Guernsey should not give tunnel another thought
I HAVE been a regular visitor to your lovely island for 16 years and an avid reader of the Press. On return from my latest trip, I read the 25 January edition, and in particular the article on page three advocating that consideration should be given to a feasibility study into a project for a twin bore rail tunnel between Guernsey and Jersey at an estimated cost of £2.6bn. This suggestion is accompanied by a claim that Guernsey could be left behind if it doesn’t proceed, as Jersey might link to France first by tunnel.
The distance from Jersey to Guernsey is in excess of 40 kilometres, and even if the estimated cost of the project is correct, how would this be financed? Guernsey regularly debates with anguish the losses with Aurigny of a few million pounds – a comprehensive feasibility study into a project of this magnitude would definitely cost in the upper tens of millions of pounds. I would urge all persons in a position of authority in Guernsey to reject this idea for the following reasons:
1. Where will Guernsey and Jersey find such sums of money, even for a feasibility study, especially as there would be no payback at all for up to 10 years? What would be the reaction of politicians if costs escalate after the start of the project – just look at HS2, an increase from £55bn to £105bn before construction has even started.
2. Where in St Peter Port and St Helier could you site a rail terminus complete with construction and maintenance facilities?
3. If a rail service is provided, what would be the effect on the air and sea links between the islands and other parts of the UK mainland? Aurigny is already making a loss. Condor freight services would also be affected, making their routes less viable and possibly requiring a subsidy too.
4. Project specification, environmental studies, economic analysis, design, financing and final approvals would take at least three years – compare the scale of this project with the length of time over which an extension to the airport runway has been discussed. That project is simple compared with the tunnel.
5. Unlike a UK or French land-based project, the islands do not have the construction infrastructure and back-up to carry this out.
6. The article also claims that construction of the tunnel will reduce tax by growing GDP, an assertion that appears to ignore the crippling financing and running costs of a £2.6bn tunnel.
7. Unlike the UK to France Channel Tunnel which was constructed through an ideal medium – chalk – the ground conditions for this tunnel are likely to be difficult for tunnelling, with varied types of granites and shales. The UK to France Channel Tunnel is shorter than this proposed tunnel, but still cost £12bn. at today’s value.
8. The cost of such a project is not just the construction cost – the ongoing annual financing and operational costs covering staffing, power, ventilation, renewals and pumping etc. would be such as to make ticket prices unaffordable.
Guernsey should not give this issue another thought, the need is not there, and I am sure that the financing of the construction and operational costs would bankrupt the islands.
DAVID JEFFERY (RETIRED CIVIL ENGINEER)
64, Dillingburgh Road,
Eastbourne,
East Sussex,
BN20 8LU.