The post you are reporting:
I've got to own up to having a history on this subject, having spent a large part of my working life in the cross channel business, including 15 years at Eurotunnel.
ET have always had the option to build a 2nd fixed link under the award granted by both governments that became what was known as "the concession". In the UK, the Channel Tunnel Act of 1987.
ET has the capacity within its operating system to increase traffic but the figure of 54% usage relates to operations throughout the totality of both sides of the link - trains, track, terminals, catenary, the whole shooting match. If there were no ferry industry (for whatever reasons!) you could fill up the tunnel with freight and be done with it. Unfortunately for ET, the passenger market is a whole different kettle of fish. The original design for passenger traffic was based around safety to such an extent that the passenger shuttles soon became uneconomic to maintain. That's why they have mothballed half the rolling stock and run to very tight constraints which allow little margin for error. Passenger rolling stock was often described as being like Boeing 747s on wheels, believe it or not.
Therefore, the prospect of a simpler, second system might well be regarded by the French directors of ET as having some merit. The French have longed to dominate the cross channel market and would jump at any opportunity to do so. The free enterprise of Townsend Thoresen and latterly P&O kept them effectively out of the market for ages. Sealink and Sea France could never really compete. ET is now in effect a French company. I once was party to some interesting speculation about how this happened and its relevance to the Le Touquet agreement but that is a different subject.
The notion that Eurotunnel "screwed their banks & other shareholders" implies a direct, conscious action and is laughable, to say the least. What other choice did both governments have? Would it have been good for either country to let the tunnel fail, allow its only source of operating expertise to become bankrupt and block up both ends like they did in the 70s? The only logical way ahead was to massage the figures and let the operation continue. Sure shareholders and banks both took a hit but is that a major factor in public opinion? We all want to go and buy our cheap supermarket "just in time" goods and whether you like it or not, cross channel business is a major part of that.
The naivety of some local politicians never ceases to amaze me. It might also go some way to explaining why Dover is in such a mess.
