Historically, two alternate schemes of a crossing of Nevel’skogo Strait have been considered for the Selikhin – Nysh Railroad between the mainland and Sakhalin Island, which is now under design: tunnel and bridge. Considering the high seismicity of the construction site, and the large stratum of slightly cohesive soils, which resides in the bottom of the strait, the extremely severe climatic conditions (significant wind action, large temperature gradients, loads due to ice floes drifting against bridge supports, and icing-over of span structures), as well as high current velocities in the easily scoured channel, which result in its deformation, it can additionally be presumed that construction of the crossing and, in particular, its operation will be rather difficult and expensive. In 2001, the JSC MIGG in conjunction with a branch of the JSC TsNIIS — NITs “Mosty” developed a new scheme for a railroad crossing of the strait [1], which will more reliable in service and less capital-intensive to construction as compared with the alternatives. The essence of this scheme consists in the fact that the Nevel’skogo Strait is completely spanned by a dead-end dike, and water flows and shipping are passed through a navigation canal cut into the scour-resistant bedrock of the eastern extremity of Cape Nevel’skogo. The canal is crossed by single-span suspension bridge, the length of which in this case will not be measured in kilometers, as in a competitive scheme, but in hundreds of meters. As compared with the bridge scheme, the dead-end dike is safer with respect to ice loads, and less sensitive to seismic effects. The supports of the suspension bridge areto be placed on a durable rock bed, will not come in contact with the water, and will not be subjected to either channel deformations, or ice effects. In contrast to the alternatives, this crossing scheme is characterized by maximum utilization of local construction materials and a minimum demand for imported materials (metal, cement, timber, etc.); this will satisfy in the best way possible the construction and economic conditions of the region, which is remote from industrially developed areas. Drilling-blasting, loading-transporting, and bottom-deepening operations, which have been rigorously mastered in domestic practice, will prevail in its construction. They can be rapidly deployed, and do not require the purchase of expensive foreign equipment, and also the importation of foreign specialists. The bridge, the cost of which will be approximately 20% of the total expenditures, and for the case in question, will not situated on a critical route, can be completely assembled even before the earth-and-rock work is completed. The rock sheared from the shaped depression of the canal will be placed in the dike, and the closeness of the waterway to Cape Nevel’skogo dictates a minimum of deepening work (in the sandy channel) involving its connection with the canal. This, of course, is also explained by the economy of the proposed scheme for a railroad crossing, which will require lower capital expenditures than the competitive schemes. As for the ecological aspects of the plan, the emotionally proposed alternate scheme for the crossing may be perceived as extremely radical. The hydraulic analyses and mathematical modeling that have been performed, however, have indicated that in terms of the degree of influence exerted on the environment and hydrological conditions of the strait, it does not differ appreciably from the bridge scheme, and is feasible for implementation from the standpoint of nature management. An expert council functioning on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation considered all three schemes for a railroad crossing of the Nevel’skogo Strait (conclusion No. 4 from 10 February 2002), acknowledged them to be technically feasible, concurred with the fact that the cost of the crossing scheme with a dead-end dike and navigation canal may be lower as compared with the other schemes, and proposed to finalize the “Provisions for Investment” with Power Technology and Engineering Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008