Norway promised them happiness with the world’s first megatunnel for ships. Until he saw how much it was going to cost him

Thousands of kilometers of sinuous coasts, currents, storms and devilish geography. Norway does not make it easy for sailors who ply its coastline every day loaded with goods, fish or passengers. Hence, the country has been talking for some time about undertaking an ambitious work at one of its points more sensitive, the Stad peninsula. The idea is to cross the tongue of land with a tunnel almost two kilometers long, designed specifically for the passage of boats. The problem is that estimates of its cost have not stopped growing in recent years and that has led the Government to take a step back. His idea is to put the project in the drawer. Another thingOf course, Parliament is going to allow it. A boat tunnel? That’s how it is. It sounds strange, and it’s normal. After all the Stad tunnel It is an unusual infrastructure, the first underground road designed for boats. What Norway is proposing to do is open a large navigable canal of 1.7kmalmost 50 m high (the navigable space will be somewhat less) and more than 30 m wide to cross the Stad peninsula, in the province of vestlandwest of the country. Building it would require between four years of works. That they want to open right in Vestland is no coincidence. If the Stad peninsula stands out for something, it is because of its poor conditions for sailors: it is exposed to the inclemencies and gusts of wind of the Stadhavet Sea, with no nearby islands to cushion it, and the currents do not make it easy for sailors either. In the web of the project, it is recalled that the Kråkenes station, south of Stad, is the one that records the most stormy days: some years there are more than a hundred. And does a tunnel solve it? The same website Remember that in Stad there is intense maritime traffic, both Norwegian and foreign ships, dedicated to fishing, commerce, aquaculture, naval and tourism. With the underground canal, Norway wants to offer them several advantages: time savings and more security, with all the advantages that this can bring for anyone who depends on ships. Furthermore, supporters of the project defend that with “a safer and more efficient step” maritime transport will increase, removing trucks from the roads. Whether its promises are more or less convincing, the undeniable thing is that the Stad tunnel is nothing new. TO late 19th century There was already talk of crossing the peninsula with a subway, although the approach has not always been exactly the same. At one time they even opted for a railway pipeline. The idea has remained on the table with twists and turns in recent years until in 2013 It finally managed to sneak into the National Transportation Plan. In 2017 the tunnel seemed a little closer and in 2021 started to talk of the imminent start of the works. In fact, it is estimated that a little more than 30 million dollars in land purchases and feasibility studies to give it shape. Are you on track then? Not at all. If the work sounds ambitious it is because it really is. And that usually entails something more than technical complications: money. Big money. Millions and millions of Swedish crowns. An amount that has also increased with the passage of time, complicating its viability. Maritime Executive remember that at the time there was talk of 325 million dollars and in 2023 the figure had skyrocketed to 690 million. A few days ago NRK, the Norwegian public radio and television channel, I already needed that the estimated bill is around 9.4 billion crowns, about 780 million dollars. There are means, like one’s own Maritime Executivethat they even refer larger figures. Is that a problem? A few days ago NRK echoed some statements by the prime minister, Jonas Gahr Storewhich reveal that the Government wants to put the project in the drawer. At least for now. The reason has little mystery: its exorbitant cost at a time when the country prefers to invest in other areas. “In the budget proposal we will announce that we abandoned the Stad sea tunnel project,” the leader advanced Norwegian. “The cost will be so high that we feel it is not responsible to move forward with the project.” “We must prioritize and take care of every penny to use the money in the most efficient way possible. That is why we reject this project, we consider that it does not justify such a high expense,” insisted Støre, who cited other priorities, such as health, defense or municipal investment. “It will be so expensive that we consider it irresponsible to continue with the project.” With the option of lowering or renegotiating costs ruled out, the news soon spread to the local press and foreignerwith all kinds of reactions. What reactions? Days after the announcement the Norwegian Coastal Administration published a statement confirming that, within the framework of the 2026 national budget, the Government had decided to “suspend” the tunnel works pending Parliament’s ruling. The agency warned that, among other issues, this stoppage will also affect the bidding for works. An important notice considering that you had already received offers from three construction companies and expected to close the contract this year to start the works (five years) in 2026. The defenders of the tunnel have been more emphatic, speaking of “a hard blow” and an “irresponsible decision.” “More than 500 companies from the fishing industry and shipping to industry, tourism and aquaculture have signed the petition for the construction of the tunnel,” remember. “These represent thousands of jobs and billions in revenue.” What will happen now? Good question. Although it is not easy to answer it. Støre’s announcement was framed in the presentation of the 2026 state accounts, which left some questions raised. After all, as NRK herself recalled As the news progresses, the prime minister’s party, the Labor Party, does not have a majority in the Storting (Parliament of Norway), so … Read more

We have been thinking for years that, after the midlife crisis, old age is synonymous with happiness. This researcher thinks it’s a hoax

We are happy during adolescence and late youth, but as the years go by we become increasingly sadder, more unhappy, more miserable. At some point, in our late 40s to early 50s, we hit rock bottom. And once there everything tends to improve. “It’s statistics,” we said. What we did not suspect was that the statistics could be ‘trick’. Happiness is U-shaped. “Happiness is a slippery slope until we hit the bottom at some undetermined point in middle age. From there, it climbs back to the levels of youth.” That’s what I said a 2008 study than by Blanchflower and Oswald with data from more than half a million people. Over the following years ( here an example from 2017), studied in some detail how firm this U-shaped trend was; Everything seemed to indicate that this was the case. Until Fabian Kratz and Josef Brüdel from the Ludwig Maximalian University of Munich they realized of a small – possible – problem. Wonkblog A fundamental problem. What if happiness steadily decreases with age and what we see in the aggregate graphs is just a statistical effect? Kratz has been studying for years happiness and, as explained in New Scientistis increasingly convinced that the U simply does not exist. Reviewing the scientific literature, the authors found studies that justify a “stability“in happiness throughout the years; a”increase” or progressive descent; a inverted U; a U normal; and a curve like of waves (promotions, relegations). The problem is “that all studies on age and happiness have incurred biases that have distorted their results.” The other form of happiness. By correcting them, Fabian Kratz and Josef Brüdel came to the conclusion that it is true that happiness shows some stability around the last 50, but it does not rise at any time. Kratz and Brüderl (2021) But why? It is important to keep in mind that this work is essentially methodological. But Kratz’s central idea is that previous studies they didn’t realize that “after a certain age, happiness seems to increase only because unhappy people have already died.” The least happy people they tend to die before, which would cause an overrepresentation of the happiest at older ages (literally, as said our colleague Andrés Mohorte, pure survivor bias). According to this theory, “that old popular story” through which retirement would open a window towards a fuller and more satisfying life is just that, a story: a lie. Or, perhaps, a strategy. Because, in short, “there is a lot of evidence about how humans experience a bassoon psychological in middle age” (Blanchflower and Oswald, 2007; Steptoe, Deaton and Stone, 2015; Graham and Pettinato, 2002), but there is very little about the relationship between that downturn – that unhappiness – and quality of life. As we said quite a few years ago“we’re about to see what happens to the millennials when they become unhappy” and maybe that is behind a part generational battles. But facing the future with the certainty that things are going to improve is not the same as facing the future with the certainty that things are going to get worse. The science of happiness has never been so depressing. Image | Garloncio In Xataka | If the question is “where is the secret to happiness,” an expert believes it is hidden in these 15 statements

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.