CROSS QUESTION
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FiOW much progress is being made by the advocates of a Channel Tunnel is difficult to estimate. Their chief advantage is that they form a united pressure roup, whereas the opposition is feeble and disunited. One r, two military experts still shake their heads over the anger of an invasion through the tunnel in time of war; nd the other main objection seems to be based on a tystical conception of the special virtues that Britain erives from being exclusive, a precious stone set in the liver sea. Apart from arguments of this kind, the tunnel as everything its own way.
Whether or not it is a good idea, many people are likely ) be affected besides those who wish to build it. These ther interests, if they took the trouble to consult with each ther, might find they had many opinions in common and tat not all those opinions are in favour of the tunnel. As is, various road organizations have raised objections and ne may take it for granted that ship owners and airlines re among the opposition. They have made no attempt to a-ordinate their views.
Road operators cannot be altogether easy in their finds. If a tunnel is built, all the evidence Points to the set that only trains will be allowed or able to use it. The ast of a road and rail tunnel combined would be subtantially greater than that of a railway tunnel alone, and in fly case the ventilation problem would be formidable for ehicks using liquid fuel. Most of the schemes produced or a tunnel emphasize that trains could be run frequently nough to take all the traffic likely to be offered and that ars, buses and lorries could easily be ferried under the Itarinel on flat trucks.
rHE assumption appears to be that, once a tunnel is vailable, very little traffic will wish to cross by sea and acre may be a decrease in the demand for services by air. 'his result is almost tiecessary for the success of the tnnel. It would hardly be fulfilling its purpose if the ublic continued to use the traditional routes.
Estimates vary of the volume of traffic that would cross le Channel if a suitable method were available. The study roup that reported a year ago calculated that about 1.1m. ehicles would be making use of a rail tunnel during the ear 1980. A more recent investigation by the Union Loutiere de France into the possibility of a bridge was ven more confident and put the number of crossings a ear by 1980 at nearly 7m., practically all the vehicles being rivate cars, although the total included 138,000 goods chides and 30,000 coaches.
Nowhere does any serious consideration appear to have een given to the problem of the approach roads. In spite f the large number of ports in Britain there are constant omplaints (led by road operators it would scent) that chides are being held, up, riot merely in the docks but in le roads leading to them. The Minister of Transport has 3cently set up a committee, under the chairmanship of .ord Rochdale, to look into this problem among other tins. It might be necessary to multiply several times over le congestion at the approaches to an average port in rder to get some idea of what the situation would be like ' a large proportion of the traffic to the Continent were annelled into the opening of a fairly narrow tunnel.
At the other end the situation would be duplicated, with nother possible disadvantage. All traffic using the tunnel would have to pass through France. There is no guarantee against the danger that, as they have done in the past, the French might place a tax on all goods entering the country, whether in transit or for a French consignee. The possibility cannot be ignored while Britain remains outside the Common Market. If the tunnel is a complete success and captures virtually all the available traffic, there may be no alternative for many people wishing to send to the Continent. They would be very much in the hands of the French, who could moreover exercise a similar tight control over people with traffic for Britain.
A YEAR ago the study group put the cost of building a rail tunnel at 1109m., and there would certainly be other expenses such as the cost of the approach roads. It was also clear from the group's report that the Government would have to finance the British share of the cost of construction, although the operation of the tunnel would be in the hands of the railways. Road operators might reasonably ask whether the money could not better be spent in other directions.
The Continental ferry service has made a promising start. The number of trips and of vessels has increased, and journeys are now made alternately to Antwerp and to Rotterdam. If there is money to spare for fostering links with the Continent. it might be better spent on enlarging the present services or providing alternative routes. New methods of propulsion, such as the Hovercraft, may revolutionize cross-Channel traffic and render a tunnel obsolete almost, before it has had a chance to prove its value.
If the railways are to have control of the tunnel, the danger of obsolescence is even greater. Railways in most countries are losing money, and there is no reason why a rail-dominated tunnel should be an exception, even if originally it may seem to have achieved some success. Trade and industry may feel inclined at first to let the railways have their Continental traffic, since this procedure will appear to avoid complications. Whether the railways will be able to handle the traffic that is offered to them is another question, The journey through the tunnel may be straightforward. There is still the task of getting the goods to the -tunnel entrance or of distributing them when they reach this country.
THE figure' of i:100m, suggested by the study group as the cost of a rail tunnel was apparently regarded by them as the maximum that the Government were likely to provide. This is a false argument. If a thing is worth doing at all,
it is worth doing properly. Something like twice the amount would be needed for a bridge,, but the resulting structure would provide services by both road and rail, and in the view of French road operators could also be used to carry telecommunications and pipelines.
Few people doubt that engineers now have the skill and the equipment to build either a tunnel or a bridge. The physical link with the Continent may become almost a necessity if the political and economic links are sufficiently strengthened. British operators should make up their minds well in advance where their preference lies. There is little doubt that they would come down in favour of a bridge in spite of the probable extra cost.