The $12TRN Transatlantic Tunnel Proposal

For over a century, the idea of building a tunnel across the Atlantic ocean has fascinated the minds of visionaries. However, due to cost and feasibility concerns, the idea was always dismissed. Then, in 2003, engineers announced that a transatlantic tunnel was within the realms of possibility. Using a submerged floating tunnel, a connection across the northern Atlantic could potentially be built, linking New York City and London. If constructed, a transatlantic tunnel would be the largest construction project in world history. It would cost approximately 12 trillion dollars, take a century or more to build, and require thousands of workers. It would unite the Old and New Worlds, increasing tourism, business and international cooperation. Unfortunately though, it would come with a list of problems. Construction difficulty, safety hazards and cost issues would make the project incredibly challenging. Despite these issues, one day, a transatlantic tunnel may finally be built.
If you enjoyed this video, please consider subscribing to Futurology for more content!
Thank you to the following sources!
Information
www.forbes.com/sites/brucedor...
www.statista.com/statistics/1...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transat...
fossbytes.com/54-minutes-to-t...
www.industrytap.com/transatla...
www.offshore-energy.biz/video...
www.forbes.com/sites/brucedor...
engineering.stackexchange.com...
www.maglev.net/transatlantic-...
Audio
Storyblocks
Graphics
Statens vegvesen
• Statens vegvesen - Coa...
• The E39 Coastal Highwa...
• Statens vegvesen - Coa...
Crossrail Project
• Meet Crossrail's giant...
FemernAS
• How the Fehmarnbelt Tu...
CRRC
• The World's First 600 ...
Virgin Hyperloop
• Video
• Video
Delft Hyperloop
• Delft Hyperloop - Pass...

[@countdown4725]

Whenever someone mentions hyperloop, you know it's not a serious project

[@jamesbizs]

When you’re talking 100 years to complete? Yeah. It can be a serious project. Hyper loop doesn’t work, when you’re talking within a decade.

[@327legoman]

@@jamesbizs 100 Years, a staggering amount of resources and 13 trillion of taxpayers money to go towards a project that'd only be affordable to use by the mega rich? No thanks. People would never buy into that.

[@timl9724]

@@jamesbizs more importantly, hyperloop has zero incentive in areas where tunneling makes zero sense. A transatlantic tunnel, once completed, would theoretically provide faster, efficient, cheap, and less polluting travel, unlike other hyperloop proposals. That said, a different word probably should be used, since the connotation of failure may follow it forever.

[@user-dl3lm8vt2j]

Oh yea, nothing more serious than a low capacity taxi service whose only purpose for existing is to allow people to pay a premium so that they don’t have to brush shoulders with an hourly wage earner. God I hope this was sarcastic

[@Thumbling]

@@timl9724 Constructing a Trans Atlantic Tunnel would be more polluting with all the steel that needs to be produced, and cost more than having people continue to ride planes and boats

[@trolleysquid2914]

the first route just seems so much better for cost, upkeep, and time creating it. the underwater tunnels also would have the issues of having few places to stop, opposed to being on land. the weather and distance seem like much smaller issues than building underwater

[@ChristianRingdal]

They would have to build places to stop underwater. Gas stations and sleeping areas. Would be great business!

[@w8stral]

It would most likely be built on land and pushed into the sea 1 section at a time. No hauling out to sea etc.

[@VintageToiletsRock]

An underwater petrol station... what could go wrong?

[@ChristianRingdal]

@@VintageToiletsRock Hehe good point. Would need some insane safety solutions.

[@KarTandir]

@@ChristianRingdal yeah... plus the people who work there needs a place to sleep. nobody want so sleep in the middle of an ocean near a highway. the idea is just impossible.

[@realhawaii5o]

The most ideal route would be tunneling from Quebec to Greenland, Greenland to Iceland, Iceland to Faroe Islands and Faroe Islands to Scotland. This would be relatively quick to build because you can start from all of the entry points in all of the tunnels at the same time and they are all feasible distances around 300km at most and through largely not deep seabed. This avoids all of these problems mentioned and it would be done with already well known technology used to do the Chunnel or the Honsu-Hokkaido tunnel. I can't see why this was dismissed straight away at the start of the video, specially with it being tried and tested technology and with making a road through Greenland not being the biggest issue at all, specially when compared to inventing the wheel in terms of suspended tunnels as you suggest in this video.

[@krollpeter]

...and this also would make more sense since Greenland has plans to create more arable land in the future. But frankly, I do not see the need for high speed. Travel overnight, economical, and convenient without a lot of waiting times and security checks, that would be my preference.

[@jeremiahblake3949]

Inordinate costs. That's why it can be dismissed. There's no way it would be cost effective with current and forseeably reasonable technology.

[@julianyerger133]

It was dismissed because the creator of this video is an idiot, a fact made more apparent the longer you watch

[@dankelly5150]

@@jeremiahblake3949 I like this idea but it's still pretty hairbrained and yes not very cost effective !! 😮

[@CreatorPolar]

@@krollpetereven if the trains were high speed (if we’re even considering them) it would be overnight regardless

[@marcor815]

Even all of this is highly theoreticaly, i think the route would go past Iceland because of the follwing reasons: 1. only 1000m deep sea to cross not 4000m deep. The current record for a Railwaytunnel is a coverage of 2450m by the Gotthard-Basetunnel in the Swiss alps 2. It would cross the Mid-atlantic ridge in Iceland on land instead of somwhere in the middle of the ocean. So the crossing of this seismic active area happen in a better explored and for observation/maintenance easy to accses area. 3. With Iceland and Greenland there would be two mid-way acesses, so the Tunnel can be built from 6 ends (1: Scotland, Iceland East, Iceland West, Greenland East, Greenland West, Canada) instead of two and it would give two additional entrances for rescue-teams if needed. The contrapoint of the winterconditions in Iceland and Greenland it would be a small challange to eighter do them underground as well or cover these Sections with protection hull against the conditions

[@samsmith4242]

Even with winter conditions though, that still means easy round trip to Scotland from Iceland or Canada to Greenland or anything in between. Why a project like this wouldn’t be expanded to Dover though always baffles me. Throw in a rail link to the channel tunnel to boot and then you can go from Europe to north America by train alone and since the Trans-Siberian railway exists you can already pretty go from one side Eurasia to the other

[@JW-be8wf]

Faroe Island in the Atlantic sits very neatly (almost middle) between Scotland and Iceland so you can add 2 more ends if the tunnel goes through Faroe Islands.

[@user-kp1js6cb2s]

Connect Canda to Yakutia

[@Mypromiselive]

I think they want to avoid Iceland because no1 really likes them

[@tomfuller4205]

@@user-kp1js6cb2s ALaska at Nome would be better. Canada is another 1,000 miles.

[@elliottgussow9555]

There's a problem with the 100 year construction time. The technology advancements that would take place during that 100 years would make the initial installations obsolete by the time the last section is installed.

[@trojanhorse6029]

Yes, AI factories etc, automation.

[@thomasblyth7539]

Dismissing the route through iceland is silly. It reduces many of the safety concerns listed at the end of the video and construction of the underwater portions would be much easier because of the much closer proximity to land. We already have trains running through harsh environments in the northern Scandinavian peninsula and in extremely cold regions of Siberia. The iceland route also offers regions with a local workforce midway along the route to provide or at least house the maintenance crews which would have to work on the nearby sections of track.

[@TalwinderDhillonTravels]

Hahah true. Man thinks it’s easier to build 4000 km tunnels in ocean than build in cold regions forgetting such projects already exist in cold weather

[@rattywoof5259]

How would it cope with Iceland's seismic instability? It's right on top of the North Atlantic Ridge for heaven's sake!

[@lediamonddozen]

@@rattywoof5259 Japan has possibly the greatest rail network in the world and they have plenty of seismic activity. It would most likely be a very easy thing to overcome.

[@dekippiesip]

@@lediamonddozen you always have this instability. It sure is stable most of the time, but a rail across a fault line won't survive an earthquake. And you should expect several large earthquakes in a century. So there's already a section of rail that would need to be regularly repaired.

[@dankelly5150]

@@dekippiesip Not just earthquakes but inevitably someone would want to sabotage it and that would be the biggest worry for me ! And imagine the cost and time involved to potentially repair a big section of it !! You'd literally have to have coast guards and patrols in the middle of the ocean and beneath it in submarines 24/7 to protect it from attack !

[@jacktaggart2489]

This sounds very futuristic and Jules Verne. The U.S., at this point in time, is incapable of building replacement North River Tunnels from New Jersey to Manhattan's Penn Station. sad to say. The Swiss, on the other hand, invested mightily in their successful new 36 mile Gottard Pass Tunnel System. The mega project described would require staggering international cooperation and very long term sustained funding.

[@tlaloc9624]

not incapable, it's just impaired by bureaucracy and politics

[@interspect_]

It's called the gateway project lmao

[@annoyingguyoninternet1631]

The 10 hours train will work just fine considering hours spent on airport and traffic to the centre of the city

[@MrNeptunebob]

That and if the train had sleeping roomettes passengers could sleep through the trip and arrive wide awake in London and NYC.

[@MN12warbird]

For a daily commute then that means you have 4 hours on each end to get to your final destination outside the portal, do your thing, come back and do it again from the same city you came from. For example a nyer going into London to do their dirt and go back Imagine that. Your actual workday is 3 hours

[@djprotege]

baggage collection in Toronto takes up the offset time already lol

[@jan-lukas]

@@MN12warbird even planes don't make a daily commute across the Atlantic possible (except maybe the Concorde a little bit, but it doesn't fly anymore)

[@dekippiesip]

Yup 7 vs 10 hours makes the train even better. The procedures at the airports alone would make up that time. I would absolutely book this train for a 10 hour trip if prices where comparable or even slightly higher than plane tickets. They could even put stops on the way in Ireland and Canada(or Iceland if the other route is chosen) for that matter.

[@kedarpatil7095]

I see a passenger hyperloop tunnel as an absolute loss, a vast majority would still prefer flights that are much more reliable and cheap compared to hyperloop. A cargo train tunnel is more feasible, as it would take much less time to ship a lot of cargo from Europe to America, meeting the demand slot for people whose cargo is too big for planes, but it needs to be shipped as quickly as possible. Such a tunnel would also support ridiculously long trains going through them, allowing much more cargo to be transported. That would make the project atleast a little more feasible, compared to hyperloop, which, considering today's demands, is complete madness to build.

[@ShinodaChan]

Seconding this. A cargo line sounds (relatively) reasonable, but anything relying on Hyperloop has my skepticism until it actually proves itself.

[@samsmith4242]

That, and I imagine a pleasure liner style train would run a commute as well. It’s not a commute, it’s an experience. Plus, you could take you car with you instead of renting one

[@EmyrDerfel]

@@samsmith4242 why though? Transporting a car through this tunnel would be hideously expensive and a waste of capacity. Just rent a car.

[@samsmith4242]

@@EmyrDerfel why would it? You take your car on the train same as the channel tunnel

[@ManderSeis]

@@samsmith4242 a car ticket would probably cost like 5-10 times a normal ticket, so unfeasible.

[@firefox39693]

I would rather see a tunnel network linking the Lesser Antilles island chain, a tunnel between Spain and Morocco, a tunnel between Finland and Estonia, a tunnel between Japan and S. Korea, tunnels linking Vancouver Island with the mainland, and a whole lot of others.

[@qolspony]

I like the Spain and Morocco idea because of the solar project that is being finance by Europe. Running cables through the continent as an extra benefit. It is also the closes between two continents separated by water.

[@TheMagicJIZZ]

@@qolspony the UK you mean

[@qolspony]

@@TheMagicJIZZ the uk is part the European continent.

[@tomfuller4205]

@@qolspony Debatable.

[@qolspony]

@@tomfuller4205 Because of the closeness of the two continents? Or the fact that the UK is not part of Europe? There is Egypt, Israel and Palestine. But they are not separated by a large body of water. And the UK is an island onto itself. South I also x out Ireland and Iceland as part of this equation?

[@yougoslavia]

A tunnel between Russia and Alaska might be easier. Edit after the war started: nvm unless Putin gets destroyed this can't happen.

[@OK-ws7ti]

Disagree. Everything except distance would be a bigger challenge. Who wants to go from yatkusk to anchorage.

[@yougoslavia]

@@OK-ws7ti Me.

[@bennelong8451]

@@yougoslavia you mean the USSR

[@yougoslavia]

@@bennelong8451 You mean the Russian Empire?

[@bennelong8451]

@@yougoslavia once they start building it the ussr 2.0 may have been released

[@Anonymous-tf7cg]

I would only ride it if it were built by the Japanese 😂

[@bazdotorg]

they make some really awesome trains :)

[@Yvonne-Bella]

Even so, who's handling that upkeep?

[@NicholasJH96]

@@Yvonne-Bella Americans,Canadians,Irish,UK government unless Wales is independent by then & if so Wales, We are called Welsh. It wouldn’t be 100 years either. It would be 30 to 50 years. For it to connect to London it would join mainland line which starts in Swansea & finish in London Paddington Station. It wouldn’t go anywhere near Dublin in Ireland it go though Cork & Waterford in Ireland on to another bridge in to Pembrokeshire then in Carmarthenshire then in Swansea High Street Station which would be your first stop In the uk as that’s where passport control would be.

[@colelangford6369]

Facts

[@donaldtrumplover2254]

@@NicholasJH96 I still can’t believe y’all really let the English genocide you Try harder next time

[@Auscan_Octrice]

It makes no sense to me to connect the tunnel to the uk and not France, Spain or Portugal unless more tunnels were built to the uk because I’d imagine the chunnel would be choked with stuff going to the uk and then to the americas

[@rogink]

Clearly this idea is pie in the sky. But it makes sense to make the route NY-London, not NY-Madrid, Lisbon or even Paris. Yes, it could mean the Eurotunnel is choked, but if you can build a tunnel across the Atlantic, surely a second Channel crossing is a doddle. Given how difficult it is to build HS2 in Britain, I'd say the biggest challenge will be to upgrade the London-Fishguard over land route!

[@jyotiputhran2895]

Uk is best. Not France🇬🇧🇬🇧

[@angriffslusticherWildoger]

@@jyotiputhran2895 but UK is an island, which makes a connection to it fking useless xD

[@mrguysnailz4907]

Galicia-Newfoundland would make the most sense imo

[@prestigev6131]

He already said in the video that the Atlantic is shallowest between North America and the UK

[@alterworlds1629]

It would be impressive, but the amount of damage a single terror attack would inflict would be catastrophic. Also, the scale of the construction compared to global production is just unreasonable, as the time scale of the project shows. Perhaps by the time we have started harvesting asteroids for incalculable levels of raw materials, we will have enough automated factories to manage this. This is all assuming we don't kill each other in the coming climate disaster, sending us into a new dark age while making much of the world uninhabitable.

[@longiusaescius2537]

@Alterworlds lmao

[@lucasm8528]

If civilization survives the next 200-300 years I think our species will live almost to the end of the universe, but yeah that’s a big if.

[@327legoman]

Or if a whale decides to just eat it... And that's before mentioning the fact that, it would be so expensive to get a ticket, this will only be accessible to the mega-rich.

[@glenliesegang233]

Tectonic plates moving the two continents should nail shut this potential 3000 mile coffin.

[@tonychan8558]

1:44 As a Brit, my first thought is that the most difficult part of this plan is Scotland to England !!!!!

[@alfrredd]

😆🤣

[@pollutingpenguin2146]

Norway has approved to build a submerged floating tunnel in one of their fjords

[@danycashking]

10 hours is perfectly feasible, yes jetliners can cross it in 7 but that's not including the airport hassle which is usually at least 2 hours without the commute to the airport itself. Combine that with more comfortable seating even for economy class on a train and no expensive luggage add-ons and I think a lot of people would choose the train instead.

[@c-eb3634]

A lot of people choosing the train would lead it to become as expensive as the plane

[@davekirk100]

What about continental drift? The USA and Europe are moving apart at about 2cm/year. If both ends are fixed to land, there's going to soon be problems

[@zakapholiac9377]

Yeah in a few thousand years maybe. I get the concern but it’s not sudden enough to cause problems

[@NiekKuijpers]

Lol that's not an issue

[@reflectcard6258]

Well that's why there's always repairs and maintence staff

[@bywave]

Lol you do realize all large buildings move that much with just the wind.

[@oliverer3]

Over such a long distance spreading that is a non issue. They wouldn't exactly build it taught as a bowstring.

[@drabberfrog]

If we're going to spend $12 trillion dollars then I think it would make a lot more sense to continue using airplanes to travel across the Atlantic and use all the money we saved to fight climate change. Carbon capture could offset all the emissions from aircraft. Or we could waste 12 trillion dollars on a tunnel that no one needs because we are already able to travel between North America and Europe much faster than the tunnel would even allow. Instead of spending $12 trillion on a tunnel that can manage to go as fast as an aircraft it would be pocket change in comparison to just build a supersonic airliner to do it and it would be even faster.

[@Justineexy]

Vikings: am i a joke to you?

[@yensocialleague329]

Hahahhahah

[@ianroude]

Personally, I don't think that one will be built any time soon. I think that advancements in air travel will make the tunnel less of a need as airplanes will get faster, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly :)

[@jamesbizs]

Well, he said 100 years lol. How much less “anytime soon” do you need?

[@keeganharris186]

@@jamesbizs even in hundred years it still seems pointless if airplanes are faster. Also by 2100 I would be surprised if they don't have some kind of electric jet engine or something.

[@jeremiahblake3949]

@@keeganharris186 it's theoretically possible now, but the engine would have to be huge, and the weight of the batteries would prevent a plane from taking off. But yeah in a hundred years we should have it down!

[@CoreyANeal2000]

A routo from NYC to through Canada to Green Land to Ice land To Scotland would be the best option.

[@janemurrell4748]

Could maybe crowdfund this

[@handlenumber707]

No it wouldn't. Travelers arriving in Scotland would then be subjected to antiquated rail systems in order to get to London, taking up almost half the time the crossing took.

[@qolspony]

They can't even build the shortest route from Los Angeles to San Francisco with the High Speed Rail. Reason? Cost of drilling through several mountain terrains. I can't even imagine how much it would cost to build an under water tunnel. I can't imagine 🤔😳

[@Treviisolion]

Honestly a 10 hour ride competing against a 7 hour flight wouldn’t necessarily be uncompetitive. That really isn’t a long time for intercontinental flights which can go well over 12 hours. Trains also tend to be more comfortable to ride than planes for a given price. Plus there certainly would be many people who would ride the train simply because it’s better for the environment. That said the biggest factor over whether it would be competitive is the price. Most environmentally-conscious individuals would still take the more uncomfortable and polluting plane if it saved them a $100 per ticket. For ordinary people that metric would stand even more. Given the insane cost of building, this project with our current economy and technology would be uncompetitive unless it was built specifically to address climate change and not expected to ever be capable of paying back the initial investment through ticket sales, and instead have those sales pay only for running costs of operation and maintenance, which depending on the specifics might be competitive with air, especially if we factored in potential carbon tax effects on international air travel. Of course $12 trillion is a large number so I could only see this working as part of a generation-long joint effort between the US, Canada, the EU, Iceland, and the UK, as only with the combined GDP of all these nations would something like this start to look feasible with today’s technology. Given how much everyone tends to squabble over how much everyone spends, I can’t see that happening in today’s international order, and by the time this would start to look feasible electric planes may have removed the climate argument for this plan. If it happens it’ll happen for one of 3 reasons. 1. Construction becomes comparatively easy, to the point that a $12 trillion infrastructure project would only cost a mere $12 billion or less thus only require cooperation of the 4 nations in question and only to use the land with one major financial backer (likely the US as I doubt any other country would want to spend more than the US when the US is more capable of spending more than any other country listed here, unless the EU becomes a true federal state in which case they might do it if they got the permission of Canada to connect to their land and get their help). 2. Our economies and population grow significantly to the point that $12 trillion is comparatively small in which case the previous statement applies. Given that Western populations have only grown slowly or even begun shrinking with that trend likely to continue for most of this century, and that construction costs have remained comparatively high to total economic size, this seems unlikely this half of the century. I would say for this entire century based on current trends, but trends usually don’t last for a whole century so future trends may emerge that produce a larger more developed society capable of undertaking a project like this. Or they may not. Currently doesn’t seem likely. 3. New international and national political frameworks are developed to make long-term projects which are financially unprofitable but nationally and internationally useful more politically feasible for politicians to push for. Seems unlikely to me personally, but could technically happen at some point.

[@FuturologyChannel]

Hey guys! I failed to consider that a fire would not be a risk if the tunnel was turned into a vacuum. Just wanted to point this out now. Thanks!

[@urosradovanovic7720]

Total irony

[@davidetrimigliozzi3091]

Considering the price of construction and operation a ticket would be Crazy expensive, while this project Is undeniably ambitious I think that Planes and ships are safer and cheaper

[@brookestephen]

That whole area of Canada, Eastern Quebec and Labrador, has zero infrastructure for nearly a thousand miles.

[@tudorjason]

A series that has been reintroduced with different names over the years, including the title Extreme Engineering, had an episode that described this transatlantic tunnel. I've been fascinated by it ever since! I think most of the epis from this series, especially the epis early on, are posted on YT.

[@user-7165jdhrnxymzn]

6:51 US$ 12 Trillion? No problem, nothing is too expensive for U.S.

[@haweater1555]

The sci-fi movie "Surrogates" projected that in the near future long distance travel by humans would essentially be obsolete. People can be sensory connected to an advanced human like android and you can experience everything it can. If you wanted to explore Europe you can dial in and connect to a local android and in an instant you feel that you are "there" . Or be a space or undersea tourist at low cost and zero risk. All without ever physically leaving your home.

[@jamesbizs]

Even without all that, we probably won’t travel much, except for fun. Plus, the tech guy then, would make this tunnel obsolete .

[@haweater1555]

@@jamesbizs And a ways into the future, the "Star Trek" type of matter/energy transport will make obsolete all methods of human transportation on Earth (to those who are not hesitant to step inside one).

[@LoneWolf1493]

With all the risks involved with a straight shot from the US to the UK, why dismiss the longer route so quickly and easily? It might be longer but it would be much faster and perhaps cheaper to build much of it over land with shorter underwater sections than it would be to build it thousands of miles underwater with untested and unproven technology. Also, maintenance and emergency personnel would be able to get to where they need to go much more quickly and efficiently and all the towns and cities along the corridor would benefit from having access to that corridor

[@kimhuett2119]

It would bring countries together? Oh, just like how the Channel tunnel has made England and France inseparable buddies. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@scully0105]

Glad to see you are measuring the distances in km!

[@Bellshazar]

Realistically this would only become feasible with newer and better technology. Better automation (allowing the entire thing to be built with robots all year at a speed far surpassing humans) and better material reducing the cost and increasing the strength of the tunnel.

[@RobertWilke]

The idea is feasible. The will to do it is what's lacking. Also this is being done with current technologies. The limit of above sea ships could be mitigated if the vessels were also a submersible. You could literally have an underwater habitat that follows the sections being placed. This way all the dangers of being up to are a non issue. If we did this though it would have to be quicker. Not 10-30 years to make at best 5-6 years. This way people would see the tangible benefit of it and make use there of. Something like this would be the Apollo missions all over again.

[@Lightologyy]

you make my day when you release a new video

[@stevenroshni1228]

Bering Strait freight rail link is much more likely. There probobly would be 1-3 passenger trains a week for those who want to take the scenic route or deathly afraid of flying.

[@clarenceartman7487]

One problem (among many many others): you'd have to build a railway a thousand miles through the Arctic over mountains (or through them) just to get to the Berring Sea - it's probably even worse in Russia - I think the weather and vast distances would make this too hard to build and at least as difficult to maintain

[@jeremiahblake3949]

Plus thousands of miles of roads for construction. It wouldn't pay for itself.

[@luketsaur5065]

Amazing video. I loved the information and the possibilities we can think of. It’s a great wonder to see if a project this size can be created or not to unite different countries together and open up a revolutionary change. Great to see you back.

[@FuturologyChannel]

Thanks Luke!

[@Hendricus56]

I can only see the Greenland-Iceland route being made out of those 2. Simply because it is faster done, can be done more conveniently, would include people going to just Greenland or Iceland or people from there travelling anywhere else, can be easier repaired, they could still be done underground in G. and I. for winter etc reasons or simply covered, would require less ventilation etc and could include apart from super fast trains 2 more conventional train tracks, that could transport cargo from and to any of these regions. And it doesn't matter if it needs a day for a shipment to be brought over the Atlantic, because anything that needs to go fast can fly and everything that is too big, must go by ship right now. And the travel times over the Atlantic are still multiple days. And with an extremely long train, you can more more stuff at a higher speed than any container ship right now

[@handlenumber707]

Greenland / Iceland have infinitesimal populations and are not financial centers, which seems to be the whole point of the crossing. You're not going to invest $12T to link those countries, and while you could, as that would ultimately make more sense in logistical terms, arctic conditions notwithstanding, there'd be more incentive for a NY to London route under the Atlantic, in terms of marketability. I don't think such a crossing would be primarily for cargo shipments, or hope to replace airfreight on that route. The ROI would come from tourism and its associated services. There would be huge demand for bragging rights, and thus an endless stream of passengers willing to pay any exorbitant price to make the crossing. Of course there'd have to be some economy class tickets to keep modest customers happy, but they could exploit premium seating or carriages for any amount of money and make back the investment in half the time.

[@Hendricus56]

@@handlenumber707 I wonder how you would want to build a tunnel for thousands of kilometers, multiple kilometers deep, crossing a tectonic border underground or how you would build a tunnel under water, where it is either afloat at a certain depth or lies on the sea floor. Greenland and Iceland is the only logical route as the more expensive underwater routes are limited and access is easier. And yes, they have small populations, but especially people in Europe like travelling to Iceland, so it would help their economy. Not to mention shipping costs falling. And I'm pretty sure, Arctic conditions (which are also present in most of Canada or Alaska) are more easy to handle (especially overground/in a tunnel with overground access above the water) than the immense water pressure under the Atlantic. 1 weakened section from for example a sinking ship or container falling overboard in a storm and the whole section might collapse under the water pressure and then the whole tunnel floods

[@handlenumber707]

@@Hendricus56 I'm not advocating the building of any crossing. My point is that those who would, aren't interested in the people of Greenland or Iceland. The purpose would be to create a physical connection between the world's largest financial hubs. A tunnel through arctic land masses would only work if the infrastructure to connect it with the end destinations were in place. The rail network in the UK is not up to the job, and neither is that of North America. Completely new routes through existing built-up areas, and remote barren lands, would have to be constructed, and that might end up costing more than the main crossing itself. Instead, the most cost-effective solution is to begin the crossing as close to the Atlantic coast and the main destinations as possible, and where the water is most shallow. That's the North Atlantic. Now, I think they could build tunnels under the ocean bed, but there are lots of cracks and faults and pressure down there, that would make the task difficult the deeper the tunnel is. If they drill through sedimentary strata, there'd be fewer problems, but some of that might be porous rock. It still could be done, if it hasn't been done already. A suspended modular tunnel would make the most sense, since it can absorb impacts and currents. Having slack tethers means it would be able to sway. A metal shell filled with foam concrete would be light and sturdy, and watertight. Of course, it would be a tremendous undertaking to connect all the seals.

[@Hendricus56]

@@handlenumber707 Guess why I said, that if it will happen, Greenland Iceland would be the more logical route. And the most shallow route would be between Canada-Greenland, Greenland-Iceland and Iceland (with a station on the Faroe Islands) and considering it would consist of multiple smaller tunnels (as well as options for on land sections that would be especially possible in Canada and Iceland) and the option to cross the fault line in the Atlantic over land via Iceland, where the danger is way lower. Sure, it would be an undertaking to build in an arctic environment, but I would say it is easier to build railroads there (and companies like the Alaska Railroad have experience with that). And do you really think, no expansion of the British and US rail network would happen if such a project would begin? That would arguably be the easiest step. "We need to add/repair/wide a few sections? Sure, could be done in a few weeks or months" Not to mention that the speed at which it would be build would be massively increased. No matter what design you pick for a tunnel under the Atlantic, you can only start in Europe and North America, a distance that would be over 3000km... between Newfoundland and Ireland. The Channel Tunnel took 6 years to construct and it is "merely" 50,5km long. Meanwhile tunnels between the sections I mentioned could be build simultaneously, cutting down construction time and cost and allowing for profits at an earlier time, not to mention the reduced construction costs for building over land where no tunnel digging/small through a mountain in the way is needed. And sure, companies wouldn't really care for people in Iceland, Greenland or the Faroe Islands. But they would also allow them to have 1. stops for passengers (for example disembark in Reykjavik, visit it for a few hours and take the next train) 2. emergency stops with hospitals etc nearby and 3. more revenue opportunities from people who don't want to use planes. And let's not forget that when there is an accident in one of the tunnels it is way easier to send out a team that only has to travel 100-200km to reach the target than one that has to travel for a few hours before being close to the problematic spot since you can't construct emergency stations in the middle of the Atlantic. Meanwhile you would just need to expand settlements that already exist in Canada, Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Scotland, not to mention the option for a 2nd tunnel running from the Faroe to Norway, allowing for better integration to the European rail network. Also, the North Atlantic is not shallow, as you would have seen if you would have taken a look at Google maps. Luckily we have an easy way to judge how deep the darker areas are. Because while Newfoundland is surrounded by shallower ocean, the area directly South of the South Eastern section has a famous resident since 1912 in 3800m depth. Where only specialised submarines survive. Just take a look at N 41°43', W 49°56' with Google Maps

[@handlenumber707]

@@Hendricus56 The issue here is building new infrastructure in built-up areas. New York and London, and their surrounding catchments, are some of the most densely populated areas in the Western Hemisphere. You have to either buy up land and evict people, then develop the new rail links through the middle of those new acquisitions, or try to use the existing infrastructure, which just would not work. It took a long time to build London's Cross rail tunnel, which is around 40 miles across if I am not mistaken. These are not easy feats or things that can be undertaken without meticulous planning. It would not be cheap or easy to build a high speed rail link from Scotland to London. It would probably be even more of an issue building adequate systems in the US and Canada. The northern route is not feasible.

[@bloqk16]

The $12 trillion dollar price tag could be very optimistic. How many times have we heard of *cost overruns* when it comes to massive construction projects in the US?

[@jeremiahblake3949]

Yeah when a government announces a building project, double the price and triple the time

[@janemurrell4748]

Such a fixed link could become essential for geopolitical and environmental reasons for the West. A kind of Western version of The Belt and Road, which would help keep the Chinese in particular out of Greenland. The relatively shallow undersea ridge between Baffin Island, Greenland, Iceland, The Faroes and Scotland, is at most 650 metres deep. Concrete gravity platforms similar to the gas platform Troll A Con Deep, could be placed about 30 miles apart to provide extra tunnel headings, ventilation, evacuation and even as transmission hubs for floating wind turbines. The station announcement would go something like this, 'The Transatlantic Sleeper Train will call at Stornoway, Torshavn, Hofn, Reykjavik, Tasiilaq, Narsaq, Nuuk (Greenland), Iqaluit (Baffin Island), Shefferville, Quebec, Montreal and New York.'

[@handlenumber707]

Yeah, but travelers wanting a direct route between large Financial hubs wouldn't want to terminate in or commune to Scotland or Ireland using aging infrastructure to continue their journeys, which is why a direct route between NY and London is proposed.

[@user-lv6rn9cf8m]

What's with this obsession to link NY with London specifically? Link America to Europe - then connect to existing highways once you reach land. I feel like with coming technology - self building nano materials and stuff.. It would be insane to start now. Within 20-50 years we can do it much faster, cheaper and better than we can imagine now even. Start doing it now with the tech we have and someone who waits decades will still have it done sooner.

[@lloydfeng5716]

you mean existing railways?

[@lloydfeng5716]

oops, America doesn't have them

[@jeremiahblake3949]

@@lloydfeng5716 we have one of the largest railway systems in the world. Just not for passengers.

[@roostermcscratch9060]

Am I the only one that wants this for no other reason than a fear of flying?

[@bishaldey4865]

Well, l hope, this project will be complete within coming 5-10 years. Thank you for your video. Such as more mega-project video is expected from you.

[@ozzyclark7145]

That's unrealistic speeds of construction

[@jamesbizs]

Lol keep hoping.

[@jeremiahblake3949]

The project won't ever happen, (unless some immense technological advances happen) it certainly isn't happening in 10 years.

[@revinhatol]

It could be quite risky, but there are some ways to turn those hardships around.

[@Andy-ju8bb]

Given how long this would take to build, by the time the tunnel is ready to start repaying the 12 trillion bucks we'll probably have developed transporter technology or some kind of supersonic boat rendering the tunnel obsolete before the first person even rides it.

[@farsiga2899]

The northern route through Greenland and Iceland would be the best because more countries would be linked fostering more trade and economic development with those countries.

[@brookestephen]

The route should be a "great circle", and it should go north through Canada, cross to Greenland, cross to Iceland and then to Europe through the Faroe Islands, splitting to go to Norway or Scotland. That would be AMAZING!!! It would land-link all those countries that have been so isolated for so long!

[@dekippiesip]

What about a trans siberian route on steroids, going across the bering straight into Alaska, Canada, the US and then further south. That would also be a really cool concept!

[@brookestephen]

@@dekippiesip sounds nice, but there's absolutely zero infrastructure on either side of the Bering for thousands of miles.

[@LoneWolf1493]

A rail link between Norway and Scotland. Now that’s a proposal I haven’t thought of before. Wonder how feasible that would be

[@Carlos15Romero21]

I think it’s a much wiser idea to go north through Greenland and Iceland to London because it would be easier to repair and construct infrastructure on land, an accident could be far less catastrophic because no one has to drown and it could also begin a massive new migration to populate Greenland and Northern Canada, which can help build cities with the infrastructure to help build infrastructure and it could also theoretically be cheaper considering that you can just build a permanent base with supplies to finish the project in Greenland while you can’t really do that in the middle of the ocean.

[@LoneWolf1493]

I agree because of the economic boom in those additional countries. Not only that but it would be quicker and perhaps even cheaper to build and maintain and those additional countries would be able to contribute to the project and bring the costs down for the US and the UK. Also, that first route would be much more feasible and viable long-term even when you factor in weather conditions and distance

[@radiotierraestrella.1483]

The Discovery Channel, two decades ago, in the series Megaconstrucciones, had touched on the subject of the transatlantic tunnel and they ruled out all but one of the transfers, it left directly from New York, passed through the Atlantic and reached the United Kingdom directly.

[@hierony5471]

Isn't the route through Green- and Iceland not only more straight looking at the curves of the earth, but also a lot easier and cheaper? I for 100% would look through there.

[@ChinchillaBONK]

Such a project would even produce power because you could add tidal power generators along the whole tunnel and probably produce more than enough power than it consumes

[@sunandsage]

To me it would make more sense to Route it by way of Greenland and Iceland because by doing so it would service more people. This is very interesting to think about but I don't think it's feasible or cost effective with our current level of Technology. I would rather see us spending resources to build a nationwide affordable and user-friendly mass transit system throughout North America before we even consider a project like this.

[@handlenumber707]

How many people live in Greenland and Iceland?

[@Extravidrigt]

Honestly I think solar powered airplanes with solid batteries are the way to go. Or a cruise ship sized Trans-Atlantic airship stopping in multiple cities along the way. They seem more feasible and useful than a huge expensive tunnel.

[@Satoshinakamoto2009]

I hope to see this one day

[@gauriblomeyer1835]

Very good idea. We have to follow it by constant competitions. The technology will improve and with this situation the tunnel will one day be built by an automatic system.

[@yougoslavia]

1:04 that's York railway station.

[@ostkkfmhtsh012345678]

IMO winter climate would not be much of a challenge if the route was through Iceland yet also through Greenland, the Canadian territory of Nunavut, and Faroe Islands. This way, there would be shorter sections and some links doesn't have to be a tunnel. Though the Bering Strait tunnel would be more feasible than the Transatlantic tunnel to connect continental Americas with continental Eurfrasia and would likely be completed first before this.

[@finnishlion748]

Can you make a video on Egypt new transport system. We missed you Great video as always

[@michaelbachmann457]

awesome video thanks!

[@alphonsobutlakiv789]

I think we should invent a new way to cross the sea. Maybe a cable gondola system? Slow but should use little fuel and material, and In terms of freight it could still be the fastest for the money too. I don't think we can reasonably build anything faster than air plains and have it serve as many people as air plains do.

[@gpsxsirus]

Thousands of sections, with slack cables so they sway, under water. No way that doesn't leak. Even if it could work, what a colossal waste of resources. Literally thousands of better uses for $12 trillion. Not to mention how the massive spike in demand for resources like steel would drive costs up for everyone negatively impacting the economy overall.

[@amon_san]

how do the engineers want to tackle the continental drift ripping apart the tunnel?

[@handlenumber707]

The tubes are tethered using slackened cables. They could use the same technique at the ends of the tunnels to tether them to a rigid structure, leaving a meter or so of slack, which would only be an issue if the continents suddenly moved a meter or so.

[@odiliusrailfans]

I think if all Railroads like US, Russia, Japan, China and Europe connect their railroad to my country Indonesia is very hard difficulty, there are several issues when expanding the rail network to Indonesia: 1. if from Malaysia via the Malacca strait bridge and Singapore to Batam to build an underwater tunnel it is not too problematic, but it must be integrated with Indonesian railway lines (KAI) such as Medan and Kertapati stations, Palembang 2. Because my country, namely Indonesia, uses a rail measuring 1,067mm narrow gauge, so the lines must be separated and it is highly recommended to build an Elevated Track and dual or multi gauge rail if you want to co-exist with Indonesian Railways. 3. if we continue to the island of Java there is a very big issue, namely the Krakatoa volcano, both the Sunda Strait Bridge and the underwater tunnel will not be strong enough to withstand earthquakes due to the eruption because there is no technology to compensate for the eruption of Krakatoa. 4. If you have entered the island of Java, I suggest targeting the cities of Jakarta, Cirebon, Semarang, Yogyakarta and Surabaya and Banyuwangi because they are very feasible, especially in terms of the economy. Why not Bandung? That's because Bandung has been signed by a Chinese railway company called China Railway and a joint venture between Indonesian and Chinese company called KCIC. 5. For in Jakarta, I do not recommend trains, especially from America and Europe, to stop at the Central Station called Manggarai because the first is located outside the city center, the second is that the land used by Manggarai Station is full because soon Manggarai Station will become an intercity central station and 100% The land is the Indonesian Railways, so my advice is to just use stations located in the city center such as Tanah Abang, Gambir and Pasar Senen. Moreover, Gambir is also close to the Jakarta National Monument, and if you want to stop outside the city center of Jakarta, Jatinegara Station is the most appropriate option. 6. The route in the Cikampek - Bandung - Tasikmalaya plot is prone to accidents, both trains and motorized vehicles, due to its geographical location and full of extreme ups and downs. Not only that, the route from Kertosono to Bangil via Blitar and Malang is also very extreme, so it's best if you use the southern route, via the Cirebon - Purwokerto - Yogyakarta - Madiun route to Surabaya Gubeng. 7. When they wanted to extend to the island of Bali, residents from Bali themselves rejected the existence of a Bali strait bridge because the culture there was very strong and the island of Java and Bali could not be connected.

[@Visiontech]

This was a very educational video. Yes it will be built someday because it's possible!

[@alowais32]

Great video as usual

[@mariannerichard1321]

About dreadful winter weather... the final Canadian section in Labrador for road 2 is not much warmer than the still in Labrador final Canadian section of road1... the lower yearly temperature being -45C vs -50C... The road 1 would have closer land hoops, so rescue operations would be faster. The Atlantic Ridge would be inland in Iceland, so easier to manage. A stop at the Faeroe Islands would make it even safer. The only advantage of road 2 would be it takes less time, but even the times proposed here are longer than the concord planes. Building new supersonic planes would be cheaper and most faster to deliver, for a shorter trip overall. The only purpose of this train route has to be freight, which won't mind the extra 1,000 km, it will be much faster than boat anyway.

[@whatthef911]

Before the transatlantic tunnel, there will be a tunnel under the Bering Straight which will link trains from New York to London the opposite way around the globe.

[@chadwaynebradley]

If its going to be a hyperloop then going across Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands WOULD be the best way to go since weather is irrelevant. It could be built concurrently too. Instead of 2 efforts concurrently (From Canada and From Ireland), it would be 8 efforts concurrently (From Canada to Greenland, From Greenland to Canada, From Greenland to Iceland, From Iceland to Greenland, from Iceland to Faroe Islands, From Faroe Islands to Iceland, From Faroe Islands to Scotland, From Scotland to Faroe Islands) so it would be built much faster - probably in the 25 year timeframe. Passengers aren't the priority here - freight is. Freight movement alone makes the project go faster and will achieve breakeven payoff much quicker.

[@beepbop6542]

Freight transport is completely ridiculous. Ships already do ot faster, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly

[@jeremiahblake3949]

@@beepbop6542 to be fair, the entire idea is ridiculous.

[@PeterLaFrance]

Amazing video, but I have doubts as to whether it will be attempted.

[@Steeeve_]

I could see the incentive for private corporation to develop a link if something similar to the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 was implemented but would need to be build somewhere where the real-estate was of value. This would not be a fancy high speed train system 200 feet below the sea level, but an above ground highway system with access to land along the route. It could eventually connect the continents, but the main selling point would be the land.

[@Brianrockrailfan]

great video 👍😮

[@Redhollow]

An underwater tunnel of this nature would be better tested between the US and Puerto Rico, or maybe Hawaii, before even dreamed of for a project as big as this one.

[@jeremiahblake3949]

I don't think you realize how far away Hawaii is.

[@DeutscheDemokratischeRepublik]

i'd say it should be done via the iceland-greenland route instead, the tunnel doesn't need to go under land and therefore there wouldnt be seismic concerns, the sea is more shallow and there are more stops for rescue vehicles. Ontop of that it'd likely be cheaper due to requiring less tunnels and the power could be taken solely through hydro power by the currents flowing around the tunnel and maybe becoming a menace in terms of hydroelectric power production, which could help energy costs in countries involved, maybe even more than that if it gets exported. Overall this idea has huge potential, however i can imagine the project still costing trillions if it was to be built on that route.

[@bennelong8451]

Imagine if there was a leak and the traffic was backed up to iceland

[@BJI82a]

I wonder if we will get more ideas like this keep going this is intresting I really like the tech and transportation ones this might be doable if we start collecting asteroids then some of the material would be covered and some of the cost would be saved.

[@stockey]

Yes, the actual flight is faster, but with all the waiting at airports, it would actually take more time than with that tunnel.

[@victorsvoice7978]

Future technology may make a project like this possible.

[@RomanianGordonFreeman]

when you mention that in case of an accident whit fire , will take hours for interventions, to solve we can use ocean water , or stations for suplies

[@carloberruti178]

Whoever wrote the script hasn’t a good grasp of time zones: at 7:10 you hear that “you can wake up one morning in NYC, buy a ticket and be in London for lunchtime”. Actually, when you wake up one morning in NYC, it’s ALREADY lunchtime in London, so you might be barely there for dinner. The “time saving experience” only works the other way around, when traveling from Europe to America: in THIS case you travel “with the sun” (or better, against Earth rotation), so you “save time”. When traveling from America to Europe, it’s the opposite.

[@JakeSDN]

To mitigate the weather concerns on the first idea, just build the tunnel above ground or right below ground in the countries with concerning weather. The first proposal is better in many ways. Safety being the biggest.

[@jamesbizs]

Lol right? “Oh, man, all this snow is so hard. Let’s build a floating tunnel under 200 feet of water, stretching 1000’s of miles, AND put it under vacuum”

[@Mr.Septon]

I don't think we are there yet, but I could see us possibly going this direction in the future depending on how certain technologies work and develop over time. With that said, I could also see this as never needing to come to be because air or naval travel becomes ever more efficient. I like the concept, although me personally, I would want to travel it with a suicide capsule on my mouth, just in case things go sour and I need an easy exit... paranoid, yes lol.

[@doctorstrangelove9487]

Sounds interesting but I suspect it would cost much higher than 12 trillion and even at 12 no one has that kind of money to put towards this project.

[@U.K.N]

In my humble opinion : we should go around the usa , canada , iceland , greenland , and split off at the north sea , one going to norway , and the other going to scotland

[@Alex_Plante]

It would never be able to compete with air travel. However, the idea could be adapted to a transatlantic gas pipeline. The gas could be compressed, but not necessarily liquefied. No route can cross Greenland, because the ice is too unstable. So the pipeline would have to take the form of a tethered tube from Labrador to Ireland, just deep enough to avoid icebergs and to be located in the layer of water that is always at 4 degrees Celsius, so there is no issue with thermal expansion/contraction.

[@daano465]

Within a 100 years we will have electric planes I suppose. Especially with the competitions within the electric car sector, serving battery technology for larger items.

[@MalaysiaIsProChannel]

That will be hard to build since they need to be strong to face winds, waves and more

[@trademark4537]

4:45 Ocean's Gate lol

[@JohnSmith-pc3gc]

If you built two bridges across the Atlantic side by side, you could string wind turbines between them and pay for the project many times over with electricity.. Floating towers and high tension anchor cables and buyoncy leverage. Just make it out of pressurized PET plastic pipes and PET plastic cables that don't stretch. Soda bottles are made out of PET plastic because it does not stretch under the pressure of carbonated beverages. For their weight, they are probably thousands of times stronger than steel. It would cost about $1 for a one kilometer span scaled down to ten meters. Scaling it back up using cylindrical coordinates of lilebgth, radius and thickness of the material gives a cost of about one million dollar per one km span. PET is flammable, But If it was pressuruzed with CO2 it would be self extinguishing. Using bundles of cylinders would discourage idiots from shooting at it to puncture the cylinders. Even if a cylinder did lose pressure it would still retain its tremendous tensile strength and some other structural integrity to offset a catastrophic failure. It would be so inexpensive to fix or replace that idiots might not bother it. Ten three megawatt wind turbines per kilometer would asd up to about 200 billion dollars per year. It might be built in a few years from prefabricated sections and It might cost less than ten billion dollars and be built in less than ten years. The bridge could have a bike lane and a pedestrian lane underneath the high-speed electric train level. So much of the materials that go into a structure are there to support other materials. If the density of the materials goes down, the total weight of materials goes down exponentially. If the debsuty of the materials goes down 1000 times, the total amount iof materials might go down a million times. All made out of recycled soda bottles.

[@cyn_1]

I think we should save our planet before considering to build something like this

[@GageEakins]

You know it is telling that the hyperloop part of this is the most ridiculous part. The rest of the project is at least doable, if highly inadvisable.

[@jeremiahblake3949]

The cost is the most ridiculous part. There's no way it would work in the foreseeable future, even attempting would wreck the entire world's economy

[@GageEakins]

@@jeremiahblake3949 not particularly. If I remember correctly it was something like a couple trillion dollars. That would not wreck the world economy. Would it be economically viable as a project, almost certainly not. However, spread over many years it's not impossibly expensive if they really wanted to do it.

[@setaripantheon8801]

The Tube needs to be made for Hyperloop trains, it's not feasible without it

[@alparslankorkmaz2964]

Nice video.

[@PLuMUK54]

While they are at it, they can employ Santa as a driver, and the Tooth Fairy as a "trolley-dolly"...which is as believable as this happening.

[@Doochos]

A transatlantic tunnel, hurrah!

[@Sartorius988]

The issue is how do you build in rest areas for travellers and what happens if an issue happens, how would you repair it?

[@bungeechord1]

It seems that west coast route between Alaska and Russia would be shorter, only 50 miles.

[@jeremiahblake3949]

Plus the 3-5 thousand miles of roads you'd have to build to make that bridge/tunnel connect anything.

[@bungeechord1]

True

[@michaels2480]

Green energy is wonderful. However, it does not eliminate pollution - it simply moves it elsewhere. For the electric trains zipping to and fro inside the tunnels, the electricity has to be generated in large power plants, probably coal or nuclear.

[@mosog8829]

The idea of passing through Canada, Greenland and Iceland is better. Because I believe those countries will benefit directly, and so they may contribute to the building cost. The idea of cable-suspended tunnel is good. But that design is more prone to sabotage.

[@markfornefeld299]

It makes sense to connect Asia and America through Alaska and a little time in islands

[@sp4celess328]

See the current problem with vac tube hyper super duper very fast trains is that it is hard to have a vacum or a near vacum in a long tube let alone to have a vacum in a tube streatching the atlantic ocean…