The UK government may be on the verge of giving the okay to a long-discussed project to link Northern Ireland to Scotland with a rail-and-road tunnel under the Irish Sea roughly the length of the one linking England to France.
Studies of the tunnel were commissioned last year, with the committee headed by the chief of Network Rail, the quasi-government agency that provides the infrastructure for the UK’s rail system. The project has had strong backing from Prime Minister Boris Johnson and has gotten the nickname ‘Boris’s Burrow.
Johnson is believed to be enthusiastic about the idea at least in part because it would create a direct link among all four of the UK’s ‘home countries (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and might help un-knot some of the issues resulting from Brexit. The project is estimated to cost about $2.8 billion.
Skeptics say it wouldn’t resolve Brexit issues that come from agreement that there should be no fixed border between Ireland, an EU member and the British north, which puts Northern Ireland in a different customs and rules status from the rest of the UK.
Earlier, a bridge was considered, but the project changed to a tunnel after estimates that heavy weather in the Irish Sea would close a bridge as much as 100 days a year. Another factor that may enter into the decision on the tunnel: would it reduce support in Scotland for independence, and what would happen if the tunnel were built, and Scotland then seceded and joined the EU.
The cynics here – me included – see this whole thing merely as a ploy to divert attention from the many failings of Johnson and his government. The cost estimates reported in the UK media, incidentally, are much higher than the $2.8 billion quoted above – a minimum of £10 billion is suggested. I like the comment of one Conservative MP who suggested that the trains going through the tunnel “could be pulled by an inexhaustible herd of unicorns overseen by stern, officious dodos”.
Based on experience of other large projects this side of the Atlantic, I’d say an ante of $2.8B, a close-eyed look of $10B and a later revelation that the approach roads weren’t included in the price and would be an additional $3B would be about right.
I also found it concerning that it is conceived as a road-and-rail tunnel; in the Channel Tunnel, the idea of road traffic was put aside because the cost or even possibility of providing effective ventilation was huge.