cost

The world’s longest suspension bridge is currently in Turkey but a new record could be held if the government in Italy gets its way with its hugely ambitious Messina Bridge project

The world’s longest suspension bridge has been given the green light – and it could prove hugely popular with Brits. Just four months ago, the Italian government’s plans to build the longest suspension bridge in the world was approve. It would connect the mainland region of Calabria to Sicily.

However, a lot can happen in that time. The controversial Messina Bridge project, which would cost a staggering £11.7bn, faced a huge stumbling back last month, meaning it is once again on hold. But more on that shortly.

If the bridge ever gets built along the Strait of Messina, as Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni still intends, it would be a hugely ambitious infrastructure challenge that has been talked about in Italy for decades.

The colossal bridge, consisting of two towers stretching 400-metres (1,300 feet), would span an incredible 3.3km (2.05 miles). Three lanes of traffic would sit either side of two railway lines in the middle.

It would be particularly welcomed by Brits travelling in Italy, because it would cut their journey to Sicily to just ten minutes, compared to taking the ferry, which can take a lot longer than the 30 minutes crossing when you factor in the immense queuing at peak times.

Speaking earlier this year, Meloni said: “It is not an easy task but we consider it an investment in Italy’s present and future, and we like difficult challenges when they make sense.”

Transport minister Matteo Salvini spoke in August that the goal was to have it built between 2032 and 2033. He also boasted that 120,000 jobs a year would be created, something he said would bring economic growth to the poor regions of Sicilia and Calabria, which is on the tip of Italy’s boot.

Rome was given the approval for the project in August after years of the plans being scrapped. One of the biggest reasons plans have been halted historically was concerns of mafia fraud, including worries about taxpayers’ money being siphoned off by the Sicilian and Calabrian gangsters.

Other concerns have repeatedly been raised about environmental damage, cost and safety, and given the region is one of the most seismically active areas in the Mediterranean, designers promised the Strait of Messina Bridge would be able to withstand earthquakes.

However, last month, yet another setback was reported, after an Italian court ruled the bridge would go against EU environmental and tender rules.

The Court of Auditors ruling concluded: “The assumptions regarding the various ‘reasons of public interest’ are not validated by technical bodies and are not supported by adequate documentation.”

But the Italian government is refusing to give up and has vowed to review the ruling carefully and continue with its ambitions of making the bridge a reality.

As well as still having to convince the Italian Court of Auditors and both national and EU environmental agencies, there would also be pushback from the 4,000 residents who live either side of the Strait.

Their homes would be at risk of demolition and this could mean legal challenges regarding having to abandon their properties.

As it stands, the current world’s longest suspension bridge is the 915 Canakkale Bridge in Turkey – which connects Asia to Europe and takes six minutes to cross.

Construction across the passage of water (Dardanelles Strait) started in 2017 and it only became open to the public three years ago. Journey times have been cut by up to 93%.

This means 90-minute ferry trips can be avoided by using the bridge that starts in Gelibolu, Turkey, which is based on the European side of the country, to the Asian town of Lapseki.

A YouTube star was left gobsmacked at the cost of a fairly basic dinner in what is reputed to be the continent’s most expensive city when he visited a chain of the 7-Eleven convenience store

There are a number of European cities that have a reputation for being the most expensive cities in Europe. And certainly the prices of some basic items backs up that claim where one particular YouTuber visited.

YouTube content creator Ed Chapman set off for Oslo, Norway to find out for himself, and was stunned to find the huge cost of a basic meal at a 7-Eleven convenience store.

Ed’s fact-finding mission started badly when a train from the airport to the city centre left literally seconds after he bought his £9 ticket. That left him with time to kill, so he went for a pit stop at Danish chain Joe and the Juice.

There, he explained on his YouTube channel, a medium milkshake and a small pot of yogurt and granola set him back just over £13. There was better news when Ed arrived at his £140-a-night three-star hotel, which he said was a good deal plusher than several other three-star establishments he’d stayed in previously.

Admiring his businesslike-looking desk he said: “For a three-star hotel, this is looking pretty good.” While the view out of his hotel room window was nothing to write home about, the “view of a wonderful metallic pipe and some stained glass windows” could have been worse, he added.

The following morning saw another impressive performance from his hotel: “Absolutely smashed breakfast by the way,” he enthused. “Lovely little spread for a three-star.”

But venturing outside, Ed was faced with some dizzying expenses. A hot dog at the city’s Christmas market cost him £7.30. The sausage was, he admitted, a cut above the average but it was undeniably pricey.

Just the chance of a simple bar of chocolate ended up costing him £3.57 when he tried his luck at a roulette game that had a Daim bar as a prize, Sadly, his number didn’t come up and he left the stall empty-handed.

After taking in the sights, including some very impressive ice-skating by the locals, Ed decided to get himself a cocktail. His vodka-and-cranberry concoction, called a woo-woo, set him back just under £11. While not cheap, the drink was “gorgeous,” he said. “Not too tangy on the cranberry.”

While Ed splashed out £23 on a classically Scandinavian sauna, and then just under £12 on a museum visit that included fewer viking artefacts that ne’d hoped for – but made up for it some truly grisly human skulls, most of his holiday budget went on food.

While you might think £21 would be enough to get a decent meal, Ed’s supper from 7-Eleven was a pretty basic affair. Surveying his chicken caesar wrap, pesto salad bottles of water and a Norwegian Kit-Kat, he said: “I’m not quite sure how I spent £21 here.”

He added, though, that Norway’s answer to the Kit-Kat was a cut above, with a “solidity” that gave it an air of quality. He theorised that it was probably healthier than the British equivalent too: everything Scandinavian is healthy. There’s not a single fat person here.”

In conclusion, Ed said, Oslo probably isn’t the most expensive city in Europe. He said it probably came second to Zurich. “However,” he added, “it is expensive. Just not as expensive as Zurich.”

The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.

Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.

Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”

Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.

President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.

Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!

For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.

Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.

And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”

Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.

Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.

His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.

He also says inflation is “essentially gone,” which is true only if you define “gone” as “slowed its increase.”

Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.

In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.

Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.

Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”

Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.

The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.

You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.

Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.

But the main problem is the main problem.

At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Folks, who was supposed to be watching grandpa last night? Because he got out, got on TV and … It. Was. Not. Good.

For 18 long minutes Wednesday evening, we were subjected to a rant by President Trump that predictably careened from immigrants (bad) to jobs (good), rarely slowing down for reality. But jumbled between the vitriol and venom was a vision of American healthcare that would have horror villainess M3GAN shaking in her Mary Janes — a vision that we all should be afraid of because it would take us back to a dark era when insurance couldn’t be counted on.

Trump’s remarks offered only a sketchy outline, per usual, in which the costs of health insurance premiums may be lower — but it will be because the coverage is terrible. Yes, you’ll save money. But so what? A cheap car without wheels is not a deal.

“The money should go to the people,” Trump said of his sort-of plan.

The money he vaguely was alluding to is the government subsidies that make insurance under the Affordable Care Act affordable. After antics and a mini-rebellion by four Republicans also on Wednesday, Congress basically failed to do anything meaningful on healthcare — pretty much ensuring those subsidies will disappear with the New Year.

Starting in January, premiums for too many people are going to leap skyward without the subsidies, jumping by an average of $1,016 according to the health policy research group KFF.

That’s bad enough. But Trump would like to make it worse.

The Affordable Care Act is about much more than those subsidies. Before it took effect in 2014, insurance companies in many states could deny coverage for preexisting conditions. This didn’t have to be big-ticket stuff like cancer. A kid with asthma? A mom with colitis? Those were the kind of routine but chronic problems that prevented millions from obtaining insurance — and therefore care.

Obamacare required that policies sold on its exchange did not discriminate. In addition, the ACA required plans to limit out-of-pocket costs and end lifetime dollar caps, and provide a baseline of coverage that included essentials such as maternity care. Those standards put pressure on all plans to include more, even those offered through large employers.

Trump would like to undo much of that. He instead wants to fall back on the stunt he loves the most — send a check!

What he is suggesting by sending subsidy money directly to consumers also most likely would open the market to plans without the regulation of the ACA. So yes, small businesses or even groups of individuals might be able to band together to buy insurance, but there likely would be fewer rules about what — or whom — it has to cover.

Most people aren’t savvy or careful enough to understand the limitations of their insurance before it matters. So it has a $2-million lifetime cap? That sounds like a lot until your kid needs a treatment that eats through that in a couple of months. Then what?

Trump suggested people pay for it themselves, out of health savings accounts funded by that subsidy check sent directly to taxpayers. Because that definitely will work, and people won’t spend the money on groceries or rent, and what they do save certainly will cover any medical expenses.

“You’ll get much better healthcare at a much lower price,” Trump claimed Wednesday. “The only losers will be insurance companies that have gotten rich, and the Democrat Party, which is totally controlled by those same insurance companies. They will not be happy, but that’s OK with me because you, the people, are finally going to be getting great healthcare at a lower cost.”

He then bizarrely tried to blame the expiring subsidies on Democrats.

Democrats “are demanding those increases and it’s their fault,” he said. “It is not the Republicans’ fault. It’s the Democrats’ fault. It’s the Unaffordable Care Act, and everybody knew it.”

It seems like Trump just wants to lower costs at the expense of quality. Here’s where I take issue with the Democrats. I am not here to defend insurance companies or our healthcare system. Both clearly need reform.

But why are the Democrats failing to explain what “The money should go to the people” will mean?

I get that affordability is the message, and as someone who bought both a steak and a carton of milk this week, I understand just how powerful that issue is.

Still, everyone, Democrat or Republican, wants decent healthcare they can afford, and the peace of mind of knowing if something terrible happens, they will have access to help. There is no American who gladly would pay for insurance each month, no matter how low the premium, that is going to leave them without care when they or their loved ones need it most.

Grandpa Trump doesn’t have this worry, since he has the best healthcare our tax dollars can buy.

But when he promises to send a check instead of providing governance and regulation of one of the most critical purchases in our lives, the message is sickening: My victory in exchange for your well-being.

AN ISLAND dubbed the “Caribbean without the jetlag” – where pints cost just £2.20 – could be the perfect escape from the moody British weather.

An index tracking the best winter sun spots, ranking temperature, hours of sunshine, pint and meal for two prices, time difference, and precipitation, revealed its winner.

Sal in Cape Verde was the top spot of the unique index taking into account all things Brits love.

The Atlantic island offers white sandy beaches, subtropical temperatures and just a one-hour time difference with the UK, despite flights taking six hours.

Winter highs average between 24°C and 25°C throughout January to March.

Visitors can enjoy around 10 hours of sunshine each day, according to easyJet’s Winter Sun Index.

EXPAT ESCAPE

I ditched the UK to live in holiday spot Brits love – but there’s 6 downsides

ON THE UP

The eight holiday destinations booming in 2026, according to British Airways

The island also boasts dishes inspired by Portuguese, African and Brazilian cuisines, with a meal for two costing roughly £30.

Close behind in the rankings is Egypt’s Red Sea gem, Hurghada, with winter temperatures sitting between 21°C and 25°C.

Unbelievably pints of beer on average cost under £2.

The resort town offers near-endless sunshine, crystal-clear waters and desert landscapes with activities like quad biking or Jeep safaris.

The Canary Islands also remain firm favourites, with Gran Canaria and Lanzarote claiming third and fourth spots.

Gran Canaria is known for its golden beaches, while Lanzarote stands out with striking black sands and volcanic vistas.

Kevin Doyle, UK country manager for the airline, said: “As temperatures at home begin to drop and the days get darker, now is the perfect time to book an escape to warmer climes.

“Our network and package holidays offer a broad range of winter sun destinations across Europe and beyond – from Sub-Saharan islands to Spanish peninsula cities.”

Other highlights from the index include the likes of Agadir in Morocco, Djerba off Tunisia and Spain’s Seville.

Agadir offers winter highs of 23°C, nearly nine hours of sunshine per day and very little rainfall, while on average, meals for two come in at £26 and a pint just £1.75.

Djerba made the index thanks to a mix of culture and relaxation, with winter temperatures ranging from 16°C to 18°C and up to eight hours of daily sunshine.

The island blends Mediterranean coastline and Saharan influences, plus artisanal market streets, palm trees and sandy beaches, with meals for two costing around £26 and a pint is just £1.30.

Seville, Europe’s warmest city in winter, scores highly for its elegant Moorish architecture and vibrant city life.

Travellers can expect temperatures between 16°C and 22°C, around eight hours of sunshine and a pint for just £2.20.

The city’s plazas, flamenco recitals, and sunny streets make it perfect for those seeking city warmth rather than the sea.

NEW YORK — For one Wisconsin couple, the loss of government-sponsored health subsidies next year means choosing a lower-quality insurance plan with a higher deductible. For a Michigan family, it means going without insurance altogether.

For a single mom in Nevada, the spiking costs mean fewer Christmas gifts this year. She is stretching her budget already while she waits to see if the Republican-led Congress will act.

Less than three weeks remain until the expiration of COVID-era enhanced tax credits that have helped millions of Americans pay their monthly fees for Affordable Care Act coverage for the last four years.

The Senate on Thursday rejected two proposals to address the problem, and an emerging healthcare package from House Republicans does not include an extension, all but guaranteeing that many Americans will see much higher insurance costs in 2026.

Here are a few of their stories.

Spending more for less

Chad Bruns comes from a family of savers. That came in handy when the 58-year-old military veteran had to leave his firefighting career early because of arm and back injuries incurred on the job.

He and his wife, Kelley, 60, both retirees, cut their own firewood to reduce their electricity costs in their home in Sawyer County, Wis. They rarely eat out and say they buy groceries only when they are on sale.

But to the extent that they have always been frugal, they will be forced to be even more so now, Bruns said. That is because their coverage under the health law enacted under former President Obama is, because of congressional inaction, getting more expensive — and for worse coverage.

This year, the Brunses were paying $2 per month for a top-tier gold-level plan with less than a $4,000 deductible. Their income was low enough to help them qualify for a lot of financial assistance.

But in 2026, that same plan is rising to an unattainable $1,600 per month, forcing them to downgrade to a bronze plan with a $15,000 deductible.

Kelley Bruns said she is concerned that if something happens to their health in the next year, they could go bankrupt. While their monthly fees are low at about $25, their new out-of-pocket maximum at $21,000 amounts to nearly half their joint income.

“We have to pray that we don’t have to have surgery or don’t have to have some medical procedure done that we’re not aware of,” she said. “It would be very devastating.”

Forgoing insurance

Dave Roof’s family of four has been on ACA insurance since the program started in 2014. Back then, the accessibility of insurance on the marketplace helped him feel comfortable taking the leap to start a small music production and performance company in his hometown of Grand Blanc, Mich. His wife, Kristin, is also self-employed as a top seller on Etsy.

Their coverage has worked for them so far, even when emergencies come up, such as an ATV accident their 21-year-old daughter had last year.

But now, with the expiration of Obamacare subsidies that kept their premiums down, the 53-year-old Roof said their $500-per-month insurance plan is jumping to at least $700 a month, along with spiking deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.

With their joint income of about $75,000 a year, that increase is not manageable, he said. So, they are planning to go without health insurance next year, paying cash for prescriptions, checkups and anything else that arises.

Roof said his family is already living cheaply and has not taken a vacation together since 2021. As it is, they do not save money or add it to their retirement accounts. So even though forgoing insurance is stressful, it is what they must do.

“The fear and anxiety that it’s going to put on my wife and I is really hard to measure,” Roof said. “But we can’t pay for what we can’t pay for.”

Single mom’s straining budget

If you ask Katelin Provost, the American middle class has gone from experiencing a squeeze to a “full suffocation.”

The 37-year-old social worker in Henderson, Nev., counts herself in that category. As a single mom, she already keeps a tight budget to cover housing, groceries and daycare for her 4-year-old daughter.

Next year, that is going to be even tougher.

The monthly fee on her plan is going up from $85 to nearly $750. She decided she is going to pay that higher cost for January and reevaluate afterward, depending on whether lawmakers extend the subsidies, which as of now appears unlikely. She hopes they will.

If Congress does not act, she will drop herself off the health insurance and keep it only for her daughter because she cannot afford the higher fee for the two of them over the long term.

The strain of one month alone is enough to have an impact.

“I’m going to have to reprioritize the next couple of months to rebalance that budget,” Provost said. “Christmas will be much smaller.”

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.