By Richard Digard
FOR the best part of a day last week, Guernsey’s flag-carrying airline Aurigny appeared to have no working aircraft. The chaos, as you can imagine, was profound. True to its ethos, the airline worked hard and long to mitigate this mass outbreak of planes going ‘tech’ and get passengers where they wanted and needed to be.
Equally true to form, the airline’s handling of the PR side of things was similarly chaotic, with no one really knowing what was going on and when or what the remedial solutions would be.
Add to that the recent procession of named storms disrupting sea travel and this week’s roadshow in Jersey and Guernsey promoting the possibility of linking the islands by tunnel to mainland France really could not have been better timed.
Whatever your views on the project, the brutal reality is that, without connectivity, these islands have no future. That’s connectivity we’ve taken for granted over the years and, for those of us with a few miles on the clock who remember the old mail boats and the Trislanders that enabled me to be in Jersey for a 9am meeting and back behind my Guernsey desk by around 3pm, it’s getting steadily worse.
And that’s before you factor in the recent frisson over ‘is Condor Ferries going bust or not?’. Yes, another operator would step in even if it was, but since the islands run out of fresh food in three days if weather disrupts supplies, rearranging a service would not (and excuse me for saying this) be exactly plain sailing.
Because of the tyranny of deadlines, I wasn’t able to hear Arild. P. Sovik, network director at the Norwegian Tunnelling Society, or Teitur Samuelsen, chief executive of Eystur-og Sandoyartunlar, the Faroe Islands government-owned tunnel corporation, at the Chamber of Commerce events this week where they were discussing the practicalities and benefits of fixed links between Guernsey, Jersey, and France.
I’m guessing, however, that the organisers, an outfit called Connect 3 Million, didn’t pay to get them over to say it’s a mad idea with no chance of success. After all, the Faroese experience suggests tunnelling is a) successful and b) addictive – their 53,000 population (even smaller than Guernsey’s) now have 20, of which three are long tunnels under the sea. Two more are already under construction, and another 14 are on the drawing board.
From that, it’s clear the question isn’t “can it be done?” but “should it be done”? For Connect, a consortium founded in 2019 of local businesses supportive of investigating a fixed link, the answer is clear: it’s a social, economic and environmental project with the potential to transform the lives and prospects of citizens, businesses and society in the Channel Islands.
They do suggest some caution, however, taking into account technical, environmental and economic factors, followed by a thorough feasibility study, along with input from stakeholders and communities, which would be essential in assessing the viability and desirability of such a tunnel.
Why would you bother? Apart from the issues with air and sea connectivity I’ve already mentioned, the big benefit would be opening up the possibilities of a large commuter population from Coutances, as well as leading to increased trade, tourism, shared infrastructure and business collaboration, promoting economic growth for both islands.
The chief of those, according to Connect, is establishing that commuting population where there is income tax take, but no additional stress on island infrastructure, which they estimate could double GDP and increase government general revenue by £500m per annum in ten years. Its early estimate is for 8,000 passenger movements a day in each direction, between Jersey and Guernsey.
All this would need to be validated, of course, as would Connect’s claim that 120mph electric trains could whisk us from St Peter Port to Jersey Airport in seven minutes and St Peter Port to St Helier in 15 minutes. That alone gets my vote, even at the projected toll cost of £15 each way. Bargain for a day out in the larger island, eh?
If you’ve got this far, what sort of a reader are you? One who’s thinking, that can’t work because? Or one who says, for that to happen we’d need to… As you’ll have guessed, I’m in the latter camp. As I’ve argued in the past, carrying on as we are isn’t getting the results we need now, let alone 15 or 50 years in the future.
I’ve hawked the tunnel idea around a few people in recent days. Some instinctively got the possibilities. Most said, “You’re joking – the States can’t even agree on extending the runway in Guernsey or reclaiming land at Belle Greve Bay” and that’s true. Guernsey doesn’t do big picture stuff very well. I’m not sure Jersey does either, given the hospital debacle, the slow decline of Fort Regent and the controversy over a “Jersey” wind farm off France.
And that alone is why the feasibility of a tunnel ought to be investigated. The islands need investment, suffer from a lack of critical mass, and have never seriously attempted collaborative working. A project like this would force them to think harmoniously, instead of competitively, work on maximising the benefits for each island and overcome the inevitable barriers.
Elsewhere, Critical Economics’ Chris Brock has been arguing for the integration of public services in both islands* and ensuring that CI public expenditure, now standing at £1.65bn a year, is contained as far as possible and even reduced by harnessing the benefits of critical mass and economies of scale.
On paper, then, there are many reasons why the islands should seriously consider the feasibility of a fixed link and, if possible, what would have to be done to make the project a reality.
It won’t happen, of course. There will be no political buy-in or enthusiasm, in part because those opposed to it are especially vocal, but particularly because neither island currently has the civil service capacity to evaluate such a complex undertaking.
And that’s rather depressing. Just when we need to contemplate wider horizons, we’re being forced to think small.
*policy.je/think-pieces
