Tonnage Rate of 42s. Suggested for Channel Tunnel
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FROM OUR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT HE Anglo-French working party has settled the Channel link argument isively in favour of a tunnel, but the question still has to be asked: Does tam n want a new type of crossing at In spite of Mr. Tvlarples protestations t speed is essential, the present Convative Government will not unduly ry a decision. Glancing at what is at ke. I don't think a Labour Governnt would, either.
The debate has virtually been thrown rt to all corners. Mr. Marples has :ed for the views of everyone interested tnd this includes all sections of the nsport world as well as -the pressure mps—before he goes before Parliament cl ultimately the Cabinet to seek a
The Government's mind is still so open the subject that it will if necessary it once again those arguments in ,our of a bridge, though it must be d that if ever a report kills a proposal ne dead, last week's joint effort does
s for the bridge group's plans.
Apart from its cost (nearly :£300 d haeardous commercial prospects. the dge at present proposed would produce serious and probably unacceptable zard to a much-used shipping route. id it would need international agreemts which, even if settled after long gotiations. would be a vulnerable flomatic thorn in the side of Britain d France. The Commercial Motor inted out these basic objections a long le ago, and they seem decisive, despite
report's .acknowledgement that in nciple it is "an attractive proposal to Id users ".
Even the tunnel raises serious problems finance and constructional resources. d I understand the Tunnel Group, licit hopes to sponsor the construction d operation of the new link, is now :ting down to overcoming them. The ient point is, however, that it would
t only be cheaper and more sensible have a tunnel than a bridge—but a mel would also cost less than the neces-y development of existing facilities to pc with Channel traffic in years to me.
This latter point is one of the most portant to come from the 18-month rvey carried out by the Anglo-French icials. It could easily be a decider in !, final verdict, which for the sake of vestment programmes alone ought to reached soon.
Already the Tunnel Group's initial ding of its project (£112 m.) has been ertaken. The working party estimate it construction costs would be £143 m. 1962 prices alone (£160 m. including :weird charges). And it will get more illy every year.
These are basically the issues to be :ed on this side of the Channel: Do want a new link at all? Shall we accept the overwhelming evidence that a tunnel is best? Should it he a bored tunnel, or (a project not considered by the working party) a series of pipes laid in the ocean bed? Should it carry traffic by rail, or by road and rail? Are we sure that air, sea and hovercraft developments will not give us the results we want at a competitive price?
Supporters of the tunnel arc cock-ahoop at the findings of the report. The railways are pleased, too, for they will be the main operators.
Traffic forecasts which have been worked out predict that in 1965 a tunnel could attract and generate up to a maximum of 795,000 accompanied vehicles annually, plus 3,200,000 unaccompanied passengers and 2,100,000 tons of freight. These figures would he expected to rise to 1,400,000, 3,800,000 and 4,500,000 respectively by 1985. If the Common Market comes, we can expect them to be exceeded.
As the twin-bore tunnel at present proposed could cope with more than 3,000 vehicles an hour in each direction, its capacity would be sufficient to meet the needs of the foreseeable future, with plenty to spare. The tentative tolls would be: £7 16s. 10d. for a vehicle and passengers: 32s. for each rail passenger and 42s. per ton of goods.
Two kinds of train are envisaged— normal passenger and goods from the rail networks, and special ferry trains loading cars, lorries, trailers and coaches at Westenhanger for unloading at Sangatte, 32 miles and 45 minutes away. If necessary. goods would travel in off-peak
periods, but trains of one kind or another could depart in each direction every five minutes if necessary.
One of the big questions about the proposal is, however, whether it tunnel (or a bridge for that matter) could attract and generate enough traffic in the early years to balance its heavy construction debts. This does not seem likely and the sponsors of the bridge are looking to the two Governments for substantial tax concessions and loan-security. In Britain this would mean unheard-of (and,. the report says, unwarranted) State concessions to a private, profit-making enterprise and something far beyond the privileges enjoled by any other form of transport.
There are three ways of getting round this problem. First, the Governments could take part in the profits and management of the enterprise. Second, the British and French railway systems could take it over and third, the two Governments could themselves form a company. The latter two projects, says the report. might or might not include some private participation.
Some road transport interests are well known to be opposed to the Channel link taking the form of a raii tunnel and, as recorded on page 5, the R.H.A. chairman said this week that the report's favouring a rail-only tunnel seemed a backwardlooking opinion.
Some time ago the T.R.T.A. made it clear that, while it did not pretend to make any technical judgment between one project or another, though naturally inclined towards a road link., it was anxious that a decision should be taken as quickly as possible so that proper provision could be made for the growing cross-Channel traffic. For this reason it has this week welcomed the report as at least a step towards achieving a decision.