Morocco-Spain Tunnel: why the bridge was ruled out

Why a tunnel rather than a bridge? SECEGSA explains that the second option was ruled out due to the complexity of this type of work. Several options had been proposed such as a suspended bridge on fixed supports, a suspended bridge on floating supports, an immersed tunnel resting on the seabed, a floating immersed tunnel and a submarine tunnel, recalls El faro de Ceuta.

After a thorough and in-depth analysis of the different options, the suspended bridge on fixed supports and the submarine tunnel were selected in 1990 as the most viable. Given the topographic configuration of the Strait of Gibraltar area, the infrastructure could be carried out along two routes: to the east, between Punta Canales and Punta Cires, with a length of 14 kilometers and a depth of more than 800 meters, and to the west, between Punta Paloma and Punta Malabata, with a length of 28 kilometers and a depth of 300 meters.

Following the international experts’ colloquium held in Seville, the joint Morocco-Spain committee decided in 1996 to opt for the submarine tunnel option due to its low environmental and maritime navigation impact compared to other options, its lower cost and the possibility of gradual implementation depending on demand, and finally, the known and experienced tunnel excavation technology.

According to the studies, the project should consist of the construction of two single-track railway tunnels with a circular cross-section of 7.90 meters in internal diameter, separated by a service/safety gallery of 6 meters in diameter, and transverse galleries of 6 meters in diameter each every 340 meters. The railway tunnel aims to connect Morocco and Spain, and therefore Africa and Europe. The authorities of the two countries have expressed a common interest in its rapid realization before the 2030 World Cup.