Why don't we build a d**e across the English Channel?

Question

Now the tunnel is more or less full, we need something new. Building a series of dykes would be practical as the water is max 50 metres deep, and the Dutch have built longer dykes. We could leave smallish channels which would allow ships to pass (tolls for ships?!!) and docks to intercept traffic to the Europort at Rotterdam, and a railway and pay for it all and also stimulate the economy.....

Answer 1

It would take so much dirt and rock to fill the English Channel, that there wouldn't be anything left of England.

This idea is about as whacky as digging up scotland and dumping the earth in the sea south of England so England would touch the mainland and not be an Island anymore.

Answer 2

Tunnelling  for the channel tunnel commenced in 1988, and the tunnel began operating in 1994. In 1985 prices, the total construction cost was £4650 million (£10,153 million inflation-adjusted to 2007), an 80% cost overrun. At the peak of construction 15,000 people were employed with daily expenditure over £3 million. Ten workers died during construction.

I dread to think of what your proposal would cost nowadays.

Nature has seperated us from the rest of Europe - maybe there's a reason for that?!

Answer 3

The enviro-whacko's would have your head on plate before you ever finished filing for the permit.

Answer 4

No d**e is going to resist the forces of the tides and currents, no matter how many channels you leave open in it.

Answer 5

Why would one think that mainland Europe and England would want to be connected by a d**e?

Answer 6

because then the French could mount an attack....wait....

no, that's not it........