Tunnels To France From The Channel Islands?

[tumnus2010]

A discussion has started about the possibility of connecting Guernsey to France via Jersey. 

Mods, apologies if this is posted in the wrong place. The article does mention this could add safeguards to essential supplies for islanders. And I did wonder how political this discussion is, given the current ferry uncertainty. 

Link to bbc news article Tunnels for the Channel Islands to France

[nickgsy]

I wouldn't take this tunnel proposal too seriously. The ferry tender process is still on track for next year and is not influenced one little bit by this tunnel idea. There is no real chance of this tunnel idea seeing the light of day anytime soon. If anything Jersey is more interested in a tunnel east to France rather than connecting west to Guernsey. Saying this as a long term local Guernsey resident. This is also not the first time the idea of a tunnel has made major headlines.
 

[nickgsy]

However, one day there may be a tunnel but not yet I am guessing. After all tunnelling costs are going down year on year.

[ropax]

Indeed a tunnel from France to Jersey would be possible. But shortest way would be from D 650 passing then north of Carteret there is space between 2 beaches for to build the tunnel-gate. And on Jersey at La Coupe Parking at the North-East-End. This are 25 km - in Norway the Boknafjord-tunnel under construction will be 27 km - in Faroer the Suduroy-tunnel will be 22,5 km. So technical no problem - today - these other tunnels takes circa 8 years time - so in 10 years it could be finished to Jersey also.

Between the Islands  - there i would choose a solution with "intermediate-stop" in the south of Sark similar as it was constructed in Norway with small Islands "on the way" from A to B.

Would give a complete other live to many people - as already now in Faroer - many of the Islanders would be much more to France orientated in future and much more tourists would visit the Islands also.  

[vikingvoyager]

Would give a complete other live to many people - as already now in Faroer - many of the Islanders would be much more to France orientated in future and much more tourists would visit the Islands also.  

I've never lived on the Channel Islands but this sounds like a great argument against a tunnel

[crechbleiz]

Given the hard type of bedrock present in this area it might prove complicated and very costly to dig these tunnels.

[nickgsy]

I really hope a tunnel is never ever built to Guernsey. It would change the character of the place if whole hordes of people could just rock up and drive here or take a car on a train through a tunnel. Plus the ferry industry here would be ruined.

[CH1]

Indeed a tunnel from France to Jersey would be possible. But shortest way would be from D 650 passing then north of Carteret there is space between 2 beaches for to build the tunnel-gate. And on Jersey at La Coupe Parking at the North-East-End. This are 25 km - in Norway the Boknafjord-tunnel under construction will be 27 km - in Faroer the Suduroy-tunnel will be 22,5 km. So technical no problem - today - these other tunnels takes circa 8 years time - so in 10 years it could be finished to Jersey also.

Between the Islands  - there i would choose a solution with "intermediate-stop" in the south of Sark similar as it was constructed in Norway with small Islands "on the way" from A to B.

Would give a complete other live to many people - as already now in Faroer - many of the Islanders would be much more to France orientated in future and much more tourists would visit the Islands also.  

What about the « poetry » of the Islands, that we can we reach only sea or air ? 
I live in the area, and I don’t want - this is a personal opinion of mine - mass tourism in these Islands. 

Have you ever been in Guernesey or Jersey ? It is a quite unique match of Islands with outsanding sea and landscapes, let’s not repeat the huge mistakes and atrocities of mass tourism right there. 
as other posters are saying, the hard rock seabed is in itself cost-dissuasive. 
 

[elaine80]

Between the Islands  - there i would choose a solution with "intermediate-stop" in the south of Sark similar as it was constructed in Norway with small Islands "on the way" from A to B.

Cars are banned in Sark.

[nickgsy]

Between the Islands  - there i would choose a solution with "intermediate-stop" in the south of Sark similar as it was constructed in Norway with small Islands "on the way" from A to B.

Cars are banned in Sark.

i think the crazy tunnel plans have a man made island planned south of Sark. Built from spoils of tunnelling. I think that is what Ropax is referring to.

[nickgsy]

Indeed a tunnel from France to Jersey would be possible. But shortest way would be from D 650 passing then north of Carteret there is space between 2 beaches for to build the tunnel-gate. And on Jersey at La Coupe Parking at the North-East-End. This are 25 km - in Norway the Boknafjord-tunnel under construction will be 27 km - in Faroer the Suduroy-tunnel will be 22,5 km. So technical no problem - today - these other tunnels takes circa 8 years time - so in 10 years it could be finished to Jersey also.

Between the Islands  - there i would choose a solution with "intermediate-stop" in the south of Sark similar as it was constructed in Norway with small Islands "on the way" from A to B.

Would give a complete other live to many people - as already now in Faroer - many of the Islanders would be much more to France orientated in future and much more tourists would visit the Islands also.  

What about the « poetry » of the Islands, that we can we reach only sea or air ? 
I live in the area, and I don’t want - this is a personal opinion of mine - mass tourism in these Islands. 

Have you ever been in Guernesey or Jersey ? It is a quite unique match of Islands with outsanding sea and landscapes, let’s not repeat the huge mistakes and atrocities of mass tourism right there. 
as other posters are saying, the hard rock seabed is in itself cost-dissuasive. 

I totally agree. This tunnel would be a disaster for what makes Guernsey and Jersey so special. Even the Isle of Wight which is less affluent and closer to a major landmass doesn't want one. And yes anyone commenting on CI and CI ferry matters needs to understand the place and have at least visited here.

[ropax]

It is not possible to get everything - any Scottish Islands, Wight, Guernsey, Jersey, Man, Scilly etc. - so more bigger cheaper faster ferries with more departures are coming - so much more people will travel to/from the Islands, as f.ex. on Bornholm from 1,2 Mio. to 2 Mio. from 1997 up to now. And with any tunnel- or bridge-solution this effect will be more stronger because it is again faster, cheaper and more flexible usually. But the growing is not from tourists only - also the Islanders will much more often travel to mainland then.

Nice Example is the until 1972 really poor "dead" Island of ÖLAND in Sweden.
There was 1972 only 20.000 people anymore living (every year less people, especially younger people has left the Island) with 350.000 guest-nights. The Island was connected with a few small old ferries every 20min - 60min from ca. 6:00 to 24:00.

Then the new 6 km long bridge was opened and up today Öland is growing very well:
Today there are 27.000 people living, also f.ex. younger families can move now to the Island because they are in a few minutes with buses or car at their workingplaces and high-schools or in biggest shopping-centers in Kalmar.
Guest-nights was in 2011 1,25 Mio. and actually more than 1,5 Mio. . There are new leisure-parks and other attractions on the Island now, much more restaurants, cafes, campsites and private holiday-cottages. But the Island has still all his charme, is calm, quite and is full of undisturbed nature with a lot plants, birds etc. - if you walk 200m, 300m away from the beaches all is still calm, quite and empty. Only in the Swedish Summer-holidays ca. from 20.june to 20.aug. there are a lot tourists at the sandy beaches - but in all other times of the year it is still calm quite and relative / very empty.

And the bridge is today used from CIRCA 15.000 cars on normal days and CIRCA 25.000 cars on sunny summer-days. But nobody on the Island or in the region would wish back the old times without the bridge. And also the city on mainland, Kalmar, has made a big step forward. For all big shopping, hospital, education, event, leisure etc. all people from Öland can fast easy go day and night to Kalmar = much bigger life-quality. So the Öland-bridge was a win-win situation for all sides, the complete region also up to 50, 60 km around Kalmar on mainland - and including Öland - is the big winner.

So back to a Jersey-France tunnel - if there are today 100.000 people living on Jersey - and maybe in 20, 30, 40, 50 years with a tunnel 106.000, 108.000 or 110.000 - is it really any problem then ? No. Also future growing is possible within rules - f.ex. not to allow new XXXL hotels, no new XXXL campsites, no new XXXL apartment-skyscrapers etc. . And such a big - private build - tunnel would costs usually a high toll-fee as more than 50,- per car also - so there will not come millions of cars then. With the Ölandbridge the effect was bigger because all was paid from the Swedish state = free gratis = everybody has "tested" the new bridge then with his car. So on Jersey it would be especially in summer more tourists than today with the very basic limited slowly expensive actually ferry-service - but with a "healthy growing" Jersey would not be rolled over... - and the most French people will continue with holidays on Ile de Re, Ile d`Oleron.

Newspapers from 1972 :
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/das-100- ... 0042805472

And the bridge today (for to have 4 car-lanes foot- and bicycle-people must use the public buses):

 

[vikingvoyager]

Nice Example is the until 1972 really poor "dead" Island of ÖLAND in Sweden.

ÖLAND is ten times the size of Jersey, with 1/5 the population. it is four times nearer to the mainland and is part of the same country as that mainland.  The Kalmar Strait also appears to be somewhat shallower than the seas off Jersey

It's a terrible example!

It's also not without its issues, as this link shows:
 

• Not much to quibble about you say? On the contrary, try 25-50 million SEK ($3.7840- 7.5682 million) in lost subsidies. The definition of an island, according to the EU, is that it is surrounded by water, but if it is connected to mainland by a bridge, it is considered part of that mainland – that is, no longer an island. So no monetary aid to Öland.
  
• But the problem with the bridge (which was built in 1972 and which was once the longest in Europe) is that since Öland is a long island, the northern parts of it don’t benefit much from it. And the northern parts are sparsely populated. “And those parts would greatly benefit from subsidies,” says Lisbeth Lennartsson, chairman of the Municipal Board in Borgholm, Öland. The monetary aids Öland is missing out on are of the kind that would help strengthen the infrastructure.
  

[nickgsy]

Nice Example is the until 1972 really poor "dead" Island of ÖLAND in Sweden.

ÖLAND is ten times the size of Jersey, with 1/5 the population. it is four times nearer to the mainland and is part of the same country as that mainland.  The Kalmar Strait also appears to be somewhat shallower than the seas off Jersey

It's a terrible example!

It's also not without its issues, as this 

Totally agree a terrible example by Ropax. Ropax needs to visit Guernsey and Jersey to understand more about our islands and what makes them work economically. Also Ropax needs to understand unlike Oland, Gotland, Bornholm and Canaries....Guernsey and Jersey are vitually independent of their mother country, the UK. We receive no UK tax payer subsidies, don't have representation in the UK parliament and set all our tax rates.
 

[elaine80]

@ropax 
The Scottish islands would be happy with a reliable ferry service, and a faster and more frequent service probably isn't in the interest of the people who live there. Islanders are being priced out of the housing market by incomers who buy houses as holiday homes. Rental properties are targeted at the short-term holiday market (islanders live in mobile homes in the winter but are then evicted for the tourist season because the owners can earn more from holiday rentals). Young people are leaving the islands. Who is going to serve the visitors if all the young people are forced off the islands because they can't find housing?
 

[nickgsy]

@ropax 
The Scottish islands would be happy with a reliable ferry service, and a faster and more frequent service probably isn't in the interest of the people who live there. Islanders are being priced out of the housing market by incomers who buy houses as holiday homes. Rental properties are targeted at the short-term holiday market (islanders live in mobile homes in the winter but are then evicted for the tourist season because the owners can earn more from holiday rentals). Young people are leaving the islands. Who is going to serve the visitors if all the young people are forced off the islands because they can't find housing?

Of course as Guernsey and Jersey are seperate countries to the United Kingdom they don't have the same issues of Scottish Islands with people buying second homes easily. The Channel Islands unlike the Scottish Islands are not part of the United Kingdom. Guernsey has a highly a controlled local market where outsiders can only buy if they have a housing licence which would they normally only get as an essential work like a teacher, nurse or key finance sector worker. This underlines why Guernsey is so different to your examples.

[ropax]

There are nowhere to find 2 identically Islands. The ÖLAND-example shows, how many things on the Island becomes more better with a bridge/tunnel-connection. Islanders will travel much more often to the mainland giving more jobs and better infrastructure to the Islanders. Same things happened with a number of Islands in Norway - connected with tunnels to the Mainland (f.ex. the long Eiksundtunnel, there so many people used the tunnel that it was free of fees after 6 years only). Usually younger people stay living on the Island so if they know "I can drive also at 3:00 in the night in a few minutes to the E39 on the mainland" - or often also more new people / young families are moving then to the Islands.

Maybe for the Channel-Islands the 1st step is to get a much better ferry-service than today. With shorter travel-times, much cheaper ticket-prices, more departures per day etc. . And then in long-term a Jersey-tunnel could be an option too. But a tunnel for Guernsey I see sceptical - are there so many people who would pay 2 x tunnel-fee for to come to France ? There will electric half automatic big Catamarans much cheaper in future than to pay 1 x 29 km tunnel + 1 x 25 km tunnel - what also cost travel time plus across Jersey. Instead a new ferry-ramp at the North-West-End of Jersey for a big fast RoPax-Catamaran could help to get a much better and faster inter-island connection.

[vikingvoyager]

There are nowhere to find 2 identically Islands. The ÖLAND-example shows, how many things on the Island becomes more better with a bridge/tunnel-connection

I think everyone is probably aware of this.

There's really no need to point out what advantages a tunnel would bring without also listing the disadvantages and reasons why it would be difficult / costly to build.  Examples need to be relevant. 

[ropax]

also listing the disadvantages and reasons why it would be difficult / costly to build.

COSTS:
There is really NO private built road-tunnel and NO toll-road-road-bridge in Europe where was any problems with the costs.
To build a tunnel today is "relative" cheap and easy. There are very modern automatically big "Tunnelbohrmachines" - mainly you need only 2, 3  people managing this and some trucks day and night who bring out the material.
Maybe to a Mini-Island of 100 people only no private construction-company want to build it.
But to all bigger Islands the construction-costs are easy to get back with the fees what vehicles must pay using the tunnel (or bridge).

DIFFICULTIES:
There are no special technical difficulties today for a ca. 25 km tunnel from north of Carteret (D 201 / D 650) to the north-east-end of Jersey. Can be build with undersea-technology up to ca. 400 m deep today - or with the new Norwegian hanging-swimming tunnel system - or with the "Absenktunnel" system as in Fehmarnbelt with pre-build elements on the sea-ground. But all this is the decision of the tunnel-construction-company - and not the problem from Jersey. Jersey just order only a tunnel from A to B with (f.ex.) 3 lanes and then the private construction-company will build it "key-ready". This is the normal system everywhere in Europe - also with big motorway-bridges as the "Viaduc de Millau" f.ex. . I was just watching last week the tunnel-construction of the new motorway tunnel "Erjos" connecting the TF 1 with the TF 5 at Santiago del Teide. Costs 258 Mio. for 11,3 km only. For big tunnel-construction-companies such amounts are no problem. There are also 24/7 no workers to see at the entrance - just only sometimes open trucks are driving empty in the tunnel and full with material out again.
Just maybe 40 x 60 m space only is needed at the both tunnel-entrances for construction - this space is to buy (or rent 100 years) from the actually owners + 2 km new road up to the street D650 in France.
And if political wished or the state is rich the state can pay also for the tunnel-construction directly and then the tunnels are free for all - as all tunnels on the Faroer-Islands f.ex. .

DISADVANTAGES:
What shall this be ?
The rental-car-companies on Jersey will make less profit. Less people will use flights to Jersey. And the Ferry-route Jersey-St. Malo will end. And Jersey will get + ca. 10, 20 or 30% (depending of the fee for the tunnel per vehicle) more tourists and day-visitors than today - most of them in summer. But really - i can not see any really disadvantages with a tunnel to Jersey.

So it is just only a political decision from the people on Jersey. Do they want a tunnel - or not ?

[hhvferry]

So it is just only a political decision from the people on Jersey. Do they want a tunnel - or not ?

I think it is fair to say, by and large, they do not.

[nickgsy]

also listing the disadvantages and reasons why it would be difficult / costly to 

So it is just only a political decision from the people on Jersey. Do they want a tunnel - or not ?

Ropax I was wondering are you a true ferry enthusiast or a shipping enthusiast?

The only reason I ask is because at every opportunity you support tunnels, even though in nearly every scenario a tunnel means a loss of a ferry service or a much reduced ferry service.

You seem to see everything as a logical transport economist, excluding the romanticism of ferry travel. Also you discount the special island culture that comes from not having a fixed connection.

I may be wrong but this is how your posts seem to come across.
 

[baypaul]

also listing the disadvantages and reasons why it would be difficult / costly to build.

COSTS:
There is really NO private built road-tunnel and NO toll-road-road-bridge in Europe where was any problems with the costs.
To build a tunnel today is "relative" cheap and easy. There are very modern automatically big "Tunnelbohrmachines" - mainly you need only 2, 3  people managing this and some trucks day and night who bring out the material.
Maybe to a Mini-Island of 100 people only no private construction-company want to build it.
But to all bigger Islands the construction-costs are easy to get back with the fees what vehicles must pay using the tunnel (or bridge).

DIFFICULTIES:
There are no special technical difficulties today for a ca. 25 km tunnel from north of Carteret (D 201 / D 650) to the north-east-end of Jersey. Can be build with undersea-technology up to ca. 400 m deep today - or with the new Norwegian hanging-swimming tunnel system - or with the "Absenktunnel" system as in Fehmarnbelt with pre-build elements on the sea-ground. But all this is the decision of the tunnel-construction-company - and not the problem from Jersey. Jersey just order only a tunnel from A to B with (f.ex.) 3 lanes and then the private construction-company will build it "key-ready". This is the normal system everywhere in Europe - also with big motorway-bridges as the "Viaduc de Millau" f.ex. . I was just watching last week the tunnel-construction of the new motorway tunnel "Erjos" connecting the TF 1 with the TF 5 at Santiago del Teide. Costs 258 Mio. for 11,3 km only. For big tunnel-construction-companies such amounts are no problem. There are also 24/7 no workers to see at the entrance - just only sometimes open trucks are driving empty in the tunnel and full with material out again.
Just maybe 40 x 60 m space only is needed at the both tunnel-entrances for construction - this space is to buy (or rent 100 years) from the actually owners + 2 km new road up to the street D650 in France.
And if political wished or the state is rich the state can pay also for the tunnel-construction directly and then the tunnels are free for all - as all tunnels on the Faroer-Islands f.ex. .

DISADVANTAGES:
What shall this be ?
The rental-car-companies on Jersey will make less profit. Less people will use flights to Jersey. And the Ferry-route Jersey-St. Malo will end. And Jersey will get + ca. 10, 20 or 30% (depending of the fee for the tunnel per vehicle) more tourists and day-visitors than today - most of them in summer. But really - i can not see any really disadvantages with a tunnel to Jersey.

So it is just only a political decision from the people on Jersey. Do they want a tunnel - or not ?

A few disdvantages for you:

• Loss of Island Culture.  This can't really be underestimated.  The relative isolation of an island community is what makes it unique and different, and gives it the cultural identity.  If Jersey and Guernsey had been attached to a mainland for the last hundred years they probably wouldn't be independent countries in most respects now.
  
• Land infrastructure.  The logical places for tunnels to surface aren't necessarily the points with large areas for toll booths, border posts, road infrastructure to connect to the main cities etc.  Your 60x40m site is nothing like the space that would be needed for this.
  
• Ventilation.  Is a 25km road tunnel vented only from the ends a practical proposition now?  I'm pretty sure that was the reason that the Channel Tunnel was built as a rail only tunnel
  
• Illegal immigration.  This tunnel would be a magnet for illegal immigration, which currently isn't a major problem in the channel islands.  
  
• Connection to the wrong country.  The Channel Islands are British and proud of it (whilst being a bit French and proud of that too).  A tunnel to a different nation would at least raise the prospect of future closer links with France, and reduced links with the UK.  At the moment the vast majority of freight comes from the UK (12 sailings per week, vs 1 per week to France), meaning British products in shops etc.  Freight coming from France would change this.
  
• Connection to the wrong place.  Cartaret isn't really the point in France they would want to connect to.  St Malo has the strongest historic connections.
  
• Loss of ferry/air services.  There is little doubt that the ferry to St Malo would be lost.  As this is more a place that people would want to go to than Cartaret, this would be a concern for many.  Perhaps more importantly, the ferries from the UK would also be threatened as some of their traffic would move to the tunnel.
  
• Spoil disposal.  Your lorries pouring out of the tunnel need to go somewhere
  
• Economics.  This is a massive, expensive project that ultimately will need to be paid by the islanders (either through tolls or taxes or both).  
  
• Parking / Traffic.  The islanders don't currently suffer from the disadvantages of day tourism.  Roads on the islands would quickly get very busy with cars filled with people spending very small amounts of money.
  
• Jobs / tax.  The idea of bringing people in from France to replace the retired people on the islands has significant issues.  These people would be sucking money out of the island economy, and spending it in France, whilst the islands have to pay for more and more retired people (and their duty free boat trips which take up such a massive percentage of their pension).
  
• War.  Ultimately island nations are more secure because of their isolation.  The Channel Islands are littered with reminders of life under an occupying army.  A tunnel makes invasion very much easier, and was something that was a huge concern with the channel tunnel.
  
• Biosecurity.  A tunnel would be a very easy way for invasive species and diseases to enter the channel islands.  During Covid they lived a particularly charmed existence, that they wouldn't want threatened
  
• Threats to services.  There could be a risk of services like hospitals closing, and patients needing to go to France for more significant treatments.
  

I'm far from being an expert in this area, but it looks to me from just a cursory look that a tunnel like this could threaten the very existence of the channel islands.

[ropax]

at every opportunity you support tunnels

For me the main-point is always, that so far as possible the all 500 Mio. Europeans can travel comfortable, fast and cheap everywhere from A to B. And which all kinds of vehicle. And all what is a step more in this direction I support - f.ex. also the project that coaches can drive in future 110km/h than the 100km/h limit from 60 or 70 years ago when these vehicles was much times less safe.

So sure I am for all ferries too - but on very short routes where is a tunnel or bridge possible I would always prefer this - instead of to wait on any ferry - or necessary to book it - with usually higher ticket-prices also. So f.ex. Puttgarden-Rödby is 103,50 one-way - and planned is there a tunnel-fee of 65,- for 28 years.

[ropax]

A few disadvantages for you:

Wow... - in other countries are some people always against every new infrastructure-projects - I think they would pay you a lot for such a high number of points against... 😀.

Sure with a tunnel a few points on Jersey would be changed - if the Islanders want no changes in future then they should not build a tunnel. The same discuss was already 1967 in Öland when they decided for the bridge. So this is the same always on all Islands if they shall get a connection to mainland. To discuss all historic, common, biologic etc. points would be too much here.

[Shipping-Forecast]

Tidied up.