Drilling through solid paperwork for tunnels
The latest discussion on subsea tunnels in Shetland has raised an interesting question: why does it seem to cost so much more to build a tunnel here than it does in the Faroe Islands?
Constructing tunnel to Yell could require budget of £400m, estimates suggest
The Faroese have spent the past twenty years quietly doing something rather unusual. They identify two islands separated by water, design a tunnel, drill through the rock, and then drive through it.
The Faroese approach appears refreshingly simple:
- Decide a tunnel is needed
- Design it
- Build it
- Drive through it
Our approach sometimes feels more like:
- Decide a tunnel is needed
- Commission a report
- Consult on the report
- Review the consultation
- Update the report
- Commission another report
- Discover the estimate has doubled
- Begin discussing ferries again
By the time we reach step eight, the Faroes have probably opened another tunnel.
What makes this even more frustrating is that Shetland is not starting with a blank sheet of paper. Fixed links have been studied, debated and investigated for decades. Geological surveys, marine investigations, seismic studies, route alignments, engineering assessments and business cases were carried out as far back as 2000–2002, with further work commissioned repeatedly ever since.
In fact, some of the original reports are now old enough to buy a pint, and start asking why they are still being consulted.
One of the most common objections raised is geology. Yet extensive investigations have already examined the seabed and underlying rock conditions. While Shetland’s geology is not identical to that of the Faroe Islands, modern tunnel studies consistently point out that the engineering principles, survey techniques and construction methods remain broadly the same.
Unless the bedrock has secretly relocated itself to Orkney, it is difficult to argue that we are discovering this information for the first time.
At some point, the question stops being, “do we know enough” and becomes, “how many times do we need to learn the same thing?”
The Faroe Islands, with a population of around 55,000, have developed an impressive network of subsea tunnels, including the world’s only undersea roundabout. They looked at rough seas and island geography and concluded the best solution was to connect communities.
We looked at rough seas and island geography and concluded another consultant should have a think about it.
At times it feels as though Shetland’s biggest construction project is not a tunnel at all, but the ever-expanding archive cabinet required to store studies about tunnels.
Nobody is suggesting we start digging tomorrow morning. But after decades of investigations, consultations, assessments, appraisals, reviews and reappraisals, it would be nice to know whether we are moving towards a decision or simply creating a long-term employment programme for ring binders.
The Faroe Islands have not built tunnels simply because they were wealthy. They became more prosperous because they invested in connecting their communities.
Perhaps that is the real question for Shetland. Are we measuring the cost of building tunnels, or are we ignoring the cost of not building them?
Every year spent debating, reviewing and reassessing comes with its own price tag: longer ferry disruptions, higher operating costs, recruitment challenges, lost opportunities for businesses and continued uncertainty for island communities.
The Faroese looked at connectivity as an investment in their future. We seem determined to calculate the bill while forgetting to count the benefits.
The difficult part is not drilling through solid rock beneath the Atlantic. Engineers have been doing that successfully for decades. The difficult part appears to be drilling through solid paperwork above it.
After all, if the Faroese can build a roundabout at the bottom of the ocean, surely we can manage to reach a decision on dry land.
Regina Irvine
Whalsay
