Tunnel decision before summer recess
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Before they support the Channel tunnel many MPs — especially those representing constituencies in south eastern England will want definite promises that the scheme will result in a shift of goods from road to rail.
This emerged during last Friday's Commons debate on the Tunnel, when Mr John Peyton, the Minister for Transport Industries, assured that the Government would not "railroad" through Parliament a Bill authorizing preparatory work on the project.
But, stressed Mr Peyton, the choice which had to be made was either to go ahead or to abandon. The scheme could not be put in cold storage.
If the Government's decision was affirmative, it would be announced, and a Bill introduced, before the summer recess.
To complete the Tunnel would cost about £846m — to be shared between Britain and France — if allowance was made for inflation and interest charges during construction.
Mr Peyton said that the choice for rail communications would lie between squeezing new traffic into the existing system and providing, at a cost of about £120m, a new high quality rail link.
The most practicable scheme appeared to be a route by Ashford, Tonbridge, Edenbridge and South Croydon to the White City, with perhaps some extra traffic going to Victoria.
If that route were chosen it would run mainly on or alongside existing tracks and tunnels.
British Rail would be provided with a new opportunity for developing both through passenger services to the Continent and for the first time the prospect of long freight journeys.
It might also relieve the roads of several million tons of goods there had been a 43 per cent increase in lorries passing through Dover alone last year.
MPs on both sides of the House were unhappy that the Government appeared to be rushing the scheme without allowing enough time for it to be properly and thoroughly examined, while others were not satisfied with his prophesy that the roads "might" be relieved of freight traffic.
Mr William Deedes (Tory, Ashford) said that he would not support the scheme without an assurance that surface transport would be moved on to rail, while Mr Peter Rees (Tory, Dover) said it was no good expressing pious hopes about more freight going by rail.
He wanted to know what positive steps would be taken to see this happened.