# Underwater tunnel to China being reviewed (between China and South Korea)



## Whiteeclipse (Mar 31, 2005)

Gyeonggi-do (province) has begun feasibility studies on building a mammoth underwater tunnel connecting Korea to China, a province official said Sunday (Feb/ 17).

Lee Han-joon, a chief policy advisor to the province, said in a conference held aboard a ferry heading from Pyeongtaek in Korea’s Gyeonggi-do to Rongchen, China, that a detailed review on the engineering that would be involved in the construction is being reviewed.

In addition, the overall cost and time required to complete the task are being examined, he said, adding that the benefits that can be derived from the ambitious project will receive key attention.

"This project requires long-term political and diplomatic planning on the part of the governments of Korea and China, with Gyeonggi-do offering a reference point by conducting the review," Lee said.

Pyeongtaek, located 70 kilometers south of Seoul, is a port being developed as the new logistics hub of central Korea.

Lee said that while the total length of the underwater tunnel connecting Pyeongtaek with Weihei on the Shandong Peninsula would be 375 kilometers, the average depth of the Yellow Sea along the length on the planned tunnel is about 40 meters, with its deepest point reaching 73 meters, making the construction of the tunnel possible from an engineering standpoint.

The engineer then said that Korea and China could build man-made islands near their shores that could be connected to their respective mainlands by bridge, with the remainder of the project being built by linking tunnels and more man-made islands.

Lee said that smaller-sized islands placed every 25 kilometers apart could be used as emergency exits for evacuating users in case of unforeseen developments, while a larger island located midway in the tunnel could be used as a new tourist attraction.

In addition, the official said some Chinese think tanks are conducting their own separate feasibility study on the plan.

Related to this, Gyeonggi-do Governor Kim Moon-soo said that with China’s emergence as an economic power, an underwater tunnel linking the two countries would be of considerable value.

However, he said that at present, the project is nothing more than a long-term plan that needs a lot of work.

http://www.kois.go.kr/news/news/newsView.asp?serial_no=20080218001&part=102&SearchDay=&page=1


----------



## pflo777 (Feb 27, 2003)

if the water is really just 40 m deep over the whole distance, they could just build a huge railroad embankement by filling up a 100m wide, and 50 m "tall" (10m above the water line) dam betwenn China and Korea.
They could use the same land reclamation technique, that was used in Dubai for reclaiming the Palm Islands, which are located in an area, where the sea is also about 40 meters deep.

And then maybe build 4-5 really huge bridges at various points over the whole distance, so that big ships can pass.

I guess it would be cheaper and more flexible than a tunnel, or not?


----------



## big-dog (Mar 11, 2007)

deleted


----------



## xXFallenXx (Jun 15, 2007)

oh yeah....this has a good chance of being built. :|

i'll believe it when i see it.


----------



## TU 'cane (Dec 9, 2007)

Yeah... And with all those faults so close (Japan with all their earthquakes)

Good luck with that!


----------



## Lightness (Nov 3, 2006)

You're so upbeat dude.

I think this tunnel has a big chance of happening, anything that is technically possible will get built in North East Asia.

I wonder which one of these under-sea tunnels will be built first:

1. China - Taiwan

2. China - South Korea

3. South Korea - Japan


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

Simply amazing. It will be very close to the proposed tunnel linking Yantai (Shandong) with Dalian (Liaoning)








http://www.ciobinternational.org/news/view/1277

Budget? Use (expressway, railway)?


----------



## Yux (Aug 21, 2015)

There is a similar post but on the tunnel between Korea-Japan, honestly I doubt either of them will be built, not just because of past political history or tension but also because of the cost...on another note: I do think the Kra Canal in Thailand should be built as then shipping time will decrease for transport going to East Asia.


----------



## Zaz965 (Jan 24, 2015)

340km tunnel...impossible 








http://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2015&no=1021787


----------



## Heusdens (Jun 26, 2006)

The shortest distance would be to connect it with N Korea, not S Korea. Since N Korea and S Korea relations have significantly improved, such would be a good project to make a permanent connection between the South and North. It should be a peace project. The tunnel would connect to the eastern most point of the DPRK (near to Changyon), and from there it can connect both Pyongyang and Seoul. So give peace a chance!

Other considerations are the design. Two aspects are important:

1. The shortest distance between China and Korea is still 192 km, for a tunnel to dig that is quite large (and expansive!).
2. The Yellow sea is quite shallow (44 m average; 152 m maximum) allowing other options.
4. Yellow sea has high altitide difference between low and high tides (4 - 8 m at some location) so would be opportunity for building a tidal power plant.

So, the shallow parts could be covered with a dam (which is also a tidal barage). The deeper parts could be covered with an underwater/submerged tunnel design, either floating (adding an outer tunnel with buoyance, attached to the sea floor) or resting on underwater bridge. Minimum depth onder low tide sea level some 30 m (Chinamax = 24 m), so pillars would not much larger then some 120 m.

If added a seperate thread to discuss such a novel design and approach (both the submerged tunnel idea and the tidal power generation idea as part of the design). See: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=149622599

NB. Of course the ecological impacts of a design that would change the tidal flows should be studied in depth before any design plan is implemented, and the design should change accordingly to mitigate any negative impacts on the environment as much as possible.


----------



## Heusdens (Jun 26, 2006)

Zaz965 said:


> 340km tunnel...impossible
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That distance would be quite long! Around 321 km. 

A shorter distance would be to connect it to the eastern most part of DPRK (N Korea) near the city of Changyon, the distance is then reduced to 192 km. I did not include there the possibility of connecting the island of Byangyengdo (belongs to S Korea but disputed by N Korea) which would slighly reduce the distance to 178 km for the longest strech (but then a connection still needed with mainland DPRK.

The location would be ideal, because nicely in between Pyongyang and Seoul. Distance from shore location to Pyongyang: some 165 km. To Seoul: some 230 km.

Now, before a final decission is made, given the thawn between N Korea and S Korea, it would be a good idea to propose the shorter distance to N Korea, and make it a combined peace project!

It would add a glance to the improved relations between the two Koreas as it would add a permanent connection between S Korea and N Korea. It would put the peace between Koreas into stone, so to speak.

Give peace a chance!

PS. An overland connection mainland China - S Korea through N Korea should of course be built first! Highspeed rail also of course!


----------



## Heusdens (Jun 26, 2006)

Lightness said:


> You're so upbeat dude.
> 
> I think this tunnel has a big chance of happening, anything that is technically possible will get built in North East Asia.
> 
> ...


The first to be built would be China-China (Yantai-Dalian). But I would advice them to reconsider the design, as cheaper construction would be possible. Like for instance: submerged tunnel design (and/or partial dam the strait, connecting the small islands in between - furthest point is 65 km from Yantai shore).


----------



## Heusdens (Jun 26, 2006)

pflo777 said:


> if the water is really just 40 m deep over the whole distance, they could just build a huge railroad embankement by filling up a 100m wide, and 50 m "tall" (10m above the water line) dam betwenn China and Korea.
> They could use the same land reclamation technique, that was used in Dubai for reclaiming the Palm Islands, which are located in an area, where the sea is also about 40 meters deep.
> 
> And then maybe build 4-5 really huge bridges at various points over the whole distance, so that big ships can pass.
> ...


It would block the shipping lanes and also it would alter the sea streams very drastically, harming the environment.

A better solution:

If the tunnel height itself is lets say 10 m, and there needs to be a 30 m or so space below the sea surface (low tide) to allow any size ships to pass over (Chinamax = 24 m), one could propose a combination of:
a. Trench digged to reach 40 m waterdepth.
b. Dam to heighten the underwater ground level to also 40 m waterdept in not to deep waters (up to say 50-60 m waterdepth).
c. Underwater bridge or pilar or support structure to bridge deeper water passages, also at 40 m below sea level.

Water level as measured from low tide.

Additionally, as this sea has high altitude difference between low and high tide and there is large tidal stream, there would be opportunities for harvesting tidal power too.
A partial tidal dam or barrage would be possible too, but requires ecological studies to prevent harming the environment.


----------



## MerynnTrant (Apr 4, 2018)

a waste of money.
Trump is doing what no one has ever done before and is bringing peace to the Korean peninsula. Obama couldnt do it, China didnt want to do it, but Trump is doing it.

then the underwater bridge is pointless. just go north into North Korea then south. easy peasy.


----------



## RyukyuRhymer (Sep 23, 2007)

MerynnTrant said:


> a waste of money.
> Trump is doing what no one has ever done before and is bringing peace to the Korean peninsula. Obama couldnt do it, China didnt want to do it, but Trump is doing it.
> 
> then the underwater bridge is pointless. just go north into North Korea then south. easy peasy.


maybe. there's the Tokyo bay aqua line near here..

it connects Eastern Tokyo to the peninsular part of Chiba. In some ways it kind of looks like China and Korea.. with Tokyo being where China would be.. and Chiba being the Korean Peninsula. but the scale is much smaller, its not even a tenth of the distance of this proposed tunnel..and it was very expensive. Hardly anyone uses it because the toll to use it is ridiculous. Most people would rather just take the train and go around the bay.


----------

