A bold underwater rail route designed to connect continents through a deep-sea tunnel is splitting specialists and taxpayers alike

On a foggy Tuesday morning, a few people at a café by the sea are looking up at a TV screen that shows a sparkling 3D animation of a train moving silently through a glass-blue ocean, with whales floating by like slow planes. One person laughs quietly, and the other complains about taxes. The sound is off, but the headline is clear: “World’s Deepest Underwater Rail Tunnel Approved in Principle.“

The retired engineer at the next table folds his newspaper and says, “What a lovely dream.” Or a very expensive error.

No one says anything. They sip their coffee, unsure of whether they are scared or interested.

The barista shakes his head and looks at the glowing sea tunnel on TV.

Read this too: Why some alerts are annoying and how to make them easier to follow.

One question hangs in the air like the ocean itself.

A train line that runs under the ocean and changes the world map

The pitch sounds like something you would tell over drinks late at night in a science fiction book. A fast rail line that goes underwater and connects two continents with a single, long steel tube. It goes deeper than any tunnel ever built. No more red-eye flights or long layovers; just a smooth train ride through thousands of meters of dark water.

Politicians say it’s a “once-in-a-century project” and a “civilizational leap.”

For many taxpayers, it sounds more like a check for their future.

People who are for it love to show the map. They draw a thick line across the ocean and say that the tunnel could cut travel time between major business centers in half. Picture this: you leave one continent after dinner and arrive on another for breakfast without ever having to wait in line at an airport.

Early concept studies talk about maglev technology, cabins with pressure, and evacuation pods that are spaced out every few kilometers. According to news channels, the cost is somewhere between the budget for a medium-sized war and ten years’ worth of national health spending.

People remember those numbers for a long time after the TV is off, even though they aren’t very clear.

There is a tough engineering problem behind the dreamy pictures. The planned tunnel would go several hundred kilometers deep, where the pressure could crush a submarine. It’s hard to know what the rock layers will be like, the currents are strong, and maintenance would mean sending people and robots into a world that people don’t know much about.

Project leaders say that new materials, AI-assisted monitoring, and modular building will help keep those forces in check. People who don’t believe say that “new” often means “not tested at this size.”

The truth is that both sides are making educated guesses because no one has ever done this before.

There are billions of dollars that are lost. Who is paying for them?

Behind every flashy presentation is a simpler, more awkward question: Who pays when the bills come in? Getting money right now is a complicated mix of public money, sovereign funds, and private investors who want real guarantees, not fairy tales.

People are being told that ticket sales, shipping costs, and more business across the ocean will make the tunnel “pay for itself.” That story makes me feel better.

History shows that megaprojects don’t always stay within their original budget.

Some taxpayers still think about other “projects of the century.” Stadiums that are now full of weeds. Roads that go to open fields. A high-speed line that was built with a lot of talk but wasn’t used much because fares went up and maintenance costs went through the roof.

Also read “I saved $1,200 a year by canceling services I didn’t need anymore.”

People in a coastal town go to public meetings with questions written by hand and memes printed out. A fisherman wants to know what will happen if construction gets in the way of spawning grounds. A nurse wants to know why there is money for tunnels but not for the roof of the hospital, which leaks every winter.

Planners for the city respond with charts. The room sighs back.

It’s not just about the numbers on a spreadsheet; it’s also about who takes the risk when those numbers go wrong. Private partners agree on safety rules, minimum revenue guarantees, and long-term concessions. When governments talk about “strategic investment” and “shared prosperity,” it sounds good until the first time they go over budget.

Many experts agree that there should be openness before the first rock is drilled. This means that there should be clear price ranges, independent audits, and risk assessments that anyone can see. Wanting to get ahead doesn’t make people sick. They don’t like it when things surprise them.

Let’s be honest: after a long day at work, no one really reads a 400-page feasibility report.

How to handle the excitement, the fear, and the small print

Most people won’t buy this tunnel through policy papers; they’ll buy it through headlines, reels, and videos that go viral. That’s when the real work begins: learning to see the trade-offs instead of just the animation. Start with a simple habit. When you hear a big promise, the first thing you should think is, “Compared to what?”

What kind of traveler, route, and price do they mean when they say “50% faster travel”? What do they think will happen with future flights if it says “millions of tons of CO₂ saved”? How many years does that mean?

This small reflex turns big dreams into things you can really weigh.

Many people feel bad if they don’t have a clear, well-informed opinion right away. They scroll and skim, thinking they need to learn everything about marine ecology, geology, and macroeconomics all at once. We’ve all been there: the point in the argument when it gets too complicated for you to follow.

That’s okay. It’s more realistic to not know everything, but to see the gaps. Find out how local voices fit into the story. First, ask who will gain and then ask who will gain last.
The easiest questions to answer honestly are often the ones that no one on stage wants to answer directly.

At a recent panel, a marine biologist did a better job than any politician of getting the mood right.

She said, “Deep-sea ecosystems are like libraries that we haven’t finished organizing yet.” “We want to drill and blast through shelves that we haven’t even opened yet.”

Then she pointed to a slide that most of the people in the room took pictures of with their phones:
Suggested tunnel length: longer than any that have been built so far, in much worse conditions
The projected cost range is so big that it could hide a lot of national budgets.
The main promises are that travel will be faster, the economy will grow, and emissions from long-haul flights will go down.
The biggest risks are going over budget, safety being put under a lot of stress, and problems in deep water.
We don’t know how to keep it going over time, how stable the government is, or how climate change affects the geology of the ocean.
That list doesn’t say if you agree or disagree. It just makes the question seem more real.

A dream, a bet, or both?

People want to do more than they can on the underwater rail line. It shows the part of us that wants to dig, build bridges, and dig tunnels to get away from where we are. It also shows us clearly how the systems we use to decide who gets money and whose voices matter when we change the map.

People will see the same spark that lit up the first transcontinental tracks, canals, and space stations in this tunnel. Some people will see a weak public budget that has gotten into deep water, both literally and figuratively. A lot of us are in the middle. We’re excited about the idea of taking a train across oceans, but we’re also worried about how much it will cost and where we won’t be able to see.

The real test may not be whether the tunnel gets built, but how honestly the decision-making process is shared. That might be the deepest trench we still have to cross.

🪙 Latest News Join the Group