Comparison between the Channel Tunnel and the Seikan Tunnel - Essay Example

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CHANNEL TUNNEL OF UK AND FRANCE AND THE SEIKAN TUNNEL OF JAPAN Introduction This paper aims to give a comparison between the Channel Tunnel (UK and France) and the Seikan Tunnel (Japan). It seeks to address engineering, economic, social, political, and sustainability issues. The Channel Tunnel links Folkestone, Kent in United Kingdom with Coquelles, Pas de Calais in Northern France with its 50.5 kilometer length. Although the Seikan Tunnel in Japan is longer with its 53.85 kilometer measurement, the Channel Tunnel has however the longest undersea portion among all the tunnels in the world (Rail Europe, 2009). The Channel Tunnel carries passenger trains such as the Eurotunnel Shuttle roll-on/roll-off vehicle transport and international rail freight trains. As early as 1802, a cross-Channel fixed link has emerged as an idea but materialization has pushed through only in 1988 where its construction finally began (ibid). The British Channel Tunnel Group, which was tasked to oversee the construction of the Tunnel, involved two banks and five construction companies. Advising on financing and securing loan commitments were the roles of the banks and on July 2, 1985 was the Channel Tunnel Group/France-Manche finally formed. The 1975 project, which includes 11 volumes and a substantial environmental impact statement was the basis of the submission to the British and French governments of the Channel Tunnel Project (Wilson and Spick, 1994, p. 41). On the other hand, the Seikan Tunnel of Japan is considered the world’s longest undersea tunnel albeit the Channel Tunnel has a longer under-sea portion. The Seikan Tunnel travels beneath the Tsugaru Strait as part of the Kaikyo Line of Hokkaido Railway Company, and amidst its being the longest traffic tunnel in the world was however left underused due to faster and cheaper air travel. The main Seikan Tunnel was completed in 1985 while its final completion was scheduled for 1987 (Matsuo, 1986) but was however completed in 1988 as mentioned earlier. It finally opened on March 13, 1988, with constructions costs totaling to US$3.6 billion (Morse, 1988). Engineering Issues Embodying the Two Channels Twenty years of surveying initially took place before the construction of the Channel Tunnel finally pushed through in which a chalk mark stratum gave way for a tunnel route to be bored. Said chalk mar was favourable to tunneling, strength, and ease of excavation (Kirkland, 1995). The chalk mar in the English side had the entire length of the channel whilst variable and difficulty geology ran a length of 5 kilometers on the French side. There were three bores consisting the Channel Tunnel, namely, two 7.6–meter diameter rail tunnels (30 meters apart) and 50 kilometers in length in between of which is a 4.8-meter diameter service tunnel. Cross-passages and piston relief ducts are also present in the tunnel as it was also used as a pilot channel. The Service Tunnel Transport System (STTS) and Light Service Tunnel Vehicles are used for the service channel. The Channel Tunnel became the world’s second largest rail tunnel behind the Seikan Tunnel in Japan with its under-sea section considered the longest. It may also be pointed out that tunneling between England and France posed a major engineering challenge with the undersea Seikan Tunnel in Japan as the only precedent. Major water inflow is considered a serious risk due to the water pressure from the sea above under weak conditions. The Channel Tunnel project’s objective was to construct two rail tunnels that measure 7.6-metre (25 ft) diameter, 50 kilometers in length, with the service tunnel always preceding the rail tunnels by at least one kilometer to determine the ground conditions (Wilson and Spick, 1994, p. 37). With greater permeability to water, the construction on the French side used earth pressure balance TBMs with open and closed modes, which were of a closed nature during the initial five kilometers that have however operated as open, boring through the chalk mar stratum (Kirkland, 1995). Moreover, the Channel Tunnel construction used precast segmental linings in the main TBM drives with different solutions being used on the English and French sides, such as speed and bolting of cast-iron lining segments in areas of poor geology on the English side and neoprene and grout sealed bolted linings made of high-strength reinforced concrete or cast iron on the French side (Wilson and Spick, 1994). The Channel Tunnel project diverts Eurostar traffic away from the conventional rail network apart from providing faster links between Britain and continental Europe. The design and management of the project was awarded to Rail Link Engineering (RLE), a consortium of four engineering companies, namely: ARUP, BECHTEL, HALCROW and SYSTRA (SYSTRA, 2009). There were 250 engineers and technicians allocated to the project, with SYSTRA’s involvement mainly focusing on design and construction engineering, tunnels and bridges, track and catenary, signaling, energy supply, testing, delivery, and launch, maintenance preparation, and pre-project railway studies of Saint-Pancras station (ibid). The first section of the tunnel includes 70 kilometers of line, 11 bridges, 3.5 kilometers tunnel length, and four Eurostar trains an hour. The second station, on the other hand, includes a length of 39 kilometers, two intermediate stations, 23 kilometers length of tunnel, 6 kilometers length of viaducts, and eight Eurostar trains an hour (ibid). The Seikan Tunnel, on the other hand, has narrow gauge track being originally laid through, but in 2005, dual-gauge track was laid which linked the tunnel into the Shinkansen network. Fifty-two kilometers of continuous welded rail consist the tunnel, with two stations being located within the tunnel itself, serving as emergency escape points. These stations provide the equivalents safety of a much shorter tunnel in case of a fire or other disasters. Exhaust fans for extracting smoke, television cameras for helping route passengers to safety, thermal fire alarm systems, and water spray nozzles were installed in order to enhance the effectiveness of the escape shafts located at the emergency stations (Morse, 1988). There were 1.4 million people in total employed in its construction as well as 1,276 km of cable and 168,000 tons of steel being used. The unpredictable nature of the surrounding rock made the Seikan Tunnel impossible to bore; thus, 6.3 million cubic meters of earth were blasted out. The Tunnel runs 787 feet below the surface of the Tsugaru Strait, which is at its deepest point. Seven billion dollars were entailed in the construction of the Seikan Tunnel, which in fact consists of three tunnels, particularly a two-track main tunnel, a smaller service tunnel, and a smaller pilot tunnel below the other two. The service and pilot tunnels are currently used for maintenance and evacuations (Sekicho, 2002). Compared to most railways consisting of short rails being bolted together, the Seikan’s rails, as those of the Channel Tunnel’s, are welded together, making them the longest rails in the world. Both lines of the Seikan rails are designed to accommodate regular trains as well as wider Shinkansen trains (ibid). Although Shinkansen trains have yet to pass through the tunnel, there are however thirty limited trains that enter the tunnel each day. It may be inferred that both the Channel Tunnel and the Seikan Tunnel have employed advanced engineering procedures upon their establishment and such have not grown outdated despite their being built in the 80s. More so, strong materials were used for each and even though they are not totally the same in many aspects of construction, they employ sturdy engineering materials that pass the test of time. It is significant to mention that the Seikan Tunnel has considered the installation of facilities that help passengers to alight comfortably and safely such as television cameras for helping route passengers to safety. The Channel Tunnel’s quality and safety assurance is however ascertained by pre-project railway studies aiming to test its reliability. Economic Issues The Channel Tunnel allows for gains in the traditional industries, which are largely dependent on the development of Ashford International passenger station, without which would make Kent to be totally dependent on London’s expansion. Significant gains in manufacturing are caused by a strong internal symbolic effect on the Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Wilson and Spick, 1994). Economic gains in all adjacent regions were not necessarily induced by the removal of a bottleneck through the Channel Tunnel, with the image of a region being associated to the European high-speed transport and active political response being more important for the economic development of the European region. The regional development induced by the Tunnel Channel is small compared to general economic growth in the region, wherein Southeast England tends to benefit socially and developmentally from cheaper and faster transport to continental Europe, with equal distribution of benefits through the region being seen as unlikely (Button, 1990). Few and small impacts on the wider economy were posed five years after the opening of the tunnel and it was difficult to identify major developments associated with it. With both the Eurotunnel and Eurostar being heavily involved in the construction and operation of the Channel Tunnel which had to resort to large amounts of government aid to deal with incurred debts, it was even postulated that the British economy would have been better off without the costs incurred from the construction project (ibid). Comparing the Channel Tunnel with the Seikan Tunnel in terms of economic gains, the latter involves a booming economy seeing traffic levels of the JNR-operated Seikan Ferry being doubled to more than 4 million persons a year from 1955 to 1965, with cargo levels rising to 1.7 times to more than 6 million tons each year (Sekicho, 2002). Serious economic problems are shown in the Seikan Tunnel operation results. Since the rail travel times are considered more advantageous, most people (90 percent) opt to travel between Hokkaido and Honshu by air. Riding the Yamabiko (Mountain Echo) is the fastest possible train journey between Tokyo and Sapporo, whereby one must transfer to the Hatsukari limited express at Morioka, and then to the Super Hokuto at Hakodate, which would take more than 10 hours and 10 minutes. By air, however, it would take one to travel for only 3 hours and 30 minutes including airport access time. Not only is prolonged travel time considered disadvantageous when using the Seikan Tunnel, but fares as well since railways appear to be more expensive than air, especially when airline deregulation took place and heavy discounting became the result of severe competition on the Tokyo-Sapporo route (Takashima, 2001, p. 62). Albeit there is only a small difference in recommended air and rail fares, the actual price of air tickets appears to be much lower than that of the rail tickets because of the quicker arrival to the destination when using the air transport. The solution that most people see in this problem is stimulating an active business exchange between Aomori and Hakodate by creating an economic zone that utilizes the Seikan Tunnel since competing with airlines in long-distance intercity transport is almost impossible (ibid). Analyzing the economic issues embodying the Channel Tunnel and the Seikan Tunnel, it may be posited that both tunnels face different economic problems, in which severe financial debts are manifested in the former while non-preference to use the Seikan Tunnel is seen in the latter. Both however face the same result of lack of sufficient economic gains due to non-optimization of the usage of the tunnels owing to various factors. Although some analysts would consider Britain to be better off without the Channel Tunnel indicating a negative view of the project overall, the lack of optimum utilization of the Seikan Tunnel appears to have almost the same view as deregulation policies have resulted in affordable air tickets that made travelers to choose to travel by air, not to mention quicker time allotment towards destination. The solution of creating an active economic zone that would instigate an active usage of the Seikan Tunnel is a pro-active one. Social and Political Issues The general growth of cross-Channel traffic and traffic attracted by the Channel Tunnel gave way to increased traffic volumes, in which a high-speed rail line in London would transfer traffic from road to rail (European Commission, 1996). The tunnel would have benefited Kent’s regional development but being closed to London restricts such benefits. Analyzing this, it may be inferred that geographical locations affect the operation of the Channel Tunnel in which operational plans need consideration thereof. On the other hand, a social issue arising upon the construction of the Seikan Tunnel includes the taking of 34 lives because of cave-ins, flooding, and other mishaps (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2010), which are seen as drastic risks in the project. It may be inferred that Seikan Tunnel project must have had a close coordination with the Japanese government for facility-related matters, which could have prevented the taking of these lives. In terms of political issues, the Channel Tunnel has been known to be used by immigrants and would-be asylum in their attempt to enter Britain in which attention of the international press was drawn in 1997. In 1999, the French Red Cross opened a refugee center at Sangatte, which was once a warehouse for tunnel construction. Refugees in this center came from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Africa, and Eastern Europe where most of them were able to use a freight train and the Eurostar through the Channel Tunnel in entering Britain. Airtight security was impossible despite the fenced facilities, and refugees were able to manage to jump onto moving trains from bridges whilst others used Eurostar. There were some who were injured during the crossing and some others tampered with railway equipment, which have hence caused delays and repairs (Stevens, 2001). Meanwhile, only in 1946 did serous survey commence in the Seikan Tunnel due to the loss of overseas territory caused by World War II as well as the need to accommodate returnees. The investigation on the construction of the Seikan Tunnel was expedited by the Japanese National Railway (JNR) as an antecedent to the sinking of five ferries in the Tsugaru Strait during a typhoon, in which 1,430 passengers were killed (Takashima, 2001). During the times in which the Japanese Prime Minister commissioned the completion of the pilot tunnel in 1983 and the Minister of Transport pushed through with the completion of the main tunnel, the project’s success was therein questioned alongside overestimates of the 1971 traffic predictions. Taking the rail route for transformation became expensive due to deregulation policies and competition in Japanese domestic air travel which resultantly brought down prices on the Tokyo-Sapporo route (Takashima, 2001), affecting the preference of people to take the Seikan Tunnel apart from the prolonged travel time one must carry through when taking the tunnel. Analyzing these political issues, this paper posits that both tunnels were used for accommodating politically related issues such as entry of would-be asylums as for the Channel Tunnel and returnees as for the Seikan Tunnel. They have thus not been used solely for business endeavors (i.e. obtaining earnings and profits) but for politically-related events as well, and therefore contributed for expediting foreign entries. Sustainability Issues As for sustainability issues, there were no major risks detected by environmental impact assessment for the Channel Tunnel project with good results in further studies into its safety, noise, and pollution aspects. A high-speed link to London however encountered environmental objections (Flyvbjerg, et al., (2003). Moreover, there is an almost negative overall environmental impact of the Tunnel (Button, 1990). The long term behavior of the structure of the Seikan Tunnel was recognised even from the beginning because of its being a long undersea tunnel with the length of 54 km. The soundness of the tunnel’s structure was obtained from various measurements which are made to survey the condition of the ground and lining concrete, providing the findings that the tunnel structure remains in good condition (Ikuma, 2005). The Seikan Tunnel is only of limited use despite the tremendous engineering and financial efforts employed in its construction, since it is quicker to travel via air between Honshu and Hokkaido and are almost as cheap as rail travel through the tunnel itself. It may be inferred that the tunnel has become an unpopular choice for most travelers due to decreasing airfares between Honshu and Hokkaido. However, the Hokutosei, Nihonkai, Tsugaru, Hamanasu, and Cassiopeia – JR’s nightly sleeper expresses – became a popular choice for people who look for a comfortable alternative to flying (Sekicho, 2002). This paper analyzes that both the Channel Tunnel and the Seikan Tunnel meet sustainability requirements in terms of engineering aspects, with the former being studied for safety, noise, and pollution and having drawn positive results while the latter found good condition of its structure. The aforementioned issues relevant to the economic and engineering aspects of both tunnels suggest that they are helpful in the development of the areas in which they are located, which likewise contribute to their sustainability. Although the Channel Tunnel was taken by some critics as making Britain to be better off without it due to its incurred costs and debts, long-term contributions are expected to outweigh these costs, giving way to sustainability. As for the Seikan Tunnel, the fact that most people do not regard it as a good choice due to less quick arrival to destinations and an almost the same price with air transport, issues of sustainability are a looming scenario. Its usability needs to be studied and reconsidered in order for it to become a primary mode of transportation between Honshu and Hokkaido; otherwise, it might suffer from financial losses due to public non-patronization and might lose its sustainability. Conclusion Conclusion The Channel Tunnel of UK and France and the Seikan Tunnel of Japan are the focus of comparison in this paper in which engineering, economic, social, political, and sustainability issues are addressed. The Seikan Tunnel is the world’s longest rail tunnel in which the Channel Tunnel plays second. The Channel Tunnel is used as a pilot channel while the Service Tunnel Transport System (STTS) and Light Service Tunnel Vehicles are used for the service channel. Precast segmental linings were used in the construction of the Channel Tunnel, providing faster links between Britain and continental Europe. This is an opposite case from the Seikan Tunnel which is not generally utilized since air transport is quicker than taking the tunnel route and appears within the same price as that of the tunnel route. Severe costs and debts were incurred in the construction of the Tunnel Channel, which became the basis for seeing Britain being better off without the project, while economic problems in the Seikan Tunnel are considered based on issues of disadvantages when taking the tunnel route, with deregulation policies posing as a significant factor to decline in passengers. References Button, K. (1990) ‘The Channel Tunnel: the economic implications for the South East of England’, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 156 (2) pp. 187-199. Encyclopedia Britannica (2010) ‘Seikan Tunnel’, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/532842/Seikan-Tunnel, Date Accessed January 15, 2010. European Commission (1996) The regional impact of the Channel Tunnel throughout the community, Luxembourg: European Commission. Flyvbjerg, B., Buzelius, N., and Rothengatter, W. (2003) Megaprojects and risk, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ikuma, M. (2005) ‘Maintenance of the undersea section of the Seikan Tunnel’, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Vil. 20 (2) pp. 143-149. Kirkland, C. J. (1995) Engineering the Channel Tunnel, London: Chapman and Hall. Matsuo, S. (1986) ‘An overview of the Seikan Tunnel project’, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 1 (3-4) pp. 323-331. Morse, D. (1988) ‘Japan tunnels under the ocean’, Civil Engineering, Vol. 58 (5) pp. 50-53. Rail Europe (2009) The Channel Tunnel, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#cite_note-autogenerated1-2, Date Accessed January 14, 2010. Reynolds, C. (1996) ‘The seven wonders of the world: the modern list’, The Plain Dealer. Sekicho (2002) Seikan Tunnel, http://everything2.com/title/Seikan+Tunnel, Date Accessed January 15, 2010. Stephens, A. (2001) Desperate journeys fraught with danger, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/31/immigration.daring/index.html, Date Accessed January 14, 2010. SYSTRA (2009) London-Channel Tunnel rail link, http://www.systra.com/London-Channel-Tunnel-Rail-link-UK, Date Accessed January 15, 2010. Takashima, S. (2001) ‘Railway operators in Japan 2: Hokkaido, Japan Railway and Transport Review, Vol. 28, pp. 58-67. Wilson, J. and Spick, J. (1994) Eurotunnel: the illustrated journey, HarperCollins. Read More