The proposed Northern Ireland to Scotland tunnel - it is now confirmed will not be built

[_toommm_]

Interesting proposal, especially the direct line from Stranraer to Carlisle. I’m not sure they’d be able to make it ‘high speed’ all of the way though.

Building a rail link may attract more people though as I’m sure some people will be scared to fly for a few years, even once this is all over…

Rail bosses plan to build Northern Ireland to Scotland tunnel

Irish Sea project is part of plan to improve transport links between four UK nations

www.theguardian.com

Spoiler: Article

Rail industry leaders have proposed building a tunnel between Scotland and Northern Ireland to a group tasked with exploring ways to improve connectivity between the four constituent parts of the UK.

High Speed Rail Group (HSRG) has proposed tunnelling under the Irish Sea between Stranraer and Larne in its submission to a review led by Sir Peter Hendy, who is expected to publish his interim report within weeks.

The two towns are 31 miles apart but a preferred route for the tunnel, based on 120-year-old research by the Victoria engineer James Barton, would be diverted to avoid Beaufort’s Dyke, a 1,000ft deep trench in the Irish Sea.

According to the HSRG, the tunnel would bind Northern Ireland closer to Great Britain and would “address problems in economic status of Northern Ireland post-Brexit”.


A new rail connection between Carlisle and Stranraer would be needed and the width of railway track in Ireland may need to be altered, the proposal said.

Jim Steer, an HSRG board member, said: “There is an urgent need for both new and improved transport links between the four nations of the United Kingdom, which have been systematically neglected for too long.

“Cross-border travel markets for rail were growing strongly over the period to 2019. Travel generates economic value, but the opportunity for further economic stimulus from this source will be lost if transport network capacity constraints are not addressed.

“Building on the transformative impact of HS2, HSRG are calling for these cross-border rail links to be addressed as a matter of urgency, safeguarding the strength of the whole of the UK economy in the years ahead.”

The pitch submitted to the review claims the proposal has the backing of the Northern Ireland assembly and the Scottish parliament and that there is a “feasible path to its funding from the UK Exchequer that does not adversely impact on other transport funding”.

A government spokesperson said: “We have asked Sir Peter Hendy to make recommendations on how to improve transport connectivity between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. His recommendations will be published in due course.”

The prime minister first suggested connecting Stranraer in Scotland to Larne in Northern Ireland by bridge three years ago, an idea that was widely derided by engineers.

Experts raised concerns about the practicality of constructing a bridge across the stormy stretch of water, which is more than 1,000ft deep in places, and said would require dozens of support towers at heights “never achieved anywhere in the world”.

 

[CentralTrainer]

Interesting analysis on this plan this morning:

It’s not going to happen. Not now, and most likely not ever. And should it ever be built, the cost would not be a mere £10 billion. It would be several times that amount. So let’s look at why this is less likely than seeing a flock of flying pigs whizz past your window any time soon.

One, the proposed route, from near Stranraer to near Larne, could not be used - not without a long detour around the northern end of Beaufort’s Dyke, a deep trench in the Irish Sea where more than a million tonnes of surplus munitions, including chemical weapons, has been dumped by the MoD. The Dyke has also been used to dump nuclear waste. So you can make that 31.5 miles more like 40 miles.

Two, the Channel Tunnel has a maximum depth of 380 feet. That gets it under the deepest water. A tunnel under the Irish Sea would need a maximum depth of at least 600 feet. The Channel Tunnel cost, at 2016 prices, £16 billion. Double that and add a bit more.

Three, unlike the Channel Tunnel, there is no motorway link anywhere near the mainland side of the proposed crossing. Road links to the Stranraer area are not good. Rail links are also not good, consisting of a single track line from Ayr. There was a line running directly from Dumfries to Stranraer, but that closed back in 1965.

Four, once rail traffic got through any tunnel, it would encounter a problem with the network in Ireland. Because main line railways on the island are laid to a wider track gauge than those on mainland Britain. Sure, the technology exists for variable gauge passenger trains - but would it be worth using, given the low demand? Also, the rail link to Stranraer, and railways throughout Northern Ireland, are not electrified. The tunnel would have to be. So add on the electrification bill - or add on time for traction changes. Plural.

Five, there is no demand for a tunnel - except in the increasingly fevered imaginations of some Tory politicians, and their stenographers in the press. Compare the volume of ferry traffic between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland, and that across the Channel before the Tunnel was opened. A fixed link would be a waste of scarce resources.

And Six, building a fixed link between mainland Britain and the island of Ireland will not have any effect on the Northern Ireland Protocol. Merely making it easier for goods to transit the Irish Sea crossing will not mean those goods escape customs checks.

Christopher Hope who was fed this line of diction by Downing Street today thereby the origin of this idea needs to try doing some actual journalism.

 

[swt_passenger]

High Speed Rail Group are not rail industry leaders, are they?

 

[Cowley]

Interesting analysis on this plan this morning:

It’s not going to happen. Not now, and most likely not ever. And should it ever be built, the cost would not be a mere £10 billion. It would be several times that amount. So let’s look at why this is less likely than seeing a flock of flying pigs whizz past your window any time soon.

One, the proposed route, from near Stranraer to near Larne, could not be used - not without a long detour around the northern end of Beaufort’s Dyke, a deep trench in the Irish Sea where more than a million tonnes of surplus munitions, including chemical weapons, has been dumped by the MoD. The Dyke has also been used to dump nuclear waste. So you can make that 31.5 miles more like 40 miles.

Two, the Channel Tunnel has a maximum depth of 380 feet. That gets it under the deepest water. A tunnel under the Irish Sea would need a maximum depth of at least 600 feet. The Channel Tunnel cost, at 2016 prices, £16 billion. Double that and add a bit more.

Three, unlike the Channel Tunnel, there is no motorway link anywhere near the mainland side of the proposed crossing. Road links to the Stranraer area are not good. Rail links are also not good, consisting of a single track line from Ayr. There was a line running directly from Dumfries to Stranraer, but that closed back in 1965.

Four, once rail traffic got through any tunnel, it would encounter a problem with the network in Ireland. Because main line railways on the island are laid to a wider track gauge than those on mainland Britain. Sure, the technology exists for variable gauge passenger trains - but would it be worth using, given the low demand? Also, the rail link to Stranraer, and railways throughout Northern Ireland, are not electrified. The tunnel would have to be. So add on the electrification bill - or add on time for traction changes. Plural.

Five, there is no demand for a tunnel - except in the increasingly fevered imaginations of some Tory politicians, and their stenographers in the press. Compare the volume of ferry traffic between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland, and that across the Channel before the Tunnel was opened. A fixed link would be a waste of scarce resources.

And Six, building a fixed link between mainland Britain and the island of Ireland will not have any effect on the Northern Ireland Protocol. Merely making it easier for goods to transit the Irish Sea crossing will not mean those goods escape customs checks.

Christopher Hope who was fed this line of diction by Downing Street today thereby the origin of this idea needs to try doing some actual journalism.

Amen to that.

 

[telstarbox]

I wonder if @Bald Rick could put pen to fag packet and give an indicative cost for this?

 

[waverley47]

Interesting analysis on this plan this morning:

It’s not going to happen. Not now, and most likely not ever. And should it ever be built, the cost would not be a mere £10 billion. It would be several times that amount. So let’s look at why this is less likely than seeing a flock of flying pigs whizz past your window any time soon.

One, the proposed route, from near Stranraer to near Larne, could not be used - not without a long detour around the northern end of Beaufort’s Dyke, a deep trench in the Irish Sea where more than a million tonnes of surplus munitions, including chemical weapons, has been dumped by the MoD. The Dyke has also been used to dump nuclear waste. So you can make that 31.5 miles more like 40 miles.

Two, the Channel Tunnel has a maximum depth of 380 feet. That gets it under the deepest water. A tunnel under the Irish Sea would need a maximum depth of at least 600 feet. The Channel Tunnel cost, at 2016 prices, £16 billion. Double that and add a bit more.

Three, unlike the Channel Tunnel, there is no motorway link anywhere near the mainland side of the proposed crossing. Road links to the Stranraer area are not good. Rail links are also not good, consisting of a single track line from Ayr. There was a line running directly from Dumfries to Stranraer, but that closed back in 1965.

Four, once rail traffic got through any tunnel, it would encounter a problem with the network in Ireland. Because main line railways on the island are laid to a wider track gauge than those on mainland Britain. Sure, the technology exists for variable gauge passenger trains - but would it be worth using, given the low demand? Also, the rail link to Stranraer, and railways throughout Northern Ireland, are not electrified. The tunnel would have to be. So add on the electrification bill - or add on time for traction changes. Plural.

Five, there is no demand for a tunnel - except in the increasingly fevered imaginations of some Tory politicians, and their stenographers in the press. Compare the volume of ferry traffic between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland, and that across the Channel before the Tunnel was opened. A fixed link would be a waste of scarce resources.

And Six, building a fixed link between mainland Britain and the island of Ireland will not have any effect on the Northern Ireland Protocol. Merely making it easier for goods to transit the Irish Sea crossing will not mean those goods escape customs checks.

Christopher Hope who was fed this line of diction by Downing Street today thereby the origin of this idea needs to try doing some actual journalism.

Jesus why does this need to keep coming up.

It's a stupid idea to sink some money into consultancy firms and it's never going to be built. Even in an independent Scotland and United Ireland, funded by the EU, it's still never going to happen.

Now a bridge on the other hand......

 

[philosopher]

A new rail connection between Carlisle and Stranraer would be needed and the width of railway track in Ireland may need to be altered, the proposal said.

Building a new railway line from Carlisle to Stranraer would cost quite a bit, I imagine it have to have line speed of at least 125 mph to allow a reasonable journey time between Belfast and London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool.

Plus you have to build road to rail terminals in both Stranraer and Larne.

 

[THC]

High Speed Rail Group are not rail industry leaders, are they?

The former Greengauge 21, I think. Jim Steer is involved. I worked for him at SDG thirty-odd years ago. A decent man as I recall, even if some of his ideas are quite "out there".

THC

 

[Llandudno]

I wonder what will get completed first a rail tunnel to Northern Ireland or completion of the eastern leg of HS2!

 

[37424]

Well before Brexit it would have been useful for the republic as well but now with those non tariff barriers the republic is keen to avoid freight via the UK, so a tunnel costing billions for a population of 1.9 million, Well if that's justified then a new High speed line between Exeter and Plymouth to replace Dawlish is justified as well!

How long did it take to get the Channel tunnel built with a business case probably at least 100 times better and a significantly easier engineering challenge, added to the existing lack of decent Road and Rail infrastructure at Stranraer it beggars belief.

 

[PG]

High Speed Rail Group (HSRG) has proposed tunnelling under the Irish Sea between Stranraer and Larne in its submission to a review led by Sir Peter Hendy, who is expected to publish his interim report within weeks.

I'd fully expect Hendy's report will bury this proposal at the bottom of Beaufort's Dyke where it belongs...

 

[Watershed]

I wonder what will get completed first a rail tunnel to Northern Ireland or completion of the eastern leg of HS2!

HS2 Phase 2b East (should that be 2c?) - to say the least, it's the only one of the two proposals with any sort of detailed plan!

 

[Carlisle]

Now a bridge on the other hand......

& if we were China it’d probably already be halfway to completion

 

[43096]

Jim Steer, an HSRG board member, said: “There is an urgent need for both new and improved transport links between the four nations of the United Kingdom, which have been systematically neglected for too long.

Ah, good old Jim "Bum" Steer. I don't suppose we should be surprised that he's involved.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Plenty of 'impossible' things have happened. Might just take many decades, like the channel tunnel

 

[Bald Rick]

I wonder if @Bald Rick could put pen to fag packet and give an indicative cost for this?

Well I don’t know much about this.

But I imagine that the financial cost of the tunnel, and the links either end, would be a long way north of £50bn, possibly twice that.

The political cost would be that whichever Government proposed it would be very likely to be voted out at the next election.

& if we were China it’d probably already be halfway to completion

If it were China, they would have ‘assimilated’ the Republic, and have built a 6 Lane Motorway bridge. See Macau - Hong Kong.

 

[matacaster]

Interesting analysis on this plan this morning:

It’s not going to happen. Not now, and most likely not ever. And should it ever be built, the cost would not be a mere £10 billion. It would be several times that amount. So let’s look at why this is less likely than seeing a flock of flying pigs whizz past your window any time soon.

One, the proposed route, from near Stranraer to near Larne, could not be used - not without a long detour around the northern end of Beaufort’s Dyke, a deep trench in the Irish Sea where more than a million tonnes of surplus munitions, including chemical weapons, has been dumped by the MoD. The Dyke has also been used to dump nuclear waste. So you can make that 31.5 miles more like 40 miles.

Two, the Channel Tunnel has a maximum depth of 380 feet. That gets it under the deepest water. A tunnel under the Irish Sea would need a maximum depth of at least 600 feet. The Channel Tunnel cost, at 2016 prices, £16 billion. Double that and add a bit more.

Three, unlike the Channel Tunnel, there is no motorway link anywhere near the mainland side of the proposed crossing. Road links to the Stranraer area are not good. Rail links are also not good, consisting of a single track line from Ayr. There was a line running directly from Dumfries to Stranraer, but that closed back in 1965.

Four, once rail traffic got through any tunnel, it would encounter a problem with the network in Ireland. Because main line railways on the island are laid to a wider track gauge than those on mainland Britain. Sure, the technology exists for variable gauge passenger trains - but would it be worth using, given the low demand? Also, the rail link to Stranraer, and railways throughout Northern Ireland, are not electrified. The tunnel would have to be. So add on the electrification bill - or add on time for traction changes. Plural.

Five, there is no demand for a tunnel - except in the increasingly fevered imaginations of some Tory politicians, and their stenographers in the press. Compare the volume of ferry traffic between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland, and that across the Channel before the Tunnel was opened. A fixed link would be a waste of scarce resources.

And Six, building a fixed link between mainland Britain and the island of Ireland will not have any effect on the Northern Ireland Protocol. Merely making it easier for goods to transit the Irish Sea crossing will not mean those goods escape customs checks.

Christopher Hope who was fed this line of diction by Downing Street today thereby the origin of this idea needs to try doing some actual journalism.

As I understand it, the proposal involves at least in part a sunken tube rather than trying to bore underneath the lowest parts of the Irish Sea. I have no idea as to how gradients / currents affect matters or indeed whether such a sunken tube would be submersible, merely anchored to sea bed perhaps by cables or solid pillars? Could someone with expertise in such matters give a poor layman like me some reasoned science-based answers as to what is feasible?

 

[alistairlees]

As I understand it, the proposal involves at least in part a sunken tube rather than trying to bore underneath the lowest parts of the Irish Sea. I have no idea as to how gradients / currents affect matters or indeed whether such a sunken tube would be submersible, merely anchored to sea bed perhaps by cables or solid pillars? Could someone with expertise in such matters give a poor layman like me some reasoned science-based answers as to what is feasible?

I suggest that a tube that can be sealed at both ends, has at least one pointy end, and floats, is probably the right solution.

Cheeky answers aside, it would be interesting to hear about such techniques of course.

 

[tbtc]

Well, at least this gives us a chance for threads like "My Idea To Build A New London - Stranraer Route That Includes Re-Opening The GCR, Matlock To Buxton, The North Via Bradford Crossrail And The Settle & Carlisle To Serve The Third Biggest Town In Galloway On The Way To Stranraer" - it should keep the UK's crayon industry busy for a few years.

Look, we all know that this is nonsense - Johnson needs to inject some adrenaline into the Unionists who are slowly realising that the reality of Brexit isn't quite what he promised them (rememberer, this is the PM who told people to send any customs declarations to him so he'd throw them in the bin) - we all know that he comes up with zany proposals like this every once in a while to distract the news agendas and give the impression that he's a dynamic visionary who dreams of things that no ordinary politician can grasp.

But it's going to dominate the news cycle for a few days, so the railway industry needs to show that it is similarly go-getting and wants to show that it wants to be involved/should be involved in these kind of ambitious projects, so we need senior people in the rail industry to be seen to at least pay lip service to this daft project, to ensure that "rail" is taken seriously for any actual projects act may happen in future - it's a bit like a footballer being seen to pass a fitness test for a game that he knows will be postponed due to bad weather, so that he's in the boss's thoughts for the next fixture that does take place - Johnson's tunnel is as likely to happen as the Estuary Airport/ Garden Bridge etc, but if rail wants to be seen as a tool to solve future problems then it needs to show willing for this nonsense project - got to be seen to be playing the game, I guess.

Christopher Hope who was fed this line of diction by Downing Street today thereby the origin of this idea needs to try doing some actual journalism.

It's embarrassing how compliant journalists are to Johnson's Government - for obvious reasons, sure, but no other PM of my lifetime has had such an easy ride from the press.

 

[Bald Rick]

As I understand it, the proposal involves at least in part a sunken tube rather than trying to bore underneath the lowest parts of the Irish Sea. I have no idea as to how gradients / currents affect matters or indeed whether such a sunken tube would be submersible, merely anchored to sea bed perhaps by cables or solid pillars? Could someone with expertise in such matters give a poor layman like me some reasoned science-based answers as to what is feasible?

As far as I know, there has never been a ‘sunken tube’ type tunnel, for rail or road, that isn’t on the sea bed, and isn’t protected by being buried by rock or other aggregate. It is inconceivable that there would be one that ‘floats’ a long way under the surface.

 

[nr758123]

Making announcements and putting stories like this out to the media is just as effective as actually doing something, when the sole objective is to get votes from people in the barbarous parts of the North who are stupid enough to believe them. It's also a whole lot cheaper.

 

[fishwomp]

I think we all know that this won't happen, I would like to believe that it could - after all HS2 is happening, and Swampy could get us a head start on the tunnels.

However, let's not talk over play the negative:
1. So what if it is 40 miles instead of 30? It costs more and extends journey time, but the ferry is 2 hours. The cross channel ferry is 1 hour and a 30 mile railway transformed traffic massively, for cars, freight and high speed train.

2. The depth. I don't know but why is this a problem? Can climb 1000m in 10 miles now problem.. just keep digging downwards and across, rather than straight across..

3. The gauge. Many broad gauge lines were changed in a weekend in the 1800s, changing either the larne-belfast, or the entire system isn't out of realms of possible. Heck, they might find second hand rolling stock cheaper, and pays for the work.

4. Protocol impact will be fixed one way or the other by time this opens.. no-one wants the current delays to prevail, they will improve.

5. Motorway, and lack of fast route to Carlisle, I can't dispute.. is just more cost.

 

[Taunton]

“We have asked Sir Peter Hendy to make recommendations on how to improve transport connectivity between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. His recommendations will be published in due course.”

Sir Peter is a practical guy who will doubtless point out a series of issues

- The railways throughout Ireland are a different gauge to those in Great Britain. None of the journalists have pointed this out, and as journalists nowadays only repeat what they have been told, I presume none of the scheme initial proponents realise this either.
- The railway radiating from Dublin is not going to change their gauge for the benefit of a railway from London to Belfast.
- The railway at Stranraer points the wrong way for London etc, and is at the end of about 40 miles of notably twisting single track, tagged onto the end of the Glasgow suburban network, with just a few trains a day.
- There has been an air service from London to Belfast for the past 80 years. It normally takes about an hour from a range of airports around London to two separate airports either side of Belfast, and works very well for business day return trips, as I regularly find myself. A train that takes 4 hours each way is like flying from London to Istanbul. Nobody would do that for a business day return trip.
- When some years ago there was still a ship to Stranraer and a connecting train, I chanced to be at one of the intermediate stations along the line when the connecting train to Glasgow passed through. 2-car 156. About 6 passengers. The railway lost it a generation or more ago.

 

[6Gman]

Well, at least this gives us a chance for threads like "My Idea To Build A New London - Stranraer Route That Includes Re-Opening The GCR, Matlock To Buxton, The North Via Bradford Crossrail And The Settle & Carlisle To Serve The Third Biggest Town In Galloway On The Way To Stranraer" - it should keep the UK's crayon industry busy for a few years.

Did you mention the use of 442s?

- When some years ago there was still a ship to Stranraer and a connecting train, I chanced to be at one of the intermediate stations along the line when the connecting train to Glasgow passed through. About 6 passengers. The railway lost it a generation or more ago.

London to Dublin via Holyhead is quicker and more convenient by an order of magnitude.

And barely fills half a Voyager.

 

[Bald Rick]

The cross channel ferry is 1 hour and a 30 mile railway transformed traffic massively

It isn’t and wasn’t. It was about 1hr 30 back, from Dover, when the tunnel was opened. A 35 min crossing from Folkestone, much easier access at both ends, and much more frequent / flexible crossings b6 the tunnel knocked the best part of 2 hours off the crossing when it opened.

And let’s not forget that this was a link between the 5th largest economy in the world and the largest trading block in the world - of which we were (then) a part.

Can climb 1000m in 10 miles now problem

No it can’t.

Many broad gauge lines were changed in a weekend in the 1800s

Not strictly true. There were months of prep, including installing most of the new gauge. The difference in gauge was substantial, unlike the difference between standard and Irish gauge. And all the sleepers were timber...

 

[bangor-toad]

As others have already said - I can't believe this is seriously considered.

What is the driver for this? I can't be votes. My constituency (in NI) has the largest Conservative vote in NI. Sometimes they get 2000+ votes in Westminster General Elections and keep thier deposit. A fixed link to Scotland isn't going to change the voting dynamics here at all.

Assuming that it's for some vague notion of 'nation building' it's amazing difficult and expensive engineering. Let's assume BaldRick is exactly right with his estimate of £50billion to build it and compare it to ferry costs.
The rather nice new Stena ferries cost £170million each. They have a lifespan of say 15 years each. Let's assume that they cost £10million per year to run each in staff and fuel. So every 15 years you need to spend £320million per ferry. Over a 150 year period you're only just in double digit percentage of the fixed link cost.
That bit of maths is, of course, completely bonkers but it does illustrate the startling disparity between the rather efficient ferry links which work well and a fixed link that is going to need massive further infrastructure to be useful.

On the bright side, if you can solve all of these issues then 20 miles of track between Larne and Belfast that's the wrong guage and not electrified is going to be simple!

It'd be nice if it existed but excuse me if I don't feel the need to sell my Stena shares just yet!
Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[RyanOPlasty]

As a conventional tunnel would be too deep, and a bridge too tall ( disregarding the problems with supports standing in an ammunition dump ) the solution may be a floating tunnel. Perhaps like this proposed Norwegian Floating Tunnel
The conditions in the Irish sea are very different - it would need to be much longer, and face much more serious underwater currents. ( and probably more submarines )

 

[pdeaves]

Three, unlike the Channel Tunnel, there is no motorway link anywhere near the mainland side of the proposed crossing. Road links to the Stranraer area are not good. Rail links are also not good, consisting of a single track line from Ayr. There was a line running directly from Dumfries to Stranraer, but that closed back in 1965.

Whilst I agree with your general points, if (if, if) such a tunnel was built it would unlikely be a standalone project. There would be other matching infrastructure changes at the ends such as new feeder roads. The existing arrangement in itself would not be a blocker; money would be found to complete associated works.

 

[fishwomp]

It isn’t and wasn’t. It was about 1hr 30 back, from Dover, when the tunnel was opened. A 35 min crossing from Folkestone, much easier access at both ends, and much more frequent / flexible crossings b6 the tunnel knocked the best part of 2 hours off the crossing when it opened.

And let’s not forget that this was a link between the 5th largest economy in the world and the largest trading block in the world - of which we were (then) a part.

I stand corrected, but since when was the business case of the frequency and size of economy relevant?

No it can’t.

1000m In 10 miles? Sure. Have you not the Bernina pass, or Sheffield supertram?.. (and for all I know, you might need the depth at the middle, giving you 20 miles...). Ah, and I just checked, the depth needed is 600ft, not 1000m -so whilst supertram might work, it doesn't need to

Not strictly true. There were months of prep, including installing most of the new gauge. The difference in gauge was substantial, unlike the difference between standard and Irish gauge. And all the sleepers were timber...

[/QUOTE]
Err, no, it is true.. unquestionably actually true that this happened. No-one said planning didn't happen, nor prep..

The point is that of the 6 original points, none could not be resolved.. and some rather easily..

 

[Taunton]

A government spokesperson said: “We have asked Sir Peter Hendy to make recommendations on how to improve transport connectivity between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. His recommendations will be published in due course.”

The most effective way to improve transport connectivity between N Ireland and the rest of the UK would be to cancel the £26 each way Air Passenger Duty on air services between the two. It's quite a significant part of the overall price. It was done long ago for plane flights to the Scottish Highlands & Islands.

But the government recently said that doing so was "Not value for money". See here : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49206460 . Quite why a tax reduction of a few million pounds per year is not value for money, but a £50bn tunnel connecting two relatively minor points is, somehow passes all comprehension.