest place? And there are also islands that will then disappear. Moreover, they will probably secretly decide to build a nuclear power plant on it. Why will the water run in vain? I can’t imagine such a long dam. A tunnel is cheaper and simpler.
        Moreover, the water level will rise very strongly and the dam will be several kilometers longer. more than 7-8 km.
        I am generally silent about the reduction of the surrounding territory and changes in ecology. How will the Amur be there, and Nikolaevsk-on-Amur? Everything will be flooded to hell, and the Amur estuary will increase in size.
        And this whole colossus, essentially an artificial mountain range, will also be located in a seismically dangerous area, where it shakes constantly and not weakly! There, when everything cracks, even if in one or two places, it’s not a bridge to fix unless everything collapses! This will be a disaster!
        Huge amounts of money are simply down the drain, not to mention the distorted nature and human lives.
        I'm in favor of the tunnel because of strategic security. I don’t know whether it can be done safely in such an earthquake-prone area. Only specialists will decide this. But it was almost built under Stalin, with those technologies! And there they were not engaged in project-making. Maybe now they can build an earthquake-resistant bridge!
        1. +2
          April 5 2024 11: 00
          I'm in favor of the tunnel because of strategic security. I don’t know whether it can be done safely in such an earthquake-prone area. Only specialists will decide this. But it was almost built under Stalin, with those technologies! And there they were not engaged in project-making. Maybe now they can build an earthquake-resistant bridge!

          Why don’t you take into account the terrorist danger? Would you like to be inside the tunnel if saboteurs blow it up by installing explosives on it, like on SP-2?
          1. -3
            April 5 2024 12: 14
            In the concept of strategic security, I also meant terrorist security. Bridges are also now being attacked by various drones and vehicles with explosives. And the Japs, Koreans and even the Chinese and the Americans can also fire a rocket or a gliding bomb. Somehow they are now coping with this danger in all the tunnels in Russia, in the metro. Or shut everything down and not build at all? And let them try to install saboteurs on a 7-8 kilometer guarded tunnel, like on SP-2! Moreover, it will not pass through the waters of enemy bourgeois states, where the impudent Americans easily and freely planted explosives.
  18. +3
    April 5 2024 00: 02
    I live on Sakhalin and I can say that for the island a bridge is a matter of life and death... i.e. The ferry service, of course, provides poor or poor transportation of goods, but it’s like drinking beer from a bucket with a teaspoon... the island’s economy is largely in a coma precisely because of the inaccessibility of transport... it costs a lot of money to bring something, much less take it away, and is unprofitable. .. in any case, if we talk about some kind of development, then without a bridge it makes no sense.. so the choice is simple: either we build a bridge, or we can forget about Sakhalin.. and as for the costs, we should not forget that this is actually an investment in the economy.. into the economy of those industries that will be involved in construction.. these are wages for workers, this is an investment in machines, mechanisms, etc. which will be involved in construction.. of course, all this money will still return to the budget through taxes.. so there will be no losses to the state anyway and there is no need to wait 25 years for payback - this figure is from the evil one and those illiterate economists who drove us into an economic hole....
  19. +1
    April 5 2024 00: 03
    Dear author, I was probably informed that this is not the first time the topic under discussion has been raised. In 1953, construction of the tunnel to Sakhalin was almost completed, but was interrupted shortly before its completion. I know this from the words of its then still living builders and, at the same time, my teachers. There are no big problems building a new tunnel, or rehabilitating an old tunnel. I have dozens of kilometers of constructed tunnels under my belt, and I know what I am writing about first-hand. The penultimate tunnel was built in Fuzhou (it makes it much easier for our partners to transport goods almost to Taiwan), but the last tunnel was Beskydy.
  20. +5
    April 5 2024 00: 42
    Replace conventional bridges in Primorye and beyond. And then there are projects...
  21. 0
    April 5 2024 09: 19
    There was a project about a dam in the Nevelskoy Strait back in the USSR. And he envisioned not only a land road to Sakhalin, but global climate change throughout Primorye, making it subtropical thanks to the warm Kuro-Siwo Current, which would be in the Sea of ​​Japan. The fact is that the dam would cut off the cold current from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, where the speed reaches 4 m/s and greatly affects the average annual temperature in Primorye. But when they modeled all the climatic consequences of the dam for the Sea of ​​Okhotsk itself and the Kuril Islands, they were horrified and afraid. It's always a double-edged sword, and such climate changes could lead to enormous harm rather than good. But the subtropics in Primorye are so tempting!
    1. -1
      April 5 2024 19: 42
      dam in the Nevelskoy Strait

      Well, a dam, in my opinion, is the best way out, although due to lack of money this is a matter of the distant future. What is good about the dam? The fact that through culvert gates such as in St. Petersburg, it is possible to regulate the water flow. But it’s unlikely that the subtropics in the seaside are bad, although Kuro Sivo actually barely reaches the seaside and it’s still unknown how much it will heat up. What harm this does is unclear. Nature always adapts. People live in Japan and nothing.
      1. 0
        April 9 2024 12: 14
        Alexey Lantukh, people live and adapt. But how will nature react with its cataclysms from rain and wind, which are the first to react to temperature changes? River banks will begin to erode, landslides will occur in the mountains and along the coastline. Lianas will begin to grow, which will strangle the Primorsky cedars and change the composition of forest species. And this will be followed by a change in the animal world, and our tigers and leopards may become extinct... But maybe everything is the other way around, and it will only get better for everyone... But who can guarantee this now?
        1. 0
          April 10 2024 12: 54
          But maybe everything is the other way around, and it will only get better for everyone...

          This may very well be the case. Very serious research is needed. And perhaps the improvement in climate will even outweigh the benefits of transport links. Research is needed.
    2. 0
      April 7 2024 00: 47
      Contact oceanologists, they will explain to you that the waters from the Tatar Strait have virtually no effect on the climate in the Sea of ​​Japan. Read my comment above. The water temperature in the West of the Sea of ​​Japan is formed due to the cold winter Yakut winds and the displacement of water masses.
      1. 0
        April 9 2024 11: 58
        If I get sick, I won’t go to the doctors.... Lay out the steppe for me...

        But seriously, I didn’t come up with this myself, being completely far from the topic of climate. I simply retold in my own words what I once read from smart people among those same climate scientists. So which of them are you sending me to? Do you remember the saying about “Two lawyers and three opinions”? This is how she approaches any profession and theory until practice shows it. You are talking about the winds from Yakutia, and they are talking about the entry of a warm current into the Sea of ​​Japan, which is now propped up and not allowed to flow in the Nevelskoy Strait. And about the subtropics it was said, of course, not in all of Primorye, but in the very south and a narrow edge by the sea. Just like in Crimea or Sochi. And just beyond the mountain range, everything will be as it was. And you don’t need to fill the entire Sea of ​​Japan with a pipette. how you write. They (scientists) talked there about the banal support of the warm Kuro Sivo in the narrow Tsushima Strait by this meager current from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Here they get a completely different dynamic and picture than your scientists.
  22. +1
    April 6 2024 07: 26
    If there are opportunities, then why not. In China they have been building bridges that are not like this for a long time.
  23. +2
    April 6 2024 09: 08
    Such projects are not defined by cries of “Needed or not needed.” Costs (volume of investments) are calculated and profits are calculated and it is determined in what time frame the return on investment will occur. Naturally, political and military risks are taken into account. The costs of neutralizing such risks. And of course the wishes of your closest friends and associates who will cut the budget.
  24. 0
    April 6 2024 09: 48
    What is the use, if you look at the facts, of the Vostochny Cosmodrome?
    The same will happen from the construction of the bridge to Sakhalin.
    An excellent object for stealing billions.
    We don't know any other way.
  25. +1
    April 7 2024 10: 39
    The bridge will make life on Sakhalin attractive.
  26. 0
    April 7 2024 16: 49
    Are there alternatives to the “wildly expensive” Sakhalin Bridge?
    "Wildly expensive" tunnel
  27. 0
    April 7 2024 20: 23
    Are there alternatives to the “wildly expensive” Sakhalin Bridge?
    They are not.
    The dam has huge disadvantages.
    A tunnel in an area where there are faults and constant shaking, and sometimes 7-9 points, is a game of roulette. A tunnel rupture is not only a loss of money, but also a loss of people. There's no point in taking risks.
    It is necessary to build a bridge and only a bridge; the length is not difficult to calculate, taking into account the exchange of water masses.
    A bridge is needed, but there is no extra one trillion rubles.
    So draw your conclusions. Where is the best place to spend money?
  28. +4
    April 8 2024 07: 05
    There is an alternative. Stop the pink ponies flailing about high-speed highways, new TU 144, etc. There is a war going on to destroy one of the sides. This is where you should invest your budget.