To swim across the English Channel takes at least nine hours. It's a hard work and it makes you short of breath. To fly over the Channel takes only twenty minutes (as long as you're not held up at the airport), but it's an expensive way to travel. You can travel by hovercraft if you don't mind the noise, and that takes forty minutes. Otherwise, you can go by boat, if you remember your seasickness pills. All these means of transport have their problems and the weary traveler often dreams of being able to drive to France in his own car. 'Not possible,' you say. Well, wait a minute. People are once again considering the idea of a Channel tunnel or bridge. This time, the Greater London Council is looking into the possibility of building a Channel link straight to London. A bridge would cost far more than a tunnel, but you would be able to go by rail or by car on a bridge, whereas a tunnel would provide a rail link only. Why is this idea being discussed again? Is Britain becoming more conscious of the need for links with Europe as a result of joining the EEC (欧共体)? Well, perhaps. The main reason, though, is that a tunnel or bridge would reach the twenty square kilometers of London's disused docklands. A link from London to the continent would stimulate trade and revitalize the port, and would make London a main trading center in Europe. With a link over the Channel, you could buy your fish and chips in England and be able to eat them in France while they were still warm! Which of the following statements is true?