When the Channel Tunnel opened in 1994, the undersea rail link brought Britain closer to the European mainland than ever before. However, had circumstances been different, history might have taken a very different path. Among the competing proposals for a fixed Channel crossing was a massive bridge — a scheme so audacious that fate never allowed it to come to fruition.
### The Euro Route: Driving Across the Channel
Forget the double handling involved in putting cars on trains and traveling entirely by rail. Instead, the aptly-named Euro Route proposed that motorists simply drive across the Channel, perhaps even stopping for duty-free shopping in the middle of the sea along the way.
### Long-Held Dreams of a Channel Crossing
The concept of a permanent tunnel or transit link between Britain and France has deep historical roots. The earliest recorded example dates back to 1802, when French engineer Albert Mathieu-Favier proposed a tunnel design for horse-drawn stagecoaches travelling between the Isles and the mainland. Ultimately, though, the engineering challenges were beyond the era’s capabilities.
Despite this, the idea never truly disappeared. Starting in the late 1950s, British and French governments began exploring options seriously. The Channel Tunnel Study Group was formed as an Anglo-French task force to assess the feasibility of building a crossing. This effort led to an initial construction attempt beginning in 1973, which was abandoned two years later by British Prime Minister Harold Wilson due to high costs and the strains of the global oil crisis.
It would be over a decade before the concept returned to prominence. In 1984, the French and British governments reconvened to establish baseline project parameters, opening the development process to proposals in 1985. The Channel Tunnel Group eventually won with a plan for a 51.5-kilometer dual-track rail-only tunnel, carrying both passengers and vehicles between the two countries.
The Treaty of Canterbury was signed in 1986, construction began shortly after, and the infrastructure that exists today was born.
### The Bold Euro Route Proposal
While the Channel Tunnel was the winning project, it wasn’t the only proposal on the table. The Euro Route project was an altogether bolder scheme, featuring a three-stage crossing combining both road and rail.
Besides a twin-track rail tunnel similar to the Channel Tunnel, the Euro Route’s key selling point was its road crossing, promising motorists the convenience of driving straight across the Channel without the hassle of loading and unloading vehicles onto trains.
Marketing materials boldly stated:
*“From your home you will drive straight to France.”*
The project was not cheap. Estimated to cost around £6 billion (1985 prices), it was two to three times more expensive than the Channel Tunnel proposal. This higher price tag was unsurprising, given it included an entire road crossing in addition to a rail tunnel.
However, the project was backed by a powerful consortium of British institutions—including British Steel, Barclays Bank, and GEC—which had collectively secured over seven billion pounds in funding. The plan was to recoup costs over time through toll charges on users.
### Design and Functionality: Bridge, Tunnel, and Islands
The road crossing combined drama with practicality. Motorists would leave the M20 near Dover and pass through toll booths before driving onto a cable-stayed bridge standing approximately 50 meters above sea level. This bridge would stretch 8.5 km to an artificial island.
From this island, the motorway would spiral down beneath sea level into an undersea tunnel — a 21 km immersed tube tunnel carrying parallel dual carriageways safely below the shipping lanes. On the French side, a second artificial island would mark the tunnel’s end, with another bridge carrying traffic the last 7.5 km to the mainland.
A third artificial island between the two main islands was designed to serve as a ventilation shaft for the road tunnel and act as a navigation marker to enforce lane discipline for shipping in the busy Channel.
Overall, traveling the Euro Route was expected to take just 30 minutes over the road. With customs formalities “speeded up by computer,” the total journey time was anticipated to be approximately 45 minutes—a significant advantage over the all-rail Channel Tunnel.
The marketing materials highlighted:
*“NOTE: A shuttle service would require additional time for waiting, and loading and unloading; Euro Route does not.”*
### Why Not a Single Long Tunnel?
The combined bridge-tunnel-bridge concept might sound complicated compared to a single long road tunnel from coast to coast. However, a tunnel spanning well over 30 km would have been undesirable due to the prolonged time spent underground and concerns about traffic emissions building up in such an enclosed space.
The open-air bridges were designed to break up the journey and limit the distance spent underwater. Moreover, the artificial islands weren’t just entry and exit points. Euro Route envisioned them as destinations in their own right, featuring refueling stations, refreshments, parking, hotels, and even duty-free shopping complexes.
### The Rail Component
The Euro Route rail tunnel proposal was quite similar to the Channel Tunnel project ultimately built. It planned a tunnel running between Cheriton (UK) and Sangatte (France), mostly constructed using immersed tube methods rather than boring through the entire length.
The design featured two tubes for bidirectional travel with a central maintenance shaft—closely mirroring the final Channel Tunnel configuration.
### Public Opinion and the Final Decision
Research at the time suggested public sentiment leaned in favor of driving across the Channel. Around 52% of people preferred driving, with many actively disliking the car shuttle system used in the rail-only proposal.
Despite this, when decision time came, both governments chose the simpler, cheaper rail-only Channel Tunnel project. The decision is perhaps viewed differently today, given the Channel Tunnel’s significant budget overruns and construction delays.
We may never know how well—or badly—the Euro Route might have performed had it been built.
### A Dream That Never Took Flight
The Euro Route’s bridges and islands remain forever on the drawing board—a grand infrastructure dream that fell victim to caution and economics. Yet, those architectural drawings continue to capture the ambition of an era when anything seemed possible, even building a bridge linking two former bitter enemies over the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
—
The story of the Euro Route is a fascinating what-if in the saga of connecting Britain and continental Europe—reminding us of the bold visions that often pave the way for future achievements.
https://hackaday.com/2025/10/27/the-channel-crossing-bridge-that-never-was/
