Rail-only Chunnel
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CHANNEL TUNNEL should be built, and it should be large enough take lorries on piggyback trains, the House of Commons transin committee recommended last week.
Reporting on its inquiry into a ed Channel link, it said there is Wong case in favour of build] a 6.85m single-bore rail tunI, which would be larger than a scheme proposed two years o by the British and French lway undertakings.
4nd it said that if a decision is ;en to build a larger tunnel, the tra cost should be met out of blic funds. "There may be a 3e for treating the additional 3t of the enlarged tunnel as a blic investment for the future iich should not fall on the pri:e developers of the initial leme," it said.
rhe committee, chaired by m Bradley (Social Democrat, cester East), looked at several tions for a fixed link — even itinuing to rely on the existing ry and hovercraft services — considered the £1,000m tunscheme to be the most :eptable.
; said it considered that existservices could be expanded, : added: "It is not the role of liament to prevent the deopment of new modes which uld fairly compete with existoperators, even if some of existing operators were to fer in consequence."
Vhile it considered that a sixtre rail-only tunnel would be he railways' own commercial erests, would be more eptable environmentally, and Jld meet the interests of local horitie,s in Kent, it would be +ng to go ahead on such a eme when most users at pret prefer road haulage.
hey added: "We do not bee that it would be sensible or )onsible for the House or the fernment to support a new expensive link across the nnel which would preclude provision of a road vehicle -ying facility, and which ;Id involve the construction
of an entirely separate fixed link if that was to be required in the future."
Initially, the committee says that land facilities should be provided only for the rail link. If there is sufficient capacity later for lorries, then additional legislative powers should be sought from Parliament to cater for expanded facilities.
It has endorsed Transport Secretary Norman Fowler's view that the cost of financing the tunnel should fall overwhelmingly on the private sector, and added: "The evidence suggests that there is a wealth of enthusiasm, expertise, and goodwill among those who have made proposals to us and to the Secretary of State which may now be pooled to achieve a result which should be to the long-term benefit of the country, and in the short term could provide a substantial fillip to British industry."
A Road Haulage Association spokesman said the proposals represented a step in the right direction.
The British Road Federation said it was dismayed by the proposal that the extra cost of a wider tunnel should be funded publicly, and added: "In scores of towns and villages throughout the country, people who have been waiting years for their by-passes to provide relief from traffic will not welcome further delay while public money is poured into a bigger hole."
British Rail chairman Sir Peter Parker welcomed the committee's proposals, but said he hoped they would not delay Transport Secretary Norman Fowler's plans to decide on the tunnel's future before the end of this year.