SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Betteridge-says-No...-how-about-you? dept.
Boris Johnson recently suggested that the UK could construct a bridge to France, which would cross the English Channel and span at least 20.7 miles (33.3 km):
Mr. Johnson, the British foreign secretary, raised the notion in a summit meeting with French officials on Thursday, according to people briefed on the talks. The two nations agreed to convene a panel to explore big projects, and Mr. Johnson wrote on Twitter: "Our economic success depends on good infrastructure and good connections. Should the Channel Tunnel be just a first step?" The idea generated extensive news coverage and even more ample mockery on social media, where the hashtag #BorisBridge quickly gained popularity.
[...] In 1930, the British Parliament only narrowly rejected a proposed tunnel, and in the 1960s, officials in both countries confidently declared that construction of some kind of crossing was imminent.
But in an island nation whose best defense against continental armies has always been the Channel, generations of military and political leaders saw proposed bridges and tunnels as potential invasion routes. Lately, the Channel Tunnel has beckoned intruders of a different sort: migrants from Africa and the Middle East hoping to reach Britain.
The Channel Tunnel already exists:
Proposed Channel bridges have, at various times, been dismissed as possible threats to navigation. (The Dover Strait, at the Channel's narrowest point, is one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, currently used by over 400 commercial vessels a day, according to the British Maritime and Coastguard Agency.) And even when the political will existed to build a crossing, coming up with the money was always a challenge.
The Channel Tunnel, opened in 1994, cost more than $10 billion to build, and was not heavily used at first, raising questions about whether it was worth the expense. But it now carries more than 10 million passengers and more than 20 million tons of freight annually.
Also at BBC, The Guardian, Channel 4, and CNBC.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by clive_p on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:27AM (5 children)
Nobody recently seems to have considered the merits of a cross-channel dam. The straits of Dover are quite shallow - only 11,000 years ago people could walk across. While bridge supports would be vulnerable to poorly navigated ships, a dam would be robust enough to withstand impacts. The current flow would allow generation of quite a bit of hydro-power. There would need to be locks at each end to allow shipping through (and the dues would be a useful source of income as well). Both UK and France have a 12-mile territorial limit so they meet in the middle, so no international waters would be involved. A dam could carry a multi-lane highway as well as water, gas, and oil pipelines, telecoms and power cables, and so on. I guess you'd need to demolish one or two small Scottish islands to get enough rock to build the dam, but it would seem to be technically feasible. What could possibly go wrong?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nuke on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:45AM (2 children)
While the pinch point falls within British and French territorial limits, you wil find that there are international agreements that other nations' shipping can pass freely. That even applies to the Dardanelles which is a much narrower passage and with Turkey on both shores.
The Channel is one of the most important and busy waterways in the world, probably the most. It is not going to be blocked or have locks put in its way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:53AM (1 child)
It may be busy, but you can trivially go around. Britain really isn't that big.
Far more important: Suez Canal, Strait of Gibraltar, Panama Canal, and obviously any ocean. Avoiding any of these is a really, really, long trip.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:26PM
Avoiding both Suez and Strait of Gibraltar makes getting to/out of the mediterranean sea more than just a "long trip". Hauling freight ships over land tends to be a bit of a pain.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:30PM
Uhh, but won't the water just go around the other side between Scotland and Iceland?
Actually with tides this would make a very interesting concept. Maybe build a two-way hydroelectric plant? :)
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:27PM
This sounds interesting, but I really question the utility. They already have the Chunnel, so why do they need more links? Especially with Brexit; the last thing they need is more economic links, when Britain is pulling away from the EU and becoming more isolated. And if the Chunnel is really not enough, just build another tunnel or two next to it. It should be easier now with today's more advanced TBMs. Tunnels are better anyway: a bridge-tunnel like they're talking about is complicated and affects shipping traffic a lot. The Chunnel doesn't.
Anyway, I have a better idea of where to put a dam: the Strait of Gibraltar. Dam up the entire Mediterranean, and then lower the water level, and there'd be tons more usable land in that area. Here's a Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] about the concept.