'Operators. . . should continue JANUS their opposition to the WRITES
Page 81
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
anachronistic idea of a tunnel'
() UlETLY, but effectively, the Channel Tunnel sup porters appear to have succeeded in dismantling the
rival proposal for a bridge. The Minister of Transport cannot long delay announcing the Government's opinion on the long-standing controversy about a Channel link. but the general expectation is that the choice lies between either a tunnel or no link at all. For some time past, the arguments and forecasts have made scarcely any mention of the possibility of an alternative.
One explanation is to be found in the report, published lait September, of the working group of British and French officials, who concentrated their attention on two specific projects, one for .a bridge and the other for a tunnel. Their (lccision ranked the desirability of a bridge not only below that of a tunnel but also of the development of existing cross-Channel services. The bridge would cost twice as much as the tunnel, they said; it would not attract sufficient traffic to make it an economic proposition and there would be correspondingly greater difficulty in raising the necessary money.
Another objection to the bridge was the serious hazard and the source of delay which it presented to shipping. It could not be built, the working party warned, before international negotiations "which might be prolonged and the result of which would be uncertain ". Undoubtedly, this point has been stressed subsequently by shipping interests with influence in the Government and in Pa Ailment. It is equally clear that the tunnel supporters, because of their own importance and the fact that they have consistently campaigned in favour of the same project. have built up a powerful lobby. In the mysterious processes which help to make up the mind of a Governnie.nt. a large part is played by groups or individuals who are in a position to exercise continual pressure in the right quarter
DEMAND FOR EARLY DECISION
There are about 130 M.Ps of all parties who have declared themselves in favour of a tunnel and are supporiMg a demand for an early decision which will enable precise plans to be made for construction and finance. On the whole, the Government seems to be moving in this direction, but the official Labour Party view is expressed in an amendment suggesting that there are other more urgent needs, including the modernization of the railways and the roads, for the capital, the material resources and the manpower which would have to be diverted in order to build a tunnel.
Significantly, the assumption is made that the Government will declare itself in favour of a tunnel or nothing. This probably applies also to a further amendment, in the name of two Conservative M.P.s, Cdr. Kerans and r. Mark Woodnutt, who want a decision to be deferred until the Government has given full consideration to the contribution likely to be made to Channel traffic, not by a bridge, but by hovercraft. The debate may reveal some
support for a bridge. At the moment, it is trailing badly, and even the politicians who have looked favourably at it in the past may now be tempted to abandon it as a lost cause.
They have recently had a timely reminder that the
report of the working group should not be regarded as the last word on the subject. Not as much attention as it deserves has been paid to an analysis of the report made chiefly by the Union Routiere de France and supported by the Road Haulage Association. Effective criticism of the report is difficult because it consists largely of opinions, which can be contradicted but not easily disproved. The working group did, however, make use of a wide range of statistics and relied upon them for many of their conclusions. The recent analysis has con
centrated on some of these figures in order to test their accuracy.
Some surprising results have emerged. The working group made careful estimates in particular of the volume of traffic likely to use a fixed link, whether a tunnel or bridge. Their conclusions, carefully documented and displayed in a number of tables, look impressive at first -sight, but the critics have been able to..throw serious doubts on their validity.
The starting point for the estimates must be the number of accompanied vehicles now crossing the Channel each year. The figure for 1962 was 618,000. The average yearly increase over the previous five years was 66,400 vehicles, and the figures of 84,500 for 1961 and 79,700 for 1962 indicate that the rate of increase is itself going up. On the basis of the 5-year average, total traffic in 1969 would have risen to 1,083,000 vehicles without a Channel link or other improved communications which might easily increase the traffic by as much as 50 per cent. The figure ciC 1,080,000 vehicles is, however, the maximum that the working party will allow for traffic in 1969, even if the bridge is completed for that year; and the figure is only 985,000 if a tunnel is built.
If the working group has so badly estimated the growth in traffic, serious doubts must be cast on its report as a whole. Parliamentary criticism of the report should therefore take the dubious statistics as a starting point. The recent analysis makes other derogatory comments, but its main conclusion is a request to the French and British Ministers of Transport to carry out a further study based on more realistic traffic estimates. It is to be hoped that a similar request will be pressed strongly during the coming debate in the House of Commons.
This is plain common sense and not merely a delaying tactic. It ought to be obvious, without the help of statistics, that the proposed two-line railway tunnel would not be able to cope with all the traffic that would like to use a Channel link. The two Governments must either think in modern terms and provide an adequate bridge or dismiss the idea completely and concentrate on the promising possibilities for new sea and air services. Road operators would approve a decision either way, but should continue their opposition to the anachronistic idea of a tunnel.