# FINLAND / ESTONIA | HSR Link



## Lightness (Nov 3, 2006)

A preliminary feasibility study on a Helsinki, Finland - Tallinn, Estonia undersea rail tunnel has been proposed. The tunnel would be an extension to Finland for the planned Rail Baltica railway line, which is envisaged to link the Baltic countries with central Europe through Poland.


*01.04.2008 | Helsingin Sanomat

http://www.rzd-partner.com/press/2008/04/01/321667.html

Mayors of Helsinki and Tallinn Revive Proposal for Rail Tunnel under Gulf of Finland*

The cities of Helsinki and the Estonian capital Tallinn are to launch a study into the feasibility of an undersea railway tunnel between the two countries.

Helsinki Mayor Jussi Pajunen (Nat. Coalition Party) and Tallinn Mayor Edgar Savisaar signed an agreement on the matter on Friday.

The mayors agreed that both Helsinki and Tallinn will apply for EU funding in May for preliminary study of the feasibility of such a project. The cost of the research project is expected to be about EUR 500,000 - 800,000. Both cities are ready to invest EUR 100,000 in the project at this stage.

Pajunen, who was reached on Friday evening as he was on his way home from the ferry from Tallinn, says that the study will be on the economic and transportation aspects of the tunnel project. If EU financing becomes available, a study could be ready by the end of 2009.

"The opening of the train tunnel will certainly not be celebrated for another 15 years. The report will decide how the project is pushed forward", Pajunen said.

Many of the proposals in the Greater Helsinki Vision idea contest emphasised the importance of reducing the distance between Helsinki and Tallinn.

"It is good that the matter has come forward from many directions. The cities are taking part in the application for EU funding as equals", Pajunen emphasised.

Tallinn Mayor Edgar Savisaar says that he is certain that the tunnel will be built one day, and that it will be economically profitable.

"This tunnel was discussed in Finland already ten years ago, but at that time those who proposed it were laughed at. People were not ready for it yet", Savisaar said on Friday evening through his aide.

The tunnel plan has received new impetus from the Rail Baltica project, calling for better railway connections from Poland through the Baltic countries to Estonia.

"Why couldn't it continue through an undersea tunnel to Finland",Savisaar says. "If France and Britain achieved it, then why couldn't Estonia and Finland?"

Technical details, such as where the mouths of the tunnel should be located, remain unknown, emphasised Deputy Mayor Pekka Sauri (Green) on Friday. The construction of a ferry connection carrying rail cars is also an option in the study.​


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

It sounds very interesting. I hope it will be done, one day


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Someone knows the freight traffic between Finland and the rest of Europe? To the three baltic states? And to Russia?

There is also the problem of the gauge.


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

Coccodrillo said:


> There is also the problem of the gauge.


The gauge between Finland and the ex-Soviet countries (including the Baltics) is the same. The problem will come up when trains get to Poland.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Exactly. I don't think that traffic between Finland and the balic states is very high. The tunnel loose a lot of it interest because of the break of gauge.

But Finland have trains to Russia, too. A conversion like the one hoped for the Iberian peninsula is harder to accept.

And beside the gauge, the economic problems of Eurotunnel should not be forgotten.


----------



## schmidt (Dec 5, 2002)

^^ I don't think so! I was recently in Tallinn and in Helsinki and, well, it was pretty impressive the quantity of Finns in Tallinn. And the boats well, always crowded with Finns and all. I think this is not a disposable project, but very interesting. The Baltics have strong ties with the nordic countries, especially Estonia and Finland!


----------



## Lightness (Nov 3, 2006)

The feasibility of this project depends on a number of factors, the size of any European Union funding being the biggest. 

In the tunnel's favour, Estonia could expect large EU subsidies since it's still one of the poorer EU countries. This is just the kind of project the EU likes to fork out cash for. Finland on the other hand would be prepared to cough up top dollars for a permanent "land" link to central Europe that would circumvent Russia.

Currently any rail traffic (freight) travelling on rail-ferries between Germany and Finland change under-carriage in the southern Finnish port of Hanko to get around the gauge problem. 

By the way, I noticed that this article was dated April 1. It's not an April Fool's joke though, it has been discussed quite substantially in Finnish media recently.


----------



## X38 (Jan 23, 2008)

:drool: Unbelievable


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Not really: http://www.tunnelbuilder.com/news-detail.php?pid=542


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

This project is very unrealistic to me, especially the funding part. If Estonia was as rich as Finland, it might even happen, but Estonia will be poorer that Finland for the next 20 years at least.
EU is funding the whole Rail Baltica project(Warsaw-Tallinn) with only 200 million Euros at the moment. Why should the EU suddenly want to invest billions of Euros in this tunnel alone?


----------



## Adams3 (Mar 2, 2007)

^^ With 5% annual GDP growth for the next 10 years, Estonia will be as rich as Finland is today.


----------



## schmidt (Dec 5, 2002)

^^ Do you think 5% a year is sustainable in 10 years? Especially in a country with a shrinking population? Only in China... (and ofc we doubt that too)


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

Estonia's GDP growth is below 5% at the moment.


----------



## keber (Nov 8, 2006)

If I see correctly, proposed tunnel should be about 70 km long. Considering, how expensive Eurotunnel was, this tunnel should cost no less than 15 billion €, more likely around 20. I very much doubt, that this price would ever be feasible, especially considering for low amount of possible traffic. Even Eurotunnel still produces losses after all these years, although potential for rail traffic there is way higher than it would ever be for Finland.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

^^ Channel tunnel and Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel can't really be compared. One is a connection between 2 countries while the other one is a connection between 2 cities that already have quite strong ties. Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel would lie in granite while the channel tunnel was drilled into chalk.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ Channel tunnel and Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel can't really be compared. One is a connection between 2 countries while the other one is a connection between 2 cities that already have quite strong ties. Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel would lie in granite while the channel tunnel was drilled into chalk.


But the Channel tunnel connects two countries with a population of about 60 million each, while this tunnen would connect countries with a population of only 1,4 and 5,3 million. Besides, I understood that the ferry connections between Helsinki and Talinn are quite fast already. I will be very surprised if this project turns out to be feasable.


----------



## Alexriga (Nov 25, 2007)

Joop20 said:


> But the Channel tunnel connects two countries with a population of about 60 million each, while this tunnen would connect countries with a population of only 1,4 and 5,3 million. Besides, I understood that the ferry connections between Helsinki and Talinn are quite fast already. I will be very surprised if this project turns out to be feasable.


It is just impossible with existing tech. Tallinn has 400k population while Helsinki less than 600k. It would be enough with 3 trains per day or less to connect them. Ticket on such trains would be extremely expensive. No big potential for freight also while Rail Baltic isn't finished. There are no chances EU would fund such project. But project and research could be made. In future tunnels wil become cheaper and it will be possible to build it. And project, geological research etc. will be made already.


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

^^Lots of Fins go to Tallinn to enjoy the city centre and especially the cheap beer. If a train ticket is going to be extremely expensive, the interest to drink a beer in Tallinn will diminish rapidly. Of course, this is only a small part of all the people using the tunnel, but still.


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

Couldn't they conceivably be able to run high speed trains that wind their way via St. Petersburg and back again? Travel times could potentially rival ferry times.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Alexriga said:


> It is just impossible with existing tech. Tallinn has 400k population while Helsinki less than 600k. It would be enough with 3 trains per day or less to connect them. Ticket on such trains would be extremely expensive. No big potential for freight also while Rail Baltic isn't finished. There are no chances EU would fund such project. But project and research could be made. In future tunnels wil become cheaper and it will be possible to build it. And project, geological research etc. will be made already.


What has that to do with that ???


Population ??? 

We are talking about hte land of NOKIA here ??? :lol:

And Tallin is not in the "pricey" part of europe ... yet.

And by the way ... 

Denmark-Sweden is already connected by Oresund (16km) ... a second connection at Helsingbord would be less than 4km long

Denmark-Germany is 18km

Why should the fins not want to connect directly without exiting EU shengen space ???

Helsinki-Tallin is only some 40km long

Helsinki-Stockolm is some 400km long ... of wich 200km are missing but are easily breachable ... just need to build enough bridges/tunnels between torku , the intermediate islands and Sweden < major gap is only 26km long (36km if we consider a tunnel solution) :cheers:

On the other way ... given a 350km/h HST and a 80km crossing in the conditions of the Channel tunnel ... it would ber better to think about a V HST network Helsinki-S.Peters-Tallin ... same goes for ferry freight


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

Let's not forget that Tallinn-Helsinki was(and I think it still is) the 5th busiest ferry line in the world. Travel time for the quickest ferries is around 2h so Tallinn-St.Petersburg-Helsinki would definitely take longer.


----------



## keber (Nov 8, 2006)

Still, we're talking about tens of *b*illions of euros. Such expensive connection is not and can't be ever feasible for such small countries in terms of population and economy.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Waste of money.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

keber said:


> Still, we're talking about *tens of billions of euros.* Such expensive connection is not and can't be ever feasible for such small countries in terms of population and economy.


Tens of billions? Why do you think it's that much? And again, this tunnel would get you from downtown Tallinn to downtown Helsinki in 30 minutes. Tallinn and Helsinki are both growing cities. Language and culture is similar, economic ties are growing. I believe this project will become a reality some day, but probably not in the next 30 years.


----------



## EszettRocks (Oct 25, 2007)

Tens of billions.. :| And waste of money, huh? Sure. Keep in mind that this project wouldn't be only about connecting these two cities with each other. There's St. Petersburg, and then there's Central Europe. And then there's the falling star of the aeroplane.


----------



## keber (Nov 8, 2006)

Rebasepoiss said:


> Tens of billions? Why do you think it's that much? And again, this tunnel would get you from downtown Tallinn to downtown Helsinki in 30 minutes.


Tunnel should be about 70-80 km long (as seen on longitudinal profiles on previous page), mostly underwater. That's why will (would) cost tens of billions. 55 km long Gotthard tunnel will cost about 10 billion, constructed from 6x2 sides. This should be bored only from 2x2 sides. It just costs so much. Then include inflation in coming decades and unforeseen problems, which always arise at such big projects. 20 billion is written on above tunnelbuilder.com site. Add at least 50%, as it is usual.

@Eszett: St. Petersburg wouldn't have much use of that tunnel. And also, this tunnel would connect 5 million Finland to small part of East Europe, nothing else.


----------



## EszettRocks (Oct 25, 2007)

keber said:


> @Eszett: St. Petersburg wouldn't have much use of that tunnel. And also, this tunnel would connect 5 million Finland to small part of East Europe, nothing else.


I'm sure it would attract at least a couple of those Russians. And to a small part of Eastern Europe? Well, that small part of land is all what is needed to connect this country to the core of Europe by rail. And that connection will be very much needed in the future.


----------



## late- (Mar 31, 2005)

keber said:


> Tunnel should be about 70-80 km long (as seen on longitudinal profiles on previous page), mostly underwater. That's why will (would) cost tens of billions.


Not necessarily. Assuming that those profiles are correct, the tunnel would be inside the Fennoscandian shield. This is formed of extremely hard granite and can be tunnelled by means of explosives at a significantly lower cost to other techniques. The important question is the actual extent and incline of the shield formation. This would need to be studied carefully.

The tunnelbuilder site seems to be completely incorrect for this project. They think that the Fennoscandian shield is a problem, whilst in Finland it is considered an advantage. Explosive tunnelling is much simpler than full profile drilling. Finland is also not dependent on Russia for connections to Europe as it would be sheer lunacy to ship anything via Russia. Instead we are dependent on shipping connections. These same connections bring massive amounts of transit freight in from Central Europe to Finland for land shipping into Russia.

Traffic profiles are also rather different for the Channel tunnel. The Åresund link is much closer in this sense. Passenger volumes between nearby cities are always much larger than similar long distance volumes. The Chunnel carries about 8 million trips pa, whilst the current ferries already carry 6-7 million trips pa between Helsinki and Tallinn even with a travel time of 1.5-2 hours. The Chunnel was also built 100% by private means with as massive cost overrun, whilst major infrastructure investments usually have public subsidies in return for expected benefits to national economies. This would mean less loans to be served.

Not to say that the tunnel would be immediately viable, but in a 50 year perspective it might very well be realistic. Rail Baltica and a functioning solution to the gauge issue would certainly be needed for this. The competitive pros and cons between shipping and rail freight will also need to be carefully considered.

A major question is also be the connection from St Petersburg. Moscow will probably be linked directly through Warsaw in time, but the current rail links between St Petersburg and the Baltics are in a sorry state and current political climates aren't too good either. At the same time a 200-250 km/h -upgrade for Helsinki - St Petersburg should be completed in 2010 and the extra distance for St Petersburg - Tallinn via Helsinki is "only" 100 km or about 30 minutes at these speeds. It remains to be seen whether a more direct connection will materialize in the many years undoubtedly needed before the tunnel project could really start.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

EszettRocks said:


> I'm sure it would attract at least a couple of those Russians. And to a small part of Eastern Europe? Well, that small part of land is all what is needed to connect this country to the core of Europe by rail. And that connection will be very much needed in the future.


Who are you kidding? Why would someone from Russia use this tunnel, if they can reach both cities directly from Russia? And it will only connect a small bit of Eastern Europe (the Baltic countries) to a small Scandinavian country (Finland). I really don't see any need for this tunnel, especially considering ferry connections between Helsinki and Talinn are excellent.


----------



## EszettRocks (Oct 25, 2007)

^^ Just check the last paragraph of late's excellent post


----------



## Lightness (Nov 3, 2006)

St Petersburg to Tallinn via Helsinki? Sounds unlikely to me. 

It's encouraging that freight has been mentioned as the core of this tunnel. The freight traffic for the Channel tunnel didn't take off right from start as intended which was the major reason behind the low utilisation.

Finland is a big exporter of heavy industrial goods such as paper mass and construction machinery with lots of goods going to the European continent. The tunnel + Rail Baltica would be a superior route to maritime and road transport.


----------



## late- (Mar 31, 2005)

Lightness said:


> St Petersburg to Tallinn via Helsinki? Sounds unlikely to me.


This would mostly be in reference to sleeper train connections further into Central Europe for sleeper trains and possibly freight. Of course a direct line from St Petersburg could run south of Tallinn, but I believe that would have to be built from scratch if speed was required. Express sleepers could get quite far into Central Europe overnight, which may be a growing market for cost sensitive travellers in the near future if the price of air travel grows.

Admittedly probably not one of the major flows for the tunnel. I would say that the two major flows would be regional passenger traffic (commuting and leisure) between Helsinki, Tallinn and their surrounding areas and freight, which currently travels by sea. Especially intermodal/containerized flows would benefit if they could be loaded into trains closer to their points of origin and final destinations instead of being taken by roads to and from harbours.

Freight from Russia might also be possible at least for intermodal loads from areas north of St Petersburg. Bulk freight from Russia would probably still be better off using current direct routes.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Some people need to get in touch with reality. This tunnel would be totally unfeasable. If it weren't expensive, it would be another story.


----------



## EszettRocks (Oct 25, 2007)

^^ Maybe we should rather wait till the study is completed and published. Before that these so-called 'facts' have no value.


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

Wouldn't it be cheaper for rail freight to go round the top of the Bothnia Gulf via Tornio, down through Sweden, and then via the bridges into Denmark and the rest of Europe?


----------



## keber (Nov 8, 2006)

late- said:


> This would mostly be in reference to sleeper train connections further into Central Europe for sleeper trains and possibly freight. Of course a direct line from St Petersburg could run south of Tallinn, but I believe that would have to be built from scratch if speed was required. Express sleepers could get quite far into Central Europe overnight, which may be a growing market for cost sensitive travellers in the near future if the price of air travel grows.


Sleeper trains are today in time of very cheap flights not an feasible option for traveling anymore. Slow, and expensive cannot be anymore match to fast and cheap flights.


----------



## vristo (Jan 31, 2007)

keber said:


> Sleeper trains are today in time of very cheap flights not an feasible option for traveling anymore. Slow, and expensive cannot be anymore match to fast and cheap flights.


Yes, today. But how about after 10-20 years? Maybe it will become nessessery to find some other choises for flying when the global climate problems (perhaps) increasing. Railways are the more enviroment-friendly. Anyway this would be a long distance project. 

For Helsinki and Tallinn the project would really a good chance to connect them togehter as twin-cities.


----------



## keber (Nov 8, 2006)

vristo said:


> Yes, today. But how about after 10-20 years? Maybe it will become nessessery to find some other choises for flying when the global climate problems (perhaps) increasing.


:uh:

Are you serious?

In time of globalisation and massive economy growth it is unimaginable, that anyone would even consider to forbid flying because of global warming. It wouldn't help to prevent global warming anyway.

No, sleeper trains in Europe will become more and more rare in the future and in two or three decades maximum virtually extinct.


----------



## vristo (Jan 31, 2007)

^^

Let's see, what happens in the future.

But before that I suggest that you read late's excellent posts carefully.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Lightness said:


> Finland is a big exporter of heavy industrial goods such as paper mass and construction machinery with lots of goods going to the European continent. The tunnel + Rail Baltica would be a superior route to maritime and road transport.


If, and only if, you find a solutions to the problem of different gauges.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

Coccodrillo said:


> Don't forget the gauge problem...


what gauge problem ? They have the same gauge


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Yes, but Rail Baltica is proposed to be standard gauge, and building the tunnel with broad gauge would reduce its attractiveness for traffic between Finland and the european standard gauge network.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

How much is interlaced track wider than one gauge alone?

Also what shall the loading gauge of the 1435 mm Rail Baltica be?


----------



## XAN_ (Jan 13, 2011)

chornedsnorkack said:


> Also what shall the loading gauge of the 1435 mm Rail Baltica be?


 It's a good question. Common for Baltic states structure gauge С and corresponding loading gauge T is bigger than classical G2 and similar loading gauges in Europe...

Loading gauge T

Loading gauge G2


----------



## Tin_Can (Jun 17, 2009)

dj4life said:


> Why wait so long and not start building it.. now?


Don't forget that such project would need extensive preparation work and early planning stages and advanced geological surveys would cost a fortune. Add that both Estonia & Finland are having many costly projects in process right now (rolling stock upgrades in both countries,Helsinki Ring Rail Line,Rail Baltica in Estonia etc),which take big share of investment budgets and it's clear that even on fastest possible way project planning simply can't start in this decade.

I think it's realistic to assume that Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel will be considered more seriously on government levels,once the Rail Baltica is up & running (~2025 onwards) 

Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel might sound like a crazy idea right now,but for comparison - not so long ago Channel tunnel was also considered to be utopian dream and yet it exists today  
Btw,ferries carry 7 million passengers between Helsinki & Tallinn in each year and crossing takes ~1,5h.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

^^ I'd say more like 2h-3,5h. The ferry(boat?) that does it in 1,5h is very small and so unstable that it doesn't travel whenever there's wind....or rain, pretty much  not to mention in winter.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ I'd say more like 2h-3,5h. The ferry(boat?) that does it in 1,5h is very small and so unstable that it doesn't travel whenever there's wind....or rain, pretty much  not to mention in winter.


Indeed. Tallink Star and Tallink Superstar take 2 hours and travel throughout winter.


----------



## StreetWarrior (Jul 1, 2013)

Just wondered: there are lots of talking about railway tunnel between Helsinki and Tallinn. 

But what about also a tunnel for cars near railway tunnel?


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

^^ an 80 km subsea tunnel for road vehicles is practically impossible because of ventilation problems and danger (fatigue, risk of distraction, monotony, ...)...


----------



## aleander (Sep 10, 2007)

StreetWarrior said:


> Just wondered: there are lots of talking about railway tunnel between Helsinki and Tallinn.
> 
> But what about also a tunnel for cars near railway tunnel?



What might be considered is a shuttle train like in La Manche. Pure road tunnel would be trouble.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

aleander said:


> What might be considered is a shuttle train like in La Manche. Pure road tunnel would be trouble.


Given that the channel tunnel still strives to recover its cost, with a much higher volume of traffic than what might be expected from a Finland-Estonia
link, I do not believe this project would be economically feasable.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

^^ Well, the current passenger flow between Tallinn and Helsinki is 7.5 million passengers a year. The Channel Tunnel has 20 million a year. That's considerably more, yes, but the Tallinn-Helsinki tunnel would also be several times less expensive to build. 2007 estimates put the cost around €2.2-2.7 billion. Even if it were €5 billion, it would still be roughly 3 times cheaper than the Channel tunnel which cost almost €15 billion in today's money.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Rebasepoiss said:


> the Tallinn-Helsinki tunnel would also be several times less expensive to build.


Can someone explain why this massive difference ? After all, it's located in coastal waters for both cases, and the Tallinn-Helsinki tunnel would be considerably longer.


----------



## Joka (Feb 7, 2006)

IIRC the geology between Helsinki and Tallinn is such that a tunnel could be bored through bedrock for most of the 80km, which is supposed to be relatively cheap..

The future belongs to competitive and attractive urban areas, Helsinki and Tallinn as one commuting area with a possible rail connection to central Europe in the future would be considerably better placed in such a competition. Worth something around €5 billion? I think so. Specially with the current interest rates, Finland could borrow for rates that would see much of the loan be eaten away by inflation.


----------



## BE0GRAD (May 29, 2010)

Alexriga said:


> It is just impossible with existing tech. Tallinn has 400k population while Helsinki less than 600k. It would be enough with 3 trains per day or less to connect them. Ticket on such trains would be extremely expensive. No big potential for freight also while Rail Baltic isn't finished. There are no chances EU would fund such project. But project and research could be made. In future tunnels wil become cheaper and it will be possible to build it. And project, geological research etc. will be made already.


I agree with this. It simply doesn't seem worth the cost.


----------



## tonttula (Nov 8, 2010)

Helsinki does have population of over 600k and 1.1 million urban area, if that really changes anything. 

While this is still mostly laughable idea, I can vaguely start seeing some kind of sense with creating tighter economic with such a heavy solution. 
At the same time there's some investments tied from both countries to the ferries operating at the moment. There's also Finnish and no doubt Estonian companies like Wärtsilä that I'm sure would want to see there being strong home market to install their maritime solutions.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

MarcVD said:


> Can someone explain why this massive difference ? After all, it's located in coastal waters for both cases, and the Tallinn-Helsinki tunnel would be considerably longer.


Tallinn-Helsinki tunnel would most likely be "bored" by explosives since the bulk of the tunnel would be in granite. Granite is quite easy for tunneling since it can bear its own weight. If you look at the highway, railway or metro tunnels in Finland or Sweden, the walls of the tunnels are mostly just covered with shotcrete (sprayed concrete).



tonttula said:


> Helsinki does have population of over 600k and 1.1 million urban area, if that really changes anything.
> 
> While this is still mostly laughable idea, I can vaguely start seeing some kind of sense with creating tighter economic with such a heavy solution.
> At the same time there's some investments tied from both countries to the ferries operating at the moment. There's also Finnish and no doubt Estonian companies like Wärtsilä that I'm sure would want to see there being strong home market to install their maritime solutions.


The Öresund connection cost around €4 billion, by the way, and nobody is doubting whether that was a reasonable investment.

But I agree, even though it might be viable in the long run, it most likely won't happen since it requires political commitment on a scale that at least the politicians in Estonia don't comprehend. The construction of this tunnel would probably take around 20 years which is a huge time scale for political decisions.


----------



## Baron Hirsch (Jan 31, 2009)

Joka said:


> The future belongs to competitive and attractive urban areas, Helsinki and Tallinn as one commuting area with a possible rail connection to central Europe in the future would be considerably better placed in such a competition. Worth something around €5 billion? I think so. Specially with the current interest rates, Finland could borrow for rates that would see much of the loan be eaten away by inflation.


But where is that good link to Europe? At the moment, the Baltic states' link to Poland is almost inexistant and/or to slow to consider. Also, neither country has the hinterland population that would make such a rail connection more interesting. Would not the future for the region rather lie in an integration of Talinn and Helsinki with St. Petersburg? This is currently unthinkable, due on the one hand to EU Schengen paranoia and on the other hand to Russian neo-imperialism, but maybe someday a stronger integration of the region would again be feasible.


----------



## Joka (Feb 7, 2006)

Baron Hirsch said:


> But where is that good link to Europe? At the moment, the Baltic states' link to Poland is almost inexistant and/or to slow to consider.


True, I would see it more as a possible long term option enabled by the tunnel. Freight traffic by trains might benefit even with existing infrastructure. The long term goal should be a high speed Baltic circle connecting all the Baltic sea cities (in my dreams). 



Baron Hirsch said:


> Also, neither country has the hinterland population that would make such a rail connection more interesting. Would not the future for the region rather lie in an integration of Talinn and Helsinki with St. Petersburg? This is currently unthinkable, due on the one hand to EU Schengen paranoia and on the other hand to Russian neo-imperialism, but maybe someday a stronger integration of the region would again be feasible.


Well better connections with (a sane) Russia would be good as well, but I don't think traffic between St. Petersburg and Helsinki can ever connect the two cities in to one region. A rail tunnel between Tallinn and Helsinki might see centre to centre traffic in ~30min though. The same tunnel could be extended to the Helsinki-Vantaa airport as well.

Anyway, I would like to see a price tag that has _some_ certainty behind it at the very least to be able to make some sort of informed decision.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

Baron Hirsch said:


> But where is that good link to Europe? At the moment, the Baltic states' link to Poland is almost inexistant and/or to slow to consider.


Well, Rail Baltic should change that. If it gets built, we will have a 240km/h standard gauge connection to Poland.


----------

